1 | P a g e
A Study of Entrepreneurship in Micro, Small andMedium Enterprises (MSMEs) in Uttar Pradesh
ThesisSubmitted to the University of Lucknow
for the Award of the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophyin
Applied Economics
Submitted by
Jainendra Kumar Verma,Formerly Auditor at Indian Audit & Accounts Department (under C.A.G.), Govt. of India
U.G.C.-N.E.T. & J.R.F. (Economics), U.G.C.-N.E.T. & J.R.F. (Management),R.G.N.F. (Applied Economics), R.G.N.F. (Business Administration)
M.A.N.F. (Entrepreneurship), I.C.S.S.R.D.F. (Entrepreneurship)M.B.A., M.A. (Economics), B.M.S.
Under the Supervision of
Prof. Madhurima,D. Litt. (Business Administration), D.Litt. (Applied Economics),
Ph.D. (Business Administration),M.B.A., M.Com., M.A.
Professor at Department of Applied Economics,University of Lucknow
Submitted to the
Department of Applied Economics,Faculty of Commerce,University of Lucknow,
Lucknow, India
2013
2 | P a g e
Prof. Madhurima,D. Litt. (Bus. Adm.), D.Litt. (App. Eco.),Ph.D. (Bus. Adm.), M.B.A., M.Com., M.A.
(Most highly qualified person of India as recordedin Limca Book of World Records in 2008)
UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOWDepartment of Applied Economics,
Lucknow, U.P., IndiaMobile No.: +919454323847
E-mail: [email protected]
Date: 30-Aug-2013
CERTIFICATE BY SUPERVISOR
This is to certify that Mr. Jainendra Kumar Verma, a Ph.D.
candidate at the Department of Applied Economics, University of
Lucknow, Lucknow, India with Enrolment No. LC/96/2012 has
completed his doctoral thesis on A Study of Entrepreneurship in
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in Uttar Pradesh
under my supervision and guidance.
The thesis contains the original work of the candidate (except
quotations & citations), which is by and large based on the analysis
made by him on primary data collected for the purpose. In case of
quotations & citations appropriate references and acknowledgement
have been made.
Further the thesis does neither include in whole nor in part of
any matter which is either accepted or rejected for any other
degree/diploma/certificate/associate membership or for requirement
of any academic distinction.
The thesis has been submitted for the award of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Applied Economics of University of
Lucknow, Lucknow, India.
(MADHURIMA)
3 | P a g e
Copyright©
(2013) by
Jainendra Kumar Verma
4 | P a g e
Dedicated to
Bharat Ratna Late Dr. B. R. Ambedkar,
D.Sc. (Economics), L.L.D. (Honori Causa), D.Litt. (Honori Causa),Ph.D. (Economics), M.Sc. (Economics), M.A. (Economics), Bar at Law (L.L.B.)
Formerly Professor and Principal at Government Law College, Mumbai,Labour Minister to the Executive Council to the Viceroy of India,
Chairperson, Constitution Drafting Committee,Union Cabinet Law Minister &
Member of Parliament (Rajyasabha),
Dr. Madhurima,
D. Litt. (Business Administration), D.Litt. (Applied Economics),Ph.D. (Business Administration), M.B.A., M.Com., M.A.,
Professor at Department of Applied Economics, University of Lucknow,Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
&
my parents;
Smt. Shashi Prabha
and
Shri Ragghudas
5 | P a g e
Acknowledgement
Working on my thesis has been one of the most challenging pursuits I
have undertaken. There were many times I considered why I was doing this
and whether I actually had it in me to see it through to the end. It often felt
like I was on a long, solo journey, with many twists and turns, with flickers
of light and hope, but with no end on the horizon. Yet as arduous and lonely
as the journey often seemed, I was never completely alone. The fact that I
have even got to this stage has been due, in no small measure, to the people
I had around me and I owe it to them for helping me to get this far.
I would like to begin by giving many thanks to my doctoral thesis
supervisor Prof. Madhurima for her continued advice, guidance, support
and care which motivated me to undertake such a monumental task of
conducting research through primary data and reporting the same in the
form of research papers and doctoral thesis. Her liberty given to me for
original thinking, trust on my research competence and potential and her
promptness in academic proceedings is highly appreciable. She is a source
of inspiration for me to achieve academic excellence & success in life.
I am thankful to Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Finance Officer &
Controller of Examination of University of Lucknow, Lucknow for their
extended support & cooperation for this research effort and availing good
governance in the university.
I am thankful to Prof. A. Chatterjee (Dean, Faculty of Commerce)
University of Lucknow, Lucknow) for his extended support & cooperation
for this research effort.
I am thankful to all faculty members of Dept. of Applied Economics,
University of Lucknow, Lucknow viz. Prof. Nar Singh (Head of
Department), Prof. J. V. Vaishampayan, Prof. Madhurima, Prof. R. K.
Maheshwari, Dr. Archana Singh, Dr. Rachna Mujju, Dr. V. K. Goswami,
Dr. Anup Kumar Singh & Dr. Bimal Jaiswal for their extended support for
this research effort.
6 | P a g e
I am thankful to Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt.
of India for extensive funding for my doctoral research and University
Grants Commission, New Delhi for efficient disbursement of the funds.
I am thankful to Indian Council of Social Science Research, New
Delhi for funding various Workshops on Research Methodology I attended
during my Doctoral research.
I would also like to thank all the people who took part in this research
effort and made the writing of this thesis possible. Special thanks to all of
my respondents for sharing their stories with me and for making my
fieldwork experience one in which I grew as a person.
I’m thankful to Mr. Ashish Kumar & Mr. Vijayendra Kumar Gautam
for assisting me in data feeding.
I’m thankful to Ms. Nidhi Nagar who extended support for analysis of
data & interpretation in this research effort.
I express my gratitude to my fellow researchers/students who assisted
me in data collection in short span of time from highly diversified
geographical area.
I am thankful to all the members of university administration who for
extending its support for this research effort.
My thanks is also due to all members of non-teaching staff who
assisted/supported me in the preparation of my doctoral thesis or otherwise.
I am also thankful to all those who contributed in this research effort
otherwise.
Finally, the completion of this thesis would not have been possible
without the love, support and encouragement of my family members and
friends.
(JAINENDRA KUMAR VERMA)
7 | P a g e
AbstractThe research entitled ‘A Study of Entrepreneurship in Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in Uttar Pradesh’ is an empirical study for various
dimensions of entrepreneurship. The study is by and large hypothesis based.
Major objectives of this research are to study the level of technology, causes
of entrepreneurship, entrepreneur’s sources of funding, entrepreneurs’ satisfaction
with their enterprise, personal entrepreneurial attitude & tendencies,
entrepreneurs’ psychology, perception and opinion about their enterprises, factors
of competitive advantage, enterprises’ organisation and planning, relationship of
MSMEs with their industry, problems of MSMEs, entrepreneurs’ perception &
opinion, in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, about external environment, skills and ability of
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh at the time of starting the enterprise and at
present income level/sales growth of entrepreneurs/MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.
The study is based on primary data collected for the purpose from 18
representative districts of Uttar Pradesh through Multi-Stage sampling.
Percentage, proportion, descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation, chi-square test, t-
test, F-test & ANOVA is used to analyse the data for testing hypothesis to fulfil
the objectives of the research.
The research may be beneficial to all concerns especially researcher,
academicians and policy makers to understand relationships between
variables/attributes related to entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.
8 | P a g e
List of Content
Sl. No. TitlePageNo.
I Title Page 1
II Certificate by Supervisor 2
II Copyright 3
IV Dedication 4
V Acknowledgment 5
VI Abstract 7
VII List of Content 8
VIII List of Figures 22
IX List of Tables 23
X List of Acronyms 29
1 Introduction 31
1.1 Preliminary 31
1.1.1 Profile of Indian MSME Sector 32
1.1.2 Growth in Number of MSME Units 32
1.1.3 Total Employment in MSMEs 33
1.1.4 Production by MSMEs 34
1.1.5 Administrative Framework for MSMEs 35
1.1.6 MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh 36
1.2 Official Definition of MSMEs in India 37
1.3 Concept of Entrepreneurship 38
1.3.1 Meaning of Entrepreneurship 38
1.3.2 Definitions of Entrepreneurship 40
1.3.3 Basic Characteristics of Entrepreneurship 40
9 | P a g e
1.4 Entrepreneurial Action 41
1.5 Entrepreneurial Process 41
1.5.1 Aspects of the Entrepreneurial Process 41
1.6 Entrepreneur 42
1.6.1 Functions of Entrepreneurs 43
1.6.1.1 Idea Generation 43
1.6.1.2 Determination of Objectives 43
1.6.1.3 Raising Funds 43
1.6.1.4 Procurement of Raw Materials 44
1.6.1.5 Procurement of Machinery 44
1.6.1.6 Market Research 44
1.6.1.7 Determination of Form of Enterprise 44
1.6.1.8 Recruitment of Manpower 45
1.6.1.9 Implementation of the Project 45
1.7 Types of Entrepreneurs 45
1.7.1 Clarence Danhof’s Classification of Entrepreneurs 46
1.7.1.1 Innovative 46
1.7.1.2 Imitative/ Adoptive 46
1.7.1.3 Fabian 47
1.7.1.4 Drone 47
1.7.2 Arthur H. Cole’s Classification of Entrepreneurs 47
1.7.2.1 Empirical 47
1.7.2.2 Rational 47
1.7.2.3 Cognitive 48
1.7.3 Classification of Entrepreneurs on the Basis of Ownership 48
1.7.3.1 Private 48
10 | P a g e
1.7.3.2 Public 48
1.7.4 Classification of Entrepreneurs Based on the Scale ofEnterprise
48
1.7.4.1 Micro, Small and Medium Scale Entrepreneurs (MSMSEs) 48
1.7.4.2 Large Scale Entrepreneurs (LSEs) 48
1.7.5 Other Classification of Entrepreneurs 49
1.7.5.1 Solo Operators 49
1.7.5.2 Active Partners 49
1.7.5.3 Inventors 49
1.7.5.4 Challengers 49
1.7.5.5 Buyers (Entrepreneurs) 49
1.7.5.6 Life Timers 50
1.8 Role of Entrepreneurship in Economic Development 50
1.8.1 Promotes Capital Formation 50
1.8.2 Creates Large-Scale Employment Opportunities 50
1.8.3 Promotes Balanced Regional Development 51
1.8.4 Reduces Concentration of Economic Power 51
1.8.5 Wealth Creation and Distribution 51
1.8.6 Increasing Gross National Product and Per Capita Income 51
1.8.7 Improvement in the Standard of Living 51
1.8.8 Promotes Country's Export Trade 52
1.8.9 Induces Backward and Forward Linkages 52
1.8.10 Facilitates Overall Development 52
1.9 Rural Entrepreneurship 53
1.9.1 Meaning of Rural Entrepreneurship 53
1.9.2 Need for Rural Entrepreneurship 53
1.9.3 Problems of Rural Entrepreneurship 54
11 | P a g e
1.9.4 Rural Women Entrepreneurship 55
1.10 Entrepreneurial Motivation Theories 55
1.10.1 Abraham Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory 56
1.10.1.1 Physiological Needs 56
1.10.1.2 Safety & Security Needs 56
1.10.1.3 Love & Belonging Needs 56
1.10.1.4 Esteem Needs 56
1.10.1.5 Need for Self-Actualization 57
1.10.2 McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory 58
1.10.2.1 Achievement Motivation (n-ach) 58
1.10.2.2 Power Motivation (n-pow) 59
1.10.2.3 Affiliation Motivation (n-affil) 59
1.11 Motivating Factors for Entrepreneurship 59
1.11.1 Entrepreneurial Ambition 60
1.11.2 Compelling Reasons 60
1.11.3 Facilitating Factors 60
1.11.4 Internal factors 60
1.11.5 External factors 60
1.12 Business Project 60
1.12.1 Business Project Report 61
1.12.2 Contents of a Business Project Report 61
1.12.3 Formulation of a Business Project Report 62
1.13 Concept of Financial Planning 63
1.14 Sources of Finance 63
1.14.1 Internal Sources of Finance 63
1.14.1.1 Retained Profit 63
12 | P a g e
1.14.1.2 Sale of Assets 64
1.14.1.3 Reducing Stocks 64
1.14.1.4 Trade Credit 64
1.14.2 External Sources of Finance 64
1.14.2.1 Personal Savings 65
1.14.2.2 Commercial Banks 65
1.14.2.3 Building Societies 65
1.14.2.4 Factoring Services 66
1.14.2.5 Share Issue 66
1.14.2.6 Debentures 67
1.14.2.7 Venture Capital 67
1.14.2.8 Leasing and Hire Purchase 67
1.15 Capital Structure and its Determinants 67
1.16 Institutional Support to MSMEs in India 68
1.16.1 Small Industries Development Organisation (SIDO) 68
1.16.1.1 Activities of SIDO 69
1.16.1.1.1 Coordination Activities of SIDO 69
1.16.1.1.2 6. Industrial Development Activities of SIDO 69
1.16.1.1.3 Management Activities of SIDO 69
1.16.2 State Small Industries Development Corporation (SSIDC) 70
1.16.2.1 Functions of SSIDC 70
1.16.3 District Industries Centres (DICs) 70
1.16.3.1 Functions of DICs 71
1.16.4 Industrial Estates 72
1.17 Growth Strategies in MSMEs 73
1.17.1 Market Penetration 73
13 | P a g e
1.17.2 Market Expansion 73
1.17.3 Product Expansion 74
1.17.4 Acquisition 74
1.17.5 Expansion and Diversification 74
1.17.5.1 Expansion 74
1.17.5.2 Diversification 75
1.17.5.2.1 Types of Diversification 77
1.17.5.2.1.1 Concentric Diversification 77
1.17.5.2.1.2 Horizontal Diversification 77
1.17.5.2.1.3 Conglomerate Diversification (or Lateral Diversification) 78
1.17.6 Joint Venture 78
1.17.7 Merger 79
1.17.8 Subcontracting 80
1.17.8.1 Working with Subcontractors 80
1.18 Women Entrepreneurship 82
1.18.1 Traits of Women Entrepreneurs 83
1.19 Industrial Sickness 84
1.20 Impact of Govt. Policies on Economic Development ofIndia
84
2 Literature Review 86
3 Research Methodology 125
3.1 Need of the Study 125
3.2 Objectives of the Study 125
3.3 Hypotheses to be Tested 126
3.4 Research Methodology 144
3.4.1 Study Setting 144
3.4.2 Research Design 145
14 | P a g e
3.4.3 Population and Sampling Plan 145
3.4.4 Data Collection Procedures 146
3.4.4.1 Data Gathering Plan 146
3.4.4.2 Pilot Testing 147
3.4.4.3 Secondary Data 147
3.5 Data Analysis 147
3.6 Limitations of the Study 147
3.7 Significance of the Study 148
4 Analysis of the Data, Results, and Discussion 149
4.1 Year of Establishment 149
4.2 Self-started Enterprises 149
4.3 Entrepreneurs’ Age 150
4.4 Entrepreneurs’ Sex 150
4.5 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & StartingEnterprise by Self
151
4.5.1 Hypothesis testing for Association between Independencefor Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
151
4.5.2 Strength of association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
152
4.6 Districts of Data collection 153
4.7 Districts & Enterprises Started by Self 154
4.8 Districts & Enterprises being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture
155
4.9 Districts & Entrepreneurs with/without Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training
156
4.10 Districts & Types of Industry of MSMEs 158
4.11 Category of Entrepreneurs 159
4.12 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &
Sex of Entrepreneurs
160
4.12.1 Hypothesis testing for association between Category ofEntrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs
160
15 | P a g e
4.12.2 Strength of association between Independence for Categoryof Entrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs
161
4.13 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &
Entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture
162
4.13.1Hypothesis testing for Association between Independencefor Sex of Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture
162
4.13.2Strength of Association between Independence for Categoryof Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ First EntrepreneurialVenture
163
4.14 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Category ofEntrepreneurs
164
4.15 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, Continuing
Education or Training & Category of Entrepreneurs
164
4.15.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training &Category of Entrepreneurs
165
4.15.2Strength of Association between Independence for AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training &Category of Entrepreneurs
166
4.16 Type of Industry/Business & Category of Entrepreneurs 166
4.17 Districts & Category of Entrepreneurs 168
4.18 Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture 169
4.19 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting
Enterprise by Self
169
4.19.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
170
4.19.2 Strength of Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self
170
4.20 Percentage of the Enterprises Owned by Entrepreneurs 171
4.21 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level 171
4.22 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Starting Enterprise by Self &
Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
172
4.22.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between StartingEnterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training
173
16 | P a g e
4.22.2Strength of Association between Independence for StartingEnterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training
174
4.23 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &
Starting Enterprise by Self
174
4.23.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
175
4.23.2 Strength of Association between Category of Entrepreneurs& Starting Enterprise by Self
175
4.24 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Any
Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
176
4.24.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Any Supplemental, Continuing Educationor Training
176
4.24.2Strength of Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Any Supplemental, Continuing Educationor Training
177
4.25 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & EnterpriseStarted by Self
178
4.26 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Sex ofEntrepreneurs
178
4.27 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture
179
4.28 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Being Entrepreneurs’ First
Entrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training
180
4.28.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training
181
4.28.2Strength of Association between Independence for BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training
181
4.29Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training toEntrepreneurs
182
4.30 Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training 183
4.31 Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background 184
4.31.1 T Test for Extent of Relevant Experience and EducationalBackground
184
17 | P a g e
4.32 Type of Industry/Business 185
4.33 Contribution to Success by Product and Service 186
4.34 Investment in Enterprises 187
4.35 Enterprises Started to Take Advantage of New Technology 188
4.36 Cases of New Technology in MSMEs 189
4.37 Average Number of Full Time/Equivalent Employees(Including Entrepreneur)
190
4.38 Percentage of Employees Involved in R & D Work, orTrained (or Educated) as Engineers or Scientists
192
4.39 Causes of Entrepreneurship 192
4.39.1 T Tests for Causes of Entrepreneurship 195
4.40F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Entrepreneurs who startedenterprises themselves and who did not
199
4.41 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh
203
4.42 Availability of Outside Funding / Financing at the Time ofStarting the Enterprise
206
4.42.1 T Test for Availability of Outside Funding / Financing atthe Time of Starting the Enterprise
207
4.43 Entrepreneur’s Sources of Funding 207
4.44 Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding 210
4.45 Enterprise Being/ Being Not Started by Self & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding
211
4.46 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for them
211
4.47Being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding forthem
212
4.48 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for them
213
4.49Entrepreneurs with Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for Them
214
4.50 Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/ Business & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for them
214
4.51 Category of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Numberof Sources of Funding for them
215
18 | P a g e
4.52F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Categories of Number ofAvailability of Sources of Funding
216
4.53 Most Available Source of Funding 220
4.54 Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & MostAvailable Source of Funding
221
4.55 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Most Available Source of Funding 222
4.56Enterprise being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Most Available Source ofFunding
222
4.57 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & MostAvailable Source of Funding
223
4.58Entrepreneurs with / without Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Most Available Sourceof Funding
224
4.59 Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business & Most AvailableSource of Funding
225
4.60 Most Available Source of Funding & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding for them
227
4.61F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Types of Most AvailableSource of Funding
228
4.62 Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise 231
4.62.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise 232
4.63 Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies 233
4.63.1 T Test for Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies 235
4.64 Entrepreneurs’ Psychology 237
4.64.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Psychological Variables 249
4.65 Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about TheirEnterprises
264
4.65.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion aboutTheir Enterprises
267
4.66 Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in UttarPradesh
271
4.66.1 T Test for Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs inUttar Pradesh
273
4.67 Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning 276
19 | P a g e
4.67.1 T Test for Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning 277
4.68 Enterprises and their Relationship with Their Industry 279
4.68.1 T Test for Enterprises’ Relationship with Their Industry 281
4.69 Problems that have been Creating Difficulties forEnterprises
284
4.69.1 T Test for Problems that have been Creating Difficulties forEnterprises
289
4.70 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Problems ofEntrepreneurs in MSMEs in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh
296
4.71 Entrepreneurs’ Perception about External Environment 303
4.71.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception about ExternalEnvironment
305
4.72 Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment 308
4.72.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about ExternalEnvironment
313
4.73 Skills and Ability at the Time of Starting the Enterprise andat Present
318
4.73 (a) Confidence Interval of the Difference for Change in Skillsand Ability
322
4.73.1 Dependent Sample T Test for Change in Skills and Abilityafter establishment of Enterprise
325
4.74 Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from theEnterprise (Including All Benefits)
330
4.75 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises
331
4.76Enterprises being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises
332
4.77 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Personal(Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises
333
4.78Entrepreneurs with/ without Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises
335
4.79 Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/Business & Personal(Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises
335
4.80Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from theEnterprise (Including All Benefits) & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding
338
4.81Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from theEnterprise (Including All Benefits) & Most AvailableSource of Funding
339
4.82 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises 340
20 | P a g e
4.83 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprises Started by Self &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
340
4.83.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between EnterprisesStarted by Self & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives
341
4.83.2 Strength of Association between Enterprises Started by Self& Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
341
4.84 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & HavingSales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
342
4.84.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives
343
4.84.2 Strength of Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
343
4.85 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprise being Entrepreneur’sFirst Entrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth asOne of Enterprises’ Objectives
344
4.85.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Enterprisebeing Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
344
4.85.2Strength of Association between Enterprise beingEntrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture & HavingSales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
345
4.86 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Entrepreneurs Highest Educational Level
346
4.87 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives
347
4.87.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training & HavingSales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
347
4.87.2Strength of Association between Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Having Sales Growthas One of Enterprises’ Objectives
348
4.88 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business
348
4.89 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
349
4.90 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Most Available Source of Funding
350
4.91F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Enterprises with and withouthaving Sales Growth as One of their Enterprises’ Objectives
351
4.92 Targeted Annual Percentage Sales Growth 359
21 | P a g e
4.93 Total Change in Gross Sales Achieved over the Past 5Years as a Cumulative Percentage
360
5 Findings & Conclusions 361
5.1 Findings 361
5.2 Conclusions 382
6 Bibliography/References 401
A Appendices 422
A.1 Questionnaire used for data collection 422
22 | P a g e
List of FiguresFig. No. Title of Figure Page No.
1.1 Products of MSMEs 31
1.1.2 Growth in Number of MSME Units 33
1.1.3 Total Employment in MSMEs 34
1.1.4 Production by MSMEs 35
1.7 Types of Entrepreneurs 45
1.10.1.5 Maslow’s Need Hierarchy 57
1.10.2 McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory 58
1.17.5.2 Ansoff matrix of Product/Market 76
4.2 Self-started Enterprises 149
4.4 Entrepreneurs’ Sex 151
4.6 Districts of Data collection 154
4.11 Category of Entrepreneurs 159
4.18 Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture 169
4.21 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level 172
4.30 Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training 183
4.32 Type of Industry/Business 186
4.33 Contribution to Success by Product and Service 187
4.34 Investment in Enterprises 188
4.35 Enterprises Started to Take Advantage of New Technology 188
4.36 Cases of New Technology in MSMEs 189
4.37 Average Number of Full Time/Equivalent Employees (IncludingEntrepreneur)
191
4.39 Causes of Entrepreneurship 194
4.43 Entrepreneur’s Sources of Funding 209
4.44 Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding 210
4.53 Most Available Source of Funding 221
4.63 Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies 234
4.64 Entrepreneurs’ Psychology 247
4.66 Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh 273
4.67 Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning 277
4.69 Problems that have been Creating Difficulties for Enterprises 288
4.72 Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment 312
4.74 Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits)
331
4.82 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises 340
23 | P a g e
List of Tables
Tab.No.
Title of Table PageNo.
1.1.1 Profile of Indian MSME Sector 32
1.1.2 Growth in Number of MSME Units 33
1.1.3 Total Employment in MSMEs 34
1.1.4 Production by MSMEs 34
1.2 Official Definition of MSMEs in India 37
4.1 Year of Establishment 149
4.2 Self-started Enterprises 149
4.3 Entrepreneurs’ Age 150
4.4 Entrepreneurs’ Sex 150
4.5 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self
151
4.5.1Hypothesis testing for Association between Independencefor Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
152
4.5.2Strength of association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
152
4.6 Districts of Data collection 153
4.7 Districts & Enterprises Started by Self 154
4.8Districts & Enterprises being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture
156
4.9Districts & Entrepreneurs with/without Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training
157
4.10 Districts & Types of Industry of MSMEs 158
4.11 Category of Entrepreneurs 159
4.12 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &Sex of Entrepreneurs
160
4.12.1Hypothesis testing for association between Category ofEntrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs
161
4.12.2Strength of association between Independence forCategory of Entrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs
161
4.13 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &Entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture
162
4.13.1Hypothesis testing for Association between Independencefor Sex of Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture
163
4.13.2Strength of Association between Independence forCategory of Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture
163
4.14 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Category of 164
24 | P a g e
Entrepreneurs
4.15 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Category of Entrepreneurs
165
4.15.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training &Category of Entrepreneurs
165
4.15.2Strength of Association between Independence for AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training &Category of Entrepreneurs
166
4.16 Type of Industry/Business & Category of Entrepreneurs 167
4.17 Districts & Category of Entrepreneurs 168
4.18Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First EntrepreneurialVenture
169
4.19 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self
169
4.19.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
170
4.19.2Strength of Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self
171
4.20 Percentage of the Enterprises Owned by Entrepreneurs 171
4.21 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level 172
4.22 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Starting Enterprise by Self &Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
173
4.22.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between StartingEnterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training
173
4.22.2Strength of Association between Independence for StartingEnterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training
174
4.23 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self
174
4.23.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
175
4.23.2Strength of Association between Category ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
176
4.24 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training
176
4.24.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Any Supplemental, Continuing Educationor Training
177
4.24.2Strength of Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Any Supplemental, Continuing Educationor Training
177
25 | P a g e
4.25Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & EnterpriseStarted by Self
178
4.26Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Sex ofEntrepreneurs
179
4.27Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture
180
4.28 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training
180
4.28.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training
181
4.28.2Strength of Association between Independence for BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training
182
4.29Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training toEntrepreneurs
182
4.30 Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training 183
4.31Extent of Relevant Experience and EducationalBackground
184
4.31.1T Test for Extent of Relevant Experience and EducationalBackground
185
4.32 Type of Industry/Business 185
4.33 Contribution to Success by Product and Service 186
4.34 Investment in Enterprises 187
4.35 Enterprises Started to Take Advantage of New Technology 188
4.36 Cases of New Technology in MSMEs 189
4.37Average Number of Full Time/Equivalent Employees(Including Entrepreneur)
191
4.38Percentage of Employees Involved in R & D Work, orTrained (or Educated) as Engineers or Scientists
192
4.39 Causes of Entrepreneurship 194
4.39.1 T Tests for Causes of Entrepreneurship 198
4.40F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Entrepreneurs who startedenterprises themselves and who did not
202
4.41F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh
205
4.42Availability of Outside Funding / Financing at the Time ofStarting the Enterprise
206
4.42.1T Test for Availability of Outside Funding / Financing atthe Time of Starting the Enterprise
207
4.43 Entrepreneur’s Sources of Funding 208
4.44 Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding 210
26 | P a g e
4.45Enterprise Being/ Being Not Started by Self & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding
211
4.46Sex of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for them
212
4.47Being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding forthem
212
4.48Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for them
213
4.49Entrepreneurs with Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for Them
214
4.50Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/ Business & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for them
215
4.51Category of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Numberof Sources of Funding for them
216
4.52F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Categories of Number ofAvailability of Sources of Funding
219
4.53 Most Available Source of Funding 221
4.54Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & MostAvailable Source of Funding
222
4.55 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Most Available Source of Funding 222
4.56Enterprise being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Most Available Source ofFunding
223
4.57Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & MostAvailable Source of Funding
224
4.58Entrepreneurs with / without Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Most AvailableSource of Funding
225
4.59Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business & Most AvailableSource of Funding
226
4.60Most Available Source of Funding & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding for them
227
4.61F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Types of Most AvailableSource of Funding
230
4.62 Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise 232
4.62.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise 232
4.63 Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies 233
4.63.1 T Test for Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies 236
4.64 Entrepreneurs’ Psychology 243
4.64.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Psychological Variables 261
4.65Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about TheirEnterprises
265
4.65.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about 269
27 | P a g e
Their Enterprises
4.66Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in UttarPradesh
272
4.66.1T Test for Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEsin Uttar Pradesh
275
4.67 Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning 276
4.67.1 T Test for Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning 278
4.68 Enterprises and their Relationship with Their Industry 280
4.68.1 T Test for Enterprises’ Relationship with Their Industry 283
4.69 Problems that have been Creating Difficulties forEnterprises
287
4.69.1 T Test for Problems that have been Creating Difficultiesfor Enterprises
294
4.70 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Problems ofEntrepreneurs in MSMEs in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh
301
4.71 Entrepreneurs’ Perception about External Environment 304
4.71.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception about ExternalEnvironment
307
4.72 Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment 310
4.72.1T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about ExternalEnvironment
317
4.73Skills and Ability at the Time of Starting the Enterpriseand at Present
321
4.73 (a)Dependent Sample T Test for Change in Skills and Abilityafter establishment of Enterprise
323
4.73.1Dependent Sample T Test for Change in Skills and Abilityafter establishment of Enterprise
329
4.74Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from theEnterprise (Including All Benefits)
331
4.75Sex of Entrepreneurs & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises
332
4.76Enterprises being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises
332
4.77Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Personal(Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises
334
4.78Entrepreneurs with/ without Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Personal (Gross)Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises
335
4.79Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/Business & Personal(Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises
337
4.80Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from theEnterprise (Including All Benefits) & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding
338
4.81Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from theEnterprise (Including All Benefits) & Most AvailableSource of Funding
339
28 | P a g e
4.82 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises 340
4.83 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprises Started by Self &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
341
4.83.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between EnterprisesStarted by Self & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives
341
4.83.2Strength of Association between Enterprises Started bySelf & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’Objectives
342
4.84 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
342
4.84.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives
343
4.84.2Strength of Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
343
4.85 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprise beingEntrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture & HavingSales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
344
4.85.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between Enterprisebeing Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
345
4.85.2Strength of Association between Enterprise beingEntrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture & HavingSales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
345
4.86Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Entrepreneurs Highest Educational Level
346
4.87 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives
347
4.87.1Hypothesis Testing for Association between AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
347
4.87.2Strength of Association between Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Having Sales Growthas One of Enterprises’ Objectives
348
4.88Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business
349
4.89Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
350
4.90Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Most Available Source of Funding
350
4.14
F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Enterprises with and withouthaving Sales Growth as One of their Enterprises’Objectives
358
29 | P a g e
4.92 Targeted Annual Percentage Sales Growth 359
4.93Total Change in Gross Sales Achieved over the Past 5Years as a Cumulative Percentage
360
30 | P a g e
List of Acronyms
Acronyms Meaning
DICs District Industries Centres
DRDA District Rural Development Agency
FG Financial Goals
FR Financial Resources
FT Financial Tools
GDP Gross Domestic Product
IRDP Integrated Rural Development Programme
LSEs Large Scale Entrepreneurs
MSMEs Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
n-ach Achievement Motivation
n-affil Affiliation Motivation
n-pow Power Motivation
PMRY Pradhaan Mantree Rozgaar Yojanaa
R & D Research & Development
REGP Rural Employment Guarantee Programme
SGSY Swarnajayantee Graam Swarozgaar Yojanaa
SIDO Small Industries Development Organisation
SISI Small Industries Service Institute
SSEs Small Scale Entrepreneurs
SSIDC State Small Industries Development Corporations
SSIs Small Scale Industries
SWOT Strength, Weakness, Opportunity & Threat
TRYSEM Training of Rural Youth for Self-Employment
31 | P a g e
1. Introduction1.1 Preliminary
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in India constitute an
important segment of Indian economy with various types of product segmented in
pie chart given in Figure: 1.1. The MSMEs are dominant players in some of
India’s major export sectors namely textiles and garments, leather products, sports
goods, gems and jewellery, handicrafts among others. They also contribute
substantially in industrial goods segments in sectors such as electrical,
engineering, rubber and plastics. The products of MSMEs have been depicted in
Figure: 1.1.
Figure: 1.1; Products of MSMEs
Source: - Final Report of the Fourth All India Census of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises 2006-07:Registered Sector
32 | P a g e
“According to the quick result of the Fourth All India
Census of MSMEs (2006-07), there are 26 million MSMEs in
India which provides employment to about 60 million people.
The sector contributes about 40 % GDP, beside 45% to the
total manufacturing output and 40 % to the exports from the
country. There could be many opportunities identification
hidden inside the challenges for small business concerns.”1
1.1.1 Profile of Indian MSME Sector
From the Table: 1.1.1, it may be seen that there are 130 Lakhs of MSMEs
which provides employment to 130 Lakhs peoples. Besides that the contribution
of MSMEs alone has been greater than 8% to GDP and 45% to Industrial
production. It is also the second largest provider of employment after agriculture.
MSMEs also contribute to 40% of total exports directly and a significant amount
of exports indirectly through large trading houses or third parties.
Table: 1.1.1; Profile of Indian MSME Sector
S. No. Particular Value
1 Number of micro and small enterprises 130 Lakhs
2 Employment 410 Lakhs
3 Share in GDP 8-9%
4 Share in manufacturing output 45%
5 Share in exports 40%
Source: Federation of Indian Micro, Small and Medium Enterpriseshttp://www.smeindia.net/export_schemes/OverviewofMSME.html
1.1.2 Growth in Number of MSME Units
From Table: 1.1.2 and Figure: 1.1.2 it may be seen that till Financial Year
2006 Registered MEMEs was 19 Lakhs and Unregistered MSMEs was 108 Lakhs
1Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Opportunities and Challenges in Small Business in the Indian Economy”
International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanities (ISSN 2277 – 9809), Volume 4 Issue1 p. 581
33 | P a g e
and trend shows increase of 1 Lakh Registered MSMEs and around 4 Lakhs
Unregistered MEMEs in each succeeding Financial Year.
Table: 1.1.2; Growth in Number of MSME Units
Financial YearRegistered(In Lakhs)
Unregistered(In Lakhs)
Total(In Lakhs)
FY’ 03 16 93 109
FY’04 17 97 114
FY’05 18 100 119
FY’06 19 104 123
FY’07 (Provisional) 20 108 128
Source: Federation of Indian Micro, Small and Medium Enterpriseshttp://www.smeindia.net/export_schemes/OverviewofMSME.html
Figure: 1.1.2; Growth in Number of MSME Units
Growth in Number of MSME Units
1.1.3 Total Employment in MSMEs
From Table: 1.1.3 and Figure: 1.1.3 it may be seen that till Financial Year
2006 employed people in MSMEs were 300 Lakhs and trend shows an increase of
employment for 12.2 Lakhs people in each succeeding Financial Year.
16 17 18 19 20
93 97 100 104 108109 114 119 123 128
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Registered (In Lakhs)
Unregistered (In Lakhs)
Total (In Lakhs)
34 | P a g e
Table: 1.1.3; Total Employment in MSMEs
Financial Year Employment (In Lakhs)
FY’ 03 263.7
FY’04 275.3
FY’05 287.6
FY’06 300.0
FY’07 (Provisional) 312.5
Source: Federation of Indian Micro, Small and Medium Enterpriseshttp://www.smeindia.net/export_schemes/OverviewofMSME.html
Figure: 1.1.3; Total Employment in MSMEs
1.1.4 Production by MSMEs
From Table: 1.1.4 and Figure: 1.1.4 it may be seen that till Financial Year
2006 Production by MSMEs were worth Rs. 3,14,850 Crores and trend shows an
increase of Production by MSMEs of Rs. 68087.5 Crores in each succeeding
Financial Year.
Table: 1.1.4; Production by MSMEs
Financial Year Production (Rs. Crores)
0
263.7 275.3 287.6 300 312.5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Total Employment (In Lakhs) by MSMEs
Total Employment (In Lakhs)by MSMEs
35 | P a g e
FY’ 03 314850
FY’04 364550
FY’05 429800
FY’06 497840
FY’07 P 587200
Source: Federation of Indian Micro, Small and Medium Enterpriseshttp://www.smeindia.net/export_schemes/OverviewofMSME.html
Figure: 1.1.4; Production by MSMEs
1.1.5 Administrative Framework for MSMEs
Government of India has set up a new governing body for promotion and
development of Micro, Medium and Small Scale Enterprises via “Micro, Small
and Medium Enterprises Development Act”, which came into force from 2nd
October, 2006. The President under Notification dated 9th May, 2007 amended the
Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. by which, Ministry of
Agro and Rural Industries (Krishi Evam Gramin Udyog Mantralaya) and Ministry
of Small Scale Industries (Laghu Udyog Mantralaya) have been merged into a
single Ministry, namely, “Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises”. The
Ministry of “Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises” (MSME) is the
administrative Ministry in the Government of India for all matters relating to
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. It designs and implements policies and
programmes through its field organizations and attached offices for promotion and
0
314850364550
429800497840
587200
0100000200000300000400000500000600000700000
Production (Rs. Crores) by MSMEs
Production (Rs. Crores) byMSMEs
36 | P a g e
growth of MSME sector. The Office of the Development Commissioner (MSME)
is an attached office of the Ministry of MSME, and is the apex body to advise,
coordinate and formulate policies and programmes for the development and
promotion of the MSME Sector. The office also maintains liaison with Central
Ministries and other Central/State Government agencies/organizations financial
institutions.
1.1.6 MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh being topmost state in terms of population and being poor
seeks govt. attention to provide employment to the people of state
“Uttar Pradesh has developed several schemes for
the development of Small Scale Industries such as
Transport Assistance Scheme, Technology Up-Gradation
Scheme, and Single Table System for providing prompt
and quick solutions to the entrepreneurs in the state.
Besides this, the state has also implemented Market
Development Assistance Scheme to facilitate marketing of
products of Khadi and Village Industries.”2
(As per Final Report of the Fourth All India Census of Micro, Small & MediumEnterprises 2006-07: Registered Sector)
There are 1.88 Lakhs working MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh which constitutes
12% of total Indian MSMEs. Uttar Pradesh is 3rd largest state in India (following
Tamil Nadu with 14.95% and Gujarat with 14.70% share) in terms of MSMEs
share.
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, provides employment to 7.55 Lakhs people which
constitutes 8.11% of total employment provided by Indian MSMEs. Uttar Pradesh
is 5th largest state in India (following Tamil Nadu with 15.32%, Gujarat with
13.37%, Maharashtra with 11.70% and Karnataka with 8.48% share) in terms of
total employment by Indian MSMEs.
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, gives output of Rs. 74065.17 Crores which
constitutes 10.47% of total output of Indian MSMEs. Uttar Pradesh is 2nd largest
2Jainendra Kumar Verma, An Exploratory Study of Entrepreneurial Success Factors in Uttar Pradesh
International Research Journal of Management Science & Technology (ISSN 2250 – 1959) Volume 4 Issue 2
37 | P a g e
state in India (following Karnataka with 15.65% share) in terms of total output of
Indian MSMEs.
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, employs fixed assets of Rs 33666.01 Crores
which constitutes 7.50% of total fixed assets employed by Indian MSMEs. Uttar
Pradesh is 4th largest state in India (following Gujarat with 33.81% share
Maharashtra with 12.10%, and Tamil Nadu with 9.64% share) in terms of total
fixed assets employed by Indian MSMEs.
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, has investment in plant & machinery of Rs
4829.37 Crores which constitutes 4.60% of total investment in plant & machinery
in Indian MSMEs. Uttar Pradesh is 4th largest state in India (following Gujarat
with 40.09% share Maharashtra with 11.79%, and Tamil Nadu with 10.58%
share) in terms of total investment in plant & machinery by Indian MSMEs.
Data given above implies that Uttar Pradesh state is in overall a major
constituent of Indian MSMEs. It seeks attention to study the entrepreneurship in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in depth. So that low employment, less investment in
fixed assets and plant & machinery, high rate of untraced MSMEs despite of huge
output can be studied and the solution of related problems could be found out.
1.2 Official Definition of MSMEs in India
Operating official definition of MSMEs in India for the time being in force:
In terms of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006
enterprises are classified into two categories:
1. manufacturing; and
2. those engaged in providing/rendering of services.
Both categories of enterprises have been further classified into micro, small,
medium and large enterprises based on their investment in plant and machinery
(for manufacturing enterprises) or on equipments (in case of enterprises providing
or rendering services). The present ceiling on investment to be classified as
micro, small or medium enterprises has been given in Table: 1.2
Table: 1.2; Official Definition of MSMEs in India
Manufacturing Sector
38 | P a g e
Enterprises Investment in plant & machinery
Micro Enterprises Does not exceed twenty five Lakh Rupees
Small Enterprises More than twenty five Lakh Rupees but doesnot exceed five Crore Rupees
MediumEnterprises
More than five Crore Rupees but does notexceed ten Crore Rupees
Service Sector
Enterprises Investment in equipments
Micro Enterprises Does not exceed ten Lakh Rupees
Small Enterprises More than ten Lakh Rupees but does notexceed two Crore rupees
MediumEnterprises
More than two Crore Rupees but does notexceed five Crore Rupees
1.3 Concept of Entrepreneurship
The word entrepreneurship has been derived from a French root which means "to
undertake". It is also called by various names, e.g. adventurism, risk-taking, thrill
seeking, innovating, etc.
Entrepreneurship is the dynamic process of creating
incremental wealth. The wealth is created by individuals
who assume the major risks in terms of equity, time, and/or
career commitment to provide value for some product or
service. The product or service may or may not be new or
unique, but the entrepreneur must somehow infuse value
by receiving and bundling the necessary skills and
resources.3
.1.3.1 Meaning of Entrepreneurship
The concept of entrepreneurship is understood as a combination of creativity
and innovation. It is a stance taken within the business applying inherent creativity
as the act of 'thinking of' new things. It involves coming up with innovative ideas
3 Robert C. Ronstadt, Entrepreneurship (Dover, MA: Lord Publishing Co., 1984), p. 28
39 | P a g e
and trying out new methods within the operations. The concept of
entrepreneurship is also concerned with new ways of looking at opportunities and
identifying a new approach towards solving problems.
Entrepreneurship requires the entrepreneur to shift paradigms and do away
with old assumptions and perspectives. The entrepreneur basically adopts
techniques to stimulate creativity amongst employees.
The concept of entrepreneurship involves the consideration of a number of
opportunities to enhance employee performance and business profits. The
entrepreneur is expected to imply strategic planning to assess if the opportunities
provided for growth are worthwhile and how they could be successfully exploited.
Strategic planning is an essential part of the concept of entrepreneurship and
effective application helps to ensure successful operation. It is a useful tool within
the sphere of influence of entrepreneurship and serves a niche market for
improving on the business performance. The concept of entrepreneurship involves
the owner taking absolute responsibility of empowering the employees and in
turn, affecting sales and profitability of the business.
Entrepreneur traits, creativity, innovation, business planning and growth
management are five of the main concepts of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship – is the act of being an entrepreneur or "one who
undertakes innovations, finance and business acumen in an effort to transform
innovations into economic goods". This may result in new organizations or may
be part of revitalizing mature organizations in response to a perceived opportunity.
The most obvious form of entrepreneurship is that of starting new businesses
(referred as Start-up Company); however, in recent years, the term has been
extended to include social and political forms of entrepreneurial activity. When
entrepreneurship is describing activities within a firm or large organization it is
referred to as intra-preneurship and may include corporate venturing, when large
entities spin-off organizations. (Shane, Scott "A General Theory of
Entrepreneurship: the Individual-Opportunity Nexus", Edward Elgar, 2003)
‘A systematic innovation, which consists in the purposeful and organized
search for changes, and it is the systematic analysis of the
opportunities such changes might offer for economic and social innovation.’
40 | P a g e
--Peter Drucker
1.3.2 Definitions of Entrepreneurship
According to Higgins, "Entrepreneurship is meant the function of seeking
investment and production opportunity, organizing an enterprise to undertake a
new production process, raising capital, hiring labour, arranging the supply of raw
materials, finding site, introducing a new technique and commodities, discovering
new sources of raw materials and selecting top managers of day-to-day operations
of the enterprise”.
Jaffrey A. Timmons has defined entrepreneurship as "the ability to create
and build something from practically nothing. Fundamentally, a human creative
activity, it is finding personal energy by initiating, building and achieving an
enterprise or organization rather than by watching, analyzing or describing one. It
requires the ability to take calculated risk and to reduce the chance of failure….."
According to A. H. Cole "entrepreneurship is the purposeful activity of an
individual or a group of associated individuals, undertaken to initiate, maintain or
aggrandize profit by production or distribution of economic goods and services."
Entrepreneurship is the process of creating
something new with value by devoting the necessary time
and effort; assuming the accompanying financial, psychic,
and social risks and uncertainties; and receiving the
resulting rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction.4
1.3.3 Basic Characteristics of an Entrepreneur
Entrepreneurial creativity requires a paradigm shift and there are many
techniques available to help the entrepreneur to see things in a different
perspective, to come up with new ideas. Innovation involves implementing newly
created ideas and the process can be classified as invention, extension, duplication
and synthesis. Strategic planning is used to assess the entrepreneur's position in
external/internal environments, to identify key success factors/competencies and
to implement a strategy. Fin ally, the issue of growth management requires the
entrepreneur to settle on what size of company he is happy with, how much direct
4 This definition is modified from the definition first developed for the woman entrepreneur. See Robert D.Hisrich and Candida G. Brush, The Woman Entrepreneur: Starting, Financing, and Managing a SuccessfulNew Business (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1985), p. 18.
41 | P a g e
control is afforded to him and how entrepreneurial spirit can be retained in a
growing business.
However the main characteristics of entrepreneurs may be enlisted as
follows:
1. Ability to deal with a series of tough issues
2. Ability to create solutions and work to perfect them
3. Can handle many tasks simultaneously
4. Resiliency in the face of set –backs
5. Willingness to work hard and not expect easy solutions
6. Possess well-developed problem solving skills
7. Ability to learn and acquire the necessary skills for the tasks at hand
1.4 Entrepreneurial Action
Entrepreneurial action is the act of seeking benefit by the exploiting
available or recognised opportunity.
Entrepreneurial action refers to behaviour in
response to a judgmental decision under uncertainty about
a possible opportunity for profit.5
1.5 Entrepreneurial Process
Entrepreneurial process refer to all the stages of entrepreneurship by which
entrepreneur attains or tend to attain his/her objectives.
“The process of creating something new with value
by devoting the necessary time and effort, assuming the
accompanying financial, psychic, and social risks and
uncertainties, and receiving the resulting rewards of
monetary and personal satisfaction”.6
1.5.1 Aspects of the Entrepreneurial Process
Entrepreneurial process has 4 stages which have been given in Table: 1.5.1.
Table: 1.5.1; Aspects of the Entrepreneurial Process
5 Robert D. Hisrich Michael P Peters and Dean A Shephered, Entrepreneurship (7th Edition), New Delhi, TataMcGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited
6 ibid
42 | P a g e
Identify andEvaluatethe Opportunity
• Opportunity
assessment
• Creation and
length of
opportunity
• Real and
perceived value
of opportunity
• Risk and returns
of opportunity
• Opportunity
versus personal
skills and goals
• Competitive
environment
Develop Business Plan
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Executive Summary
• Major Section
• Description of
Business
• Description of
Industry
• Technology Plan
• Marketing Plan
• Financial Plan
• Production Plan
• Organization Plan
• Operational Plan
• Summary
• Appendixes (Exhibits)
ResourcesRequired
• Determine
resources
needed
• Determine
existing
resources
• Identify
resource
gaps and
available
suppliers
• Develop
access to
needed
resources
Manage theEnterprise
• Develop
management
style
• Understand key
variables for
success
• Identify
problems and
potential
problems
• Implement
control systems
• Develop growth
strategy
1.6 Entrepreneur
The one, who recognises business opportunity, initiate, enterprise,
coordinates factors of production and most importantly assumes risk of outcome
of the business opportunity.
“Entrepreneur is an individual who takes initiative
to bundle resources in innovative ways and is willing to
bear the risk and/or uncertainty to act”.7
“Although being an entrepreneur means different
things to different people, there is agreement that we are
talking about a kind of behaviour that includes: (1)
initiative taking, (2) the organizing and reorganizing of
social and economic mechanisms to bundle resources in
7 ibid
43 | P a g e
innovative ways, and (3) the acceptance of risk,
uncertainty and/or the potential for failure”.8
1.6.1 Functions of Entrepreneurs
An entrepreneur is an opportunity seeker. He is also the organizer and
coordinator of the agents of production. He has to execute many a good functions
while establishing a small scale enterprise. He not only perceives the business
opportunities but also mobilizes the other resources like 5 M’s: man, money,
machine, materials and methods. However, the main functions of the
entrepreneurs are discussed below.
1.6.1.1 Idea Generation
This is the most important function of the entrepreneur. Idea generation can
be possible through the vision, insight, observation, experience, education,
training and exposure of the entrepreneur. Idea generation precisely implies
product selection and project identification. Ideas can be generated through
environmental scanning and market survey. It is the function of the entrepreneurs
to generate as many ideas as he can for the purpose of selecting the best business
opportunities which can subsequently be taken up by him as a commercially -
viable business venture.
1.6.1.2 Determination of Objectives
The next function of the entrepreneur is to determine and lay down the
objectives of the business, which should be spelt out on clear terms. In other
words, entrepreneur should be very much clear about the following things: (i) The
nature of business and (ii) The type of business. This implies whether the
enterprise belongs to the category of a manufacturing concern or a service -
oriented unit or a trading business, so that the entrepreneurs can very well carry on
the venture in accordance with the objectives determined by him.
1.6.1.3 Raising Funds
Fund raising is the most important function of an entrepreneur. All the
activities of a business depend upon the finance and its proper management. It is
the responsibility of the entrepreneur to raise funds internally as well as
8 Albert Shapero, Entrepreneurship and Economic Development (Wisconsin: Project ISEED, LTD, TheCenter for Venture Management, Summer 1975), p. 187.
44 | P a g e
externally. In this matter, he should be aware of the different sources of funds and
the formalities to raise funds. He should have the full knowledge of different
government sponsored schemes such as PMRY, SGSY, REGP, etc. by which he
can get Government assistance in the form of seed capital, fixed and working
capital for his business.
1.6.1.4 Procurement of Raw Materials
Another important function of the entrepreneur is to procure raw materials.
Entrepreneur has to identify the cheap and regular sources of supply of raw
materials, which will help him to reduce the cost of production and face the
competition boldly.
1.6.1.5 Procurement of Machinery
The next function of the entrepreneurs is to procure the machineries and
equipments for establishment of the venture. While procuring the machineries, he
should specify the following details:
1. The details of technology
2. Installed capacity of the machines
3. Names of the manufacturers and suppliers
4. Whether the machines are indigenously made or foreign made
5. After-sales service facilities
6. Warranty period of the machineries
All these details are to be minutely observed by the entrepreneurs.
1.6.1.6 Market Research
The next important function of the entrepreneur is market research and
product analysis. Market research is the systematic collection of data regarding the
product which the entrepreneur wants to manufacture. Entrepreneur has to
undertake market research persistently in order to know the details of the
intending product, i.e. the demand for the product, the supply of the product, the
price of the product, the size of the customers, etc. while starting an enterprise.
1.6.1.7 Determination of Form of Enterprise
The function of an entrepreneur in determining the form of enterprise is also
important. Entrepreneur h as to decide the form of enterprise based upon the
45 | P a g e
nature of the product, volume of investment, nature of activities, types of product,
quality of product, quality of human resources, etc. The chief forms of ownership
organizations are sole proprietorship, partnership, Joint Stock Company and
cooperative society. Determination of ownership right is essential on the part of
the entrepreneur to acquire legal title to assets.
1.6.1.8 Recruitment of Manpower
Entrepreneur has to perform the following activities while undertaking this
function:
1. Estimating manpower need of the organization
2. Laying down of selection procedure
3. Devising scheme of compensation
4. Laying down the rules of training and development
1.6.1.9 Implementation of the Project
Entrepreneur has to work on the implementation schedule or the action plan
of the project. The identified project is to be implemented in a time –bound
manner. All the activities from the conception stage to the commissioning stage
are to be accomplished by him in accordance with the implementation schedule to
avoid cost and time overrun, as well as competition. Thus, implementation of the
project is an important function of the entrepreneur.
To conclude with, all these functions of the entrepreneur can precisely be
put in to the following categories:
1. Innovation
2. Risk bearing
3. Organization and
4. Management
1.7 Types of Entrepreneurs
Figure: 1.7 gives classification of entrepreneurs on the basis of certain
dimensions. Theses classification has been discussed below:
Figure: 1.7; Types of Entrepreneurs
46 | P a g e
1.7.1 Clarence Danhof’s Classification of Entrepreneurs
Clarence Danhof classifies entrepreneurs into following four types:
1.7.1.1 Innovative
Innovative entrepreneur is one who assembles and synthesis information and
introduces new combinations of factors of production. They are characterized by
the smell of innovativeness. These entrepreneurs sense the opportunities for
introduction new ideas new technology, new markets and creating new
organizations. Innovative entrepreneurs are very much helpful for their country
because they bring about a transformation in life style.
1.7.1.2 Imitative/ Adoptive
Imitative entrepreneur is also known as adoptive entrepreneur. He simply
adopts successful innovation introduced by other innovators. These entrepreneurs
IClarenceDanhof's
Classification
Aggressive/Innovative
Imitative/Adoptive
Fabian
Drone
IIArthur H.
Cole'sClassification
46 | P a g e
1.7.1 Clarence Danhof’s Classification of Entrepreneurs
Clarence Danhof classifies entrepreneurs into following four types:
1.7.1.1 Innovative
Innovative entrepreneur is one who assembles and synthesis information and
introduces new combinations of factors of production. They are characterized by
the smell of innovativeness. These entrepreneurs sense the opportunities for
introduction new ideas new technology, new markets and creating new
organizations. Innovative entrepreneurs are very much helpful for their country
because they bring about a transformation in life style.
1.7.1.2 Imitative/ Adoptive
Imitative entrepreneur is also known as adoptive entrepreneur. He simply
adopts successful innovation introduced by other innovators. These entrepreneurs
Entrepreneur
IIArthur H.
Cole'sClassification
Empirical
Rational
Cognitive
IIIOn the Basis
of Ownership
Private
Public
IVOn the basisof Scale ofEnterprise
Micro
Small
Medium
Large
46 | P a g e
1.7.1 Clarence Danhof’s Classification of Entrepreneurs
Clarence Danhof classifies entrepreneurs into following four types:
1.7.1.1 Innovative
Innovative entrepreneur is one who assembles and synthesis information and
introduces new combinations of factors of production. They are characterized by
the smell of innovativeness. These entrepreneurs sense the opportunities for
introduction new ideas new technology, new markets and creating new
organizations. Innovative entrepreneurs are very much helpful for their country
because they bring about a transformation in life style.
1.7.1.2 Imitative/ Adoptive
Imitative entrepreneur is also known as adoptive entrepreneur. He simply
adopts successful innovation introduced by other innovators. These entrepreneurs
IVOn the basisof Scale ofEnterprise
VOn the basis
of Sector
Manufacturing
Service
Hybrid
47 | P a g e
imitate the existing entrepreneurs and setup their enterprise in the same manner.
Instead of innovating, they just imitate the technology and methods innovated by
others. These entrepreneurs are very helpful in less developed countries as they
contribute significantly in the growth of enterprise and entrepreneurial culture in
these countries. Further by adopting the technology, which is already tested, they
generate ample employment avenues for the youth and therefore they are treated
as agent of economic development.
1.7.1.3 Fabian
The Fabian entrepreneur is timid and cautious. He imitates other innovations
only if he is certain that failure to do so may damage his business. They are very
much skeptical in their approach in adopting or innovating new technology in
their enterprise. They are not adaptable to the changing environment. They love to
remain in the existing business with the age –old techniques of production. They
only adopt the new technology when they realize that failure to adopt will lead to
loss or collapse of the enterprise.
1.7.1.4 Drone
These entrepreneurs are conservative or orthodox in outlook. They never
like to get rid of their traditional business and traditional machinery or systems of
the business. They always feel comfortable with their old fashioned technology of
production even though the environment as well as the society have undergone
considerable changes. Thus, drone entrepreneurs refuse to adopt the changes.
They are laggards as they continue to operate in their traditional way and resist
changes. His entrepreneurial activity may be restricted to just one or two
innovations. They refuse to adopt changes in production even at the risk of
reduced returns.
1.7.2 Arthur H. Cole’s Classification of Entrepreneurs
Arthur H. Cole classifies entrepreneurs as follows:
1.7.2.1 Empirical
He/she is an entrepreneur hardly introduces anything revolutionary and
follows the principle of rule of thumb.
1.7.2.2 Rational
48 | P a g e
The rational entrepreneur is well informed about the general economic
conditions and introduces changes which look more revolutionary.
1.7.2.3 Cognitive
Cognitive entrepreneur is well informed, draws upon the advice and services
of experts and introduces changes that reflect complete break from the existing
scheme of enterprise.
1.7.3 Classification of Entrepreneurs on the Basis of Ownership
On the basis of ownership entrepreneurs may be classified as follows:
1.7.3.1 Private
Private entrepreneur is motivated by profit and it would not enter those
sectors of the economy in which prospects of monetary rewards are not very
bright.
1.7.3.2 Public
When enterprise is substantially owned by government or its any
organisation/institution then that enterprise is called public enterprise. And the
government or its any entity becomes public entrepreneur.
1.7.4 Classification of Entrepreneurs Based on the Scale of Enterprise
On the basis of scale of operations entrepreneurs may be classified into
following two categories.
1.7.4.1 Micro, Small and Medium Scale Entrepreneurs (MSMSEs)
This classification is especially popular in the underdeveloped countries.
MSMSEs or sometimes referred as Small Scale Entrepreneurs (SSEs) are
determined with the rules and regulations time being in force and they are entitles
and privileged with certain benefits and facilities in their interest by government
and its agencies. MSMSEs usually lack the necessary talents and resources to
initiate large scale production and introduce revolutionary technological changes.
1.7.4.2 Large Scale Entrepreneurs (LSEs)
In the developed countries most entrepreneurs deal with large scale
enterprises. These LSEs possess the financial and necessary enterprise to initiate
49 | P a g e
and introduce new technical changes. The result is the developed countries are
able to sustain and develop a high level of technical progress.
1.7.5 Other Classification of Entrepreneurs
In recent years, some new classifications have been made regarding
entrepreneurs. Following are some more types of entrepreneurs listed by some
other behavioural scientists:
1.7.5.1 Solo Operators
These entrepreneurs prefer to set up their business individually. They
introduce their own capital, intellect and business acumen to run the enterprise
successfully. They operate their business mainly in the form of proprietorship type
of concern.
1.7.5.2 Active Partners
Entrepreneurs of this type jointly put their efforts to build enterprise pooling
together their own resources. They actively participate in managing the daily
routine of the business concern. As such, the business houses or the firms which
are managed by the active partners become more successful in their operation.
1.7.5.3 Inventors
These entrepreneurs primarily involve themselves in Research &
Development (R & D) activities. They are creative in character and feel happy in
inventing new products, technologies and methods of production.
1.7.5.4 Challengers
Entrepreneurs of this type take challenges to establish business venture as
mark of achievement. They keep on improving their standard and face boldly the
odds and adversities that come in their way. They use their business acumen and
talent to convert the odds into opportunities thereby making profit. According to
them, if there is no challenge in life, there is no charm in life. Challenges make
them bold, and thus, they never hesitate to plunge themselves into uncertainties
for earning profit.
1.7.5.5 Buyers (Entrepreneurs)
These entrepreneurs explore opportunities to purchase the existing units
which may be seized or are in running condition. If the units they purchase are
50 | P a g e
sick they turn them around using their experiences, expertise and business
acumen. By purchasing these units they make themselves free from the hassles of
building infrastructures and other facilities.
1.7.5.6 Life Timers
These entrepreneurs believe that business is the part and parcel of their life.
They take up the business to reunite successfully as a matter of ego satisfaction.
They have a strong desire for taking personal responsibility. Family enterprises
which thrive due to high personal skill are included under this category.
1.8 Role of Entrepreneurship in Economic Development
Recent studies emphasize entrepreneurship as a driver of economic
development and some authors include entrepreneurship as a fourth production
factor in the macroeconomic production function (Audretsch and Keilbach 2004).
Entrepreneurship is the factor that creates wealth by combining existing
production factors in new ways. Entrepreneurs experiment with new combinations
of which the outcomes are uncertain, but in order to make progress, many new
variations have to be tried in order to find out which ones will improve economic
life (Rosenberg and Birdzell 1986).
The major roles played by an entrepreneur in the economic development of
an economy in various ways.
1.8.1 Promotes Capital Formation
Entrepreneurs promote capital formation by mobilising the idle savings of
public. They employ their own as well as borrowed resources for setting up their
enterprises. Such types of entrepreneurial activities lead to value addition and
creation of wealth, which is very essential for the industrial and economic
development of the country.
1.8.2 Creates Large-Scale Employment Opportunities
Entrepreneurs provide immediate large -scale employment to the
unemployed which is a chronic problem of underdeveloped nations. With the
setting up of more and more units by entrepreneurs, both on small and large -scale
numerous job opportunities are created for others. As time passes, these
enterprises grow, providing direct and indirect employment opportunities to many
51 | P a g e
more. In this way, entrepreneurs play an effective role in reducing the problem of
unemployment in the country which in turn clears the path towards economic
development of the nation.
1.8.3 Promotes Balanced Regional Development
Entrepreneurs help to remove regional disparities through setting up of
industries in less developed and backward areas. The growth of industries and
business in these areas lead to a large number of public benefits like road
transport, health, education, entertainment, etc. Setting up of more industries lead
to mo re development of backward regions and thereby promotes balanced
regional development.
1.8.4 Reduces Concentration of Economic Power
Economic power is the natural outcome of industrial and business activity.
Industrial development normally leads to concentration of economic power in the
hands of a few individuals which results in the growth of monopolies. In order to
redress this problem a large number of entrepreneurs need to be developed, which
will help reduce the concentration of economic power amongst the population.
1.8.5 Wealth Creation and Distribution
It stimulates equitable redistribution of wealth and income in the interest of
the country to more people and geographic areas, thus giving benefit to larger
sections of the society. Entrepreneurial activities also generate more activities and
give a multiplier effect in the economy.
1.8.6 Increasing Gross National Product and Per Capita Income
Entrepreneurs are always on the look-out for opportunities. They explore
and exploit opportunities, encourage effective resource mobilisation of capital and
skill, bring in new products and services and develops markets for growth of the
economy. In this way, they help increasing gross national product as well as per
capita income of the people in a country. Increase in gross national product and
per capita income of the people in a country, is a sign of economic growth.
1.8.7 Improvement in the Standard of Living
Increase in the standard of living of the people is a characteristic feature of
economic development of the country. Entrepreneurs play a key role in increasing
52 | P a g e
the standard of living of the people by adopting latest innovations in the
production of wide variety of goods and services in large scale that too at a lower
cost. This enables the people to avail better quality goods at lower prices which
results in the improvement of their standard of living.
1.8.8 Promotes Country's Export Trade
Entrepreneurs help in promoting a country's export -trade, which is an
important ingredient of economic development. They produce goods and services
in large scale for the purpose earning huge amount of foreign exchange from
export in order to combat the import dues requirement. Hence import substitution
and export promotion ensure economic independence and development.
1.8.9 Induces Backward and Forward Linkages
Entrepreneurs like to work in an environment of change and try to maximise
profits by innovation. When an enterprise is established in accordance with the
changing technology, it induces backward and forward linkages which stimulate
the process of economic development in the country.
1.8.10 Facilitates Overall Development
Entrepreneurs act as catalytic agent for change which results in chain
reaction. Once an enterprise is established, the process of industrialisation is se t
in motion. This unit will generate demand for various types of units required by it
and there will be so many other units which require the output of this unit. This
leads to overall development of an area due to increase in demand and setting up
of more and more units. In this way, the entrepreneurs multiply their
entrepreneurial activities, thus creating an environment of enthusiasm and
conveying an impetus for overall development of the area.
Entrepreneurship is not always contributor to economic development,
sometimes it may be detrimental onomic development also.
“There are various ways in which entrepreneurship
is identified to have negative (adverse) impact on the
economic development of India, thus not all types of
entrepreneurship are good for economic development. As
a consequence there has even been an argument for a tax
on entrepreneurship... The most salient adverse effects of
53 | P a g e
entrepreneurship can be due to either: (a) perverse
allocation towards activities that are personally profitable
but socially destructive or unproductive; and (b) low
quality entrepreneurship that may have negative
externalities.”9
1.9 Rural Entrepreneurship
1.9.1 Meaning of Rural Entrepreneurship
Rural entrepreneurship is that entrepreneurship which ensures value addition
to rural resources in rural areas engaging largely rural human resources. Rural
entrepreneurs are those who carry out entrepreneurial activities by establishing
industrial and business units in the rural sector of the economy. In other words,
establishing industrial and business units in the rural areas refers to rural
entrepreneurship. In simple words, rural entrepreneurship implies
entrepreneurship emerging in rural areas. Or, say, rural entrepreneurship implies
rural industrialization. Thus, we can say, entrepreneurship precedes
industrialization.
1.9.2 Need for Rural Entrepreneurship
The need for rural entrepreneurship in rural areas is embedded with
multiplicity of justifications as listed below:
1. Rural industries, being labour intensive, have high potential in
employment generation.
2. Rural industries have high potential for income generation in rural areas.
3. These industries encourage dispersal of economic activities in the rural
areas and, thus, promote balanced regional development.
4. Rural entrepreneurship builds up village republic.
5. Rural enterprises protect and promote the art and creativity, i.e., the age -
old heritage of the country.
9Jainendra Kumar Verma, Impact of Entrepreneurship on Economic Development in India: A Critical Study, Indian
Journal of New Dimensions (ISSN: 2277-9876), Vol. III, Issue-1, p.130
54 | P a g e
6. Rural industrialization curbs rural -urban migration, lessens the
disproportionate growth, reduces growth of slums, social tensions and
atmospheric pollution.
7. Rural industries being environment friendly lead to the development
without destruction.
1.9.3 Problems of Rural Entrepreneurship
Rural entrepreneurship has its own drawbacks. Policies such as keeping of
land in protection when there is already an over production and pricing subsidy
policies that helps to retain the minimum income are two of the greatest threats to
rural development. Due to the remote access and unavailability of knowledgeable
labour, it is difficult to advise the local entrepreneurs who are willing to take risk.
Access to capital labour, commercial markets and the managerial staff are
hindered due to the remote locations.
The major problems faced in developing entrepreneurship in rural areas are:
I. Lack of infrastructural facilities.
II. Non-supportive attitude of financial institutions which works more on pa
pers. The procedure to avail the loan facility is so time consuming that its
delay often disappoints the entrepreneurs.
III. Lack of technical know-how.
IV. Lack of communication facilities and market information. Information
technology has penetrated into rural areas through Internet but rural areas
have hardly availed its benefits.
V. Lack of warehousing facilities. The dilapidated condition of industrial
estates proves it and location of these houses hasn't been proper.
VI. Incentives offered are many. Banks do provide concessional loans but
their rules are very rigid. Their reluctance to grant loans for the working
capital adds to the problems of the rural entrepreneurs.
VII. Lack of Quality management.
Thus we see that rural industrialization is important for the country’s
prosperity since India lives in villages. Development of village industries in rural
areas is the solution to alleviate rural poverty. Such industries are an integral part
55 | P a g e
of the village economy and help in the uplift-ment of rural masses through
diversification of their occupational base.
1.9.4 Rural Women Entrepreneurship
According to Khanka (2000), a women entrepreneur is a confident,
innovative and creative woman capable of achieving economic independence
individually or in collaboration generates employment opportunities for others
through initiating establishing and running an enterprise by keeping pace with her
personal, family and social life.
“There are several factors which can initiate
entrepreneurship characteristics among women, basic
Entrepreneurial initiators are: personal motivations,
socio-cultural factors, availability of ease finance,
government schemes support and business
environment.”10
Rural women entrepreneurs’ problem in entrepreneurship is more than rural
me’s problems in operating a venture.
“Rural women entrepreneurs face lots of challenges
like business and family conflict, financial crisis,
illiteracy, low risk bearing capacity, lack of visibility and
leadership, lack of information and assistance, lack of
training and development, mobility constraints, lack of
infrastructure, high level of corruption, male dominated
society etc. which makes their work very difficult and
discouraging.”11
1.10 Entrepreneurial Motivation Theories
Entrepreneurial Motivation means what motivates an Entrepreneur. The
word ‘Motivation’ is derived from Latin word – ‘Movere’ – to move.
Psychologically, it means an inner or environmental stimulus to action, forces or
10 Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Micro Enterprise Development in Rural India: A Way of Women’s EconomicEmpowerment” International Research Journal of Commerce Arts and Science (ISSN 2319 – 9202), Volume4, Issue 1, P.28611 Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Challenges and Opportunities for Rural Women Entrepreneurs” InternationalJournal of Research In Commerce, Economics & Management (ISSN: 2231-4245)Volume No. 3 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July), p.59
56 | P a g e
the factors that are responsible for initiation, and sustaining behaviour. The
importance of motivation to human life and work can be judged by the number of
theories that have been propounded to explain people’s behaviour. They explain
human motivation through needs and human nature. Prominent among these
theories and particularly relevant to entrepreneurship are Maslow’s Need Hierarchy
Theory and McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory.
1.10.1 Abraham Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory
One of the most widely mentioned theories of motivation is the hierarchy of
needs theory put forth by psychologist Abraham Maslow. Maslow saw human
needs in the form of a hierarchy (see Figure: 1.10.1.5), ascending from the lowest
to the highest, and he concluded that when one set of needs is satisfied, this kind
of need ceases to be a motivator.
As per his theory these needs are:
1.10.1.1 Physiological Needs
These are important needs for sustaining the human life. Food, water,
warmth, shelter, sleep, medicine and education are the basic physiological needs
which fall in the primary list of need satisfaction. Maslow was of an opinion that
until these needs were satisfied to a degree to maintain life, no other motivating
factors can work.
1.10.1.2 Safety & Security Needs
These are the needs to be free of physical danger and of the fear of losing a
job, property, food or shelter. It also includes protection against any emotional
harm.
1.10.1.3 Love & Belonging Needs
Since people are social beings, they need to belong and be accepted by
others. People try to satisfy their need for affection, acceptance and friendship.
1.10.1.4 Esteem Needs
According to Maslow, once people begin to satisfy their need to belong,
they tend to want to be held in esteem both by themselves and by others. This kind
of need produces such satisfaction as power, prestige status and self -confidence.
57 | P a g e
It includes both internal esteem factors like self - respect, autonomy and
achievements and external esteem factors such as states, recognition and attention.
1.10.1.5 Need for Self-Actualization
Maslow regards this as the highest need in his hierarchy. It is the drive to
become what one is capable of becoming; it includes growth, achieving one’s
potential and self-fulfilment. It is to maximize one’s potential and to accomplish
something.
Figure: 1.10.1.5; Maslow’s Need Hierarchy
As each of these needs is substantially satisfied, the next need becomes
dominant. From the standpoint of motivation, the theory would say that although
no need is ever fully gratified, a substantially satisfied need no longer motivates.
So if you want to motivate someone, you need to understand what level of the
hierarchy that person is on and focus on satisfying those needs o r needs above
that level.
58 | P a g e
Maslow’s need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among
practicing managers. This can be attributed to the theory’s intuitive logic and ease
of understanding.
However, research does not validate this theory. Maslow provided no
empirical evidence and other several studies that sought to validate the theory
found no support for it.
1.10.2 McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory
David McClelland is most noted for describing three types of motivational
need, which he identified in his 1961 book, The Achieving Society: His three
motivational needs are given below and have been depicted in Figure: 1.10.2.
1. Achievement motivation (n-ach)
2. Power motivation (n-pow)
3. Affiliation motivation (n-affil)
Figure: 1.10.2; McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory
These needs are found to varying degrees in all worker s and managers, and
this mix of motivational needs characterise a person's or entrepreneur's style and
behaviour, both in terms of being motivated, and in the management and
motivation of others.
1.10.2.1 Achievement Motivation (n-ach)
59 | P a g e
The n-ach person is 'achievement motivated' and therefore seeks
achievement, attainment of realistic but challenging goals, and advancement in the
job. There is a strong need for feedback as to achievement and progress, and a
need for a sense of accomplishment.
1.10.2.2 Power Motivation (n-pow)
The n-pow person is 'authority motivated'. This driver produces a need to be
influential, effective and to make an impact. There is a strong need to lead and for
their ideas to prevail. There is also motivation and need towards increasing
personal status and prestige.
1.10.2.3 Affiliation Motivation (n-affil)
The n-affil person is 'affiliation motivated', and has a need for friendly
relationships and is motivated towards interaction with other people. The
affiliation driver produces motivation and need to be liked and held in popular
regard. These people are team players.
McClelland suggested other characteristics and attitudes of achievement -
motivated people:
achievement is more important than material or financial reward
achieving the aim or task gives greater personal satisfaction than receiving
praise or recognition
financial reward is regarded as a measurement of success, not an end in
itself
security is not prime motivator, nor is status
feedback is essential, because it enables measurement of success, not for
reasons of praise or recognition (the implication here is that feedback must
be reliable, quantifiable and factual)
achievement-motivated people constantly seek improvements and ways of
doing things better
achievement-motivated people will logically favour jobs and
responsibilities that naturally satisfy their needs, i.e. offer flexibility and
opportunity to set and achieve goals, e.g. sales and business management,
and entrepreneurial roles
1.11 Motivating Factors for Entrepreneurship
60 | P a g e
Some studies have listed the following motivating factors for entrepreneurship:
1.11.1 Entrepreneurial Ambition
1. To make money2. To gain social prestige3. To secure self employment ;
1.11.2 Compelling Reasons
1. Unemployment2. Dissatisfaction with existing job or occupation3. To use technical or professional knowledge
1.11.3 Facilitating Factors
1. Previous knowledge & experience2. Encouragement from family members & friends3. Imitation of successful entrepreneurs
Some researchers have classified the factors of motivation into two broadcategories:
1.11.4 Internal factors
1. Educational background2. Occupational Experience3. Desire to work independently4. Desire to branch out to manufacturing5. Family background6. Desire for taking personal responsibility7. Success stories of entrepreneurs8. To gain social prestige9. Technical knowledge
1.11.5 External factors
1. Assistance from Government2. Assistance from financial institution3. Availability of technology/raw material4. Profit margin5. Anticipation of future possibilities6. Heavy Demand
1.12 Business Project
61 | P a g e
A business project is a time-bound intervention consisting of a set of
planned and interrelated activities executed to bring about a beneficial change. It
has a start and a finish, involves a multidisciplinary team collaborating to
implement activities within constraints of cost, time and quality, and has a scope
of work that is unique and subject to uncertainty. Business projects link policy
initiatives at a higher level (e.g. national or sectoral) with a specific problem faced
by a target group of local-level stakeholders or by institutions or organizations.
Project selection starts from where project identification ends. After having
some project ideas, these are analysed in the light of existing economic conditions,
the government policy and soon. A tool generally used for this purpose is, what is
called in the managerial jargon, SWOT analysis. The intending entrepreneur
analyses his/her strengths and weakness as well as opportunities/competitive
advantages and threats/challenges offered by each of the project ideas.
On the basis of this analysis, the most suitable idea is finally selected to
convert it into an enterprise. The process involved in selecting a business project
out of some projects is also described as the “zeroing in process”.
1.12.1 Business Project Report
Business project report or business plan is a written statement of what an
entrepreneur proposes to take up. It is a kind of guide frost or course of action
what the entrepreneur hopes to achieve in his business and how is he going to
achieve it. In other words, business project report serves like a kind of big road
map to reach the destination determined by the entrepreneur. Thus, a business
project report can best be defined as a well evolved course of action devised to
achieve the specified objective of the enterprise within a specified period of time.
So to say, it is an operating document.
1.12.2 Contents of a Business Project Report
A good business project report should contain the following components.
1. General Information: Information on product profile and product details.
2. Promoter: His/her educational qualification, work experience, project
related experience.
3. Location: Exact location of the project, lease or freehold, locational
advantages.
62 | P a g e
4. Land and building: Land area, construction area, type of construction, cost
of construction, detailed plan and estimate along with plant layout.
5. Plant and Machinery: Details of machinery required, capacity, suppliers,
cost, various alternatives available, cost of miscellaneous assets.
6. Production Process: Description of production process, process chart,
technical know-how, technology alternatives available, production
programme.
7. Utilities: Water, power, steam, compressed air requirements, cost estimates,
sources of utilities.
8. Transport and Communication: Mode, possibility of getting, costs.
9. Raw Material: List of raw material required by quality and quantity,
sources of procurement, cost of raw material, tie-up arrangements, if any
10. Manpower: Manpower requirement by skilled and semi -skilled, sources of
manpower supply, cost of procurement, requirement for training and its cost.
11. Products: Product mix, estimated sales, distribution channels, competitions
and their capacities, product standard, input -output ratio, product substitute.
12. Market: End-users of product, distribution of market as local, national,
international, trade and practices, sales promotion devices, and proposed
market research.
13. Requirement of Working Capital: Working capital required, sources of
working capital, need for collateral security, nature and extent of credit
facilities offered and available.
14. Requirement of Funds: Break-up of project cost in terms of costs of land,
building, machinery, miscellaneous assets, preliminary expenses,
contingencies and margin money for working capital, arrangements for
meeting the cost of setting up of the project.
15. Cost of Production and Profitability of first ten years
16. Break-Even Analysis
17. Schedule of Implementation
1.12.3 Formulation of a Business Project Report
The process of business project formulation can be divided in to eight
distinct and sequential stages. These stages are:
1. General Information.
63 | P a g e
2. Project Description.
3. Market Potential.
4. Capital Costs and Sources of Finance.
5. Assessment of Working Capital Requirements.
6. Other Financial Aspects.
7. Economic and Social Variables.
8. Project Implementation.
1.13 Concept of Financial Planning
Financial planning is simple mathematics. There are 3 major components:
1. Financial Resources (FR)
2. Financial Tools (FT)
3. Financial Goals (FG)
Financial Planning: FR + FT = FG
In general usage, a financial plan is a series of steps or goals used by an
individual or business, the progressive and cumulative attainment of which are
designed to accomplish a final financial goal or set of circumstances, e.g.
elimination of debt, retirement preparedness, etc. This often includes a budget
which organizes an individual's finances and sometimes includes a series of steps
or specific goals for spending and saving future income. This plan allocates future
income to various types of expenses, such as rent or utilities, and also reserves
some income for short-term and long-term savings. A financial plan sometimes
refers to an investment plan, which allocates savings to various assets or projects
expected to produce future income, such as a new business or product line, shares
in an existing business, or real estate.
1.14 Sources of Finance
There are following two types of sources of funds for entrepreneurs:
1.14.1 Internal Sources of Finance
These are sources of finance that come from the business' assets or activities.
1.14.1.1 Retained Profit
If the business had a successful trading year and made a profit after paying
all its costs, it could use some of that profit to finance future activities. This can be
64 | P a g e
a very useful source of long term finance, provided the business is generating
profit.
1.14.1.2 Sale of Assets
The business can finance new activities or pay -off debts by selling its assets
such as property, fixtures & fittings, machinery, vehicles etc. It is often used as a
short term source of finance (e.g. selling a vehicle to pay debts) but could provide
more longer term finance if the assets being sold are very valuable (e.g. land or
buildings). If a business wants to use its assets, it may consider sale and lease-
back where it may sell its assets and then rent or hire it from the business that now
owns the assets. It may mean paying more money in the long run but it can
provide cash in the short term to avoid a crisis.
1.14.1.3 Reducing Stocks
Stock is a type of asset (see balance sheet work for more on assets) and can
be sold to raise finance. Stock includes the business' holdings of raw materials
(inputs), semi -finished products and also finished products that it has not yet sold.
Businesses will usually hold some stock. It can be useful if there is an unexpected
increase in demand from customers. Stock levels tend to rise during economic
slowdowns or recessions as goods are not sold and 'pile -up' instead. It is not
usually a source of large amounts of finance - if a business has very large stock
piles, it might mean that nobody wants to buy the product and reducing stocks will
therefore be hard. It is often considered to be a short term source.
1.14.1.4 Trade Credit
A business does not normally pay for things before it takes possession of
them. Instead, it will usually place an order for supplies / inputs and will pay after
receiving the items. It is good practice to pay quickly (often within one month) as
this will help the business develop a good relationship with its suppliers. This
source of finance appears on the balance sheet as trade credit. This method of
deferring (delaying) payment to a future date is a form of very short term
borrowing and helps with the problems of the cash cycle identified in the work on
liquidity.
1.14.2 External Sources of Finance
65 | P a g e
This is finance that comes from outside the business. It involves the business
owing money to outside individuals or institutions.
1.14.2.1 Personal Savings
This mainly applies to sole traders and partnerships. Owners may use some
of their own money as capital to invest in the business. For instance, a person may
be made redundant by a company that needs to reduce in size. They would receive
redundancy payment that they might use to start their own business.
This is considered an external source as it is assumed that the money lent to
the business will be paid back to the private individual in the future, possibly with
an extra amount to compensate the individual for the help they gave. It can be a
short or long term source of finance, depending upon the amount invested and the
decision of the person using their savings.
1.14.2.2 Commercial Banks
We tend to consider two types of finance that banks offer to businesses,
overdrafts and loans. If a business spends more money than it has in its bank
account, we say that it has become overdrawn. Businesses will often have an
arrangement with the bank whereby the bank will pay the extra money provided
the business will pay them back in a fairly short period of time, with interest. This
is a short term source of finance and is useful for small amounts. It is often used
for buying supplies / inputs. A bank loan is a long term source of finance and will
often be for much larger sums of money.
A loan is useful for a business that is starting up or looking to grow. Loans
are often used to buy fixed assets (see balance sheets) such as machinery and
vehicles. A business will pay the bank back each month in instalments and will
also pay an interest charge.
Interest - Banks are providing a service by lending money in the form of
overdrafts and loans and banks will charge for this service (they want to make a
profit too). When a business takes a loan, it will agree to pay it back over a period
of years but it will also pay an extra charge. This charge, called interest, is a
percentage of the value of the loan.
1.14.2.3 Building Societies
66 | P a g e
A building society is a form of financial that is similar to a bank. It also
provides loans but specialises in providing mortgages. A mortgage is a special
type of loan used to buy property (factories, shops, etc). Loans and mortgages tend
to be paid back over a long period of time, usually several years, at an interest
rate. In recent years, the differences between banks and building societies have
reduced and both are now very similar. Both can offer mortgages and loans
1.14.2.4 Factoring Services
Businesses are often owed money. If you supplied car parts to local garages,
you would often deliver the products to the garages and receive payment within a
few weeks. The garages would be paying by trade credit (see internal sources) and
are in debt to you (they are your debtors - see balance sheet).
A business may have difficulty in collecting its debts from its customers but
may need to get its hands on money very quickly. A special factoring company
may offer to handle the debt collection process for a charge. The factoring
company pays the business most of the value of the debt first and would then
collect the money from the debtor. This is a short term source of finance.
1.14.2.5 Share Issue
This is an important source of finance for limited companies. A share issue
involves a business selling new shares that entitle the shareholders to share in the
control of the business. Each share gives the shareholder a vote on the direction of
the company. This usually means that the shareholder can elect the board of
directors of the company each year. If the shareholder doesn't like the way the
directors are running the business, they can elect new directors. This is a good
incentive to the directors to run the business well and make a profit which will be
paid to the shareholders in the form of dividends.
The more shares a person holds, the more control they have over a company.
If one company wanted to take another company over, it could arrange to buy
over 50% of that company's shares. This would give it a majority of control and,
therefore, ownership.
Issuing new shares can raise a lot of capital that can be used for expansion
(buying more fixed assets, etc). It is a long term source of finance. If the total
number of s hares rises, the votes of existing shareholders will have slightly less
67 | P a g e
significance and they will have less control. The business will also have to pay
dividends on a larger number of shares.
1.14.2.6 Debentures
This is a form of long term loan that can be taken out by a public limited
company for a large sum and it will be paid back over several years. It is usually
borrowed from specialist financial institutions.
1.14.2.7 Venture Capital
Some individuals join together to provide finance for new businesses that
are just starting-up. They look for promising businesses and invest in them,
hoping that the businesses will grow and that they will make a profit. This is
similar to issuing shares.
1.14.2.8 Leasing and Hire Purchase
Leasing involves a business renting equipment that it m ay use for several
years or months but never own. It will have a contract with a company who may
come in to repair and service the product. The deal may also involve the product
being replaced with a new model every so often. Businesses often lease equipment
such as photocopiers.
Hire purchase involves paying for equipment in instalments. The business
will not own the item until all the payments have been made. It usually works out
more expensive to buy an item on hire purchase than paying all at once but it does
mean that the business doesn't have to spend a large amount of money at once.
1.15 Capital Structure and its Determinants
Capital structure means the permanent financing of the enterprise represented
primarily by long-term sources of funds, i.e., debt and equity. In simple words, capital
structure is the ratio between debt and equity capital. An optimum capital structure
can be defined as a financing mix incurring the least cost but yielding the maximum
returns. And it is obtained by making the market value of equity share maximum.
Major determinants of capital structure:
1. Nature of business
2. Size of the enterprise
3. Trading on equity
68 | P a g e
4. Cash flows
5. Purpose of financing
6. Provision of future
1.16 Institutional Support to MSMEs in India
MSMEs constitute a vibrant and dynamic sector of the industrial economy
of India. This sector has shown consistently good growth in terms of production,
creation of additional employment and spectacular performance in exports, year
after year. Its contribution to industrial growth and economic development of the
country has been very significant. It encompasses both traditional industries
(includes some of the prominent export intensive segments such as handicrafts,
handlooms, carpets and gems and jewellery) and the modern small industries
which uses latest appliances, machinery and technologies, and includes
electronics, computer software, cotton/leather garments and accessories, auto
components, food processing and machine tools and scientific instrumentation.
Small in India is more than beautiful - it is efficient, adaptable and adds value in
economic and social spheres.
The post-liberalisation era in the Indian economy has enhanced the
opportunities and challenges for the MSMEs sector. Moving away from the era of
protection, the MSMEs have been steadily reorienting themselves to face the
challenges posed by an increasingly competitive environment. In order to stabilise
healthy development and to hasten the process of invigoration, the MSMEs,
especially the modern ones, have been provided with the stimuli to improve
productivity and competitive strength through enhanced flow of financial
assistance and initiatives for technological up gradation, quality improvement and
overseas collaboration.
The problems faced by the MSMEs particularly in accessing technology and
maintaining competitiveness have been formidable. Lack of familiarity with new
options, inability in accessing them, and lack of necessary finance for growth need
to be addressed through institutional support.
1.16.1 Small Industries Development Organisation (SIDO)
SIDO is created for development of various small scale units in different
areas. SIDO is a subordinate office of department of SSIs and ARI. It is a nodal
69 | P a g e
agency for identifying the needs of SSI units coordinating and monitoring the
policies and programmes for promotion of the small industries. It undertakes
various programmes of training, consultancy, evaluation for needs of SSIs and
development of industrial estates. All these functions are taken care with 27
offices, 31 SISI (Small Industries Service Institute) 31 extension centres of SISI
and 7 centres related to production and process development.
1.16.1.1 Activities of SIDO
The activities of SIDO are divided into three categories as follows:
1.16.1.1.1 Coordination Activities of SIDO
Coordination activities of SIDO are as follows:
1. To coordinate various programmes and policies of various state
governments pertaining to small industries.
2. To maintain relation with central industry ministry, planning
commission, state level industries ministry and financial institutions.
3. Implement and coordinate in the development of industrial estates.
1.16.1.1.2 Industrial Development Activities of SIDO
Industrial development activities of SIDO are as follows:
1. Develop import substitutions for components and products based on
the data available for various volumes-wise and value-wise imports.
2. To give essential support and guidance for the development of
ancillary units.
3. To provide guidance to SSI units in terms of costing market
competition and to encourage them to participate in the government
stores and purchase tenders.
4. To recommend the central government for reserving certain items to
produce at SSIs level only.
1.16.1.1.3 Management Activities of SIDO
Management activities of SIDO are as follows:
1. To provide training, development and consultancy services to SSIs to
develop their competitive strength.
2. To provide marketing assistance to various SSI units.
70 | P a g e
3. To assist SSI units in selection of plant and machinery, location,
layout design and appropriate process.
4. To help them in getting updated with various information related to
the small scale industries activities.
1.16.2 State Small Industries Development Corporation (SSIDC)
The State Small Industries Development Corporations (SSIDC) were sets up
in various states under the companies’ act 1956, as state government undertakings
to cater to t he primary developmental needs of the small tiny and village
industries in the state/union territories under their jurisdiction. Incorporation under
the companies act has provided SSIDCs with greater operational flexibility and
wider scope for undertaking a variety of activities for the benefit of the small
sector.
1.16.2.1 Functions of SSIDC
The important functions performed by the SSIDCs include:
To procure and distribute scarce raw materials.
To supply machinery on hire purchase system.
To provide assistance for marketing of the products of small -scale
industries.
To construct industrial estates/sheds, providing allied infrastructure
facilities and their maintenance.
To extend seed capital assistance on behalf of the state government
concerned provide management assistance to production units.
1.16.3 District Industries Centres (DICs)
The District Industries Centres (DICs) programme was started in 1978 with
a view to provide integrated administrative framework at the district level for
promotion of small scale industries in rural areas. The DICs are envisaged as a
single window interacting agency at the district level providing service and
support to small entrepreneurs under a single roof. DICs are the implementing arm
of the central and state governments of the various schemes and programmes.
Registration of small industries is done at the district industries centre and PMRY
(Pradhaan Mantree Rojgaar Yojanaa) is also implemented by DICs. The
organizational structure of DICs consists of General Manager, Functional
71 | P a g e
Managers and Project Managers to provide technical services in the areas relevant
to the needs of the district concerned. Management of DICs is done by the state
government.
1.16.3.1 Functions of DICs
The main functions of DICs are:
1. To prepare and keep model project profiles for reference of the
entrepreneurs.
2. To prepare action plan to implement the schemes effectively already
identified.
3. To undertake industrial potential survey and to identify the types of
feasible ventures which can be taken up in MSMEs sector, i.e.,
industrial sector, service sector and business sector.
4. To guide entrepreneurs in matters relating to selecting the most
appropriate machinery and equipment, sources of it supply and
procedure for importing machineries.
5. To provide guidance for appropriate loan amount and documentation.
6. To assist entrepreneurs for availing land and shed equipment and
tools, furniture and fixtures.
7. To appraise the worthiness of the project-proposals received from
entrepreneurs.
8. To help the entrepreneurs in obtaining required
licenses/permits/clearance.
9. To assist the entrepreneurs in marketing their products and assess the
possibilities of ancillarization.
10. To conduct product development work appropriate to small industry.
11. To help the entrepreneurs in clarifying their doubts about the matters
of operation of bank accounts, submission of monthly, quarterly and
annual returns to government departments.
12. To conduct artisan training programme.
13. To act as the nodal agency for the district for implementing PMRY
(Pradhaan Mantree Rojgaar Yojanaa).
14. To function as the technical consultant of DRDA in administering
IRDP and TRYSEM programme.
72 | P a g e
15. To help the specialized training organizations to conduct Entrepreneur
development programmes.
In fine DICs function as the torch -bearer to the beneficiaries/entrepreneurs
in setting up and running the business enterprise right from the concept to
commissioning. So the role of DIC’s in enterprise building and developing small
scale sector is of much significance.
1.16.4 Industrial Estates
Industrial estates are specific areas zoned for industrial activity in which
infrastructure such as roads, power, and other utility services is provided to
facilitate the growth of industries and to minimize impacts on the environment.
The infrastructure may include effluent treatment; solid and toxic waste
collection, treatment, and disposal; air pollution and effluent monitoring; technical
services on pollution prevention; quality management (quality assurance and
control); and laboratory services. There should be appropriate emergency
preparedness and prevention plans and liaison with local fire and emergency
services. Selection of sites for industrial estates should take into account social
and environmental issues, as well as economic considerations.
The key document would normally be an industrial estate development plan
covering issues such as:
Details of the location
Mix of industries on the site (to ensure that the industries are compatible—
for example, that neighbours of food processing plants do not pose a risk
of contaminating food products)
Layout and design
Transport services
Fuel storage
Air quality management
Water quality management, including the provision of common effluent
treatment facilities, as required
Solid waste management, including recycling
Management of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes
Noise control
73 | P a g e
Occupational health and safety
Hazard and emergency planning and response.
Industrial estates should maintain safe distances from residential areas (for
example, 100 meters for small industries with minimal environmental hazard and
at least 1 kilo-meter for very polluting industries). Definition of institutional
responsibilities is an essential component of a development plan. The first
industrial estate in India was set up at Rajkot in Gujarat in September 1955.
1.17 Growth Strategies in MSMEs
Most MSMEs have plans to grow their business and increase sales and
profits. However, there are certain methods companies must use for implementing
a growth strategy. The method a company uses to expand its business is largely
contingent upon its financial situation, the competition and even government
regulation. Some common growth strategies in business include market
penetration, market expansion, product expansion, diversification and acquisition.
1.17.1 Market Penetration
One growth strategy in business is market penetration. A small company
uses a market penetration strategy when it decides to market existing products
within the same market it has been using. The only way to grow using existing
products and markets is to increase market share, according to the article "Growth
Strategies" at gaebler.com. Market share is the percent of unit and dollar sales a
company holds within a certain market vs. all other competitors. One way to
increase market share is by lowering prices. For example, in markets where there
is little differentiation among products, a lower price may help a company
increase its share of the market.
1.17.2 Market Expansion
A market expansion growth strategy, often called market development,
entails selling current products in a new market. There several reasons why a
company may consider a market expansion strategy. First, the competition may be
such that there is no room for growth within the current market. If a business does
not find new markets for its products, it cannot increase sales or profits. A small
company may also use a market expansion strategy if it finds new uses for its
74 | P a g e
product. For example, a small soap distributor that sells to re tail stores may
discover that factory workers also use its product.
1.17.3 Product Expansion
A small company may also expand its product line or add new features to
increase its sales and profits. When small companies employ a product expansion
strategy, also known as product development, they continue selling within the
existing market. A product expansion growth strategy often works well when
technology starts to change. A small company may also be forced to add new
products as older ones become outmoded.
1.17.4 Acquisition
Growth strategies in business can also includes an acquisition. In
acquisition, a company purchases another company to expand its operations. A
small company may use this type of strategy to expand its product line and enter
new markets. An acquisition growth strategy can be risky, but not as risky as a
diversification strategy. One reason is that the products and market are already
established. A company must know exactly what it wants to achieve when using
an acquisition strategy, mainly because of the significant investment required to
implement it.
1.17.5 Expansion and Diversification
1.17.5.1 Expansion
All successful small business start ups eventually face the issue of handling
business expansion or growth. Business expansion is a stage of a company's life
that is fraught with both opportunities and perils. On the one hand, business
growth often carries with it a corresponding increase in financial fortunes for
owners and employees alike. In addition, expansion is usually seen as a validation
of the entrepreneur's initial business start up idea, and of his or her subsequent
efforts to bring that vision to fruition.
But as Andrew J. Sherman observed, “business expansion also presents the
small business owner with myriad issues that have to be addressed. Growth
causes a variety of changes, all of which present different managerial, legal, and
financial challenges: Growth means that new employees will be hired who will be
looking to the top management of the company for leadership. Growth means that
75 | P a g e
the company's management will become less and less centralized, and this may
raise the levels of internal politics, protectionism, and dissension over what goals
and projects the company should pursue. Growth means that market share will
expand, calling for new strategies for dealing with larger competitors. Growth
also means that additional capital will be required, creating new responsibilities
to shareholders, investors, and institutional lenders. Thus, growth brings with it a
variety of changes in the company's structure, needs, and objectives."12 Given
these realities, Sherman stated that "the need of the organization to grow must be
tempered by the need to understand that meaningful, long-term, profitable growth
is a by-product of effective management and planning."
Small businesses can expand their operations by pursuing any number of
avenues. The most common place methods by which small companies increase
their business are incremental in character, i.e., increasing product inventory or
services rendered without making wholesale changes to facilities or other
operational components. But usually, after some period of time, businesses that
have the capacity and desire to grow will find that other options should be studied.
Common routes of small business expansion include:
Growth through acquisition of another existing business (almost always
smaller in size)
Offering franchise ownership to other entrepreneurs
Licensing of intellectual property to third parties
Establishment of business agreements with distributorships and/or
dealerships
Pursuing new marketing routes (such as catalogues)
Joining industry cooperatives to achieve savings in certain common
areas of operation, including advertising and purchasing
public stock offerings
Employee stock ownership plans
1.17.5.2 Diversification
12 Andrew J. Sherman, The Complete Guide to Running and Growing Your Business
76 | P a g e
Diversification is a form of corporate strategy for a company. It seeks to
increase profitability through greater sales volume obtained from new products
and new markets.
Diversification can occur either at the business unit level or at the corporate
level. At the business unit level, it is most likely to expand into a new segment of
an industry that the business is already in. At the corporate level, it is generally
very interesting entering a promising business outside of the scope of the existing
business unit.
Diversification is part of the four main growth strategies defined by the
Ansoff matrix of Product/Market given in Figure: 1.17.5.2.
Ansoff pointed out that a diversification strategy stands apart from the other
three strategies.
The first three strategies are usually pursued with the same technical,
financial, and merchandising resources used for the original product line, whereas
diversification usually requires a company to acquire new skills, new techniques
and new facilities.
Figure: 1.17.5.2; Ansoff matrix of Product/Market
76 | P a g e
Diversification is a form of corporate strategy for a company. It seeks to
increase profitability through greater sales volume obtained from new products
and new markets.
Diversification can occur either at the business unit level or at the corporate
level. At the business unit level, it is most likely to expand into a new segment of
an industry that the business is already in. At the corporate level, it is generally
very interesting entering a promising business outside of the scope of the existing
business unit.
Diversification is part of the four main growth strategies defined by the
Ansoff matrix of Product/Market given in Figure: 1.17.5.2.
Ansoff pointed out that a diversification strategy stands apart from the other
three strategies.
The first three strategies are usually pursued with the same technical,
financial, and merchandising resources used for the original product line, whereas
diversification usually requires a company to acquire new skills, new techniques
and new facilities.
Figure: 1.17.5.2; Ansoff matrix of Product/Market
76 | P a g e
Diversification is a form of corporate strategy for a company. It seeks to
increase profitability through greater sales volume obtained from new products
and new markets.
Diversification can occur either at the business unit level or at the corporate
level. At the business unit level, it is most likely to expand into a new segment of
an industry that the business is already in. At the corporate level, it is generally
very interesting entering a promising business outside of the scope of the existing
business unit.
Diversification is part of the four main growth strategies defined by the
Ansoff matrix of Product/Market given in Figure: 1.17.5.2.
Ansoff pointed out that a diversification strategy stands apart from the other
three strategies.
The first three strategies are usually pursued with the same technical,
financial, and merchandising resources used for the original product line, whereas
diversification usually requires a company to acquire new skills, new techniques
and new facilities.
Figure: 1.17.5.2; Ansoff matrix of Product/Market
77 | P a g e
The notion of diversification depends on the subjective interpretation of
“new” market and “new” product, which should reflect the perceptions of
customers rather than managers.
Indeed, products tend to create or stimulate new markets; new markets
promote product innovation.
1.17.5.2.1 Types of Diversification
There are three types of diversification: concentric, horizontal, and conglomerate.
1.17.5.2.1.1 Concentric Diversification
This means that there is a technological similarity between the industries,
which means that the firm is able to leverage its technical know -how to gain
some advantage. For example, a company that manufactures industrial adhesives
might decide to diversify into adhesives to be sold via retailers. The technology
would be the same but the marketing effort would need to change.
It also seems to increase its market share to launch a new product that helps
the particular company to earn profit. For instance, the addition of tomato ketchup
and sauce to the existing "Maggi" brand processed items of Food Specialities Ltd.
is an example of technological –related concentric diversification. The company
could seek new products that have technological or marketing synergies with
existing product lines appealing to a new group of customers. This also helps the
company to tap that part of the market which remains untapped, and which
presents an opportunity to earn profits.
1.17.5.2.1.2 Horizontal Diversification
The company adds new products or services that are often technologically or
commercially unrelated to current products but that may appeal to current
customers. In a competitive environment, this form of diversification is desirable
if the present customers are loyal to the current products and if the new products
have a good quality and are well promoted and priced.
Moreover, the new products are marketed to the same economic
environment as the existing products, which may lead to rigidity and instability. In
other words, this strategy tends to increase the firm's dependence on certain
78 | P a g e
market segments. For example, a company that was making notebooks earlier may
also enter the pen market with its new product.
1.17.5.2.1.3 Conglomerate Diversification (or Lateral Diversification)
The company markets new products or services that have no technological
or commercial synergies with current products but that may appeal to new groups
of customers. The conglomerate diversification has very little relationship with the
firm's current business.
Therefore, the main reasons of adopting such a strategy are first to improve
the profitability and the flexibility of the company, and second to get a better
reception in capital markets as the company gets bigger. Even if this strategy is
very risky, it could also, if successful, provide increased growth and profitability.
1.17.6 Joint Venture
A joint venture is a strategic alliance where two or more parties, usually
businesses, form a partnership to share markets, intellectual property, assets,
knowledge, and, of course, profits. It is a legal organization that takes the form of
a short term partnership in which the persons jointly undertake a transaction for
mutual profit. Generally each person contributes assets and share risks. Like a
partnership, joint ventures can involve any type of business transaction and the
"persons" involved can be individuals, groups of individuals, companies, or
corporations.
Joint ventures are also widely used by companies to gain entrance into
foreign markets. Foreign companies form joint ventures with domestic companies
already present in markets the foreign companies would like to enter. The foreign
companies generally bring new technologies and business practices into the joint
venture, while the domestic companies already have the relationships and
requisite governmental documents within the country along with being entrenched
in the domestic industry.
A joint venture differs from a merger in the sense that there is no transfer of
ownership in the deal. Companies with identical products and services can also
join forces to penetrate markets they wouldn't or couldn't consider without
investing tremendous resources. Furthermore, due to local regulations, some
markets can only be penetrated via joint venturing with a local business.
79 | P a g e
In some cases, a large company can decide to form a joint venture with a
smaller business in order to quickly acquire critical intellectual property,
technology, or resources otherwise hard to obtain, even with plenty of cash at their
disposal.
1.17.7 Merger
The legal concept of a merger (with the resulting corporate mechanics,
statutory merger or statutory consolidation, which have nothing to do with t he
resulting power grab as between the management of the target and the acquirer) is
different from the business point of view of a "merger", which can be achieved
independently of the corporate mechanics through various means such as
"triangular merger", statutory merger, acquisition, etc. When one company takes
over another and clearly establishes itself as the new owner, the purchase is called
an acquisition.
From a legal point of view, the target company ceases to exist, the buyer
"swallows" the business and the buyer's stock continues to be traded.
In the pure sense of the term, a merger happens when two firms agree to go
forward as a single new company rather than remain separately owned and
operated. This kind of action is more precisely referred to as a "merger of equals".
The firms are often of about the same size.
Both companies' stocks are surrendered and new company stock is issued in
its place. For example, in the 1999 merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline
Beecham, both firms cease d to exist when they merged, and a new company,
GlaxoSmithKline, was created. In practice, however, actual mergers of equals
don't happen very often. Usually, one company will buy another and, as part of the
deal's terms, simply allow the acquired firm to proclaim that the action is a merger
of equals, even if it is technically an acquisition. Being bought out often carries
negative connotations; therefore, by describing the deal euphemistically as a
merger, deal makers and top managers try to make the takeover more palatable.
An example of this would be the takeover of Chrysler by Daimler-Benz in 1999
which was widely referred to as a merger at the time.
"Acquisition" usually refers to a purchase of a smaller firm by a larger one.
Sometimes, however, a smaller firm will acquire management control of a larger
80 | P a g e
and/or longer –established company and retain the name of the latter for the post -
acquisition combined entity. This is known as a reverse takeover. Another type of
acquisition is the reverse merger, a form of transaction that enables a private
company to be publicly listed in a relatively short time frame.
A reverse merger occurs when a privately held company (often one that has
strong prospects and is eager to raise financing) buys a publicly listed shell
company, usually one with no business and limited assets.
1.17.8 Subcontracting
Subcontracting refers to the process of entering a contractual agreement
with an outside person or company to perform a certain amount of work. The out -
side person or company in this arrangement is known as a subcontractor, but may
also be called a free -lance employee, independent contractor, or vendor. Many
small businesses hire subcontractors to assist with a wide variety of functions. For
example, a small business might use an outside firm to prepare its payroll, an
accountant to help with its record keeping and tax compliance, or a free-lance
worker to handle a special project. Subcontracting is probably most prevalent in
the construction industry, where builders often subcontract plumbing, electrical
work, drywall, painting, and other tasks.
Hiring subcontractors offers a number of advantages for small businesses.
For example, subcontracting mundane but necessary tasks can free up time and
resources to enable the small business owner to concentrate on making money and
growing the business. In addition, hiring a subcontractor is usually less expensive
than hiring a full -time employee, because the small business is not required to
pay Social Security taxes, workers' compensation benefits, or health insurance for
independent contractors. Subcontracting does pose some potential pitfalls,
however, such as a loss of control over the quality and timeliness of work. But
small business owners can take several steps to help ensure that their relationships
with subcontractors are productive and beneficial for all concerned.
1.17.8.1 Working with Subcontractors
Small business owners can take a series of steps to help ensure that the
subcontracting process provides the desired benefits. First, it is important to assess
the needs of the small business to make sure that outside help is needed, decide
81 | P a g e
which specific tasks or projects to subcontract, and determine what sort of
subcontractor could best perform the work. The small business owner should also
give some thought to the type of relationship he or she wants to have with the
subcontractor. Some businesses choose to share control of the project or process
with a trusted subcontractor, even including the vendor in strategic decision -
making. Indeed, subcontractors in many industries are often sources of valuable
information and insight on ways in which small business owners can save time
and money or improve quality. Other companies choose to maintain a high degree
of control internally and subcontract only minor projects on a limited, as-needed
basis.
The next step in the subcontracting process involves preparing in -house
staff and obtaining the support of key personnel for the decision. Many companies
encounter resistance from employees who feel that their jobs are threatened by
subcontracting. Other companies may even find that turnover increases when the
most interesting or fulfilling jobs are outsourced, leaving employees to perform
less attractive tasks. To avoid these problems, in -house employees should be
informed of the plans to subcontract work and told the rationale behind the
decision.
The small business owner may also wish to get employee input about what
work is appropriate for subcontracting, and take steps to make sure that employees
continue to receive rewarding, interesting, career-building responsibilities.
The next step is to begin contacting potential subcontractors, either formally
or informally, and asking specific questions about the services provided and the
terms of the contract. The questions should also seek to assess the subcontractor's
intentions, or what they hope to gain from the relationship. Some subcontractors
may be seeking a long -term business relationship, while others may simply wish
to gather information in order to complete their work in a timely, professional
fashion. Overall, th e questions should establish whether the subcontractor will
provide a good fit with the small business client. Ideally, the subcontractor will
have experience in handling similar business and will be able to give the small
business's needs the priority they deserve.
Once a subcontractor has been selected, the small business owner should then
negotiate a contract in order to help ensure a mutually beneficial relationship. The
82 | P a g e
contract should also clearly define responsibilities and performance criteria, so
that no questions arise later about whether the subcontractor or the client was
supposed to handle a certain task or pay any extra charges incurred. The contract
should also outline the procedures for changing the subcontractor relationship,
including the means for renewal, cancellation, or termination. Finally, the contract
should set strict confidentiality rules if needed and specify who owns the rights to
any new ideas, inventions, or materials that are created from the business
arrangement.
1.18 Women Entrepreneurship
“Women Entrepreneurs may be defined as the
women or a group of women who initiate, organize and
operate a business enterprise. The Government of India
has defined women entrepreneurs as an enterprise owned
and controlled by women having a minimum financial
interest of 51 per¯ cent of the capital and giving at least
51 per cent of the employment generated in the enterprise
to women. Technically, a "women entrepreneur" is any
women who organizes and manages any enterprise, esp. a
business, usually with considerable initiative and risk.”13
“The women form almost half of the Indian
population. Expansion of women employment is essential
for acceleration economic growth. But the employment
outlook unemployment in India is 40% which is higher
than their share in the labour. To contribute to economic
development women must engage them-self in what is
called economic or gainful activity as distinct from
household or non-market activity. In other words, for a
full integration of economy in economic development
women must enter the labour force on equal footing with
13Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Environment For Women Entrepreneurs In India”, International Journal of
Research In Commerce & Management (ISSN: 0976-2183), volume No. 4 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July), p. 108
83 | P a g e
man. Women as a part of human resource must come out
with an attitude of readiness.”14
1.18.1 Traits of Women Entrepreneurs
“Characteristics of women entrepreneurs in India are as follows:
Women entrepreneurs have strong desire for autonomy, to be their own
boss, and live life on their own terms.
They are an independent self-starter, not needing or wanting others to tell
them what to do.
They are calculated risk taker, with a higher-than-normal tolerance for
failure and consider failure a non-issue.
They like to be in control.
They are highly self-motivated and are indefatigably fearless when it
comes to getting the job done.
They have a high level of energy that is sustainable over a long period of
time.
They are creative and innovative, a strong decision maker, and able to
think quickly on their feet, and set things in motion.
They are a big-picture thinker capable of seeing how everything relates to
each other.” 15
“In present scenario due to modernization,
urbanization, globalization and development of education,
with increasing awareness, women are now seeking
gainful participation in several fields. The
entrepreneurship among women will help them in earning
money and becoming economically independent. Due to
social networking women will develop self-confidence,
awareness and ability to marshal environmental support.
This will lead to an improvement is not only the women,
14 Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Women Entrepreneurs’ Development through Training and Education in India”International Journal of Research In Commerce & Management,Volume No. 4 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July) ISSN 0976-2183, p. 16415 Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Women Entrepreneurship: An Emerging Workforce in 21st Century”International Journal of Research In Commerce, Economics & Management,Volume No. 3 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July) ISSN 2231-4245, p. 127
84 | P a g e
from the point of view of better health, education and skill
but an improvement in her living condition also by being
able to use cleaner fuel, better house, better sanitation,
facilities and. infrastructural facilities. This will lead to
saving of resources like time, energy, transforming women
into stronger personality and an overall improvement in
her quality of life.”16
1.19 Industrial Sickness
“In spite of the incentives and facilities offered
under Industrial policy and intensive efforts to promote
large number of MSME over the years large numbers of
units have been confronted with a number of problems
which turn them into sick or closure. As we examined the
investment in sick units have been increasing because of
increase in investment in MSMEs. There was increase in
the total investment among MSME has wider implications
including locking of funds of the lending institutions, loss
of scarce material sources and loss of employment. When
the problems arise, the diagnosis and treatment would be
easier. However, when sickness reaches an advanced
stage, it becomes difficult and takes longer time to
diagnose the reason and makes it more costly and
expensive to bring the units back to normal, so there is a
need to identify sickness in initial stages and initiate
remedial measures before the sickness takes place.”17
1.20 Impact of Government Policies on Entrepreneurship Development in India
“The government of India has been planning various
schemes and policies to develop the favourable
16 Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Problems & Prospects of Women Entrepreneurs In India”, International Journalof Research In Commerce, IT & Management,Volume No. 3 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July) ISSN 2231-5756, p. 10417
Jainendra Kumar Verma, “Sickness In Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises In India: An Overview”,International Journal of Research In Computer Application & Management,Volume No. 3 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July) ISSN 2231-1009, pp. 165-66
85 | P a g e
environment for the new entrepreneurs in India from time
to time. The result of these economic policy interventions
is very favourable. Liberalization in Indian industry has
given a big boost to new entrepreneurship by various
rules. By globalization of business, there are better
prospects for Indian entrepreneurs to expend their
business in the international market.
Multinational companies will require a large
number of units for their operation which will provide the
opportunities to the new entrepreneurs. Government of
India has initiated many programmes for this purpose and
major focus has been in the field of small and medium
level industries where entrepreneurship is being mainly
emphasized. ‘World over, Micro and Small Enterprises
(MSEs) are recognized as an important constituent of the
national economies, contributing significantly to
employment expansion and poverty alleviation.
Recognizing the importance of micro and small
enterprises, which constitute an important segment of
Indian economy in terms of their contribution to country’s
industrial production, exports, employment and creation
of entrepreneurial base, the Central and state
Governments have been implementing several schemes
and programmes for promotion and development of these
enterprises. Among the six basic principles of governance
underlying the National Common Minimum Programme
(NCMP) of the Government, “sustained economic growth
in a manner that generates employment” has a pride
place. The NCMP also describes the MSEs as “the most
employment-intensive segment”18
18 Jainendra Kumar Verma, “A Study of Selected Entrepreneurial Dimensions in India: An ExploratoryStudy”, International Journal of Research In Commerce, IT & ManagementVolume No. 3 (2013), Issue No. 07 (July) ISSN 2231-5756, p. 158
86 | P a g e
2. Literature Review
Review of selected quality literature related to entrepreneurship and small
business has been given below. Superscript number suffixing scholars name gives
serial number in the Bibliography for reference.
Adelman, Philip J.; and Alan M. Marks1 (2001) gave a practical-oriented
text that focuses specifically on the needs of individuals starting their own
business. Their emphasis is on financial issues for proprietorships, partnerships
and S Corporations.
Africa, Matthew2 (2000) argues that courts overly influenced by the market
failure theory of fair use and misled by licensing evidence, have failed to
distinguish between uses that should be paid for uses that merely can be paid for.
He suggest several method of reforming fair use analysis of the market effect
factor and concludes that, ultimately, Congress may be better suited to preserving
copyright’s constitutional balance than are the courts.
Aldrich, Howard E.; and Martha Argelia Martinez3 (Summer 2001)
argue that more than a decade ago, three elements indispensable to an
understanding of entrepreneurial success were identified: process, context and
outcomes. Although the knowledge of entrepreneurial activities has increased
dramatically, we still have much to learn about how process and context interact
to shape the outcome of entrepreneurial efforts.
Amabile, Teresa M.4 (September – October 1998) argues that kinds of
management practices foster creativity and which practices inhibit creativity in
organizations. Creativity needs to be understood in light of its three individual-
level components: creative thinking skills, expertise and motivation. Managerial
practices that affect creativity fall into six general categories: challenge, freedom,
resources, work-group features, supervisory encouragement and organizational
support.
Anestopoulou, Maria5 (2001) gave an understanding of the contrast
between the fundamental notion surrounding the Internet that global society
should benefit from access to free flow of information, while unauthorized
copying of material normally protected by copyright can be facilitated. She
87 | P a g e
focuses on the legal implications compression of the emergence and widespread
use of MP3 technology for the digital compression and distribution of audio music
files over the Internet.
Ang, James S.; and James C. Brau6 (2002) argue that firms that are more
transparent pay less, in all components of issuance costs, to go public. A sample
of 334 previous leveraged buyouts and a characteristics-matched control sample
are employed to test the hypothesis that greater firm transparency before the issue
decreases the flotation costs of the IPO.
Antoncic, Bostjan; and Robert D. Hisrich7 (1999) concluded that two
mainstreams in international entrepreneurship research (SME internationalization
and international start-ups) are integrated into a conceptual model. Central to this
model is the concept of internationalization that consists of internationalization
properties (time and mode) and internationalization performance. Other elements
of the model are internationalization antecedents (environmental conditions and
organizational characteristics) and internationalization consequences
(organizational performance).
Ardichvili, Alexander; and Richard N. Cardozo8 (2000) argue that
entrepreneurial opportunities are discovered through recognition rather than
purposeful search and that opportunity recognition does not require an exceptional
level of creativity and is not likely to involve a prior knowledge of the ways to
serve markets.
Ardichvili, Alexander; Richard Cardozo; and Sourav Ray9 (2003)
theorize opportunity identification process. They identify entrepreneur’s
personality traits, social networks and prior knowledge as antecedents of
entrepreneurial alertness to business opportunities. Entrepreneurial alertness, in its
turn, is a necessary condition for the success of the opportunity identification
triad: recognition, development and evaluation. A theoretical model, laws of
interaction, a set of propositions and suggestions for further research are provided.
Ardichvili, Alexander; Richard N. Cardozo; Kathleen Tune; and Judy
Reinach10 (2002) investigate the types of non-financial resources that private
investors contribute to fledging businesses and reasons for providing these
resources. They demonstrate that angels manage risk through a combination of
88 | P a g e
techniques, which has as much to do with managing returns for the business as
with managing agency risk.
Armstrong, Peter11 (2001) argues that despite ideological pressure to
demonstrate a link between entrepreneurship and risk, none of the relevant
research has succeeded in doing so. Nor has risk been a prevalent feature of new
venture creation in either general or science based start-ups.
Avila, Stephen M; Ramon A. Avila; and Douglas W. Naffziger12 (May
2003) compares family-owned businesses that had business succession plans with
those that did not have plans. Survey results indicate that a succession plan have a
beneficial effect on business transition, tax planning and the ownership structure.
Barney, Jay B.13 (2001) discusses resource-based view in terms of its
positioning relative to three theoretical traditions: SCP-based theories of industry
determinants of firm performance, neoclassical microeconomics and evolutionary
economics. He also discusses some of the empirical implications of each of these
different resource-based theories.
Baron, Robert A.; and Gideon D. Markman14 (2000) suggest that
entrepreneurs’ social skills-specific competencies that help them interact
effectively with others - may play a role in their success. A high level of social
capital, built on a favourable reputation, relevant previous experience and direct
personal contacts, often assists entrepreneurs in gaining access to venture
capitalists, potential customers and others.
Barth, Mary E.; Donald P. Cram; and Karen K. Nelson15 (2001) discuss
the role of accruals in predicting future cash flows. The model shows that each
accrual component reflects different information relating to future cash flows;
aggregate earnings mask this information. The cash flow and accrual components
of current earnings have substantially more predictive ability for future cash flows
than several lags of aggregate earnings.
Bartlett, Christopher A; and Sumantra Goshal16 (1996) argue that
companies that succeed in developing an effective entrepreneurial process at the
core of their operations share three key organizational characteristics: (1)
disaggregated performance units, (2) performance-driven systems and (3) clear
mission and standards. To build managerial entrepreneurship, it is necessary to
89 | P a g e
reinforce the changes in the roles and responsibilities not only of front- line
managers but also of those in middle-and top-level positions.
Basu, Anuradha; and Simon C. Parker17 (2001) recognize that a key
determinant of successful start-ups is adequate financing. Since in most countries
the largest source of funds is self-finance, provided by the entrepreneur’s own
savings or assets, they present a theoretical model of family finance and conducts
an empirical analysis to identify its determinants.
Baum, J. Robert; Edwin A, Locke; and Ken G. Smith18 (2001) formed an
integrated model of venture growth. CEOs’ specific competencies and motivations
and firm competitive strategies were found to be direct predictors of venture
growth. CEOs’ traits and general competencies and the environment had
significant indirect effects.
Bazerman, Max H.; and Jared R. Curhan19 (2000) focus on the
psychological study of negotiation, including the history of the negotiation game;
the development of mental models on negotiation; the definition of negotiation
rules based on concerns of ethics, fairness and values; the impact of the selection
of communication medium on the negotiation game; and the impact of cross-
cultural issues on perception and of behaviour on negotiation.
Becattini, Giacomo20 (2002) shows that the traditional concept of industrial
sector has been radically criticized on both theoretical and empirical grounds and
raises the reasons for the concept’s inadequacy. Given the diverse importance for
different productions of technology and a social context of tacit and codified
knowledge, some practical rules for empirical research have advocated.
Bergmann Lichtenstein, Benyamin M.; and Candida G. Brush21 (Spring
2001) conclude that according to recent studies applying resource based theory to
entrepreneurial firms in the early stages of new venture development it is the
identification and the acquisition of resources that is crucial for the firm’s long-
term success. They explores the relationship longitudinally, tracking salient
resources in three rapidly growing new ventures and analyzing how these
resources change over time.
Berkovitch, Elzar; Ronen Israel; and Yossef Spiegel22 (2000) investigate
the interaction between financial structure and managerial compensation and
90 | P a g e
shows that risky debt affects both the probability of managerial replacement and
the manager’s wage if he or she is retained by the firm.
Boden, Richard J.; and Brian Headd23 (October 2002) describes a study
that uses a novel longitudinal Bureau of the Census employer data series to
examine the survival prospects of new employer business for four different,
mutually exclusive classification of ownership: white non-Hispanics; white
Hispanics; blacks; and Asians and other minorities.
Bodie, Zvi; Robert S. Kaplan; and Robert C. Merton24 (2003) believe
that the case for expensing options is overwhelming. They examine and dismiss
the principal claims put forward by those who continue to oppose it. They
demonstrate that stock option grants have real cash flow implications, that the way
to quantify these implications is available, that footnote disclosure is not an
acceptable substitute for reporting and that full recognition of option costs need
not emasculate the incentives of entrepreneurial ventures.
Borins, Sandford25 (2000) focuses on Characteristics of public manager,
such as the level in the organization where organization is originated the nature of
the innovations, the factors leading to the innovations, where the innovation
received support and the obstacles faced by innovation and how it is overcome.
This evidence allows to draw a portrait of actual public –management innovations
and innovators.
Bradley, Daniel J.; and Bradford D. Jordan26 (2002) study the extent to
which offer prices reflect public information for 3,325 IPOs over the period 1990-
99, focusing primarily on four variables: share overhang, file range amendments,
venture capital backing and previous issue under-pricing. They conclude that 35-
50 percent of the variation in IPO under-pricing can be predicted using public
information.
Brau, James C.; and Jerome S. Osteryoung27 (2001) extend the existing
IPO literature to the case of micro-IPOs and identifies variables that should impact
the probability of success or failure in a Small Corporate Registration (SCOR)
offering and then empirically tests them.
Braunschwig, Carolina28 (January 2003) describes the venture capitalists’
search for investment opportunities in nanotechnology. She argues that despite the
91 | P a g e
burst of the Internet bubble, VCs did not start investing less in areas such as
nanotechnology. She also argues that despite a high buy-in, the payoff will be
disappointing because in this industry it will take much longer than expected to
create commercial products that could guarantee returns to investors.
Brouwer, Maria T.29 (2002) interprets the discussion on entrepreneurship
and economic development that was started by Weber, Schumpeter and Knight.
She demonstrates how these three authors influenced each other on the topics of
importance of innovation and entrepreneurship, uncertainty and perceptiveness
and hidden qualities of people.
Brush, Candida G.; Patricia G. Greene; and Myra M. Hart30 (2001)
devise case studies that illustrate the challenges entrepreneurs confronts in
identifying, attracting, combining and transforming personal resources into
organizational resources. They prescribe two analytical tools for assessing initial
resource needs and developing a resource strategy that can enhance possibilities
for wealth creation.
Bruton, Garry D.; Vance H. Fried; and Robert D. Hisrich31 (Summer
2000) uses agency theory to examine CEO dismissal in venture-capital-backed
firms. They conclude that the primary reason for CEO dismissal is lack of agent
ability, followed by good-faith disagreements between principal and agent, with
managerial opportunism ranking last.
Bruton, Gary D.; and Yuri Rubanik32 (2002) investigate the extent to
which founding factors in Russia help high-technology firms to prosper. It was
found that the team establishing the business mitigated the liability of newness.
However, in contrast to the culture of the United States, the culture of Russia does
not produce negative results if the founding team grows very large. Additionally,
they found that firms that pursued more technological products and entered the
market later performed best.
Bucar, Branko; and Robert Hisrich33 (2001) describe the study of ethical
attitudes and standards in relation to stake holder theory and the theory of
property. They found substantive differences between entrepreneurs and managers
in the United States with respect to their ethical attitudes. The higher ethical
92 | P a g e
attitudes of entrepreneurs were anticipated due to their higher equity stake and the
higher risks assumed.
Buckley, William M.34 (July 2, 2003) reports on the dot-com companies
that survived the technology bubble and are actually beginning to thrive as going
concerns. He focuses on the history of Akamai Technologies Inc, WebMD
Corporation and Monster Worldwide Inc.
Bunderson, J. Stuart; and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe35 (2002) describe the
process and performance effects of dominant function diversity (the diversity of
functional experts on a team) and intrapersonal functional diversity (the aggregate
functional breadth of team members). In a sample of business unit management
teams, dominant functional diversity had a negative and intrapersonal functional
diversity a positive, effect on information sharing and unit performance.
Burmeister, Paul36 (March 2003) describes some of the key aspects of each
section of the business plan that should be presented to venture capitalists. He also
emphasizes the importance of the format and the presentation of the business plan.
Burpitt, William J.; and Dennis A. Rondinelli37 (2000) describe a study of
138 small firms with exporting experience. They conclude that although financial
success is a crucial factor, financial gains alone do not fully explain the propensity
of small companies to continue exporting. Firms, that strongly value learning from
international experience, are more likely to continue exporting even when initial
financial returns are disappointing.
Bushrod, Lisa38 (June 2001) argues that although most think that seed
capital is in short supply, in fact the different types of seed capital have increased
in both depth and number of players in recent years. She also describes the overall
current venture capital environment in Europe and highlights the role of angle
investors in seed stage financing.
Callison, William J.39 (Fall 2000) argues that conventional wisdom holds
that venture capital firms generally do not invest in limited liability companies
(LLCs). Therefore, firms that are likely to seek outside equity financing are
predominantly organized as corporations. However, LLCs combine favourable
partnership tax treatment with limited liability protection for owners. He proposes
93 | P a g e
statutory and contract based remedies for LLC governance problems that make the
LLC more attractive for outside investment.
Calori, Roland; Leif Melin; Tugrul Atamer; and Peter Gustavsson40
(2000) describe four industry case studies that suggest an empirical classification
of innovative international strategies based on four main dimensions: nature of the
firm’s competitive advantage, process of internationalization, segment scope and
level of coordination across borders. From these dimensions derive six types of
innovative international strategies that change the rules of competition.
Campbell, Steven V.41 (1997) examines the direct administrative costs of
bankruptcy reorganization by analyzing 36 closely held corporations that
successfully reorganized under Chapter 11 of the federal Bankruptcy Act.
Findings indicate that direct bankruptcy costs are associated with firm size and the
time spent in bankruptcy and provide strong evidence that direct administrative
costs are not trivial for small business and that there are substantial scale
economies in these costs.
Carpenter, Robert E.; and Bruce C. Petersen42 (2002) examine an
unbalanced panel of over 2,400 publicly traded U.S. high-tech companies over the
period of 1981-98. The findings indicate that most high-tech firms obtain little
debt financing. After going public, comparatively few firms make heavy use of
external financing.
Carrier, Camille43 (1994) argues that whereas in large businesses the
structures and system often constitute important barriers to intrapreneurship, in
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) the owner-manager themselves may
become the main inhibitors or, conversely, the best catalysts in the process. The
more personalized internal environment in SMEs creates better partnership
between the intrapreneurial actors involved, but also makes it more difficult for
intrapreneurs to maintain their anonymity.
Certo, S. Trevis; Catherine M. Daily; and Dan R. Dalton44 (Winter 2001)
investigate the relationship between board structure and IPO under-pricing, a
performance indicator unique to the IPO context, among a sample of IPOs during
the 1990s. They conclude that the board size and board reputation are negatively
94 | P a g e
associated with IPO under-pricing, but board composition and board leadership
structure are not negatively associated with IPO under-pricing.
Champion, David45 (February 2001) in his case study demonstrated a
decision facing a company in the high-tech area concerning whether to go public
now or wait until the situation is more favorable. The issues discussed involve
company valuation over the long term, real cash that the IPO can bring and the
feasibility of the market and technology.
Chandler, Gaylen N.; and Douglas W. Lyon46 (2001) discuss a two-stage
study that addressed how teams are formed, demographic and functional area
composition and how these factors are related to the development of emerging
firms. This research has demonstrated that teams and their composition make a
difference in firm performance and that founders do not tend to consider
demographic diversity and functional heterogeneity as they establish start-up
teams; yet diverse teams tend to perform better.
Chrisman, James J.; and W. Ed McMullan47 (Spring 2000) use resource-
based theory to explain why outside assistance might influence new venture
performance, they track the longer-term performance of two samples of
entrepreneurs who received new venture counselling and subsequently started
businesses. They found that the ventures had higher than expected rates of
survival, growth and innovation, suggesting that outsider assistance during the
early stages can influence its subsequent development.
Colarelli O’ Connor, Gina; and Mark Rice48 (2001) describe a study that
followed the evolution of 12 radical innovation projects in ten large, established
firms. They investigated how these firms undertook the recognition of
opportunities associated with breakthrough innovations, which from their
perspective had the potential to “change the game”.
Coleman, Susan49 (2002) explores some of the possible constraints faced by
women business owners. Although results did not demonstrate evidence of
noneconomic discrimination against women – owned firms, they do reveal that
certain characteristics typical of many women –owned firms, including small size,
limited prospects for growth and profitability and failure to provide collateral or
guarantee, reduce the likelihood of obtaining debt capital.
95 | P a g e
Coleman, Susan50 (July 2000) compares access to capital for men and
women owned small businesses. Women-owned firms are less likely to use
external financing as a source of capital. It does not appear, however, that lenders
discriminate against women on the basis of gender. A second part of the study
reveals that women owned firms paid higher interest for their most recent loans
and women owned service firms were more likely to put up collateral.
Collingwood, Harris51 (March 2003) argues that even with both the
economy and the stock market sputtering, private capital deals are more appealing
than ever because many private investors still have financing resources for which
they cannot get fair return in the stock or the bond market. This guide gives advice
on how to find and attract private investors and how to structure a fair deal and
maintain the relationship with investors using them as a valuable resource.
Comiskey, Eugene E.; and Charles W. Mulford52 (1998) found that the
following aspects of small-company financial statements are identified as the most
significant for lenders: inventories, income taxes and tax returns, depreciation and
missing fixed assets, interest capitalization, rent expense and off-balance-sheet
commitments, revenue recognition and matching policies and other income and
expense.
Corwin, Shane A.; and Jeffrey H. Harris53 (Spring 2001) analyzes the
initial listing decisions of IPOs that qualify for NYSE listing and describes
findings that IPOs are more likely to list on the exchange where their industry
peers are listed. Although direct issue costs are higher on the NYSE than on
Nasdaq, total issue costs do not differ across exchanges are higher unlikely to
affect the listing decision.
Cowley, Louise54 (December-January 2002) investigates which of the
innovative business clusters that were considered to be venture capital hotspots
are still generating venture capitalists’ interest even after high-tech investing has
diminished in some areas. He argues that Europe is still behind the United States
when it comes to commercializing technology, particularly from academic
sources, with relations among industry academia and VCs in need of
improvement.
96 | P a g e
Cowling, Marc55 (2000) describes the result of the study conducted in the
EU showing that there are significant differences across countries in terms of who
becomes an entrepreneur. In particular, age, gender and education were found to
be key variables, although the nature and the strength of the relationship vary
considerably across countries.
Cyr, Linda A.; Diane E. Johnson; and Theresa M. Welbourne56 (2000)
test whether or not venture capitalist backing affects the likelihood that initial
public offering firms will report having a vice president of human resources. They
also examine the combined effect on performance of being venture-backed and
having a vice president of human resources.
Dahl, Darren W.; and Page Moreau57 (2002) describes research that
analyzes three empirical studies that examine how analogical thinking influences
the idea–generation stage of the new product development process. They found
that the originality of the resulting product design is influenced by the extent of
analogical transfer, the types of analogies used and the presence of external
primes.
Danaher, Peter J.; Bruce G. S. Hardie; and William P. Putsis Jr.58
(November 2001) developed a model of first-time sales and subscriptions for
successive generations of the technological innovation, which explicitly captures
the effects of marketing mix variables through a proportional hazards framework.
The empirical analysis estimates the impact of price for two generations of
cellular phones in a European country.
Danis, Wade M.; and Andrew V. Shipilov59 (2002) describe the influence
of systemic, historical, cultural, economic and societal factors and government
policies on the development of entrepreneurial ventures in Hungary and Ukraine.
An attempt is made to better understand the reasons underlying difficulties in
developing local entrepreneurial ventures.
Danneels, Erwin60 (2002) examines how product innovation contributes to
the renewal of the firm through its dynamic and reciprocal relation with the firm’s
competences.
David, Byron L.61 (1994) conducted a study based on a survey of 139
fortune 500 companies identifies three modes of internal corporate venturing
97 | P a g e
(ICV), which are differentiated by (1) the origin of the product concepts; (2) the
roles of research and development intrapreneurs and venture managers; and (3) the
degree of their products’ commercial success, technical performance, radicalness
and marketing and technological diversification.
Davidson, Steve62 (September 2000) summarizes highlights from the SBA
research conference on small business lending and the emerging banking industry
structure. The issues covered include small business lending trends, provisions of
small business credit in relation to bank consolidations, small business lending in
rural America and credit scoring, among other topics.
Davidsson, Per; Bruce Kirchhoff; Abdulnasser Hatemi; and Halena
Gustavsson63 (2002) found that although business growth differs among industrial
sectors, youth, ownership independence and small size are found to be major
factors that underlie growth across all industries.
Davis, Craig R.64 (Summer 2002) found that most companies evaluate new
product development investments using accounting – based metrics that rarely
reveal inherent risks. The new product development framework creates a net
present value that considers the impacts of product portfolio, user needs and
technical marketing risks.
Davis, James65 (May 2003) provides a discussion of the factors that need to
be considered before implementing a management buyout. He discusses the role
of the board of directors, management presentations and due diligence.
Davis, Peter S.; and Paula D. Harveston66 (2000), using data from a U.S.
survey of entrepreneur-led family business, examines the extent to which certain
entrepreneurial characteristics, Internet usage and investments in information
technology influence internationalization and organization growth.
Delmar, Frederic; Per Davidsson; and William B. Gartner67 (2003),
using 19 different measures of firm growth (such as relative and absolute sales
growth, relative and absolute employee growth, organic growth versus acquisition
growth and the regularity and volatility of growth rates over the 10-year period),
identified seven different types of firm growth patterns. These patterns were
related to firm age and size as well as industry affiliation. Implication for research
and practice are offered.
98 | P a g e
Denis, David, J.; and Atulya Sarin68 (Fall-Winter 2002) analyze the net tax
advantages of S Corporations relative to C Corporations. The analysis indicates
that the net tax advantage is economically important; it varies directly with the
company’s payout ratio, the marginal corporate tax rate and the capital gains rate
of the marginal investor; and it varies inversely with the personal tax rate of the
marginal investor. The analysis predicts that the fair market value of an S
Corporations will exceed that of an otherwise identical C Corporation.
Dias, Sam; David Pihlens; and Lorena Ricci69 (2002) propose that
consideration of both macro and micro levels of analysis reveals deep insights into
the impact of marketing activity on customer profitability. They conclude that
brand drivers, such as pricing and advertising, have different impacts on different
customer segments and that understanding these differences will enable marketers
to optimize their marketing strategy in ways that maximize valuable customer
behavior.
Dibb, Sally70 (2002) explains the role that marketing planning plays and
shows how it is used by organizations. Each stage of the marketing planning
process is described in detail and the role and format of the marketing plan
document are explored. The marketing planning process is then illustrated using a
detailed case example from the construction equipment industry and guidance on
best marketing planning practice is offered.
Dibb, Sally; and Lyndon Simkin71 (2000) found that for close to two
decades the leading exponents of marketing planning have warned of the cultural,
operational, managerial and communications hurdles which so frequently impede
the effective implementation of marketing planning programs. They first reviewed
these core impediments, offering a summary of these issues, before suggesting
various measures for overcoming these difficulties.
Dietmeyer, Brian J.; and Max J. Bazerman72 (2001) advises executives on
value negotiation, including developing wise trades in value creation; building
trust and sharing information in an open and truthful manner; asking questions;
making multiple offers simultaneously; and searching for post-settlement
settlements.
99 | P a g e
Douglas, Evan J.; and Dean A. Shepherd73 (Spring 2002) investigates the
relationship between career choices and people’s attitude towards income,
independence, rick and work effort and the effect these attitudes have on the intent
to start one’s own business. They found significant relationships between the
utility expected from a job and the independence, risk and income it offered.
Similarly, intention to become self-employed was related to tolerance for risk and
independence.
Drayton, William74 (2002) explores the aspect that drive entrepreneurial
transformation of the social half of society that took place over the 1st two and a
half decades, identifies three management challenges made urgent by this shift
and describes its impact on the rest of the society.
Duffy, John F.75 (2002) while acknowledging the value of harmonization of
patent laws across nation- states, explores the possible cost of the harmonization
movement. He concludes that the patent law in the 21st century would be enriched
if national and international policymakers learned to value variety.
Dyer, Linda M: and Christopher A. Ross76 (April 2000) examine the
relationship between ethnic- minority businesses and their co-ethnic customers.
They derived a theoretical framework, which highlights three dimensions: (1) the
coincident roles of business owner/manager and co-ethnic individual, (2) the easy
flow of communication among co-ethics and (3) the symbolic aspects of ethnicity.
These dimensions are causes of the ambivalent relation that exist between many
businesses and their co-ethnic clients.
Ehrhardt, Michael C.; and Phillip R. Daves77 (Fall-Winter 2000) found
that many projects have cash flows that are caused by the projects but are not part
of the project’s normal operating cash flows. They describe an appropriate
technique for valuing such cash flows and reconciles the conflicting
recommendations currently found in the literature. Although managers must still
use their judgment when valuing such projects, they provided guidelines and a
framework within which managers can systematically articulate and quantify their
judgment.
Ensley, Michael D.; James W. Carland; and Joann C. Carland78
(October 2000) made an attempt to verify the existence of lead entrepreneurs and
100 | P a g e
to examine their impact on venture performance, if they do exist. The results
confirm the existence of lead entrepreneurs among micro-entrepreneurial firms
and suggest that the strength of their strategic vision and their self-confidence set
them apart from other entrepreneurial team members.
Erikson, Truls79 (2002) presents a parsimonious model of entrepreneurial
capital, defined as a multiplicative function of entrepreneurial competence and
entrepreneurial commitment. The presence of both entrepreneurial competence
and commitment lays the foundation for enterprise generation and performance.
Inherent in this view on competence is the capacity to identify opportunities.
Ernst & Young LLP80 (1997) gave a generalized outline for a business plan
is simple to follow and provides additional understanding of the information that
should be included in a quality business plan.
Ernzer, Marc; and Wolfgang Wimmer81 (2002) evaluate quantitative and
qualitative methods for working out a reduction of the environmental burden of
products. The evaluation of the analyzed methods is carried out along criteria
indicating the ability to supports designers in decision making in the product
development process.
Feldman, Daniel: and Mark C. Bolino82 (July 2000) present a study that
utilize “Career anchor” typology to determine which “constellations” of career
goals, interests and values attract individuals into and keep them attached to, self-
employment.
Fillis, Ian83 (2002) discusses the origins of the study of creativity, from
social psychology to the business discipline. Creativity is then viewed as a key
competency at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface, linked with related
issues such as innovation, leadership, vision and motivation. A model of creativity
as competitive advantage is developed and recommendations are made, focusing
on the need to challenge convention in order to move ideas, products and services
into the new century.
Fiol, C. Marlene; and Edward J. O’Connor84 (2003) model the interaction
between mindfulness as a decision-maker characteristic and the decision-making
context and shows the impact of those interactions on managers’ ability to
discriminate in the face of bandwagons. The authors illustrate the framework by
101 | P a g e
applying it to recent integration and disintegration bandwagon behaviours in the
U.S. health care market.
Formaini, Robert L.85 (Fourth Quarter 2001) questions about the existence
of profits, causes of economic growth and coordination of resource used by
market economy have introduced a concept of the entrepreneur. The concept
became relevant with the internet’s evolution and small-business growth and
remains relevant because how entrepreneurs are treated depend on overall national
economic performance and direction of economic activity.
France, M.; and S. Siwolop86 (1996) argued that small businesses are
particularly vulnerable to knockoffs because of their limited resources. They
presented a number of examples with effective strategies that can be used to fight
knockoffs.
George, Gerard; and Ganesh N. Prabhu87 (2000) found that with ongoing
privatization efforts in emerging economies, governments have supported
developmental financial institutions to spur entrepreneurial activity.
George, Gerard; Shaker A. Zahra; and Robley D. Wood88 (2002) shown
through analysis of 2,457 alliances undertaken by 147 biotechnology firms that
companies with university linkages have lower R&D expenses and higher levels
of innovative output. However, the results do not support the proposition that
companies with university linkages achieve higher financial performance than
similar firms without such linkages.
Ghauri, Pervez; and Tony Fang89 (2001) analyze the process of
negotiation with China from a socio-cultural perspective. Based on real cases and
literature, a model is developed and some conclusions are drawn. Managerial
implications are presented as four P’s: Priority, Patience, Price and People sum up
the essence of the Chinese business negotiation process.
Gifford, Sharon90 (1998) found that economic development depends on the
allocation of entrepreneurial resources to efforts to discover new profit
opportunities. Limited entrepreneurial attention is allocated between maintaining
current activities and starting new activities. He addressed the problem of
allocating limited entrepreneurial attention in a verity of contexts.
102 | P a g e
Girard, Bryan91 (May 2002) focuses on the employee stock ownership
plans (ESOPs) of various companies in the United States besides the description
of the ESOP and the procedures involved in setting one up.
Goldenberg, Jacob; Roni Horowitz; Amnon Levav; and David
Mazursky92 (March 2003) found that most ideas for new products are either
uninspired or impractical. They introduced a systematic process based on five
innovation patterns that can generate ideas that are both ingenious and viable.
Gongming Qian93 (2002) examines empirically individual and joint effects
of multi-nationality and product diversification on profit performance for a sample
of emerging small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). He suggests a
curvilinear relationship between them: that is, they are positively related up to a
point, after which a further increase in multi-nationality and product
diversification was associated with declining performance.
Goodden, Randall94 (2001) focuses on product liability prevention as a
revolutionary new dimension in product quality. He argues that manufacturers
need to see the connection between product liability and quality by discussing
issues of safety, quality and reliability of products.
Goold, Michael; and Andrew Campbell95 (March 2002) found that
creating a new organizational structure is one of the toughest—and most
politically explosive---challenges that an executive faces. This article provides
nine tests of organizational design, which can be used either to evaluate an
existing structure or to create a new one. Using this framework will help make the
process rational, shifting it away from issues of personality and toward strategy
and effectiveness.
Gramlich, Jeffrey D.; Mary Lea McNally; and Jacob Thomas96 (2001)
investigate potential management of balance sheet ratios by a sample of firms that
reclassify short-term obligations to long-term debt and subsequently declassify
that debt (return it to the current liability section) The results suggest that firms
reclassify and declassify to smooth reported liquidity and leverage, relative to
their prior year and to industry benchmarks.
Grote, Jim97 (July 2002) discusses the issues that financial planners face
when they work with small businesses. He provides information on the types of
103 | P a g e
clients in the market for start-up advice, on how advisors should define their role
with a start-up and on the issues that they are likely to face.
Gulati, Ranjay; and Monica C. Higgins98 (2003) investigate the contingent
value of inter-organizational relationship at the time of a young firm’s initial
public offering (IPO). They conclude that ties to prominent venture capital firms
are particularly beneficial to IPO success during cold markets, while ties to
prominent investment banks are particularly beneficial to IPO success during hot
markets; a firm’s strategic alliances with major pharmaceutical and health care
firms did not have such contingent effects.
Gutner, T.99 (August 12, 1996) found that well over 1 million people are
expected to file for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is not just for deadbeats but includes
people in a wide range of incomes. He gave insight into what procedure to follow
and what to expect should you need to file for bankruptcy.
Hansen, Morten T.; Henry W. Chesbrough; Nitin Nohria; and Donald
N. Sull100 (September-October 2000) argue that organizational models that exploit
entrepreneurial drive and network access while preserving the benefits of scale
and scope will be the most potent models for long-term success in the new
economy. Networked incubators are one such emerging forms that, in addition to
office space, funding and basic services, offers powerful business connections,
enabling starts-ups to beat their competitors to market.
Hayton, James C.; Gerard George; and Shaker A. Zahra101 (Summer
2002) review and synthesize the findings of 21 empirical studies that examine the
association between national cultural characteristics and aggregate measures of
entrepreneurship, individual characteristics of entrepreneurs and aspects of
corporate entrepreneurship.
Hean Tat Keh; Maw Der Foo; and Boon Chong Lim102 (Winter 2002)
describe the study that uses a cognitive approach to examine opportunity
evaluation, as the perception of opportunity is essentially a cognitive
phenomenon. They conclude that illusion of control and belief in the law of small
numbers are related to how entrepreneurs evaluate opportunities. They also
indicate that risk perception mediates opportunity evaluation.
104 | P a g e
Hisrich, Robert D. 103 (1986) observes that findings of a nationwide survey
indicate the characteristics of woman entrepreneurs, their degree of management
and other business skills and the problem they encounter in starting and operating
a business. Prescription for success set forth include establishing a track record,
continuing education, previous experience, ability to set priorities in personal
responsibilities, development of a support system and determination.
Holmberg, Stevan R.; and Kathryn B. Morgan104 (2003) in their new
franchise failure concept, reconcile many prior, seemingly inconsistent study
results based largely on franchisors’ surveys. Overall franchisee turnover rates are
significant and appear to have increased over time.
Hope, Jeremy; and Robin Fraser105 (February 2001) argue that traditional
budgets hold companies back, restrict staff creativity and prevent staff from
responding to customers. They describe a new method called Beyond Budgeting
that consists of 12 principles of effective organization and behaviour and effective
performance management. In essence, the new approach entails a shift from a
performance emphasis on numbers to one based on people.
Hope, Jeremy; and Robin Fraser106 (October 2000) argue that the
traditional performance management model is too rigid to reflect today’s fast-
moving economy. Only by overcoming the constraints of the traditional budgeting
approach can managers build a business model that operates at high speed; is self-
questioning, self-renewing and self-controlling; and rewards innovation and
learning.
How, Janice C.Y.; and John S. Howe107 (2001) investigate why firms
include warrants in their IPOs. The agency-cost hypothesis is used, emphasizes
the need for sequential financing for relatively young firms, because sequential
financing reduces the opportunities for managers to squander money on
unprofitable projects.
Huang, Xueli; Geoffrey N. Soutar; and Alan Brown108 (2002) examine
the new product development process in 267 Australian small and medium-sized
innovative firms. They suggest that marketing-related activities were undertaken
less frequently and were less well executed than technical activities in developing
105 | P a g e
new products. However, the existence of the new product strategy seemed to have
a significant positive impact on the quality of new product development activities.
Johnson, Scott109 (February 2003) argues that because a trademark is an
appreciating asset with a potentially perpetual life, it is important to choose
trademarks carefully and to protect them through federal registration and
controlled licensing. He discusses issues of trademark clearance, establishing
trademark rights, federal trademark registration and application process and
domain names.
Johnston, Jarrod; and Jeff Madura110 (2002) describes findings that initial
returns for Internet IPOs were more favourable than those for non-Internet IPOs.
Since the demise of the Internet sector, the underpinning of Internet-firm IPOs is
not significantly different from that of other IPOs.
Jordan, Charles E.; and Marilyn A. Waldron111 (2001) observed that
prior studies have attempted to confirm or reject the assertion that accrual
accounting measures provide better information for predicting cash flows than do
cash basis measures. However, their results proved largely inconclusive and
contradictory. They identified research constructs that may have driven these
inconsistent findings and makes adjustment to mitigate their effects.
Kambil, Ajit; Erik, D. Eselius; and Karen A. Monteiro112 (March 2000)
argue that established companies stand a better chance of getting a jump on e-
commerce if they look outside their ranks – for both venture capital financing and
the scaling – up experience of incubators and professional service firms.
Keh, Hean T.; Maw Der Foo; and Boon C. Lim113 (2002) use a cognitive
approach to examine opportunity evaluation. They found that illusion of control
and belief in the law of small numbers are related to how entrepreneurs evaluate
opportunities. They also indicate that risk perception mediates opportunity
evaluation.
Kelley, Donna J.; and Mark P. Rice114 (2002) explore the interrelationship
between efforts to build technology portfolios and to form alliances and the link
between technology-based strategic actions and product innovation rates in start-
up firms.
106 | P a g e
Kelly, Donna J.; and Mark P. Rice115 (2002) examine the relationship
between technology portfolios and the rate of alliance formation in new,
technology-based firms. They use a knowledge-based perspective to build an
argument that new firms can enhance their capacity for firming alliances by
building portfolios of technologies and increasing the communicability of their
value through patents.
Kenis, Patrick; and David Knoke116 (2002) investigate the impact of
communication in field-level networks on rates of formation of inter-
organizational collaborative ties, such as strategic alliances and joint venture.
Khatoon, Akram117 (2002) argues that there is a need to create an
environment that encourages and protects woman’s role in the economic activity
in general and as an entrepreneur or business woman in particular.
Kim, W. Chan; and Renee Mauborgne118 (September-October 2000),
considering the identification of business ideas which have real commercial
potential is one of the most difficult challenges that executives face, identified
three tools for determining the utility, price and business that executives face.
They also identify three tools for determining the utility, price and business model
that can help them invest wisely.
Krueger, Norris F. Jr.119 (2000) observes that understanding what promotes
or inhibits entrepreneurial activity requires understanding how we construct
perceived opportunities. He proposes an intentions-based model of the cognitive
infrastructure that supports or inhibits how we perceive opportunities.
Kuemmerle, Walter120 (May 2002), considering starting a business is rarely
a dignified affair, discusses what really makes an entrepreneur; what
characteristics set successful entrepreneur apart, enabling them to start ventures
against all odds and keep them alive even in the worst time; and finally, whether,
if you don’t have those characteristics, they can be developed.
Laukkanen, Mauri121 (2000) argues that there is a downside related to
conceptual and efficacy nations of entrepreneurship and education, breeding
unreasonable and unpredictable expectations. He explores alternative strategies in
university-based entrepreneurial education describing the dominant pattern of
education, based on an individual-centered mind-set.
107 | P a g e
Lawrence, William F.; Barry S. White; Thomas J. Kowalski; Susan K.
Lehnhardt; and David A. Zwally122 (2001) present an overview of several issues
concerning the licensing of intellectual property in or from the United States. It
addresses (1) circumstances requiring government approval of intellectual
property license, (2) the licensing of intellectual property created with the help of
government grants and (3) the value of a patent license in litigation settlements.
Lee, Sang N.; and Suzanne J. Peterson123 (2000) present a culture model
of entrepreneurship. They propose that a society’s propensity to generate
autonomous, risk- taking, innovative, aggressive and proactive entrepreneurs and
firms will depend on its culture foundation. They also propose that only countries
with specific cultural tendencies will engender a strong entrepreneurial
orientation, hence experiencing more entrepreneurship and global
competitiveness.
Lerner, Josh124 (Fourth Quarter 2002) describes the implications of the
recent collapse in venture capital activity on innovation. He argues that the
situation may not be as grim as it initially appears. In particular, during boom
periods, the prevalence of overfunding of particular sectors can lead to a sharp
decline in venture funds’ effectiveness.
Lerner, Miri; Candida Brush; and Robert Hisrich125 (1997) analyze the
relationship between individual factors and business performance of 220 Israeli
women entrepreneurs. The applicability of five theoretical perspectives—
motivations and goals, social learning, network affiliation, human capital and
environmental factors—is examined in terms of business performance. They
conclude that network affiliations, human capital and motivation theories have
greater explanatory power than social learning or environmental perspective.
Lerouge, Cindy; and Angela Picard126 (November 2000) argue that adding
a “dot-com” alone will not allow the company to succeed. What is required is that
the company builds a solid structure by approaching its e-commerce initiative
from a blueprint to the foundation to the structure. They provide the architectural
design and building blocks for evaluating and actualizing the company’s e-
commerce potential.
108 | P a g e
Levesque, Moren; and Dean A. Shepherd127 (2004) observed that from
speculations over the differences between emerging and developed economies,
their model offers a systematic way to determine the optimal entry strategy in
terms of entry timing and level of mimicry. An implication of the model is that the
cost/benefit ratio of using a high-mimicry entry strategy is lower for companies
entering emerging economies than it is for companies entering developed
economies.
Lichtenstein, Benyamin; G. Thomas Lumpkin; and Rodney Sharder128
(2003) categorize the organizational learning literature into behavioural, cognitive
and action learning and suggests a number of ways in which new ventures could
be more successful at learning than larger and older organizations. They also
explore three entrepreneurial contexts in which learning might be particularly
important and matches them to the categories of learning.
Lieberman, Marvin B.; and David B. Montgomery129 (1998) suggest that
the resource-based view and first-mover advantage are related conceptual strategic
planning frameworks that can benefit from closer linkage. They present an
evolution of the literature based on these concepts.
Light, Ivan; and Steven Gold130 (2000) attempt to integrate, expand upon
and interpret the available Literature on ethnic entrepreneurs in the United States.
They explore ethnic economies in terms of their size, economic impact,
community impact, mobilization of resources and role of family and gender
relations.
Lim, Yee Fen131 (2002), considering issues of trademark law have
frequently been raised in Internet domain name system disputes. She observed that
the rights of the trademark holder being upheld over others. Slowly, trademark
law has been extended beyond its pre-Internet regime. She examines the issues
from an interdisciplinary and pragmatic perspective and concludes that this is in
fact an un-resolvable problem.
Lindsay, Noel J.; and Justin Craig132 (Winter 2002) conducted a study
focused on understanding how entrepreneurs recognize business opportunities and
whether there is a difference in the opportunity recognition process between
experienced entrepreneurs and private equity financiers of entrepreneurial
109 | P a g e
ventures. They indicate that opportunities are seen in similar manner by those who
have developed experience in the entrepreneurial context whether they are
entrepreneurs or private equity financiers.
Ling-yee, Li; and Gabriel O. Ogunmokun133 (2001) utilizes the resource –
based theory of the firm to conceptualize export competitive advantages as the
outcomes of how management conceptualizes the firm’s resource base and how
management leverages firm’s core competencies to grow over time.
Lodish, Leonard134 (May-June 2001) argues that building productive
marketing models that actually do improve productivity is an art that requires the
following tactics: balance model complexity versus ease of understanding and
estimation; involve managers in any subjective estimates for models they will
implement; make measures available to managers when they need them and at the
level of organization they need; use the predictive validity of a hold-out sample to
persuade managers of a model’s credibility; and recognize that subjective
estimates about the future may be necessary.
Logue, Dennis E.; Richard J. Rogalski; James K. Seward; and Lynn
Foster-Johnson135 (2002) examine the interaction between underwriter reputation
and market activities during the initial public offering process. They suggest that
simultaneous consideration of underwriter reputation and market activities is
important if proper inferences about the IPO process and investor returns are to be
drawn.
Lumpkin, G.T.; and G.G. Dess136 (1996) clarified the nature of the
entrepreneurial orientation construct by identifying five distinctive dimensions
(autonomy, innovativeness, risk taking, pro-activeness and competitive
aggressiveness) of entrepreneurial processes and by proposing a contingency
framework for investigating the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation
and firm performance.
Luo, Yadong137 (2000) articulates a dynamic capability perspective on
international business. The three essential ingredients of dynamic capability –
capability possession (distinctive resources), capability deployment (resource
allocation) and capability upgrading (dynamic learning) – have become
increasingly fundamental in international expansion and global operations.
110 | P a g e
Maddy, Monique138 (2000) discusses the important lessons the failure of her
start-up.
Magretta, Joan139 (May 2002) argues that although the concept of business
model fell out of fashion during the dot-com period, when all the company needed
was a Web-based business model that promised profits, a good business model
remains essential to every successful organization, whether it is a new venture or
an established player.
Marino, Louis; Karen Strandholm; Kevin H. Steensma; and Mark K.
Weaver140 (2002) examine the moderating effect of national culture on the
relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic alliance portfolio
extensiveness.
Mason, Colin M.; and Richard T. Harrison141 (2002) argue on the basis of
analysis of the informal capital markets in the UK, that there is no shortage of
finance available. A survey of angel investors reveals that many are willing to
allocate a higher proportion of their investment in unquoted companies. However,
there are constraints: they do not see enough deals that meet their criteria, they
found that the majority of proposals are poor quality and they are often not able to
negotiate acceptable investments terms with entrepreneurs.
Maurer, Steven D.; and Michael T. Zugelder142 (2000) review the existing
trade secret legal environment to identify important issues and principles to guide
high-tech managers in meeting their responsibility given the importance of trade
secrets to the success of high-technology employers and the concurrent
responsibility of managers for their protection.
McDougall, P. P.; and B. M. Oviatt143 (1997) found that international
entrepreneurship research is at the intersection of two growing areas of interest:
entrepreneurship and international business. Seven major topics of international
entrepreneurship research are identified: (1) cooperative alliances, (2) economic
development initiatives, (3) entrepreneur characteristics and motivations, (4)
exporting and other market entry modes, (5) new ventures and IPOs, (6)
transitioning economies and (7) venture financing.
McEvily, Susan K.; and Bala Chakravarthy144 (2002) found that the
complexity and tacitness of technological knowledge are useful for defending a
111 | P a g e
firm’s major product improvements from imitation, but not for protecting its
minor improvements. The design specificity of technological knowledge delayed
imitation of minor improvements in their study.
McMullen, Jeffery S.; and Dean A. Shepherd145 (2003) propose that the
decision to pursue opportunity requires concomitant consideration of belief
(uncertainty) and desire (motivation). When the proposed framework is applied to
the better known economic theories of the entrepreneur, it demonstrates that these
theories rely upon one construct or the other.
Melewar, T. C.; and John Sounders146 (2000) proposed that designers have
used Corporate Visual Identity System (CVIS) to widen the communication mix.
Using name, symbol and/or logo, typography, color and slogan, a CVIS helps
transmit a company’s visual identity through fixed assets. They compare
multinational companies with and without standardized CVIS, supporting a view
that firms that standardize their CVIS anticipate communication benefits beyond
the usual marketing mix.
Michael, Steven C.147 (2000) argues that the franchisor can make
investments in activities to increase its bargaining power and decrease conflict and
litigation in a franchise system. He includes tapered integration, ownership of
some units with franchise-ment of others, selections of inexperienced franchisees
and employment of a long training program.
Michael, Steven C. 148 (2003) argued franchising as a technique used by
entrepreneurs in service industries to assemble resources in order to rapidly create
large chains and gain firs-mover advantage. Whether and how such first-mover is
created is the subject matter of his study. He specified a structural equations
model and empirical results from the restaurant industry support the model’s
predictions that the first –mover advantage initially takes the form of a lead in the
number of retail outlet, followed by a market share lead and, finally, superior
profitability.
Minerm, J.; R. Norman; and J. S. Brecker.149 (1992). Defining the
Inventor-Entrepreneur in the Context of Established Typologies. Journal of
Business Venturing, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 103-13. What is really indicative of
inventor- entrepreneurship is a strong commitment to a company strategy of
112 | P a g e
product development, not a proclivity for taking out patents. These entrepreneurs
develop an organization not as an end in itself, but as a vehicle for invention and
production of various products.
Mitchel, Ronald K.; Brock Smith; Kristie W. Seawright; and Eric A.
Morse150 (2000) believe that theories of social cognition, information processing
and expertise, provides the foundation for a cross cultural model of venture
capital. They describe the findings of the research conducted in seven countries
that support and extend the cognitive model and provide preliminary evidence of
consistency of cognitive scripts across cultures.
Modigliani, Franco; and Enrico Perotti151 (2000) report supporting
evidence for a few countries showing that when minority investors’ rights are
poorly protected, the ability of firms to raise capital is impaired, leading to fewer
firms to be financed with outside equity. They argue that as a result, provision of
funding shifts from risk capital to debt and to a predominance of intermediated
over market financing.
Morris, Michael H.; John W Watling; and Minet Schindehutte152 (July
2000) explore the following issues in the context of South Africa, where a formal
venture capital community is emerging: (1) the extent to which venture capitalists
actually fulfil their other roles of management consultants, advisors, networkers
and board members; (2) the considerations that lead them to get more involved
with a given venture; and (3) the effectiveness or impact of their involvement.
Mueller, Janice M.153 (2002) found that patents are not fundamentally
incompatible with industry standards, but that the existence of patents or standards
must be transparent and the licensing of such patents must be subject to
appropriate controls so as to ensure widespread industry access.
Mueller, Stephen L.; and Srecko Goic154 (2002) analyze and compares the
potential for entrepreneurship in six transition countries on the basis of the results
of a 17- country study of business students’ attitudes and perceptions about
entrepreneurship. They suggest that differences in entrepreneurial potential are
best explained by the current level of economic development rather than by
culture and previous experience with market economy.
113 | P a g e
Muller, Holger M.; and Karl Warberyd155 (2001) believe if the
contracting within the firm is incomplete, managers will expend resources on
trying to appropriate a share of the surplus that is generated. They attempt to show
that outside ownership may alleviate the deadweight losses associated with such
costly distribution conflict, even if all it does is add another level of conflict.
Newiss, Hilary; and Audrey Horton156 (2001) look at the basic law of
intellectual property as it applies to a small biotechnology company or start-up.
They focus on the systems and the attention to paperwork required so that the
company can maximize its intellectual property protection.
Nicholls-Nixon, Charlene L.; and Arnold C. Cooper157 (2000) discuss the
concept of strategic experimentation as the organizing framework for the study of
change in joint ventures, covering the relationship between perceived
environmental hostility and experimentation efforts, reasons for engaging in
strategic experimentation and the importance of perceived environmental hostility
in strategic experimentation.
Nodoushani, Omid; and Patricia A. Nodoushani158 (2002) define various
forms of industrial espionage in the light of the ongoing information technology
revolution. Amid the enthusiasm regarding the rise of the “digital age,” industrial
espionage remains the dark side of the post-industrial revolution. The Federal
Industrial Espionage Act of 1996 aimed at leveling the field regarding widespread
cheating and stealing of intellectual properties by competitors in the marketplace.
Nour, Mohamad A.; and Adam Fadlalla159 (Spring 2000) admits that
although the web has the potential to level the playing field for all competitors,
companies that effectively market themselves on the web have a distinct
advantage. They present strategies for gaining that advantage.
Oetzel, Jennifer M.; Richard A. Bettis; and Marc Zenner160 (2001)
propose that global competition drives corporations into distant unfamiliar
markets, managers are searching for ways to minimize their uncertainty,
frequently relying on country-risk analysis. They investigate the extent to which
country risk measures can predict periods of intense instability. They conclude
that commercial risk measures are very poor at predicting actual realized risk.
114 | P a g e
Osborne, Stephen W.; Thomas W. Falcone; and Prashanth B.
Nagendra161 (2000) gave a summary of the entrepreneurial potential, training and
success of a group of recently unemployed workers from a wide spectrum of
previous occupations and industries.
Park, Choelsoon162 (2003) focuses on a single event of a large acquisition to
better identify the sequential relationships between prior firm profitability, prior
industry profitability and subsequent acquisition strategies. By doing so, the
causal relationships between firm profitability, industry profitability and
acquisition strategies become clearer.
Park, Seung H.; Roger R. Chen; and Scott Gallagher163 (2002) found that
in volatile markets, resource-rich firms access external resources through alliances
whereas resource-poor firms are less likely to do so. However, in relatively stable
markets, this relationship reverses and resource-poor firms become more active in
alliance formation.
Pearce II, John A.; and Louise Hatfield164 (2002) examine the relationship
between the acquirers of joint venture’s (JV’s) resources and the JV’s
performance in achieving its partners’ goals in the United States. They also
examined the impact of alternative resource responsibility structures on JV
performance, variation in resources received by JV and implications for business
theory development and practicing managers.
Pelham, Alfred M.165 (2000) argues that, compared to strategy selection,
firm size, or industry characteristics, market orientation have the strongest positive
relationship with measures of performance.
Perry, Stephen C.166 (2001) describes a study that investigates the influence
of planning on U.S. small business failures and conclude that very little formal
planning goes on in U.S. small businesses; however, non-failed firms do more
planning than similar failed firms did prior to failure.
Perry, Stephen C.167 (2002) describes a study that investigates the influence
of gender in U.S. small business failures and concludes that gender does not
appear to be related to the failure of small businesses in the United States. Gender
differences of both failed and non-failed firms were also investigated for
115 | P a g e
contextual variables and for variables having to do with planning and problems
with strategy.
Pettus, Michael L.168 (2001) develops a resource-based perspective for
predicting the sequencing of a firm’s resources that best provides for firm growth.
The sequencing that generated the highest firm growth combines a Penrosian
(1959) perspective with the more recent resource-based literature.
Phillips, Paul A.; Fiona M. Davies.; and Luiz Moutinho169 (2001)
examines the relationships between strategic marketing planning and performance
by focusing on service industry, and provides controls for market-level influences
by being restricted to the hotel sector. They suggest that the issue is not whether
strategic marketing planning affects performance, but rather what marketing
capabilities are required to enhance performance.
Pope, Ralph A.170 (2002) examines what factors motivate small firms to
export. He suggest that firms with 25 or fewer employees export for two main
reasons: The firm has a unique product and it has a technological advantage over
competitors. Firms with more than 25 employees export for the above two
reasons, plus to achieve economies of scale and to avoid losing out on foreign
opportunities.
Prasad, Dev; Garry D. Bruton; and George Vozikis171 (2000) demonstrate
that since many entrepreneurs have limited personal capital, a more appropriate
signal is the proportion of the entrepreneur’s initial wealth invested in the project,
since it indicates both the project’s value and the entrepreneur’s commitment to
the project.
Prince, C. J.172 (January 2000) provides a simplified approach to business
plan preparation. There is also a review of three business plan software products.
Ranft, Annette L.; and Hugh M. O’ Neil173 (2001) argue that business
success creates personal and organizational forces that lead to a form of cautious
conservatism and perhaps arrogant disdain, in the face of competitive pressures
for high flying firms. One protection against this inertia-inducing conservatism is
a strong board that can help founders to avoid the traps of success and maintain
the entrepreneurial zest that builds their companies and their reputation.
116 | P a g e
Rebecca Reuber, A.; and Eileen Fischer174 (2002) argue that the
management team of a small firm plays a key role in internationalization
outcomes. They conclude that the behavioural integration of the management
team moderates the relationship between foreign sales growth and overall firm
growth.
Renzulli, Linda A; Howard Aldrich; and Junes Moody175 (2000) explore
several factors that may have an effect on business start–ups, focusing on possible
gender differences. They conceptualize social capital as inherent in people’s
relations with others and examines the association between men’s and women’s
social capital and their likelihood of starting a business.
Rezaee, Zabihollah176 (February 2003) argues that quality financial reports
can be achieved when there is a well- balanced, functioning system of corporate
governance. For good corporate governance, companies should develop a “six-
legged stool” model that supports responsible and reliable report. The model on
the active participation of all parties, which are: board of directors, audit
committee, top management team, internal auditors, external auditors and
governing bodies.
Robb, Alicia M.177 (2002) compares how business survival varies between
men-owned and women-owned business start–ups and between minority-owned
and non-minority-owned business start–ups. She found that some of the
differences in observed survival rates for new firms are driven by factors other
than owner race and gender. However, preliminary evidence indicates that some
groups may face greater obstacles in starting successful business ventures.
Robins, Fred178 (2000) examines some of the changes that are occurring in
marketing practice as a result of the rapid development of electronic commerce.
An examination of contemporary online business reveals the emergence of a
subtle new e-marketing mix. He concludes with some observations about how
managers might best respond.
Robinson, William T.; and Sungwook Min179 (2002) conclude that the
pioneer’s temporary monopoly over the early followers plus its first-mover
advantages typically offset the survival risks associated with market and
technological uncertainties. These results are consistent with previous research in
117 | P a g e
the sense that first-mover advantages that increase a pioneer’s market share also
help protect the pioneer from outright failure.
Ronde, Thomas180 (2001) found that it is more profitable to reduce the
information sharing by giving the employees different information than by giving
some employees more information than others. If trade secrets are weakly
protected by law, then firms risk losing their valuable information, when
employees are hired by competitors. It may therefore be optimal to limit the
number of employees who share the trade secrets even if it reduces the firm’s
productive efficiency.
Ruback, Richard S. 181 (Summer 2002) presents the capital cash flow (CCF)
method of valuing risky cash flows and shows that CCF method is equivalent to
discounting free cash flows (FCF) by the weighted average cost of capital. The
CCF approach is easier to apply whenever debt is forecasted in levels instead of as
a percent of total enterprise value.
Rugman, Alan M.; and Alan Verbeke182 (2002), considering that the
theory of the Growth of the Firm, is considered by many scholars in the strategy
field to be the seminal work that provided the intellectual foundations for the
modern resource-based theory of the firm, suggest that Penrose’s direct or
intended contribution to resource-based thinking has been misinterpreted.
Ryan, Kenneth E.183 (2003) discusses some of the risks and liabilities that
these parties face and some of the product quality guidelines that they can follow
in order to limit their liability. In the current legal climate, parties injured by the
defective product can easily sue not only the manufacturer of the product, but also
any commercial supplier in the distribution channel including wholesaler and
retailer.
Sahlman, William A.184 (1997) proposes that a great business plan is one
that focuses on a series of questions relating to four factors critical to the success
of every new venture. These factors are the people, the opportunity, the context
and the possibilities for both risk and reward. He discussed questions about these
three factors are.
Sarkar, M. B.; R. A. J. Echambadi; and Jeffrey S. Harrison185 (2001)
extends entrepreneurship in domain of alliances and examines the effect of
118 | P a g e
alliance pro-activeness on market-based firm performance, including the higher
performance of firms that are proactive in forming alliance and the moderating
influence of firms size and environmental uncertainty on the relationship between
alliance pro-activeness and performance.
Schmid Klein, Linda; Thomas J. O’Brien; and Stephen R. Peters186
(2002) review the basic concepts and empirical evidence on information
asymmetry and the choice of debt versus equity. They suggest that additional
theoretical contributions are needed to help understand and explain findings in the
empirical literature.
Schulze, William S.; Michael H. Lubatkin; and Richard N. Dino187
(2003) use social capital theory to explain how human and social capital affect a
venture’s ability to accumulate financial capital during its growth stages and its
performance during the two-year period after going public. They found
indications that social capital leverages the productivity of a venture’s resource
base and provides the venture with a durable source of competitive advantage.
Shane, Scott188 (2000) argues that opportunity discovery is a function of the
distribution of information in society. Through in-depth study of eight sets of
entrepreneurs who exploit a single MIT invention, he shows that entrepreneurs
discover opportunities related to the information that they already possess.
Shane, Scott; and Daniel Cable189 (2002) examine the effects of direct and
indirect ties between entrepreneurs in 50 high technology ventures and 202 seed-
stage investors on venture finance decisions. They show that these ties influence
the selection of ventures to fund through a process of information transfer.
Shane, Scott; and Daniel Cable190 (2002) draws on the organizational
theory literature and in-depth fieldwork with 50 high-tech ventures to examine the
effects of direct and indirect ties between entrepreneurs and 202 seed-stage
investors on venture finance decisions. They clarify that these ties influence the
selection of ventures to fund through a process of information transfer.
Shapiro, Carl191 (2001) argues that cross-licenses and patent pools are two
natural and effective methods used by market participants to cut through the
patent thicket, but each involves some transaction costs. In several key industries,
including semiconductors, biotechnology, computer software and the Internet, our
119 | P a g e
patent system is creating a patent thicket: an overlapping set of patent rights
requiring that those seeking to commercialize new technology obtain licenses
from multiple patentees.
Shephard, Dean A.; and Andrew Zacharakis192 (Spring 2001) use an
ecosystem perspective to investigate speed to initial public offering. They
conclude that geography of the portfolio company matters, that non-high-tech
portfolio companies go public faster than do those in the computer-related sector
and that speed is increased during favourable IPO market but not at the same rate
in all regions.
Shephard, Dean A.; and Andrew Zackarakis193 (2000) examine the
perception of potential family business leaders from a behavioural economics
theory perspective. They argue that founders should structure succession so that
the future leader incurs both financial and behavioural sunk costs and should also
hold the future leader to stringent performance requirements prior to the
succession.
Shepherd, Dean A.; Evan J. Douglas; and Mark Shanley194 (2000)
developed a model to explain new venture failure. They argued that the liability of
new business is largely dependent upon the degree of novelty (ignorance)
associated with a new venture—novelty to the market, to the technology of
production and to management.
Shepherd, Dean A.; Richard Etenson; and Andrew Croch195 (2000) used
theoretically justified criteria from industrial organization strategy research and
applied it to a new domain, namely venture capitalists’ decision making in the
assessment of new venture profitability.
Skripsky, Harold196 (2001) argues that a business is an absolute necessity in
today’s business climate and proposes a frame work for writing a business plan
that discusses various ingredients necessary to prepare the business plan that suits
the person’s style the best.
Sonfield, Matthew; Robert Lussier; Joel Corman; and Mary
McKinney197 (2001) conducted a gender comparison testing of the Entrepreneurial
Strategy Matrix, a situational model that suggests strategies for new and ongoing
ventures in response to the identification of different levels of venture innovation
120 | P a g e
and risk. They conclude that there are no significant gender differences in venture
innovation/risk situations or in strategies chosen by business owners.
Sonnenfeld, Jeffrey A.198 (September 2002) argues that it is time for
fundamentally new thinking about how corporate boards should operate and
should be evaluated and that it is important to consider not only how the work of
the board is structured but also how the board is managed. In light of the recent
meltdowns of many once-great companies, enormous attention has been focused
on the companies’ boards. Yet a close examination of those boards reveals no
broad pattern of incompetence or corruption. They passed the tests that would
normally be applied to ascertain whether a board of directors was likely to do a
good job.
Sorenson, Olav; and Toby E. Stuart198 (2001) explores how inter-firm
networks in the U.S. venture capital market affect spatial patterns of exchange.
Evidence suggests that information about potential investments opportunities
generally circulates within geographic and industry spaces. In turn, the flow of
information within these spaces contributes to geographic- and industry spaces. In
turn, the flow of information within these spaces contributes to geographic-and
industry-localization of VC investments.
Spears, Nancy200 (2001) investigates differences in time pressure and
information between two broad classes of promotional offers: (1) “Advanced
receipts” in which consumer are encouraged to expedite the purchase of a good or
service to take advantage of coupons, rebates, etc; (2) “Delayed Payment”, in
which consumers are urged to “buy now and pay later”.
Steier, Lloyd; and Royston Greenwood201 (2000) conducted a longitudinal
study of the development and evolution of an angel financial network within a
newly created firm and refines how theories of social capital and structural holes
might be applied. The success of a new venture often depends on an
entrepreneur’s ability to establish a network of supportive relationships, especially
with informal or “angel” investors who represent a significant source of venture
capital.
Steinglod, F. S.202 (1998) devised a practitioner-oriented guidebook that
covers various legal issues important for small business formation and operation.
121 | P a g e
Stopford, John M.; and Charles W. F. Baden-Fuller203 (1994) argue that
various types of corporate entrepreneurship---individual managers; business
renewal; and Schumpeterian, or industry, leadership---share five bundles of
attributes. Each type can exist in one firm, though at different times, as the
common attributes change their role and relative importance.
Strischek, Dev204 (October 2001) argues that when bankers look at giving a
loan, they look at working capital and cash flow management skills, which impact
the cost of capital. Lenders have a vested interest in three key areas: sound
collection practices, inventory controls and trade credit discipline.
Takala, Tuomo; and Paul Pallab205 (2000) focus on the moral
responsibility of the firm and its employees by arguing that as economic activities
of firms have contributed to the depletion of the environment, they should have a
moral responsibility to restore the health of our natural environment. They also
state that for the firm to make collective moral action feasible, it also needs the
compliance of all the individuals who participate in its collective identity.
Tarantino, David206 (September-October 2001) describes the critical
“financials” that can make or break the business. He explains each financial
statement, how they each differ and what useful information about the business
can be obtained from each.
Teplensky Jill D.; John R. Kimberly; Alan L. Hillman; and J. Stanford
Schwartz207 (1993) examine the realized strategies of domestic manufacturer in a
growing, high-technological industrial market in the United States. They propose
a typology of entry strategies focusing of issues of timing and scope and on the
impact that these entry strategies have on a firm’s performance.
Tidd, Joe; and Kirsten Bodley208 (2002) review the range of formal tools
and techniques available to support the new product development process, and
examines the use and usefulness of these by means of a survey of 50 projects in 25
firms. Cross-functional development teams are commonplace for all types of
projects, but are significantly more effective for the high-novelty cases.
Ucbasaran, Deniz; Mike Wright; Paul Westhead; and Lowell W.
Busenitz209 (2003) synthesize human capital and cognitive perspectives to
highlight behavioural differences between habitual and novice entrepreneurs.
122 | P a g e
They discuss issues related to opportunity identification and information search as
well as opportunity exploitation and learning.
Ucbasaran, Deniz; Paul Westhead; and Mike Wright210 (Summer 2001)
discuss recent studies focusing on entrepreneurial behaviour and differences
between “types” of entrepreneurs. The review concludes that additional research is
needed to gain a greater understanding of the behaviour of different types of
entrepreneurs and the different organizational forms selected by entrepreneurs.
Van Auken, Howard E.211 (2001) examines the financing of small
technology-based firms, specifically the familiarity of owners with alternative
forms of capital by stage of development. He conclude that owners are most
familiar with traditional sources of capital, somewhat less familiar with capital
commonly used to fund growth and least familiar with government funding
initiatives.
Van Osnabrugge, Mark; and Robert J. Robinson212 (2000) provide a
comprehensive framework of the equity investment process, ranging from how
investors source deals through harvest and return realization. They synthesize the
literature on equity investing (with particular emphasis on the angel role in the
process) and differentiates between the various types of investors, offering
insights into their mindsets and motivations.
Wang, Shouhong213 (2000) argues that electronic commerce should be
viewed less as a phenomenon of business online and more as a challenge of
organization redesign. Five general leading approaches to organization design are
examined from the perspective of electronic commerce. A quasi-general
organization design approach is proposed specifically for electronic commerce
projects.
Wansink, Brian214 (Summer 2000) argues that the use of laddering and
prototyping allows marketing professionals to accurately determine what
customers to target and how to target them. He proposes a four-step process of
analyzing consumers that combines these two methods. He also provides detail on
how laddering interview can be conducted to develop insights in to what is
important to consumers and how a product or service can be meaning fully
differentiated from others.
123 | P a g e
Watson, Warren; Wayne Stewart Jr.; and Anat, BarNir215 (2003)
examine the effects of human capital, organizational demography and
interpersonal processes on partner evaluations of venture performance, defined as
the presence of profit and growth. The results support this approach in analyzing
venture teams and it is proposed that this perspective be included in future venture
viability assessment and used for intervention to enhance venture success.
Wennekers, Sander; and Roy, Thurik216 (1999) examine the relationship
between entrepreneurship and economic growth by considering three levels on
which entrepreneurship can be analyzed (individual, firm and aggregate level).
They discuss the concept of entrepreneurship with the aim of explaining the
entrepreneurship role in the process of the economic growth.
Wetzel, William217 (September-October 2002) discusses characteristics of
angel investors, their role in the new venture financing and their values and ethical
beliefs. He also gives advice on how to look for angel investors and how to
succeed in obtaining their financing.
Wiklund, Johan; and Dean A. Shephard218 (2003) found that small
business managers’ aspirations to expand their business activities are positively
related to actual growth. However, the relationship between aspirations and
growth appears more complex than stated. Education, experience and
environmental dynamism magnify the effect of growth aspirations on the
realization of growth.
Wiklund, Johan; Per Davidsson; and Frederic Delmar219 (2003) focus on
small business managers’ motivation to expand their firms. The results suggest
that concern for employee well-being comes out strongly in determining the
overall attitude toward growth. They interpret this as reflecting a concern that the
positive atmosphere of the small organization may be lost in growth, which might
cause recurrent conflict for small business managers when deciding about the
future route for their firms.
Williams, Devid220 (2001) looks at the process of constructing a basic
marketing report – an area where there has hitherto been very little written
guidance, something taken for granted but often forming a substantial element of
the work in a marketing role.
124 | P a g e
Williams, Steve221 (2000) used the environmental uncertainty component of
transaction-costs theory to predict the organizational structural characteristics of
size (number of employees) and horizontal differentiation (number of vice
presidents). He found that high-uncertainty companies had significantly horizontal
differentiation than low- uncertainty firms, but low- uncertainty firms were found
to have significantly more employees than higher-uncertainty organizations,
which is the opposite of transaction-based theory.
Xiao, Jing J.; M. J. Alhabeeb; Gong-Soog Hon; and George W.
Haynes222 (2001), using data from the 1995 Survey of Consumer Finances, found
that family business owners are more risk tolerant than non-owners. Among
family business owners, age race, net worth and the number of employees in the
business affect risk-taking attitudes and behaviour. In addition, the following
factors are associated with risk-taking behaviours: number of years of ownership,
gross sales, who started the business and sole proprietorship. Education also
influences risk-taking attitudes.
Yates, Don; and Davis, Mark223 (January–February 2001) argue that
creating an extraordinary organization requires a willingness to share ownership
among all members and an abandonment of some of the most deep-seated beliefs
about leadership, hierarchy and the very purpose of an organization.
Zahra, Shaker A.; Donald O. Neubaum; and Galal M. El-Hagrassey224
(2002), using survey data form 228 new ventures, conclude that the formality,
comprehensiveness and user orientation of competitor analysis activities are
positively associated with new venture performance. Strategic uncertainty and
venture origin also significantly moderate the relationship between competitive
analysis and new venture performance.
Zimmerman, Monica A.; and Gerald Z. Zeitz225 (2002) argue that (1)
legitimacy is an important resource for gaining other resources (2) such resources
are crucial for new ventures growth and (3) legitimacy can be enhanced by the
strategic actions of new ventures. They review the impact of legitimacy on new
ventures as well as source of legitimacy for new ventures, present strategies for
new ventures to acquire legitimacy, explore the process of building legitimacy in
the new venture and examine the concept of the legitimacy threshold.
125 | P a g e
3. Research Methodology
3.1 Need of the Study
Based on review of literature, it is possible to identify that though various
studies have been completed in entrepreneurship but most of them addressed only
one or few dimensions of entrepreneurship in MSMEs, none of them adopted
integrated approach to study the entrepreneurship in MSMEs. One or few
dimensions will, definitely, not give fair and complete picture of their operations,
problems & prospects and environment. Moreover considering Uttar Pradesh state
of India, it is difficult to find studies based on the primary data to get integrated
picture of entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.
Therefore, the need to study various dimensions of entrepreneurship in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh arises. This study is an attempt to bridge the gap by
studying the relationship between various dimensions/variables/attributes of
entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh with integrated framework. This is
an empirical study to study and seek evidence the relationships between two or
more variables/attributes. The major dimensions of this study are causes of
entrepreneurship, funding for MSMEs, satisfaction level of entrepreneurs in
MSMEs, personal entrepreneurial attitude & tendencies, entrepreneurs’
psychology, entrepreneurs’ perception and opinion about their enterprises, factors
of competitive advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enterprises’ organisation
and planning, enterprises and their relationship with their industry, problems of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, entrepreneurs’ perception and opinion about external
environment, skills and ability at the time of starting the enterprise and at present, sales
growth etc.
3.2 Objectives of the Study
The purpose of this study is to test empirically the proposed relationship
between variables/attributes related to the entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh. Specifically, the study focuses on following objectives:
1. To study the level of technology in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.
2. To study the causes of entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.
126 | P a g e
3. To study the entrepreneur’s sources of funding in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh.
4. To study the entrepreneurs’ satisfaction with their enterprise in MSMEs in
Uttar Pradesh.
5. To study the personal entrepreneurial attitude & tendencies in MSMEs in
Uttar Pradesh.
6. To study the entrepreneurs’ psychology in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.
7. To study the entrepreneurs’ perception and opinion about their enterprises
in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.
8. To study the factors of competitive advantage for MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh.
9. To study the enterprises’ organisation and planning in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh.
10. To study the relationship of MSMEs with their industry in MSMEs in
Uttar Pradesh.
11. To study the problems of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.
12. To study the entrepreneurs’ perception & Opinion, in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, about external environment.
13. To study the skills and ability of entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh at
the time of starting the enterprise and at present.
14. To study the income level/sales growth of entrepreneurs/MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh.
3.3 Hypotheses to be tested
The specific hypotheses (in Null Hypothesis form, i.e. H0) to be tested, inorder to attain abovementioned objectives, are shown below:
1. There is no significant relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and
the starting the business by self
2. There is no significant relationship between the category of entrepreneurs
and sex of entrepreneurs
3. There is no significant relationship between the category of entrepreneurs
and entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture
4. There is no significant relationship between the any supplemental,
continuing education or training and category of Entrepreneurs
127 | P a g e
5. There is no significant relationship between sex of entrepreneurs and
starting enterprise by self
6. There is no significant relationship between starting enterprise by self and
any supplemental, continuing education or training
7. There is no significant relationship between the category of entrepreneurs
and starting enterprise by self
8. There is no significant relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and
any supplemental, continuing education or training
9. There is no significant relationship between being entrepreneurs’ first
entrepreneurial venture and any supplemental, continuing education or
training
10. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have previous relevant
experience and/or educational background within the field of their
enterprise
11. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh personal achievement is not
an important cause of their entrepreneurship
12. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh status and prestige is not an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
13. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh economic necessity is not an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
14. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Flexibility in work / family
is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship
15. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh independence is not an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
16. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh learning and personal
growth is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship
17. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh test their own ideas is not an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
18. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh money and wealth is not an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
19. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh opportunity is not an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
20. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh recognition is not an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
128 | P a g e
21. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh satisfying work
relationships is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship
22. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh career security is not an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
23. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of personal achievement
is same
24. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of status and prestige is
same
25. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of economic necessity is
same
26. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of flexibility in
work/family is same
27. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of independence is same
28. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of learning and personal
growth is same
29. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of testing entrepreneurs’
own ideas is same
30. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of money and wealth is
same
31. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of opportunity is same
32. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of recognition is same
33. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of satisfying work
relationship is same
129 | P a g e
34. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of career security is
same
35. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of personal achievement
is same
36. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of status and prestige is same
37. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of economic necessity is same
38. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of flexibility in work/family is same
39. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of independence is same
40. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level
of importance of learning and personal growth is same
41. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level
of importance of testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same
42. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of money and wealth is same
43. for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of opportunity is same
44. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of recognition is same
45. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of satisfying work relationships is same
46. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of career security is same
47. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh outside funding / financing
is not available when they start the enterprise
48. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
personal achievement is same
130 | P a g e
49. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
personal achievement is same
50. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
economic necessity is same
51. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
flexibility in work/family is same
52. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
independence is same
53. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
learning and professional growth is same
54. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
testing of entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same
55. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
money and wealth is same
56. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
opportunity is same
57. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
recognition is same
58. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
satisfying work relationships is same
59. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
career security is same
131 | P a g e
60. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of personal
achievement is same
61. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of status and prestige
is same
62. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of economic necessity
is same
63. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of flexibility in
work/family is same
64. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of independence is
same
65. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of learning and
personal growth is same
66. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of testing
entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same
67. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of money and wealth
is same
68. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of opportunity is same
69. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of recognition is same
70. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of satisfying work
relationships is same
71. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of career security is
same
132 | P a g e
72. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not satisfied with their
enterprises’ sales, profit and overall satisfaction
73. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t wish to continue with
same enterprises
74. In general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have a strong
attraction for low–risk projects with normal and certain rates of return
75. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh typically adopt a bold,
aggressive posture in order to maximize the probability of exploiting
potential opportunities
76. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t participate in professional
/ trade associations
77. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have business
applications of personal contacts
78. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t push themselves and
don’t feel real satisfaction when their work is among the best
79. Happenings in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not affected more by
entrepreneurs’ abilities, control and guidance than by external influences
80. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t need to know that it’s
already been done before they are willing to try it
81. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t respect rules and
established procedures as they guide them
82. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t feel self-conscious when
they are with very successful entrepreneur(s)
83. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not ultimately responsible
for their own enterprises’ success
84. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not quite independent of the
opinions of others
85. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy intimidating other
in pursuing business opportunities
86. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh generally don’t have modest
and easily achievable goals and ambitions
87. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not particularly inventive or
creative
133 | P a g e
88. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy the uncertainty and
risks of business and they don’t energize them more than circumstances
with predictable outcomes
89. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t believe that nothing that
life can offer is a substitute for great achievement
90. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t spend more time thinking
about their future goals than their past accomplishments
91. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are comfortable when they have
complete responsibility for deciding how and when to do their work
92. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t get a sense of pride and
accomplishment from their work
93. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t get excited creating their
own business opportunities
94. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enter in entrepreneurship
by choice but by obligation to ensure livelihood
95. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not willing to risk their
personal and family’s material well being for the sake of their enterprise
96. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not confident of their
abilities and they don’t feel good about themselves
97. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh an opportunity to beat a
competitor in a business deal is not a personal thrill
98. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy being able to use
old business concepts in new ways
99. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t believe that success
comes from conforming to accepted business practices more so than
constantly doing new things
100. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh can’t control most situations
they find themselves in
101. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t think that it’s important to
continually look for new way to do things in the enterprise
102. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t like a job in which they
don’t have to answer to any one
134 | P a g e
103. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t frequently find
themselves in situations where they are powerless to control the
outcome(s)
104. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t often approach business
tasks in unique ways
105. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t buy insurance every time
they travel
106. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enjoy being the catalyst for
change in business affairs
107. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t believe that business
circumstances happen because of luck, whether good or bad
108. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t think that their knack for
dealing with people has enabled them to create many of their business
opportunities
109. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t find that they can think
better when they have guidance and advice from others
110. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have doubts frequently
about themselves or their abilities when making business proposals
111. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not in total control of their
destiny
112. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t worry about what their
business associates think about them
113. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy turning
circumstances to their advantage in business
114. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not driven to ever greater
efforts by an unquenched ambition
115. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t think that successful
entrepreneurs pursue any opportunity, and do what they have to do in order
to survive
116. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t thrive in situations which
encourage and reward their creativity
117. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t need to know the answer
before they ask a question
135 | P a g e
118. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t judge their work by
considering whether that meets the minimum requirements for the task
119. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t start their enterprises for
doing the kind of work they want to do
120. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t start their enterprise to
make more money than otherwise
121. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh never lack working
capital/liquid assets/funds (which contributes in industrial sickness) to
sustain
122. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t think women
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in U.P. have problems beyond men
entrepreneurs’ problems
123. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have not become competent
entrepreneur to achieve long term objectives of their enterprises in
effective and efficient manner
124. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t spend a lot of time
looking for someone who can tell them how to solve all their
entrepreneurial problems because they are unsure of themselves
125. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in dealing with their
competitors, typically responds to actions which competitors initiate
126. MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, are seldom the first business to introduce new
products or services, administrative techniques, operating technologies etc.
127. Top management in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, favour a strong emphasis on
the marketing of tried and true products and services
128. In the past five years, no new lines of products or services have been
introduced by entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
129. Changes in the product or service lines of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are
mostly of a minor nature
130. In MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, the level of technology, in terms of the work
that they do and how they do, is low
131. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive
advantage in serving a distinct and unique market niche
132. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive
advantage in access to the market (e.g. Location)
136 | P a g e
133. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive
advantage in unique technology of product
134. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive
advantage in unique technology process or production
135. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive
advantage in offering lower price than the competition
136. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive
advantage in providing significantly higher quality than the competition
137. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive
advantage in offering broad product / service lines providing customer
convenience
138. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive
advantage in significantly higher levels of customer service and support
139. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have current,
comprehensive and detailed business plan
140. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have detailed job
descriptions for any position
141. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have operating procedures
in place for most processes within the enterprise
142. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh rarely change marketing
practices to keep up with the market and competitors
143. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think that the rate of at which
products / services are getting obsolete in their industry is very slow
144. Actions of competitors of entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are
quite easy to predict
145. Virtually there is no research and development (R & D) within the industry
of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
146. In MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Demands and consumer tastes are fairly easy
to forecast
147. In MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Production and / or service technology is not
subject to very much change and is well established
148. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in
registration of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
137 | P a g e
149. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in
establishment of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
150. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties for their
enterprises due to uncertainty about the economy
151. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in choosing
a direction for enterprise for their enterprises
152. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties for their
enterprises due to regulations and paperwork
153. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in time
management
154. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties regarding
general management skills
155. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties due to
change in customer needs
156. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in obtaining
finances
157. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties due to
uncertainty about the political situation
158. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties regarding
taxes & tax laws
159. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in
maintaining quality of products / services
160. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties regarding
change in economic conditions
161. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties regarding
intense competition
162. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in cost
control
163. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in educating
the workforce
164. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in attracting
quality workers
165. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in
maintaining productivity
138 | P a g e
166. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties due lack of
suppliers / health of suppliers
167. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in
competing globally
168. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in
motivating employees
169. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in
incorporating new / emerging technologies
170. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties regarding
marketing problems
171. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in registration of MSMEs is same
172. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in establishment of MSMEs is same
173. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the economy is
same
174. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in choosing a direction for enterprise is same
175. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to regulations and paperwork is same
176. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in time management is same
177. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem related to general management skills is same
178. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to change in customer needs is same
179. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in obtaining finances is same
180. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the political
situation is same
139 | P a g e
181. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem regarding taxes, tax laws (including
mandated benefits) is same
182. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem regarding quality of products / services is
same
183. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to change in economic condition is same
184. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to intense competition is same
185. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in cost control is same
186. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in educating the workforce is same
187. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in attracting quality workers is same
188. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem related to productivity is same
189. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to lack of suppliers / health of suppliers
is same
190. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in competing globally is same
191. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in motivating employees is same
192. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in incorporating new / emerging
technologies is same
193. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of marketing problems is same
194. Environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh is very safe
with little threat to the survival and well-being of their enterprises
195. Environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh is very rich in
investment and marketing opportunities
140 | P a g e
196. Environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh demands little
in the way of technological sophistication
197. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have an environment that their
enterprises can control and manipulate to their own advantage
198. There are Minimal requirements for registration or licensing, present few
rules and regulations that govern entrepreneurial activity, and provides a
favourable environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
199. In general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t face
environmental problems external to their enterprises
200. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have a large quantity of
small enterprises and a diversity of economic activity within their
geographic area
201. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t feel that there is a
supportive public attitude towards entrepreneurship
202. Educational and training programs as well as necessary information to
improve technical, vocational and business skills are not available for
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
203. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh non-financial assistance
through modern transportation and communication facilities, counselling
support services and other programs is not available
204. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh financial institutions are not
willing to finance small entrepreneurs
205. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh financial assistance is not
available in the form of venture capital, low-cost loans and alternative
sources of financing
206. MSMEs related policies of both central as well as state govt. have not been
achieved their objectives
207. There is not adequate support available for MSMEs of Uttar Pradesh in
terms of grants, subsidies and incentives with fair, unbiased and impartial
allocation/selection and effective and efficient and/or corruption-free
distribution
208. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t face managerial problems
209. In Uttar Pradesh MSMEs’ benefits to the governments don’t overweigh the
costs of MSMEs to governments
141 | P a g e
210. Infrastructure facilities for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are inadequate
211. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the developing of a
business plan after establishment of enterprises
212. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the strategic planning after
establishment of their enterprises
213. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the start-up operations after
establishment of enterprises
214. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the personnel after
establishment of enterprises
215. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the finance after
establishment of enterprises
216. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the inventory control /
purchasing after establishment of enterprises
217. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the feasibility analysis after
establishment of enterprises
218. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the pro-forma financial
analysis after establishment of enterprises
219. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the accounting after
establishment of enterprises
220. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of the general management skills after
establishment of enterprises
221. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the production after
establishment of enterprises
142 | P a g e
222. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the marketing after
establishment of enterprises
223. There is no significant relationship between the enterprises started by self
and having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives
224. There is no significant relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and
having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives
225. There is no significant relationship between enterprise being
entrepreneur’s first entrepreneurial venture and having sales growth as one
of enterprises’ objectives
226. There is no significant relationship between any supplemental, continuing
education or training and having sales growth as one of enterprises’
objectives
227. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in registration of MSMEs is same
228. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in establishment of MSMEs is same
229. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to uncertainty about the economy is same
230. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in choosing a direction for enterprise is same
231. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to regulations and paperwork is same
232. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in time management is same
233. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem related to general management skills is same
143 | P a g e
234. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to change in customer needs is same
235. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in obtaining finances is same
236. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to uncertainty about the political situation is same
237. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem regarding taxes, tax laws (including mandated benefits) is same
238. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem regarding quality of products / services is same
239. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to change in economic condition is same
240. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to intense competition is same
241. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in cost control is same
242. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in educating the workforce is same
243. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in attracting quality workers is same
244. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem related to productivity is same
144 | P a g e
245. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to lack of suppliers / health of suppliers is same
246. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in competing globally is same
247. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in motivating employees is same
248. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in incorporating new / emerging technologies is same
249. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
marketing problems is same
All hypotheses will be tested at the .01 level of significance (i.e. 99 %confidence level).
3.4 Research Methodology
In the previous section, hypotheses to be tested are presented. Fourteen
research objectives, two hundred fourty nine hypotheses that served to direct the
data analysis, and an identification of several terms key to the study. In addition, a
review of relevant literature related to the study established a background of
support for the study. Most of these variables/attributes have been studied
extensively, but not together from same respondents. This research effort is an
attempt to examine the relationship between these variables in a manner that has
not been done to date.
The intent of this section is to describe the methodology used in this
research effort. Included in the section is a description of the study setting,
research design, study sample, and data collection methods, procedures, and
analysis efforts.
3.4.1 Study Setting
145 | P a g e
In its broadest conceptualization, this study addresses the population of
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh. However, the vast diversity of this
population in terms of socioeconomic status and other related variables/attributes
might be a monumental undertaking. Therefore, the setting was delimited for
sampling for this study.
The setting for this study, thus, consists of all MSMEs within ten settings.
These ten settings are the types of industry in which enterprise is operating. The
ten types of industries assumed in this study are; Professional services, Consumer
services, Guest service, Manufacturing, Transportation and public utilities, Retail,
Wholesale, Agricultural and agricultural related, Construction related and Mining,
extraction oil.
These ten settings was chosen to provide for a sample of all types of
industries in MSMEs within a confined geographic area thereby facilitating the
collection of data, while at the same time meeting the requirements of grouping
differences of types of industry of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.
3.4.2 Research Design
The proposed study employs an ex post facto research design as described
by Kerlinger (1973):
“Ex post facto research is systematic empirical
inquiry in which the scientist does not have
direct control of variables. Inferences about
relationships among variables are made from
any determined variations between the studied
variables. (p. 344)”
Therefore, the study plan involved the gathering of information about
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in two different study setting. No
manipulation of the variables/attributes by the researcher has been made; instead
any determined differences are ex post facto in nature in that they stem from
differences in results in the measurement efforts according to age, study setting,
entrepreneurial stage, and other variables/attributes.
3.4.3 Population and Sampling Plan
146 | P a g e
All the enterprises of Uttar Pradesh which falls in any of Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises’ definition as defined in the ‘Official Operating Definition of
MSMEs’ section constitute population for this study.
A stratified-random-purposive sample was taken for all settings because the
list of non-registered MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh was not available. Enterprises were
representative of whole State in dimensions of official divisions. There were 18
official divisions at the time of sampling and these divisions were considered as
strata in first stage of sampling for this study. For second stage of sampling it was
proposed to select randomly one district from each division. But as one the
divisions was very large and one was very small therefore smallest division was
excluded from sampling and largest was considered for selecting two districts
randomly. For all other divisions one district was selected randomly. So in total 18
districts was initially selected in second stage of sampling. In last stage of
sampling 25 entrepreneurs (20 male and 5 female) were selected purposively from
each district selected in second stage of sampling. In total 450 entrepreneurs in
MSMEs from 18 districts representing whole State were selected for data
collection.
Obtaining data from 450 entrepreneurs as described in the previous
paragraph resulted in a good cross section of subjects in terms of gender and type
of enterprise, category of entrepreneur etc. In addition, the normal variations in
variables/attributes among at least 450 entrepreneurs enabled
statistical/mathematical comparisons for the study’s hypotheses that provided new
information about different dimensions of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.
3.4.4 Data Collection Procedures
In this study, one questionnaire was used to measure various independent
variables/attributes and dependent variables/attributes.
3.4.4.1 Data Gathering Plans
Field survey was done to collect the data. A questionnaire that also asks
subjects like their location of enterprise, gender, type of enterprise etc. was
delivered to respondent in each setting who had agreed to respond. Prior to their
distribution conversation with entrepreneurs was made asking for their
147 | P a g e
cooperation. Those agreed to cooperate and filling questionnaire were given the
questionnaire for filling. The questionnaire also described the research and its
importance and the support of the researcher. In case of difficulty or doubt in
interpreting the meaning of questionnaire they were assisted by the researcher in
order to minimise response error.
3.4.4.2 Pilot Testing
This procedure was pilot-tested with 10 volunteers from the MSMEs as per
convenience. After the pilot-testing required changes in the data collection plan
was carried out.
3.4.4.3 Secondary Data
Besides that secondary data from authentic sources has been used in this
study also. Reference books, reports and survey publications of Governments and
its agencies have been used to supplement primary data.
3.5 Data Analysis
Different analyses have been made to achieve different objectives in order to
solve the purpose of the study. First, in order to provide a description of the
sample from which data will be collected, descriptive information on year of
starting of enterprise gender, type of enterprise category of entrepreneur etc. have
been described. Mean, range, and standard deviations for the variables have also
been made. Second, to determine, any differences in responses according to the
moderating effects of gender, type of enterprise category of entrepreneur etc., Chi-
square tests have been used. To test hypothesis for interval scale data T-tests have
been used. Lastly, F-tests & analysis of variance (ANOVA) have also been used
to examine for any significant differences among the responses of various groups
regarding dimension under study.
3.6 Limitations of the Study
There are following two major limitations to the study:
First, the study is limited in terms of its generalizability to the total MSMEs
in Uttar Pradesh because the sample under study may not represent whole
148 | P a g e
population. While the proposed study sample is quite diverse, the fact remains that
certain segments of the MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have not been included.
A second limitation of the study is that the independent and dependent
variables/attributes are measured as subjects’ perceptions, not actual behaviours.
So the data may be biased to the extent of subjects’ perceptual error. Moreover
even if respondents’ perception is free of errors they might hide the truth fully or
partially. In such a case the result will not show the reality.
3.7 Significance of the Study
It is expected that the study will make contributions to the area of
entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh. The study will contribute to the
entrepreneurship and its status in Uttar Pradesh. As we know that small business is
backbone of the economy of Uttar Pradesh therefore entrepreneurship is inevitable
for most of the people of the state.
This research being an empirical study for various dimensions of
entrepreneurship would fill the gaps between theory and practice of
entrepreneurship. The study is by and large hypothesis based. And since the
analysis is ordinary, realistic and meaningful, it will contribute in the defining the
true relationship between variables/attributes related to entrepreneurship in the
context of Uttar Pradesh
The research may be beneficial to all concerns especially researcher,
academicians and policy makers to understand relationships between
variables/attributes related to entrepreneurship in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh.
149 | P a g e
4. Analysis of the Data, Results, andDiscussion
4.1 Year of Establishment
From the Table: 4.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises, mean
year of establishment is 1999 A.D. (i.e. enterprises on average are 14 years
old in 2013 A.D.) with Std. Deviation of 8.81 years and the range of year of
establishment of the enterprise is 44 years (i.e. from 1968 to 2012 A.D.).
Table: 4.1; Year of Establishment
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Year of Establishment 450 44 1968 2012 1998.70 ~1999 8.816
4.2 Self-started Enterprises
From the Table: 4.2 & Figure: 4.2 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, 372 (82.7%) enterprises was started by entrepreneur and 78
(17.3%) by others.
Table: 4.2; Self-started Enterprises
Did enterprise start by self?
Frequency Percent
Yes 372 82.7
No 78 17.3
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.2; Self-started Enterprises
150 | P a g e
4.3 Entrepreneurs’ Age
From the Table: 4.3 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean age is 37.38 years and the range of their age is 53 years
(i.e. 19 to 72 years).
Table: 4.3; Entrepreneurs’ Age
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error
Age 450 53 19 72 37.38 .466
From the Table: 4.3 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises, Std.
Deviation for entrepreneurs’ age is 9.892 years and the Variance of their age is
97.853 years.
4.4 Entrepreneurs’ Sex
From the Table: 4.4 & Figure: 4.4 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, 360 (80.0%) entrepreneurs was male and 90 (20.0%) female.
Table: 4.4; Entrepreneurs’ Sex
Entrepreneurs’ Sex
Frequency Percent
Male 360 80.0
78
150 | P a g e
4.3 Entrepreneurs’ Age
From the Table: 4.3 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean age is 37.38 years and the range of their age is 53 years
(i.e. 19 to 72 years).
Table: 4.3; Entrepreneurs’ Age
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error
Age 450 53 19 72 37.38 .466
From the Table: 4.3 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises, Std.
Deviation for entrepreneurs’ age is 9.892 years and the Variance of their age is
97.853 years.
4.4 Entrepreneurs’ Sex
From the Table: 4.4 & Figure: 4.4 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, 360 (80.0%) entrepreneurs was male and 90 (20.0%) female.
Table: 4.4; Entrepreneurs’ Sex
Entrepreneurs’ Sex
Frequency Percent
Male 360 80.0
372
78
Enterprise started byentrepreneur
Enterprise did not started byentrepreneur
150 | P a g e
4.3 Entrepreneurs’ Age
From the Table: 4.3 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean age is 37.38 years and the range of their age is 53 years
(i.e. 19 to 72 years).
Table: 4.3; Entrepreneurs’ Age
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error
Age 450 53 19 72 37.38 .466
From the Table: 4.3 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises, Std.
Deviation for entrepreneurs’ age is 9.892 years and the Variance of their age is
97.853 years.
4.4 Entrepreneurs’ Sex
From the Table: 4.4 & Figure: 4.4 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, 360 (80.0%) entrepreneurs was male and 90 (20.0%) female.
Table: 4.4; Entrepreneurs’ Sex
Entrepreneurs’ Sex
Frequency Percent
Male 360 80.0
Enterprise started byentrepreneur
Enterprise did not started byentrepreneur
151 | P a g e
Female 90 20.0
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.4; Entrepreneurs’ Sex
4.5 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by
Self
From Table: 4.5 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in relation
to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by self, none of cell of
counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of Independence is
suitable for the data.
Table: 4.5; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting
Enterprise by Self
Sex * Did enterprise start by self?
Did enterprise start by self? Total
Yes No
Sex
MaleCount 308 52 360
Expected Count 297.6 62.4 360.0
FemaleCount 64 26 90
Expected Count 74.4 15.6 90.0
TotalCount 372 78 450
Expected Count 372.0 78.0 450.0
4.5.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
From Table: 4.5.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting151 | P a g e
Female 90 20.0
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.4; Entrepreneurs’ Sex
4.5 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by
Self
From Table: 4.5 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in relation
to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by self, none of cell of
counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of Independence is
suitable for the data.
Table: 4.5; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting
Enterprise by Self
Sex * Did enterprise start by self?
Did enterprise start by self? Total
Yes No
Sex
MaleCount 308 52 360
Expected Count 297.6 62.4 360.0
FemaleCount 64 26 90
Expected Count 74.4 15.6 90.0
TotalCount 372 78 450
Expected Count 372.0 78.0 450.0
4.5.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
From Table: 4.5.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting
360
90
Entrepreneurs’ Sex
151 | P a g e
Female 90 20.0
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.4; Entrepreneurs’ Sex
4.5 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by
Self
From Table: 4.5 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in relation
to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by self, none of cell of
counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of Independence is
suitable for the data.
Table: 4.5; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting
Enterprise by Self
Sex * Did enterprise start by self?
Did enterprise start by self? Total
Yes No
Sex
MaleCount 308 52 360
Expected Count 297.6 62.4 360.0
FemaleCount 64 26 90
Expected Count 74.4 15.6 90.0
TotalCount 372 78 450
Expected Count 372.0 78.0 450.0
4.5.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
From Table: 4.5.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting
Male
Female
152 | P a g e
Enterprise by self, is 10.484 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 and 99%
Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.001) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant relationship
between the sex of entrepreneurs and the starting the business by self’ is
‘Rejected’
Table: 4.5.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Independence forSex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.484a 1 .001
Continuity Correctionb 9.500 1 .002
Likelihood Ratio 9.487 1 .002
Linear-by-Linear Association 10.461 1 .001
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 15.60.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
4.5.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self
From Table: 4.5.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Sex of
entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by self measures of strength of association
Phi Correlation Coefficient (=.153), Cramer’s V and Contingency Coefficient
(=.151) all are very low it implies that despite of statistically significant
relationship between Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by self their
strength of association is very poor.
Table: 4.5.2; Strength of Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .153 .001
Cramer's V .153 .001
153 | P a g e
Contingency Coefficient .151 .001
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.6 Districts of Data collection
Table: 4.6 & Figure: 4.6 shows the districts of Uttar Pradesh randomly selectedfor collecting the data from the respondent (entrepreneurs) of MSMEs. 25entrepreneurs have been selected for data collection from 18 randomly selecteddistricts of Uttar Pradesh.
Table: 4.6; Districts of Data collection
Districts
Sl. No. Districts Frequency of Respondents (Entrepreneurs) Percent
1 Agra 25 5.6
2 Allahabad 25 5.6
3 Bareilly 25 5.6
4 Chitrakoot 25 5.6
5 Deoria 25 5.6
6 Faizabad 25 5.6
7 Gautam Budh Nagar 25 5.6
8 Gorakhpur 25 5.6
9 Hardoi 25 5.6
10 Jhansi 25 5.6
11 Kanpur 25 5.6
12 Lucknow 25 5.6
13 Mirzapur 25 5.6
14 Moradabad 25 5.6
15 Raebareli 25 5.6
154 | P a g e
16 Sravasti 25 5.6
17 Sultanpur 25 5.6
18 Varanasi 25 5.6
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.6; Districts
Districts
4.7 Districts & Enterprises Started by Self
Table: 4.7 shows the enterprises started/not started by self in each selected
district. Bareilly (25/25) & Hardoi (25/25) districts have strong likelihood of
enterprises self started by entrepreneurs whereas Lucknow (15/25), Faizabad
(16/25), Varanasi (16/25) districts shows less likelihood of enterprises self started
by entrepreneurs.
Table: 4.7; Districts & Enterprises Started by Self
2525
25
25
2525
25
154 | P a g e
16 Sravasti 25 5.6
17 Sultanpur 25 5.6
18 Varanasi 25 5.6
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.6; Districts
Districts
4.7 Districts & Enterprises Started by Self
Table: 4.7 shows the enterprises started/not started by self in each selected
district. Bareilly (25/25) & Hardoi (25/25) districts have strong likelihood of
enterprises self started by entrepreneurs whereas Lucknow (15/25), Faizabad
(16/25), Varanasi (16/25) districts shows less likelihood of enterprises self started
by entrepreneurs.
Table: 4.7; Districts & Enterprises Started by Self
25 2525
25
25
25
2525
252525
25 25
Agra
Allahabad
Bareilly
Chitrakoot
Deoria
Faizabad
Gautam Budh Nagar
Gorakhpur
Hardoi
Jhansi
Kanpur
Lucknow
Mirzapur
Moradabad
Raebareli
Sravasti
Sultanpur
Varanasi
154 | P a g e
16 Sravasti 25 5.6
17 Sultanpur 25 5.6
18 Varanasi 25 5.6
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.6; Districts
Districts
4.7 Districts & Enterprises Started by Self
Table: 4.7 shows the enterprises started/not started by self in each selected
district. Bareilly (25/25) & Hardoi (25/25) districts have strong likelihood of
enterprises self started by entrepreneurs whereas Lucknow (15/25), Faizabad
(16/25), Varanasi (16/25) districts shows less likelihood of enterprises self started
by entrepreneurs.
Table: 4.7; Districts & Enterprises Started by Self
Agra
Allahabad
Bareilly
Chitrakoot
Deoria
Faizabad
Gautam Budh Nagar
Gorakhpur
Hardoi
Jhansi
Kanpur
Lucknow
Mirzapur
Moradabad
Raebareli
Sravasti
Sultanpur
Varanasi
155 | P a g e
District * Did enterprise start by self?
Did enterprise start by self? Total
Yes No
District
Agra 21 4 25
Allahabad 22 3 25
Bareilly 25 0 25
Chitrakoot 19 6 25
Deoria 23 2 25
Faizabad 16 9 25
Gautam Budh Nagar 23 2 25
Gorakhpur 23 2 25
Hardoi 25 0 25
Jhansi 19 6 25
Kanpur 21 4 25
Lucknow 15 10 25
Mirzapur 16 9 25
Moradabad 18 7 25
Raebareli 22 3 25
Sravasti 24 1 25
Sultanpur 24 1 25
Varanasi 16 9 25
Total 372 78 450
4.8 Districts & Enterprises being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture
Table: 4.8 shows the enterprises being/not being entrepreneurs’ first
entrepreneurial venture in each selected district. Varanasi (25/25) district has
strongest likelihood of enterprises being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial
156 | P a g e
venture whereas Jhansi (13/25) district shows least likelihood of enterprises being
entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture.
Table: 4.8; Districts & Enterprises being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture
District * Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? Total
Yes No
District
Agra 24 1 25
Allahabad 19 6 25
Bareilly 22 3 25
Chitrakoot 20 5 25
Deoria 22 3 25
Faizabad 22 3 25
Gautam Budh Nagar 21 4 25
Gorakhpur 23 2 25
Hardoi 23 2 25
Jhansi 13 12 25
Kanpur 19 6 25
Lucknow 20 5 25
Mirzapur 21 4 25
Moradabad 21 4 25
Raebareli 21 4 25
Sravasti 21 4 25
Sultanpur 22 3 25
Varanasi 25 0 25
Total 379 71 450
4.9 Districts & Entrepreneurs with/without Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training
157 | P a g e
Table: 4.9 shows the entrepreneurs with/without any supplemental,
continuing education or training in each selected district. Chitrakoot (17/25)
district has strongest likelihood of entrepreneurs with any supplemental,
continuing education or training whereas Raebareli (1/25) district shows least
likelihood of entrepreneurs with any supplemental, continuing education or
training.
Table: 4.9; Districts & Entrepreneurs with/without Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training
District * Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical, professional or
functional business skills)
Any supplemental, continuing education or training
(technical, professional or functional business skills)
Total
Yes No
District
Agra 12 13 25
Allahabad 8 17 25
Bareilly 6 19 25
Chitrakoot 17 8 25
Deoria 5 20 25
Faizabad 7 18 25
Gautam Budh Nagar 7 18 25
Gorakhpur 3 22 25
Hardoi 2 23 25
Jhansi 2 23 25
Kanpur 9 16 25
Lucknow 11 14 25
Mirzapur 3 22 25
Moradabad 6 19 25
Raebareli 1 24 25
Sravasti 2 23 25
158 | P a g e
Sultanpur 4 21 25
Varanasi 13 12 25
Total 118 332 450
4.10 Districts & Types of Industry of MSMEs
Table: 4.10 shows the Types of industry of MSMEs in each selected district.
Table: 4.10; Districts & Types of Industry of MSMEs
District * Type of Industry/Business
Type of Industry/Business Total
P.S. C.S
.
G.S
.
Mfg. T.U
.
Rtl. W.S. A.R. C.R
.
Meo
District
Agra 6 2 2 3 1 5 1 0 4 1 25
Allahabad 4 3 3 0 9 1 0 5 0 0 25
Bareilly 2 2 1 3 0 12 3 1 1 0 25
Chitrakoot 7 7 5 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 25
Deoria 2 3 3 0 2 6 2 6 0 1 25
Faizabad 1 4 3 3 2 4 1 4 2 1 25
Gautam Budh Nagar 2 6 2 6 1 4 3 0 1 0 25
Gorakhpur 7 2 2 2 0 9 0 1 2 0 25
Hardoi 3 9 1 0 0 4 6 0 2 0 25
Jhansi 2 3 4 5 1 3 4 2 1 0 25
Kanpur 1 5 4 6 1 3 2 0 3 0 25
Lucknow 2 3 6 4 2 2 1 2 2 1 25
Mirzapur 3 2 3 1 0 6 3 3 3 1 25
Moradabad 1 1 1 6 4 9 1 1 1 0 25
Raebareli 2 1 3 8 0 7 2 0 2 0 25
Sravasti 2 0 5 5 2 3 3 1 4 0 25
159 | P a g e
Sultanpur 3 5 1 3 2 6 1 2 2 0 25
Varanasi 6 5 8 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 25
Total 56 63 57 59 31 85 33 29 32 5 450
P.S. = Professional services (e.g. accounting, consulting)
C.S. = Consumer services (e.g. hairdressing, auto service)
G.S. = Guest services (e.g. hotel, restaurant)
Mfg. = Manufacturing (consumer or durable goods)
T.U. = Transportation or public utilities
Rtl. = Retail (including import/export)
W.S. = Wholesale (including import/ export)
A.R. = Agricultural or agricultural related
C.R. = Construction related (Including all trades)
Meo = Mining, extraction, oil
4.11 Category of Entrepreneurs
Table: 4.11 & Figure: 4.11 show the category of entrepreneurs selected for
the purpose of data collection. Out of 450 entrepreneurs 61 (=13.6%) are
Scheduled Caste (S.C.), 23 (=5.1%) are Scheduled Tribes (S.T.), 183 (=40.7%)
are Other Backward Classes and 183 (=40.7%) are General.
Table: 4.11; Category of Entrepreneurs
Category of Entrepreneurs
Frequency Percent
Scheduled Caste (S.C.) 61 13.6
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.) 23 5.1
Other Backward Classes 183 40.7
General 183 40.7
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.11; Category of Entrepreneurs
160 | P a g e
4.12 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs & Sex of
Entrepreneurs
From Table: 4.12 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Category of entrepreneurs & Sex of entrepreneurs, none of cell
of counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of
Independence is suitable for the data.
Table: 4.12; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs & Sex
of Entrepreneurs
Category of Entrepreneur * Sex
Sex Total
Male Female
Category of Entrepreneur
Scheduled Caste (S.C.)Count 43 18 61
Expected Count 48.8 12.2 61.0
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)Count 16 7 23
Expected Count 18.4 4.6 23.0
Other Backward ClassesCount 153 30 183
Expected Count 146.4 36.6 183.0
GeneralCount 148 35 183
Expected Count 146.4 36.6 183.0
TotalCount 360 90 450
Expected Count 360.0 90.0 450.0
4.12.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category of Entrepreneurs &Sex of Entrepreneurs
183
160 | P a g e
4.12 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs & Sex of
Entrepreneurs
From Table: 4.12 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Category of entrepreneurs & Sex of entrepreneurs, none of cell
of counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of
Independence is suitable for the data.
Table: 4.12; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs & Sex
of Entrepreneurs
Category of Entrepreneur * Sex
Sex Total
Male Female
Category of Entrepreneur
Scheduled Caste (S.C.)Count 43 18 61
Expected Count 48.8 12.2 61.0
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)Count 16 7 23
Expected Count 18.4 4.6 23.0
Other Backward ClassesCount 153 30 183
Expected Count 146.4 36.6 183.0
GeneralCount 148 35 183
Expected Count 146.4 36.6 183.0
TotalCount 360 90 450
Expected Count 360.0 90.0 450.0
4.12.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category of Entrepreneurs &Sex of Entrepreneurs
61 23
183
Scheduled Caste (S.C.)
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)
Other Backward Classes
General
160 | P a g e
4.12 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs & Sex of
Entrepreneurs
From Table: 4.12 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Category of entrepreneurs & Sex of entrepreneurs, none of cell
of counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of
Independence is suitable for the data.
Table: 4.12; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs & Sex
of Entrepreneurs
Category of Entrepreneur * Sex
Sex Total
Male Female
Category of Entrepreneur
Scheduled Caste (S.C.)Count 43 18 61
Expected Count 48.8 12.2 61.0
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)Count 16 7 23
Expected Count 18.4 4.6 23.0
Other Backward ClassesCount 153 30 183
Expected Count 146.4 36.6 183.0
GeneralCount 148 35 183
Expected Count 146.4 36.6 183.0
TotalCount 360 90 450
Expected Count 360.0 90.0 450.0
4.12.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category of Entrepreneurs &Sex of Entrepreneurs
Scheduled Caste (S.C.)
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)
Other Backward Classes
General
161 | P a g e
From Table: 4.12.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Category of entrepreneurs & Sex of
entrepreneurs, is 6.587 with df (degree of freedom) of 3 and 99% Confidence
Level. Since the p-Value (.086) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level,
therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant relationship between
the category of entrepreneurs and sex of entrepreneurs’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
Table: 4.12.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Independence forCategory of Entrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.587a 3 .086
Likelihood Ratio 6.176 3 .103
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.397 1 .065
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 4.60.
4.12.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Category ofEntrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs
From Table: 4.12.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Category of
entrepreneurs & Sex of entrepreneurs measures of strength of association Phi
Correlation Coefficient (=.121), Cramer’s V (=.121) and Contingency
Coefficient (=.120) all are very low it implies that besides no statistically
significant relationship between Category of entrepreneurs & Sex of entrepreneurs
their strength of association is also very poor.
Table: 4.12.2; Strength of Association between Independence for Category ofEntrepreneurs & Sex of Entrepreneurs
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .121 .086
Cramer's V .121 .086
Contingency Coefficient .120 .086
162 | P a g e
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.13 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’First Entrepreneurial Venture
From Table: 4.13 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Category of entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ first
entrepreneurial venture, none of cell of counts are showing less than 5 counts
therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable for the data.
Table: 4.13; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &
Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture
Category of Entrepreneur * Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?
Is this your first
entrepreneurial venture?
Total
Yes No
Category of
Entrepreneur
Scheduled Caste (S.C.)Count 54 7 61
Expected Count 51.4 9.6 61.0
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)Count 14 9 23
Expected Count 19.4 3.6 23.0
Other Backward ClassesCount 157 26 183
Expected Count 154.1 28.9 183.0
GeneralCount 154 29 183
Expected Count 154.1 28.9 183.0
TotalCount 379 71 450
Expected Count 379.0 71.0 450.0
4.13.1 Hypothesis testing for Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture
From Table: 4.13.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Category of entrepreneurs &
Entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture, is 10.629 with df (degree of
freedom) of 3 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.014) is more than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no
significant relationship between the category of entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
163 | P a g e
Table: 4.13.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Independence forSex of Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.629a 3 .014
Likelihood Ratio 8.530 3 .036
Linear-by-Linear Association .000 1 1.000
N of Valid Cases 450
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 3.63.
4.13.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Category ofEntrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture
From Table: 4.13.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Category of
entrepreneurs & Sex of entrepreneurs measures of strength of association Phi
Correlation Coefficient (=.154), Cramer’s V (=.154) and Contingency
Coefficient (=.152) all are very low it implies that besides no statistically
significant relationship between Category of Entrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ first
entrepreneurial venture their strength of association is also very poor.
Table: 4.13.2; Strength of Association between Independence for Category ofEntrepreneurs & Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .154 .014
Cramer's V .154 .014
Contingency Coefficient .152 .014
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
164 | P a g e
4.14 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Category of Entrepreneurs
Table: 4.14 shows the entrepreneurs’ highest educational level in each
category of entrepreneurs. We can observe that most Scheduled Caste (16/61)
entrepreneurs tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder and least Scheduled Caste
(0/61) entrepreneur tend to be illiterate and Ph.D., most Scheduled Tribes (10/23)
entrepreneurs tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder and least Scheduled Tribes
(0/23) entrepreneur tend to be illiterate, up to primary and Ph.D., most Other
Backward Classes (45/183) entrepreneurs tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder and
least Other Backward Classes (0/183) entrepreneur tend to be Ph.D. and most
General (61/183) entrepreneurs tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder and least
General (2/183) entrepreneur tend to be illiterate or Ph.D.
Table: 4.14; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Category ofEntrepreneurs
Your highest educational level * Category of Entrepreneur
Category of Entrepreneur Total
Scheduled
Caste (S.C.)
Scheduled
Tribes (S.T.)
Other Backward
Classes
General
Your highest
educational
level
Illiterate 0 0 1 1 2
(Up to) Primary (5th) 2 0 3 5 10
Secondary (8th) 6 2 15 5 28
High School (10th) 8 2 35 16 61
Intermediate (12th) 15 4 44 35 98
Bachelor’s degree 16 10 45 61 132
Post Graduate 11 2 32 50 95
Master’s degree 3 3 8 9 23
Ph. D. 0 0 0 1 1
Total 61 23 183 183 450
4.15 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or
Training & Category of Entrepreneurs
165 | P a g e
From Table: 4.15 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Any supplemental, continuing education or training &
Category of entrepreneurs, none of cell of counts are showing less than 5 counts
therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable for the data.
Table: 4.15; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, Continuing
Education or Training & Category of Entrepreneurs
Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical, professional or functional business
skills) * Category of Entrepreneur
Category of Entrepreneur Total
Scheduled
Caste (S.C.)
Scheduled
Tribes (S.T.)
Other Backward
Classes
General
Any supplemental,
continuing
education or
training (technical,
professional or
functional business
skills)
Yes
Count 15 7 43 53 118
Expected
Count16.0 6.0 48.0 48.0 118.0
No
Count 46 16 140 130 332
Expected
Count45.0 17.0 135.0 135.0 332.0
Total
Count 61 23 183 183 450
Expected
Count61.0 23.0 183.0 183.0 450.0
4.15.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Category of Entrepreneurs
From Table: 4.15.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Any supplemental, continuing education
or training & Category of Entrepreneurs, is 1.707 with df (degree of freedom)
of 3 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.635) is more than .01 at
99% Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no
significant relationship between the any supplemental, continuing education or
training and category of Entrepreneurs’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
Table: 4.15.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Category of Entrepreneurs
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.707a 3 .635
166 | P a g e
Likelihood Ratio 1.704 3 .636
Linear-by-Linear Association .421 1 .517
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 6.03.
4.15.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Category of Entrepreneurs
From Table: 4.15.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Any
supplemental, continuing education or training & Category of
Entrepreneurs’ measures of strength of association Phi Correlation Coefficient
(=..062), Cramer’s V (=.062) and Contingency Coefficient (=.061) all are very
low it implies that besides no statistically significant relationship between
Category of entrepreneurs & Sex of entrepreneurs their strength of association is
also very poor.
Table: 4.15.2; Strength of Association between Independence for AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training & Category of
Entrepreneurs
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .062 .635
Cramer's V .062 .635
Contingency Coefficient .061 .635
N of Valid Cases 450
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.16 Type of Industry/Business & Category of Entrepreneurs
Table: 4.16 shows the type of industry/business in each category of
entrepreneurs. We can observe that most Scheduled Caste (13/61) entrepreneurs
tend to be in Retail (including import/export) and least Scheduled Caste (1/61)
167 | P a g e
entrepreneur tend to be in Mining, extraction, oil, most Scheduled Tribes (10/23)
entrepreneurs tend to be in Retail ( including import/export) or Consumer services
(e.g. hairdressing, auto service) and least Scheduled Tribes (0/23) entrepreneur
tend to be in Wholesale (including import/ export) and Mining, extraction, oil,
most Other Backward Classes (34/183) entrepreneurs tend to be in Retail (
including import/export) and least Other Backward Classes (2/183) entrepreneurs
tend to be in Mining, extraction, oil and most General (33/183) entrepreneurs tend
to be in Retail ( including import/export) and least General (2/183) entrepreneurs
tend to be in Mining, extraction, oil.
Table: 4.16; Type of Industry/Business & Category of Entrepreneurs
Type of Industry/Business * Category of Entrepreneur
Category of Entrepreneur Total
Scheduled
Caste
(S.C.)
Scheduled
Tribes
(S.T.)
Other
Backward
Classes
General
Type of
Industry/
Business
Professional services (e.g.
accounting, consulting)10 1 23 22 56
Consumer services (e.g. hairdressing,
auto service)9 5 28 21 63
Guest services (e.g. hotel,
restaurant)6 3 22 26 57
Manufacturing (consumer or durable
goods)5 2 25 27 59
Transportation or public utilities 5 3 11 12 31
Retail ( including import/export) 13 5 34 33 85
Wholesale (including import/ export) 5 0 10 18 33
Agricultural or agricultural related 5 2 15 7 29
Construction related (Including all
trades)2 2 13 15 32
Mining, extraction, oil 1 0 2 2 5
Total 61 23 183 183 450
168 | P a g e
4.17 Districts & Category of Entrepreneurs
Table: 4.17; shows the category of entrepreneurs in each selected district.
Table: 4.17; Districts & Category of Entrepreneurs
District * Category of Entrepreneur
Category of Entrepreneur Total
Scheduled
Caste (S.C.)
Scheduled
Tribes (S.T.)
Other Backward
Classes
General
District
Agra 5 0 11 9 25
Allahabad 3 2 7 13 25
Bareilly 3 0 9 13 25
Chitrakoot 4 2 11 8 25
Deoria 2 1 11 11 25
Faizabad 4 1 9 11 25
Gautam Budh Nagar 2 0 18 5 25
Gorakhpur 5 1 11 8 25
Hardoi 6 0 10 9 25
Jhansi 5 4 8 8 25
Kanpur 1 1 13 10 25
Lucknow 3 3 8 11 25
Mirzapur 7 0 8 10 25
Moradabad 0 1 10 14 25
Raebareli 2 1 10 12 25
Sravasti 4 2 8 11 25
Sultanpur 4 2 10 9 25
Varanasi 1 2 11 11 25
Total 61 23 183 183 450
169 | P a g e
4.18 Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture
From the Table: 4.18 & Figure: 4.18 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, 379 (84.2%) has their enterprise as first enterprise and 71
(15.8%) has their enterprise as other than first one.
Table: 4.18; Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?
Frequency Percent
Yes 379 84.2
No 71 15.8
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.18; Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture
4.19 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by
Self
From Table: 4.19 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting enterprise by self, none of cell
of counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of
Independence is suitable for the data.
Table: 4.19; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting
Enterprise by Self
Sex * Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? Total
Yes No
Sex Male Count 309 51 360
71
169 | P a g e
4.18 Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture
From the Table: 4.18 & Figure: 4.18 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, 379 (84.2%) has their enterprise as first enterprise and 71
(15.8%) has their enterprise as other than first one.
Table: 4.18; Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?
Frequency Percent
Yes 379 84.2
No 71 15.8
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.18; Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture
4.19 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by
Self
From Table: 4.19 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting enterprise by self, none of cell
of counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of
Independence is suitable for the data.
Table: 4.19; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting
Enterprise by Self
Sex * Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? Total
Yes No
Sex Male Count 309 51 360
379
71
Enterprises asentrepreneur's firstentrepreneurial venture
Enterprises asentrepreneur's other thanfirst entrepreneurial venture
169 | P a g e
4.18 Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture
From the Table: 4.18 & Figure: 4.18 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, 379 (84.2%) has their enterprise as first enterprise and 71
(15.8%) has their enterprise as other than first one.
Table: 4.18; Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?
Frequency Percent
Yes 379 84.2
No 71 15.8
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.18; Enterprises as Entrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture
4.19 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by
Self
From Table: 4.19 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting enterprise by self, none of cell
of counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of
Independence is suitable for the data.
Table: 4.19; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting
Enterprise by Self
Sex * Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? Total
Yes No
Sex Male Count 309 51 360
Enterprises asentrepreneur's firstentrepreneurial venture
Enterprises asentrepreneur's other thanfirst entrepreneurial venture
170 | P a g e
Expected Count 303.2 56.8 360.0
FemaleCount 70 20 90
Expected Count 75.8 14.2 90.0
TotalCount 379 71 450
Expected Count 379.0 71.0 450.0
4.19.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs & StartingEnterprise by Self
From Table: 4.19.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Starting enterprise
by self, is 3.516 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 and 99% Confidence Level.
Since the p-Value (.061) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level, therefore
the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant relationship between sex of
entrepreneurs and starting enterprise by self’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
Table: 4.19.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.516a 1 .061
Continuity Correctionb 2.936 1 .087
Likelihood Ratio 3.279 1 .070
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.508 1 .061
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.20.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
4.19.2 Strength of Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterpriseby Self
From Table: 4.19.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Sex of
entrepreneurs & Starting enterprise by self’ measures of strength of association
Phi Correlation Coefficient (=.088), Cramer’s V (=.088) and Contingency
Coefficient (=.088) all are very low it implies that besides no statistically
171 | P a g e
significant relationship between Sex of Entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by
Self their strength of association is also very poor.
Table: 4.19.2; Strength of association between Sex of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .088 .061
Cramer's V .088 .061
Contingency Coefficient .088 .061
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.20 Percentage of the Enterprises Owned by Entrepreneurs
From the Table: 4.20 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean percentage of the entrepreneurs’ ownership is 86.09 and
the range of their percentage of the ownership is 80 (i.e. from 20 to 100).
Table: 4.20; Percentage of the Enterprises Owned by Entrepreneurs
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Percentage of the enterprise
you own450 80 20 100 86.09 15.407
4.21 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level
From the Table: 4.21 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises, 2
(.4%) entrepreneurs are Illiterate, 10 (2.2%) entrepreneurs are educated up to
Primary (5th), 28 (6.2%) entrepreneurs are educated up to Secondary (8th), 61
(13.6%) entrepreneurs are educated up to High School (10th), 98 (21.8%)
entrepreneurs are educated up to Intermediate (12th), 132 (29.3%) entrepreneurs
are educated up to Bachelor’s degree, 95 (21.1%) entrepreneurs are educated up
172 | P a g e
to Post Graduate, 23 (5.1%) entrepreneurs are educated up to Master’s degree
and 1 (.2%) entrepreneur is educated up to Ph. D.
Table: 4.21; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level
Entrepreneurs’ highest educational level
Frequency Percent
Illiterate 2 .4
(Up to) Primary (5th) 10 2.2
Secondary (8th) 28 6.2
High School (10th) 61 13.6
Intermediate (12th) 98 21.8
Bachelor’s degree 132 29.3
Post Graduate 95 21.1
Master’s degree 23 5.1
Ph. D. 1 .2
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.21; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level
Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level
4.22 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Starting Enterprise by Self & Any Supplemental,
Continuing Education or Training
132
95
172 | P a g e
to Post Graduate, 23 (5.1%) entrepreneurs are educated up to Master’s degree
and 1 (.2%) entrepreneur is educated up to Ph. D.
Table: 4.21; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level
Entrepreneurs’ highest educational level
Frequency Percent
Illiterate 2 .4
(Up to) Primary (5th) 10 2.2
Secondary (8th) 28 6.2
High School (10th) 61 13.6
Intermediate (12th) 98 21.8
Bachelor’s degree 132 29.3
Post Graduate 95 21.1
Master’s degree 23 5.1
Ph. D. 1 .2
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.21; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level
Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level
4.22 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Starting Enterprise by Self & Any Supplemental,
Continuing Education or Training
2
10 2861
98
132
23
1
Illiterate
(Up to) Primary (5th)
Secondary (8th)
High School (10th)
Intermediate (12th)
Bachelor’s degree
Post Graduate
Master’s degree
Ph. D.
172 | P a g e
to Post Graduate, 23 (5.1%) entrepreneurs are educated up to Master’s degree
and 1 (.2%) entrepreneur is educated up to Ph. D.
Table: 4.21; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level
Entrepreneurs’ highest educational level
Frequency Percent
Illiterate 2 .4
(Up to) Primary (5th) 10 2.2
Secondary (8th) 28 6.2
High School (10th) 61 13.6
Intermediate (12th) 98 21.8
Bachelor’s degree 132 29.3
Post Graduate 95 21.1
Master’s degree 23 5.1
Ph. D. 1 .2
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.21; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level
Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level
4.22 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Starting Enterprise by Self & Any Supplemental,
Continuing Education or Training
Illiterate
(Up to) Primary (5th)
Secondary (8th)
High School (10th)
Intermediate (12th)
Bachelor’s degree
Post Graduate
Master’s degree
Ph. D.
173 | P a g e
From Table: 4.22 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Category of entrepreneurs & Sex of entrepreneurs, none of cell
of counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of
Independence is suitable for the data.
Table: 4.22; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Starting Enterprise by Self & Any
Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
Did enterprise start by self? * Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical,
professional or functional business skills)
Any supplemental, continuing education or
training (technical, professional or functional
business skills)
Total
Yes No
Did enterprise start by self?
YesCount 93 279 372
Expected Count 97.5 274.5 372.0
NoCount 25 53 78
Expected Count 20.5 57.5 78.0
TotalCount 118 332 450
Expected Count 118.0 332.0 450.0
4.22.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Starting Enterprise by Self &Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
From Table: 4.22.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Starting Enterprise by Self & Any
Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training, is 1.657 with df (degree of
freedom) of 1 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.198) is more than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no
significant relationship between starting enterprise by self and any
supplemental, continuing education or training’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
Table: 4.22.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between StartingEnterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.657a 1 .198
Continuity Correctionb 1.313 1 .252
Likelihood Ratio 1.602 1 .206
Fisher's Exact Test
174 | P a g e
Linear-by-Linear
Association1.653 1 .198
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 20.45.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
4.22.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Starting Enterprise bySelf & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
From Table: 4.22.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Starting
Enterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training’s
measures of strength of association Phi Correlation Coefficient (= -.061),
Cramer’s V (=.061) and Contingency Coefficient (=.061) all are very low it
implies that besides no statistically significant relationship between starting
enterprise by self & any supplemental, continuing education or training their
strength of association is also very poor.
Table: 4.22.2; Strength of association between Independence for StartingEnterprise by Self & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi -.061 .198
Cramer's V .061 .198
Contingency Coefficient .061 .198
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.23 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs & Starting
Enterprise by Self
From Table: 4.23 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Category of entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self, none
of cell of counts are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of
Independence is suitable for the data.
Table: 4.23; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Category of Entrepreneurs &
Starting Enterprise by Self
Category of Entrepreneur * Did enterprise start by self?
175 | P a g e
Did enterprise start by self? Total
Yes No
Category of
Entrepreneur
Scheduled Caste (S.C.)Count 49 12 61
Expected Count 50.4 10.6 61.0
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.)Count 18 5 23
Expected Count 19.0 4.0 23.0
Other Backward ClassesCount 149 34 183
Expected Count 151.3 31.7 183.0
GeneralCount 156 27 183
Expected Count 151.3 31.7 183.0
TotalCount 372 78 450
Expected Count 372.0 78.0 450.0
4.23.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self
From Table: 4.23.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Category of entrepreneurs & Starting
Enterprise by Self, is 1.592 with df (degree of freedom) of 3 and 99%
Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.661) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant relationship
between the category of entrepreneurs and starting enterprise by self’ is ‘Failedto Reject’.
Table: 4.23.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Category ofEntrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.592a 3 .661
Likelihood Ratio 1.599 3 .660
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.149 1 .284
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.99.
4.23.2 Strength of Association between Category of Entrepreneurs & StartingEnterprise by Self
From Table: 4.23.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Category of
entrepreneurs & Starting Enterprise by Self’s measures of strength of
association Phi Correlation Coefficient (=.059), Cramer’s V (=.059) and
Contingency Coefficient (=.059) all are very low it implies that besides no
176 | P a g e
statistically significant relationship between Category of entrepreneurs & Starting
Enterprise by Self their strength of association is also very poor.
Table: 4.23.2; Strength of Association between Category of Entrepreneurs &Starting Enterprise by Self
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .059 .661
Cramer's V .059 .661
Contingency Coefficient .059 .661
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.24 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Any Supplemental,
Continuing Education or Training
From Table: 4.24 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Any supplemental, continuing
education or training, none of cell of counts are showing less than 5 counts
therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable for the data.
Table: 4.24; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Any
Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
Sex * Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical, professional or functional
business skills)
Any supplemental, continuing education or training
(technical, professional or functional business skills)
Total
Yes No
Sex
MaleCount 98 262 360
Expected Count 94.4 265.6 360.0
FemaleCount 20 70 90
Expected Count 23.6 66.4 90.0
TotalCount 118 332 450
Expected Count 118.0 332.0 450.0
4.24.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs & AnySupplemental, Continuing Education or Training
177 | P a g e
From Table: 4.24.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Any supplemental,
continuing education or training, is .930 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 and
99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.335) is more than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant
relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and any supplemental, continuing
education or training’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
Table: 4.24.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .930a 1 .335
Continuity Correctionb .690 1 .406
Likelihood Ratio .956 1 .328
Linear-by-Linear Association .928 1 .335
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 23.60.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
4.24.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs &Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
From Table: 4.24.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Sex of
entrepreneurs & Any supplemental, continuing education or training’s
measures of strength of association Phi Correlation Coefficient (=.045),
Cramer’s V (=.045) and Contingency Coefficient (=.045) all are very low it
implies that besides no statistically significant relationship between Sex of
entrepreneurs & Any supplemental, continuing education or training their
strength of association is also very poor.
Table: 4.24.2; Strength of Association between Independence for Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal Phi .045 .335
178 | P a g e
Cramer's V .045 .335
Contingency Coefficient .045 .335
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.25 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Enterprise Started by Self
Table: 4.25 shows the enterprise started/not started by self for each highest
educational level of entrepreneurs. We can observe that most entrepreneurs who
self started enterprise tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder (107/372) and least
entrepreneurs who self started enterprise tend to be illiterate & Ph.D. (1/372)
whereas most entrepreneurs who did not self started enterprise tend to be
Bachelor’s degree holder (25/78) and least entrepreneurs who did not self started
enterprise tend to be Primary educated & Ph.D. (0/78).
Table: 4.25; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Enterprise Startedby Self
Your highest educational level * Did enterprise start by self?
Did enterprise start by self? Total
Yes No
Your highest educational level
Illiterate 1 1 2
(Up to) Primary (5th) 10 0 10
Secondary (8th) 26 2 28
High School (10th) 58 3 61
Intermediate (12th) 78 20 98
Bachelor’s degree 107 25 132
Post Graduate 79 16 95
Master’s degree 12 11 23
Ph. D. 1 0 1
Total 372 78 450
4.26 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Sex of Entrepreneurs
179 | P a g e
Table: 4.26 shows the sex of entrepreneurs for each highest educational
level of entrepreneurs. We can observe that most entrepreneurs who are male tend
to be Bachelor’s degree holder (106/360) and least entrepreneurs who are male
tend to be Ph.D. (0/360) whereas most entrepreneurs who are female tend to be
Intermediate (12th) and Bachelor’s degree holder (26/90) and least entrepreneurs
who are female started enterprise tend to be Illiterate (0/90).
Table: 4.26; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Enterprise Startedby Self
Your highest educational level * Sex
Sex Total
Male Female
Your highest educational level
Illiterate 2 0 2
(Up to) Primary (5th) 8 2 10
Secondary (8th) 21 7 28
High School (10th) 48 13 61
Intermediate (12th) 72 26 98
Bachelor’s degree 106 26 132
Post Graduate 87 8 95
Master’s degree 16 7 23
Ph. D. 0 1 1
Total 360 90 450
4.27 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture
Table: 4.27 shows the whether or not enterprise being entrepreneurs’ first
entrepreneurial venture for each highest educational level of entrepreneurs. We
can observe that most entrepreneurs whose enterprise is their first enterprise tend
to be Bachelor’s degree holder (108/379) and least entrepreneurs whose enterprise
is their first enterprise tend to be illiterate & Ph.D. (1/379) whereas most
entrepreneurs whose enterprise is not their first enterprise tend to be Bachelor’s
180 | P a g e
degree holder (24/71) and least entrepreneurs whose enterprise is not their first
enterprise tend to be Primary educated (0/71).
Table: 4.27; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Enterprise Startedby Self
Your highest educational level * Is this your first entrepreneurial venture?
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? Total
Yes No
Your highest
educational
level
Illiterate 1 1 2
(Up to) Primary (5th) 10 0 10
Secondary (8th) 25 3 28
High School (10th) 44 17 61
Intermediate (12th) 85 13 98
Bachelor’s degree 108 24 132
Post Graduate 86 9 95
Master’s degree 19 4 23
Ph. D. 1 0 1
Total 379 71 450
4.28 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Being Entrepreneurs’ First EntrepreneurialVenture & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
From Table: 4.28 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture & Any
supplemental, continuing education or training, none of cell of counts are
showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable
for the data.
Table: 4.28 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or
Training
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? * Any supplemental, continuing education or training
(technical, professional or functional business skills)
181 | P a g e
Any supplemental, continuing education
or training (technical, professional or
functional business skills)
Total
Yes No
Is this your first
entrepreneurial venture?
YesCount 104 275 379
Expected Count 99.4 279.6 379.0
NoCount 14 57 71
Expected Count 18.6 52.4 71.0
TotalCount 118 332 450
Expected Count 118.0 332.0 450.0
4.28.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental, Continuing Education orTraining
From Table: 4.28.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurialventure & Any supplemental, continuing education or training, is 1.843 with
df (degree of freedom) of 1 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.175)
is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that
‘there is no significant relationship between being entrepreneurs’ firstentrepreneurial venture and any supplemental, continuing education or
training’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
Table: 4.28.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental,
Continuing Education or Training
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.843a 1 .175
Continuity Correctionb 1.466 1 .226
Likelihood Ratio 1.938 1 .164
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.839 1 .175
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 18.62.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
4.28.2 Strength of Association between Independence for Being Entrepreneurs’First Entrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental, Continuing Educationor Training
182 | P a g e
From Table: 4.28.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Being
entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture & Any supplemental, continuing
education or training’s measures of strength of association Phi Correlation
Coefficient (=.064), Cramer’s V (=.064) and Contingency Coefficient (=.064)
all are very low it implies that besides no statistically significant relationship
between Being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture & Any supplemental,
continuing education or training their strength of association is also very poor.
Table: 4.28.2; Strength of Association between Independence for BeingEntrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & Any Supplemental,
Continuing Education or Training
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .064 .175
Cramer's V .064 .175
Contingency Coefficient .064 .175
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.29 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training to Entrepreneurs
Table: 4.29 shows whether or not entrepreneurs received any supplemental,
continuing education or training for all highest educational level of entrepreneurs.
We can observe that most entrepreneurs who received any supplemental,
continuing education or training tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder (43/118) and
least entrepreneurs who received any supplemental, continuing education or
training tend to be illiterate & Ph.D. (0/118) whereas most entrepreneurs who
didn’t received any supplemental, continuing education or training tend to be
Bachelor’s degree holder (89/332) and least entrepreneurs who didn’t received
any supplemental, continuing education or training tend to be Ph.D. (1/332).
Table: 4.29; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training to Entrepreneurs
Your highest educational level * Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical,
professional or functional business skills)
183 | P a g e
Any supplemental, continuing education or training
(technical, professional or functional business skills)
Total
Yes No
Your highest
educational level
Illiterate 0 2 2
(Up to) Primary (5th) 2 8 10
Secondary (8th) 2 26 28
High School (10th) 4 57 61
Intermediate (12th) 20 78 98
Bachelor’s degree 43 89 132
Post Graduate 36 59 95
Master’s degree 11 12 23
Ph. D. 0 1 1
Total 118 332 450
4.30 Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training (Technical, Professional orFunctional Business Skills)
From the Table: 4.30 & Figure: 4.30 it may be observed that for 450
observed entrepreneurs, only 118 (26.2%) got supplemental, continuing
education or training (technical, professional or functional business skills)
and 332 (73.8%) did not get such education or training.
Table: 4.30; Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training (Technical,
Professional or Functional Business Skills)
Frequency Percent
Yes 118 26.2
No 332 73.8
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.30; Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
184 | P a g e
Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
4.31 Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background
From the Table: 4.31 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for extent of relevant experience and educational
background on the scale of 1 (to no extent) to 5 (exactly the same) is 3.45 with
Std. Deviation of .941.
Table: 4.31; Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation
Extent of relevant experience and educational background 450 3.45 .941
4.31.1 T Test for Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background
From the Table: 4.31.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for extent of relevant experience and educational
background on the scale of 1 (to no extent) to 5 (exactly the same) against the
mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.172 with df (degree of freedom) of
449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have previous Relevant
Experience and/or Educational Background within the field of their enterprise’
is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.45 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
332
184 | P a g e
Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
4.31 Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background
From the Table: 4.31 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for extent of relevant experience and educational
background on the scale of 1 (to no extent) to 5 (exactly the same) is 3.45 with
Std. Deviation of .941.
Table: 4.31; Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation
Extent of relevant experience and educational background 450 3.45 .941
4.31.1 T Test for Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background
From the Table: 4.31.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for extent of relevant experience and educational
background on the scale of 1 (to no extent) to 5 (exactly the same) against the
mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.172 with df (degree of freedom) of
449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have previous Relevant
Experience and/or Educational Background within the field of their enterprise’
is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.45 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
118
184 | P a g e
Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training
4.31 Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background
From the Table: 4.31 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for extent of relevant experience and educational
background on the scale of 1 (to no extent) to 5 (exactly the same) is 3.45 with
Std. Deviation of .941.
Table: 4.31; Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation
Extent of relevant experience and educational background 450 3.45 .941
4.31.1 T Test for Extent of Relevant Experience and Educational Background
From the Table: 4.31.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for extent of relevant experience and educational
background on the scale of 1 (to no extent) to 5 (exactly the same) against the
mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.172 with df (degree of freedom) of
449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have previous Relevant
Experience and/or Educational Background within the field of their enterprise’
is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.45 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
Yes
No
185 | P a g e
Table: 4.31.1; T Test for Extent of Relevant Experience and EducationalBackground
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df p-Value
(1-tailed)
Mean
Difference
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Extent of relevant experience and
educational background10.172 449 .000 .451 .34 .57
4.32 Type of Industry/Business
From the Table: 4.32 & Figure: 4.32 it may be observed that for 450
observed entrepreneurs, 56 (12.4%) are engaged in professional services (e.g.
accounting, consulting), 63 (14.0%) are engaged in Consumer services (e.g.
hairdressing, auto service), 57 (12.7%) are engaged in Guest services (e.g. hotel,
restaurant), 59 (13.1%) are engaged in Manufacturing (consumer or durable
goods), 31 (6.9%) are engaged in Transportation or public utilities, 85 (18.9%)
are engaged in Retail (including import/export), 33 (7.3%) are engaged in
Wholesale (including import/ export), 29 (6.4%) are engaged in Agricultural or
agricultural related, 32 (7.1%) are engaged in Construction related (Including
all trades), 5 (1.1%) are engaged in Mining, extraction, oil.
Table: 4.32; Type of Industry/Business
Type of Industry/Business
Frequency Percent
Professional services (e.g. accounting, consulting) 56 12.4
Consumer services (e.g. hairdressing, auto service) 63 14.0
Guest services (e.g. hotel, restaurant ) 57 12.7
Manufacturing (consumer or durable goods) 59 13.1
Transportation or public utilities 31 6.9
Retail ( including import/export) 85 18.9
186 | P a g e
Wholesale (including import/ export) 33 7.3
Agricultural or agricultural related 29 6.4
Construction related (Including all trades) 32 7.1
Mining, extraction, oil 5 1.1
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.32; Type of Industry/Business
Type of Industry/Business
4.33 Contribution to Success by Product and Service
From the Table: 4.33 & Figure: 4.33 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, entrepreneurs’ mean percentage of the Contribution to overall
success by products is 86.09 and the range of their Contribution to overall
success by products is 100 (i.e. from 0 to 100) whereas mean percentage of the
Contribution to overall success by service is 39.11 and the range of their
Contribution to overall success by service is 100 (i.e. from 0 to 100).
Table: 4.33; Contribution to Success by Product and Service
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
31
85
3329
186 | P a g e
Wholesale (including import/ export) 33 7.3
Agricultural or agricultural related 29 6.4
Construction related (Including all trades) 32 7.1
Mining, extraction, oil 5 1.1
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.32; Type of Industry/Business
Type of Industry/Business
4.33 Contribution to Success by Product and Service
From the Table: 4.33 & Figure: 4.33 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, entrepreneurs’ mean percentage of the Contribution to overall
success by products is 86.09 and the range of their Contribution to overall
success by products is 100 (i.e. from 0 to 100) whereas mean percentage of the
Contribution to overall success by service is 39.11 and the range of their
Contribution to overall success by service is 100 (i.e. from 0 to 100).
Table: 4.33; Contribution to Success by Product and Service
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
56
63
57
5931
32 5
Professional services (e.g.accounting, consulting)
Consumer services (e.g.hairdressing, auto service)
Guest services (e.g.hotel, restaurant )
Manufacturing (consumer ordurable goods)
Transportation or publicutilities
Retail ( includingimport/export)
Wholesale (includingimport/ export)
Agricultural or agriculturalrelated
186 | P a g e
Wholesale (including import/ export) 33 7.3
Agricultural or agricultural related 29 6.4
Construction related (Including all trades) 32 7.1
Mining, extraction, oil 5 1.1
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.32; Type of Industry/Business
Type of Industry/Business
4.33 Contribution to Success by Product and Service
From the Table: 4.33 & Figure: 4.33 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, entrepreneurs’ mean percentage of the Contribution to overall
success by products is 86.09 and the range of their Contribution to overall
success by products is 100 (i.e. from 0 to 100) whereas mean percentage of the
Contribution to overall success by service is 39.11 and the range of their
Contribution to overall success by service is 100 (i.e. from 0 to 100).
Table: 4.33; Contribution to Success by Product and Service
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Professional services (e.g.accounting, consulting)
Consumer services (e.g.hairdressing, auto service)
Guest services (e.g.hotel, restaurant )
Manufacturing (consumer ordurable goods)
Transportation or publicutilities
Retail ( includingimport/export)
Wholesale (includingimport/ export)
Agricultural or agriculturalrelated
187 | P a g e
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Contribution to overall
success by products450 100 0 100 60.89 30.643
Contribution to overall
success by service450 100 0 100 39.11 30.643
Figure: 4.33; Contribution to Success by Product and Service
4.34 Investment in Enterprises
From the Table: 4.34 & Figure: 4.34 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, entrepreneurs’ mean of investment in plant & machinery is `
427833.33 and the range of the investment in plant & machinery is ` 3490000
(i.e. from ` 10000 to 3500000) and mean of investment in equipments is `
238486.67 and the range of the investment in equipments is ` 2495000 (i.e.
from ` 5000 to 2500000).
Table: 4.34; Investment in Enterprises (In Rs.)
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Investment in plant &
machinery450 3490000 10000 3500000 427833.33 451292.972
Investment in equipments 450 2495000 5000 2500000 238486.67 295992.838
60.89
39.11
010203040506070
Contribution to overallsuccess by products
Contribution to overallsuccess by service
Contribution to success by Product andService
Contribution to success byProduct and Service
188 | P a g e
Figure: 4.34; Investment in Enterprises (In Rs.)
4.35 Enterprises Started to Take Advantage of New Technology
From the Table: 4.35 & Figure: 4.35 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, 232 (51.6%) has started their enterprise to take advantage of new
technology and 218 (48.4%) has started their enterprise without any plan to take
advantage of new technology.
Table: 4.35; Enterprises Started to Take Advantage of New Technology
Was this enterprise started because of, or to take advantage of New Technology?
Frequency Percent
Yes 232 51.6
No 218 48.4
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.35; Enterprises Started to Take Advantage of New Technology
427833.33
238486.67
050000
100000150000200000250000300000350000400000450000
Investment in plant &machinery
Investment inequipments
Investment in Enterprises (In Rs.)
Investment in Enterprises (InRs.)
189 | P a g e
Enterprise Started to Take Advantage of New Technology
4.36 Cases of New Technology in MSMEs
From the Table: 4.36 & Figure: 4.36 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, 232 (51.6%) has started their enterprise to take advantage of new
technology and 218 (48.4%) has started their enterprise without any plan to
take advantage of new technology.
Further out of those 232 (51.6%) enterprises which was started to take
advantage of new technology, 110 (24.4% of 450) enterprises used technology
which was existing elsewhere, but new to their area, 36 (8.0% of 450)
enterprises used technology which was existing in the area, but new to their
industry, 48 (10.7% of 450) enterprises used technology which was existing in
the industry, but new to their enterprise and 38 (8.4% of 450) enterprises used
technology which was a totally new technology, not previously existing.
Table: 4.36; Cases of New Technology in MSMEs
Not Using
New
Technology
in MSMEs
Technology was
existing
elsewhere, but
new to your area
Technology was
existing in the
area, but new to
your industry
Technology was
existing in the
industry, but new
to your enterprise
Technology was a
totally new
technology, not
previously existing
Total
340 110 36 48 38 450
Figure: 4.36; Cases of New Technology in MSMEs
218
189 | P a g e
Enterprise Started to Take Advantage of New Technology
4.36 Cases of New Technology in MSMEs
From the Table: 4.36 & Figure: 4.36 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, 232 (51.6%) has started their enterprise to take advantage of new
technology and 218 (48.4%) has started their enterprise without any plan to
take advantage of new technology.
Further out of those 232 (51.6%) enterprises which was started to take
advantage of new technology, 110 (24.4% of 450) enterprises used technology
which was existing elsewhere, but new to their area, 36 (8.0% of 450)
enterprises used technology which was existing in the area, but new to their
industry, 48 (10.7% of 450) enterprises used technology which was existing in
the industry, but new to their enterprise and 38 (8.4% of 450) enterprises used
technology which was a totally new technology, not previously existing.
Table: 4.36; Cases of New Technology in MSMEs
Not Using
New
Technology
in MSMEs
Technology was
existing
elsewhere, but
new to your area
Technology was
existing in the
area, but new to
your industry
Technology was
existing in the
industry, but new
to your enterprise
Technology was a
totally new
technology, not
previously existing
Total
340 110 36 48 38 450
Figure: 4.36; Cases of New Technology in MSMEs
232
189 | P a g e
Enterprise Started to Take Advantage of New Technology
4.36 Cases of New Technology in MSMEs
From the Table: 4.36 & Figure: 4.36 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, 232 (51.6%) has started their enterprise to take advantage of new
technology and 218 (48.4%) has started their enterprise without any plan to
take advantage of new technology.
Further out of those 232 (51.6%) enterprises which was started to take
advantage of new technology, 110 (24.4% of 450) enterprises used technology
which was existing elsewhere, but new to their area, 36 (8.0% of 450)
enterprises used technology which was existing in the area, but new to their
industry, 48 (10.7% of 450) enterprises used technology which was existing in
the industry, but new to their enterprise and 38 (8.4% of 450) enterprises used
technology which was a totally new technology, not previously existing.
Table: 4.36; Cases of New Technology in MSMEs
Not Using
New
Technology
in MSMEs
Technology was
existing
elsewhere, but
new to your area
Technology was
existing in the
area, but new to
your industry
Technology was
existing in the
industry, but new
to your enterprise
Technology was a
totally new
technology, not
previously existing
Total
340 110 36 48 38 450
Figure: 4.36; Cases of New Technology in MSMEs
232Yes
No
190 | P a g e
4.37 Average Number of Full Time/Equivalent Employees (IncludingEntrepreneur)
From the Table: 4.37 & Figure: 4.37 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, average number of full time/equivalent employees (including
entrepreneur) in last 1 year is 2.16 (~2) and the range is 9 (i.e. from 1 to 10).
From the Table: 4.37 & Figure: 4.37 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises only 440 has completed 2 years from their establishment, therefore
for such 440 enterprises average number of full time/equivalent employees
(including entrepreneur) in last 2 years is 3.30 (~3) and the range is 19 (i.e.
from 1 to 20).
From the Table: 4.37 & Figure: 4.37 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises only 432 has completed 3 years from their establishment, therefore
for such 432 enterprises average number of full time/equivalent employees
(including entrepreneur) in last 3 years is 4.73 (~5) and the range is 29 (i.e.
from 1 to 30).
From the Table: 4.37 & Figure: 4.37 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises only 401 has completed 5 years from their establishment, therefore
for such 401 enterprises average number of full time/equivalent employees
(including entrepreneur) in last 5 years is 6.38 (~6) and the range is 31 (i.e.
from 1 to 32).
110
3648
Cases of using New Technology in MSMEsat the Time of Starting Enterprise
190 | P a g e
4.37 Average Number of Full Time/Equivalent Employees (IncludingEntrepreneur)
From the Table: 4.37 & Figure: 4.37 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, average number of full time/equivalent employees (including
entrepreneur) in last 1 year is 2.16 (~2) and the range is 9 (i.e. from 1 to 10).
From the Table: 4.37 & Figure: 4.37 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises only 440 has completed 2 years from their establishment, therefore
for such 440 enterprises average number of full time/equivalent employees
(including entrepreneur) in last 2 years is 3.30 (~3) and the range is 19 (i.e.
from 1 to 20).
From the Table: 4.37 & Figure: 4.37 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises only 432 has completed 3 years from their establishment, therefore
for such 432 enterprises average number of full time/equivalent employees
(including entrepreneur) in last 3 years is 4.73 (~5) and the range is 29 (i.e.
from 1 to 30).
From the Table: 4.37 & Figure: 4.37 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises only 401 has completed 5 years from their establishment, therefore
for such 401 enterprises average number of full time/equivalent employees
(including entrepreneur) in last 5 years is 6.38 (~6) and the range is 31 (i.e.
from 1 to 32).
340
48 38
Cases of using New Technology in MSMEsat the Time of Starting Enterprise
Not Using New Technology inMSMEs
Technology was existingelsewhere, but new to your area
Technology was existing in thearea, but new to your industry
Technology was existing in theindustry, but new to your enterprise
Technology was a totally newtechnology, not previously existing
190 | P a g e
4.37 Average Number of Full Time/Equivalent Employees (IncludingEntrepreneur)
From the Table: 4.37 & Figure: 4.37 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, average number of full time/equivalent employees (including
entrepreneur) in last 1 year is 2.16 (~2) and the range is 9 (i.e. from 1 to 10).
From the Table: 4.37 & Figure: 4.37 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises only 440 has completed 2 years from their establishment, therefore
for such 440 enterprises average number of full time/equivalent employees
(including entrepreneur) in last 2 years is 3.30 (~3) and the range is 19 (i.e.
from 1 to 20).
From the Table: 4.37 & Figure: 4.37 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises only 432 has completed 3 years from their establishment, therefore
for such 432 enterprises average number of full time/equivalent employees
(including entrepreneur) in last 3 years is 4.73 (~5) and the range is 29 (i.e.
from 1 to 30).
From the Table: 4.37 & Figure: 4.37 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises only 401 has completed 5 years from their establishment, therefore
for such 401 enterprises average number of full time/equivalent employees
(including entrepreneur) in last 5 years is 6.38 (~6) and the range is 31 (i.e.
from 1 to 32).
Cases of using New Technology in MSMEsat the Time of Starting Enterprise
Not Using New Technology inMSMEs
Technology was existingelsewhere, but new to your area
Technology was existing in thearea, but new to your industry
Technology was existing in theindustry, but new to your enterprise
Technology was a totally newtechnology, not previously existing
191 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.37 & Figure: 4.37 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises only 301 has completed 10 years from their establishment, therefore
for such 301 enterprises average number of full time/equivalent employees
(including entrepreneur) in last 10 years is 8.74 (~9) and the range is 34 (i.e.
from 1 to 35).
Table: 4.37; Average Number of Full Time/Equivalent Employees (IncludingEntrepreneur)
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximu
m
Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Average number of full
time/equivalent employees
(including yourself) in last 1 year
450 9 1 10 2.16 1.915
Average number of full
time/equivalent employees
(including yourself) in last 2 years
440 19 1 20 3.30 3.163
Average number of full
time/equivalent employees
(including yourself) in last 3 years
432 29 1 30 4.73 4.464
Average number of full
time/equivalent employees
(including yourself) in last 5 years
401 31 1 32 6.38 5.927
Average number of full
time/equivalent employees
(including yourself) in last 10 years
301 34 1 35 8.74 7.812
Figure: 4.37; Average Number of Full Time/Equivalent Employees(Including Entrepreneur)
192 | P a g e
4.38 Percentage of Employees Involved in R & D Work, or Trained (or Educated)as Engineers or Scientists
From the Table: 4.38 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean percentage of the employees involved in R & D work, or
trained (or educated) as engineers or scientists is 10.93 and the range of their
percentage is 75 (i.e. from 0 to 75).
Table: 4.38; Percentage of Employees Involved in R & D Work, or Trained(or Educated) as Engineers or Scientists
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Percentage of employees is
involved in R & D work, or are
trained (or educated) as
engineers or scientists
450 75.00 .00 75.00 10.9302 15.51793
4.39 Causes of Entrepreneurship
From the Table: 4.39 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Personal achievement on the scale of 1 (Not
important) to 5 (Very important) is 3.48 with Std. Deviation of 1.101.
2.163.3
4.73
6.38
8.74
0123456789
10
In last 1year
In last 2year
In last 3year
In last 5year
In last 10year
Average Number of Full Time/EquivalentEmployees (Including Entrepreneur)
Average Number of FullTime/Equivalent Employees(Including Entrepreneur)
193 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.39 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Status and Prestige of 1 (Not important) to 5
(Very important) is 3.61 with Std. Deviation of .933.
From the Table: 4.39 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Economic necessity on the scale of 1 (Not
important) to 5 (Very important) is 3.77 with Std. Deviation of 1.037.
From the Table: 4.39 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Flexibility in work / family on the scale of 1
(Not important) to 5 (Very important) is 3.80 with Std. Deviation of 1.060.
From the Table: 4.39 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Independence on the scale of 1 (Not important)
to 5 (Very important) is 3.37 with Std. Deviation of 1.153.
From the Table: 4.39 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Learning and Personal growth on the scale of 1
(Not important) to 5 (Very important) is 3.60 with Std. Deviation of .999.
From the Table: 4.39 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Test my own ideas on the scale of 1 (Not
important) to 5 (Very important) is 3.64 with Std. Deviation of 1.017.
From the Table: 4.39 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Money and Wealth on the scale on the scale of 1
(Not important) to 5 (Very important) is 3.63 with Std. Deviation of 1.055.
From the Table: 4.39 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Opportunity on the scale of 1 (Not important)
to 5 (Very important) is 3.60 with Std. Deviation of 1.076.
From the Table: 4.39 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Recognition on the scale of 1 (Not important) to
5 (Very important) is 3.59 with Std. Deviation of 1.030.
From the Table: 4.39 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Satisfying work relationships on the scale of 1
(Not important) to 5 (Very important) is 3.63 with Std. Deviation of 1.007.
194 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.39 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Career security on the scale of 1 (Not
important) to 5 (Very important) is 3.62 with Std. Deviation of 1.070.
Table: 4.39; Causes of Entrepreneurship
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Personal achievement 450 4 1 5 3.48 1.101
Status and Prestige 450 4 1 5 3.61 .933
Economic necessity 450 4 1 5 3.77 1.037
Flexibility in work / family 450 4 1 5 3.80 1.060
Independence 450 4 1 5 3.37 1.153
Learning and Personal
growth450 4 1 5 3.60 .999
Test my own ideas 450 4 1 5 3.64 1.017
Money and Wealth 450 4 1 5 3.63 1.055
Opportunity 450 4 1 5 3.60 1.076
Recognition 450 4 1 5 3.59 1.030
Satisfying work relationships 450 4 1 5 3.63 1.007
Career security 450 4 1 5 3.62 1.070
From the Figure: 4.39 it may be seen for causes of entrepreneurship mean
rating is highest (3.80) for flexibility in work/family whereas lowest (3.37) mean
rating is for independence. It means that major cause of entrepreneurship tends
to be flexibility in work/family and minor cause tends to be independence.
Figure 4.39; Causes of Entrepreneurship
195 | P a g e
4.39.1 T Tests for Causes of Entrepreneurship
From the Table: 4.39.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Personal achievement on the scale of 1 (Not
important) to 5 (Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 9.205 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh personal achievement is not an important cause of their
entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.48 and the p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.39.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Status and Prestige on the scale of 1 (Not important)
to 5 (Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is
13.947 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore
the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh status
and prestige is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’
as the mean is 3.61 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
Causes of Entrepreneurship
Causes of Entrepreneurship
196 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.39.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Economic necessity on the scale of 1 (Not important)
to 5 (Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is
15.819 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore
the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
economic necessity is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.77 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.39.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Flexibility in work / family on the scale of 1 (Not
important) to 5 (Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 15.964 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh Flexibility in work / family is not an important cause of their
entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.80 and the p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.39.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Independence on the scale of 1 (Not important) to 5
(Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 6.827 with
df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh independence is
not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
3.37 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.39.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Learning and Personal growth on the scale of 1 (Not
important) to 5 (Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 12.742 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh learning and personal growth is not an important cause of their
entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.60 and the p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.39.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Test their own ideas on the scale of 1 (Not important)
197 | P a g e
to 5 (Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is
13.309 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore
the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh test
their own ideas is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.64 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.39.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Money and Wealth on the scale of 1 (Not important)
to 5 (Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is
12.606 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore
the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh money
and wealth is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as
the mean is 3.63 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.39.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Opportunity on the scale of 1 (Not important) to 5
(Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 11.781
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh opportunity is
not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
3.60 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.39.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Recognition on the scale of 1 (Not important) to 5
(Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.217
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh recognition is
not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
3.59 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.39.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Satisfying work relationships on the scale of 1 (Not
important) to 5 (Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 13.252 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
198 | P a g e
satisfying work relationships is not an important cause of their
entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.63 and the p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.39.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Career security on the scale of 1 (Not important) to 5
(Very important) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.339
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh career security
is not an important cause of their entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
3.62 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Table: 4.39.1; T Tests for Causes of Entrepreneurship
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df p-Value
(1-tailed)
Mean
Difference
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Personal achievement 9.205 449 .000 .478 .34 .61
Status and Prestige 13.947 449 .000 .613 .50 .73
Economic necessity 15.819 449 .000 .773 .65 .90
Flexibility in work / family 15.964 449 .000 .798 .67 .93
Independence 6.827 449 .000 .371 .23 .51
Learning and Personal growth 12.742 449 .000 .600 .48 .72
Test my own ideas 13.309 449 .000 .638 .51 .76
Money and Wealth 12.606 449 .000 .627 .50 .76
Opportunity 11.781 449 .000 .598 .47 .73
Recognition 12.217 449 .000 .593 .47 .72
Satisfying work relationships 13.252 449 .000 .629 .51 .75
Career security 12.339 449 .000 .622 .49 .75
199 | P a g e
4.40 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes of Entrepreneurshipbetween the Entrepreneurs who started enterprises themselves and who didnot
From the Table: 4.40 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Personal achievement between Entrepreneurs who
started and who did not started business themselves, is 21.700 with df (degree
of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding
p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and
who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of personal
achievement is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.40 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Status and Prestige between Entrepreneurs who
started and who did not started business themselves, is 20.978 with df (degree
of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding
p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and
who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of status and
prestige is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.40 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Economic necessity between Entrepreneurs who
started and who did not started business themselves, is 21.600 with df (degree
of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding
p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and
who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of economic
necessity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.40 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Flexibility in work/family between Entrepreneurs
who started and who did not started business themselves, is 12.079 with df
(degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and
corresponding p-Value (.001) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of
200 | P a g e
entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t start business themselves, the level of
importance of flexibility in work/family is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.40 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Independence between Entrepreneurs who started
and who did not started business themselves, is 28.452 with df (degree of
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and
who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of independence is
same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.40 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Learning and Personal growth between
Entrepreneurs who started and who did not started business themselves, is
6.164 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within
groups and corresponding p-Value (.013) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of
entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t start business themselves, the level of
importance of learning and personal growth is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.40 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Test entrepreneurs’ own ideas between
Entrepreneurs who started and who did not started business themselves, is
4.240 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within
groups and corresponding p-Value (.040) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of
entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t start business themselves, the level of
importance of testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.40 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Money and Wealth between Entrepreneurs who
started and who did not started business themselves, is 3.537 with df (degree
of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding
p-Value (.061) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and
201 | P a g e
who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of money and
wealth is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.40 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Opportunity between Entrepreneurs who started
and who did not started business themselves, is 12.038 with df (degree of
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
Value (.001) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and
who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of opportunity is
same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.40 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Recognition between Entrepreneurs who started and
who did not started business themselves, is 9.515 with df (degree of freedom) of
1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.002)
is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t start
business themselves, the level of importance of recognition is same’ is
‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.40 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Satisfying work relationships between
Entrepreneurs who started and who did not started business themselves, is
6.872 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within
groups and corresponding p-Value (.009) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of
entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t start business themselves, the level of
importance of satisfying work relationship is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.40 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Career security between Entrepreneurs who started
and who did not started business themselves, is .087 with df (degree of
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
Value (.768) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and
202 | P a g e
who don’t start business themselves, the level of importance of career security is
same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
Table: 4.40; F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Entrepreneurs who started enterprises
themselves and who did not
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Personal achievement
Between Groups 25.146 1 25.146 21.700 .000
Within Groups 519.132 448 1.159
Total 544.278 449
Status and Prestige
Between Groups 12.020 1 12.020 14.220 .000
Within Groups 378.700 448 .845
Total 390.720 449
Economic necessity
Between Groups 21.600 1 21.600 20.978 .000
Within Groups 461.280 448 1.030
Total 482.880 449
Flexibility in work / family
Between Groups 13.247 1 13.247 12.079 .001
Within Groups 491.350 448 1.097
Total 504.598 449
Independence
Between Groups 35.653 1 35.653 28.452 .000
Within Groups 561.372 448 1.253
Total 597.024 449
Learning and Personal
growth
Between Groups 6.080 1 6.080 6.164 .013
Within Groups 441.920 448 .986
Total 448.000 449
Test my own ideas
Between Groups 4.349 1 4.349 4.240 .040
Within Groups 459.608 448 1.026
Total 463.958 449
Money and Wealth
Between Groups 3.911 1 3.911 3.537 .061
Within Groups 495.369 448 1.106
Total 499.280 449
Opportunity
Between Groups 13.613 1 13.613 12.038 .001
Within Groups 506.585 448 1.131
Total 520.198 449
Recognition
Between Groups 9.911 1 9.911 9.515 .002
Within Groups 466.669 448 1.042
Total 476.580 449
Satisfying work
relationships
Between Groups 6.874 1 6.874 6.872 .009
Within Groups 448.150 448 1.000
Total 455.024 449
Career security Between Groups .100 1 .100 .087 .768
203 | P a g e
Within Groups 513.678 448 1.147
Total 513.778 449
4.41 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes of Entrepreneurship inthe Districts of Uttar Pradesh
From the Table: 4.41 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Personal achievement between the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, is 9.764 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups and 432
for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
importance of personal achievement is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.41 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for status and prestige between the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, is 3.566 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups and 432
for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
importance of status and prestige is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.41 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Economic necessity between the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, is 5.376 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups and 432
for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
importance of economic necessity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.41 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Flexibility in work/family between the districts of
Uttar Pradesh, is 3.736 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups and
432 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
importance of flexibility in work/family is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
204 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.41 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Independence between the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, is 9.290 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups and 432
for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
importance of independence is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.41 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Learning and Personal growth between the districts
of Uttar Pradesh, is 3.747 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups
and 432 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of importance of learning
and personal growth is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.41 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas between the
districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 3.006 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for
between groups and 432 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
importance of testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.41 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Money and Wealth between the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, is 5.491 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups and 432
for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
importance of money and wealth is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.41 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Opportunity between the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
is 2.844 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups and 432 for within
groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
205 | P a g e
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of importance of
opportunity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.41 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Recognition between the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
is 2.113 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups and 432 for within
groups and corresponding p-Value (.006) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of importance of
recognition is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.41 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Satisfying work relationships between the districts
of Uttar Pradesh, is 4.158 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups
and 432 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
importance of satisfying work relationships is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.41 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Career security between the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, is 2.471 with df (degree of freedom) of 17 for between groups and 432
for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.001) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
importance of career security is same’ ‘Rejected’.
Table: 4.41; F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Personal achievement
Between Groups 151.078 17 8.887 9.764 .000
Within Groups 393.200 432 .910
Total 544.278 449
Status and Prestige Between Groups 48.080 17 2.828 3.566 .000
206 | P a g e
Within Groups 342.640 432 .793
Total 390.720 449
Economic necessity
Between Groups 84.320 17 4.960 5.376 .000
Within Groups 398.560 432 .923
Total 482.880 449
Flexibility in work / family
Between Groups 64.678 17 3.805 3.736 .000
Within Groups 439.920 432 1.018
Total 504.598 449
Independence
Between Groups 159.824 17 9.401 9.290 .000
Within Groups 437.200 432 1.012
Total 597.024 449
Learning and Personal growth
Between Groups 57.520 17 3.384 3.743 .000
Within Groups 390.480 432 .904
Total 448.000 449
Test my own ideas
Between Groups 49.078 17 2.887 3.006 .000
Within Groups 414.880 432 .960
Total 463.958 449
Money and Wealth
Between Groups 88.720 17 5.219 5.491 .000
Within Groups 410.560 432 .950
Total 499.280 449
Opportunity
Between Groups 52.358 17 3.080 2.844 .000
Within Groups 467.840 432 1.083
Total 520.198 449
Recognition
Between Groups 36.580 17 2.152 2.113 .006
Within Groups 440.000 432 1.019
Total 476.580 449
Satisfying work relationships
Between Groups 63.984 17 3.764 4.158 .000
Within Groups 391.040 432 .905
Total 455.024 449
Career security
Between Groups 45.538 17 2.679 2.471 .001
Within Groups 468.240 432 1.084
Total 513.778 449
4.42 Availability of Outside Funding / Financing at the Time of Starting theEnterprise
From the Table: 4.42 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Availability of outside funding / financing
when you started the enterprise on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Easy to
obtain) is 3.27 with Std. Deviation of .945.
Table: 4.42; Availability of Outside Funding / Financing at the Time ofStarting the Enterprise
207 | P a g e
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Availability of outside
funding / financing when
you started the enterprise
450 4 1 5 3.27 .945
4.42.1 T Test for Availability of Outside Funding / Financing at the Time of Startingthe Enterprise
From the Table: 4.42.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for availability of outside funding / financing when you
started the enterprise on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Easy to obtain)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 6.133 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh outside funding / financing is
not available when they start the enterprise’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.27
and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Table: 4.42.1; Availability of Outside Funding / Financing at the Time ofStarting the Enterprise
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df p-Value
(1-tailed)
Mean
Difference
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Availability of outside funding /
financing when you started the enterprise6.133 449 .000 .273 .16 .39
4.43 Entrepreneur’s Sources of Funding
From the Table: 4.43 & Figure: 4.43 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, mean percentage of the personal fund at the time of starting the
enterprise is 68.60 and the range is 90 (i.e. from 10 to 100) with Std. Deviation
of 21.277.
208 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.43 & Figure: 4.43 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, mean percentage of the friend(s) and/or family fund at the time of
starting the enterprise is 11.08 and the range is 90 (i.e. from 0 to 90) with Std.
Deviation of 12.860.
From Table: 4.43 & Figure: 4.43 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, mean percentage of the outside investor(s)’ fund at the time of
starting the enterprise is 4.47 and the range is 40 (i.e. from 0 to 40) with Std.
Deviation of 7.215.
From the Table: 4.43 & Figure: 4.43 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, mean percentage of the participating partner(s)’ fund at the time
of starting the enterprise is 3.17 and the range is 50 (i.e. from 0 to 50) with Std.
Deviation of 7.538.
From the Table: 4.43 & Figure: 4.43 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, mean percentage of the government grant at the time of starting
the enterprise is 1.16 and the range is 20 (i.e. from 0 to 20) with Std. Deviation
of 2.947.
From the Table: 4.43 & Figure: 4.43 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, mean percentage of the government loans at the time of starting
the enterprise is 3.52 and the range is 40 (i.e. from 0 to 40) with Std. Deviation
of 6.339.
From the Table: 4.43 & Figure: 4.43 it may be seen that for 450 observed
enterprises, mean percentage of the bank (finance company) loan at the time
of starting the enterprise is 8.01 and the range is 60 (i.e. from 0 to 60) with Std.
Deviation of 10.285.
Table: 4.43; Entrepreneur’s Sources of Funding
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
209 | P a g e
At the time of starting the
enterprise percentage of personal
fund
450 90 10 100 68.60 21.277
At the time of starting the
enterprise percentage of friend(s)
and/or family fund
450 90 0 90 11.08 12.860
At the time of starting the
enterprise percentage of outside
investor(s)’ fund
450 40 0 40 4.47 7.215
At the time of starting the
enterprise percentage of
participating partner(s)’ fund
450 50 0 50 3.17 7.538
At the time of starting the
enterprise percentage of
government grant
450 20 0 20 1.16 2.947
At the time of starting the
enterprise percentage of
government loans
450 40 0 40 3.52 6.339
At the time of starting the
enterprise percentage of bank
(finance company) loan
450 60 0 60 8.01 10.285
Figure: 4.43; Entrepreneur’s Sources of Funding
210 | P a g e
4.44 Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
From the Table: 4.44 & Figure: 4.44 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, at present 78 (17.3%) have no source of funding, 204 (45.3%)
have 1 or 2 sources of funding, 143 (31.8%) have 3 to 5 sources of funding and
18 (4.0%) have 6 to 10 sources of funding and 7 (1.6%) have more than 10
sources of funding.
Table: 4.44; Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
Presently available number of sources of funding
Frequency Percent
None 78 17.3
1 or 2 204 45.3
3 to 5 143 31.8
6 to 10 18 4.0
More than 10 7 1.6
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.44; Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
11.08
4.473.17
1.163.52
At the time of Starting the EnterprisePercentage of
210 | P a g e
4.44 Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
From the Table: 4.44 & Figure: 4.44 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, at present 78 (17.3%) have no source of funding, 204 (45.3%)
have 1 or 2 sources of funding, 143 (31.8%) have 3 to 5 sources of funding and
18 (4.0%) have 6 to 10 sources of funding and 7 (1.6%) have more than 10
sources of funding.
Table: 4.44; Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
Presently available number of sources of funding
Frequency Percent
None 78 17.3
1 or 2 204 45.3
3 to 5 143 31.8
6 to 10 18 4.0
More than 10 7 1.6
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.44; Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
68.6
8.01
At the time of Starting the EnterprisePercentage of
Personal fund
Friend(s) and/or family fund
Outside investor(s)’ fund
Participating partner(s)’ fund
Government grant
Government loans
Bank (finance company) loan
210 | P a g e
4.44 Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
From the Table: 4.44 & Figure: 4.44 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, at present 78 (17.3%) have no source of funding, 204 (45.3%)
have 1 or 2 sources of funding, 143 (31.8%) have 3 to 5 sources of funding and
18 (4.0%) have 6 to 10 sources of funding and 7 (1.6%) have more than 10
sources of funding.
Table: 4.44; Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
Presently available number of sources of funding
Frequency Percent
None 78 17.3
1 or 2 204 45.3
3 to 5 143 31.8
6 to 10 18 4.0
More than 10 7 1.6
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.44; Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
At the time of Starting the EnterprisePercentage of
Personal fund
Friend(s) and/or family fund
Outside investor(s)’ fund
Participating partner(s)’ fund
Government grant
Government loans
Bank (finance company) loan
211 | P a g e
Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
4.45 Enterprise Being/ Being Not Started by Self & Presently Available Numberof Sources of Funding for Them
Table: 4.45 shows the enterprise being/ being not started by self in for
number of sources of funding available. Highest (=174) of the enterprises started
by self have 1 or 2 sources of funding and lowest (=7) of the enterprises started by
self have more than 10 sources of funding whereas highest (=40) of the enterprises
not started by self have 3 to 5 sources of funding and lowest (=0) of the
enterprises not started by self have 6 or more sources of funding
Table: 4.45; Enterprise Being/ Being Not Started by Self & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for Them
Did enterprise start by self? * Presently available number of sources of funding
Presently available number of sources of funding Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
Did enterprise start by self?
Yes 70 174 103 18 7 372
No 8 30 40 0 0 78
Total 78 204 143 18 7 450
4.46 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number of Sources of Fundingfor Them
143
211 | P a g e
Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
4.45 Enterprise Being/ Being Not Started by Self & Presently Available Numberof Sources of Funding for Them
Table: 4.45 shows the enterprise being/ being not started by self in for
number of sources of funding available. Highest (=174) of the enterprises started
by self have 1 or 2 sources of funding and lowest (=7) of the enterprises started by
self have more than 10 sources of funding whereas highest (=40) of the enterprises
not started by self have 3 to 5 sources of funding and lowest (=0) of the
enterprises not started by self have 6 or more sources of funding
Table: 4.45; Enterprise Being/ Being Not Started by Self & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for Them
Did enterprise start by self? * Presently available number of sources of funding
Presently available number of sources of funding Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
Did enterprise start by self?
Yes 70 174 103 18 7 372
No 8 30 40 0 0 78
Total 78 204 143 18 7 450
4.46 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number of Sources of Fundingfor Them
78
204
18 7
211 | P a g e
Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
4.45 Enterprise Being/ Being Not Started by Self & Presently Available Numberof Sources of Funding for Them
Table: 4.45 shows the enterprise being/ being not started by self in for
number of sources of funding available. Highest (=174) of the enterprises started
by self have 1 or 2 sources of funding and lowest (=7) of the enterprises started by
self have more than 10 sources of funding whereas highest (=40) of the enterprises
not started by self have 3 to 5 sources of funding and lowest (=0) of the
enterprises not started by self have 6 or more sources of funding
Table: 4.45; Enterprise Being/ Being Not Started by Self & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for Them
Did enterprise start by self? * Presently available number of sources of funding
Presently available number of sources of funding Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
Did enterprise start by self?
Yes 70 174 103 18 7 372
No 8 30 40 0 0 78
Total 78 204 143 18 7 450
4.46 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number of Sources of Fundingfor Them
None
1 or 2
3 to 5
6 to 10
More than 10
212 | P a g e
Table: 4.46 shows the sex of entrepreneurs & presently available number of
sources of funding for them. It may be observed that most (=157) male
entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=7) entrepreneurs
tend to have more than 10 sources of funding whereas most (=47) male
entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=0) entrepreneurs
tend to have more than 10 sources of funding
Table: 4.46; Sex of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number of Sourcesof Funding for Them
Sex * Presently available number of sources of funding
Presently available number of sources of funding Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
Sex
Male 62 157 118 16 7 360
Female 16 47 25 2 0 90
Total 78 204 143 18 7 450
4.47 Being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding for Them
Table: 4.47 shows being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture &
presently available number of sources of funding for them. It may be observed
that most (=164) enterprises being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture
tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=7) entrepreneurs tend to have
more than 10 sources of funding whereas most (=40) enterprises not being
entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2
sources of funding and least (=0) entrepreneurs tend to have more than 10 sources
of funding.
Table: 4.47; Being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding for Them
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? * Presently available number of sources of funding
Presently available number of sources of funding Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? Yes 68 164 123 17 7 379
213 | P a g e
No 10 40 20 1 0 71
Total 78 204 143 18 7 450
4.48 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for Them
Table: 4.48 shows entrepreneurs’ highest educational level & presently
available number of sources of funding for them. It may be observed that most
entrepreneurs (=25) among those who don’t have any source of funding tend to be
Bachelor’s degree holder and least (=0) entrepreneur tend to have Ph.D. degree.
Most entrepreneurs (=55) among those who has 1 or 2 sources of funding tend to
be Bachelor’s degree holder and least (=2) entrepreneur tend to be illiterate or
Ph.D. degree holder. Most entrepreneurs (=47) among those who has 3 to 5
sources of funding tend to be Bachelor’s degree holder and least (=0) entrepreneur
tend to be illiterate, primary educated or Ph.D. degree holder.
Table: 4.48; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for Them
Your highest educational level * Presently available number of sources of funding
Presently available number of sources of funding Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
Your highest
educational level
Illiterate 1 1 0 0 0 2
(Up to) Primary (5th) 2 7 0 1 0 10
Secondary (8th) 6 17 4 1 0 28
High School (10th) 10 31 15 2 3 61
Intermediate (12th) 11 43 38 5 1 98
Bachelor’s degree 25 55 47 4 1 132
Post Graduate 21 42 27 3 2 95
Master’s degree 2 7 12 2 0 23
Ph. D. 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total 78 204 143 18 7 450
214 | P a g e
4.49 Entrepreneurs with Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or Training &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding for Them
Table: 4.49 shows entrepreneurs with any supplemental, continuing
education or training & presently available number of sources of funding for
them. It may be observed that most entrepreneurs (=61) having any supplemental,
continuing education or training tend to have 3 to 5 sources of funding and least
(=3) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding whereas most
entrepreneurs (=173) not having any supplemental, continuing education or
training tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=4) entrepreneur tend to
have more than 10 sources of funding.
Table: 4.49; Entrepreneurs with Any Supplemental, Continuing Education orTraining & Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding for Them
Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical, professional or functional business
skills) * Presently available number of sources of funding
Presently available number of sources of funding Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
Any supplemental, continuing education
or training (technical, professional or
functional business skills)
Yes 16 31 61 7 3 118
No 62 173 82 11 4 332
Total 78 204 143 18 7 450
4.50 Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/ Business & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for them
Table: 4.50 shows entrepreneurs’ type of industry/ business & presently
available number of sources of funding for them. It may be observed that in
Professional Services most (=26) entrepreneurs tend to have 3 to 5 sources of
funding and least (=0) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding.
In Consumer Services most (=27) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of
funding and least (=1) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding.
In Guest Services most (=28) entrepreneurs tend to have 3 to 5 sources of funding
and least (=2) entrepreneur tend to have 6 or more sources of funding. In
Manufacturing most (=29) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding
and least (=0) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding. In
Transportation or Public Utilities most (=15) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2
215 | P a g e
sources of funding and least (=2) entrepreneur tend to have 6 or more sources of
funding. In Retail most (=42) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding
and least (=1) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding. In
Wholesale most (=22) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and
least (=2) entrepreneur tend to have 6 or more sources of funding. In Agricultural
& Allied most (=18) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least
(=0) entrepreneur tend to have 6 or more sources of funding. In Construction
Related most (=13) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least
(=1) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding.
Table: 4.50; Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/ Business & PresentlyAvailable Number of Sources of Funding for them
Type of Industry/Business * Presently available number of sources of funding
Presently available number of sources of
funding
Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More
than 10
Type of
Industry/
Business
Professional services (e.g. accounting,
consulting)12 16 26 2 0 56
Consumer services (e.g. hairdressing, auto
service)11 27 20 4 1 63
Guest services (e.g. hotel, restaurant ) 5 20 28 2 2 57
Manufacturing (consumer or durable goods) 7 29 20 3 0 59
Transportation or public utilities 5 15 9 1 1 31
Retail ( including import/export) 21 42 18 3 1 85
Wholesale (including import/ export) 4 22 5 1 1 33
Agricultural or agricultural related 8 18 3 0 0 29
Construction related (Including all trades) 5 13 11 2 1 32
Mining, extraction, oil 0 2 3 0 0 5
Total 78 204 143 18 7 450
4.51 Category of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number of Sources ofFunding for them
216 | P a g e
Table: 4.51 shows category of entrepreneurs & presently available number
of sources of funding for them. It may be observed that in Scheduled Castes most
(=31) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=0)
entrepreneur tend to have more than 6 or more sources of funding. In Scheduled
Tribes most (=11) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least
(=0) entrepreneur tend to have more than 6 or more sources of funding. In Other
Backward Classes most (=83) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding
and least (=6) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding. And in
General Category most (=79) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding
and least (=1) entrepreneur tend to have more than 10 sources of funding.
Table: 4.51; Category of Entrepreneurs & Presently Available Number ofSources of Funding for them
Category of Entrepreneur * Presently available number of sources of funding
Presently available number of sources of funding Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
Category of
Entrepreneur
Scheduled Caste (S.C.) 17 31 13 0 0 61
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.) 2 11 10 0 0 23
Other Backward Classes 31 83 54 9 6 183
General 28 79 66 9 1 183
Total 78 204 143 18 7 450
4.52 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes of Entrepreneurshipbetween the Categories of Number of Availability of Sources of Funding
From the Table: 4.52 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Personal achievement between Categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, is 12.871 with df (degree of
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the
categories of number of availability of sources of funding, the level of
importance of personal achievement is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
217 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.52 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Status and Prestige between Categories of number
of availability of sources of funding, is 1.160 with df (degree of freedom) of 1
for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.282)
is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of number
of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of personal
achievement is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.52 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Economic necessity between Categories of number
of availability of sources of funding, is 6.901 with df (degree of freedom) of 1
for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.009)
is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of number
of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of economic
necessity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.52 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Flexibility in work/family between Categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, is .013 with df (degree of
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
Value (.909) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the
categories of number of availability of sources of funding, the level of
importance of flexibility in work/family is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.52 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Independence between Categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, is 6.273 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.013) is
more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of independence is
same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
218 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.52 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Learning and Professional growth between
Categories of number of availability of sources of funding, is 7.646 with df
(degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and
corresponding p-Value (.006) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, in all the categories of number of availability of sources of funding,
the level of importance of learning and professional growth is same’ is
‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.52 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas between
Categories of number of availability of sources of funding, is 1.958 with df
(degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and
corresponding p-Value (.162) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, in all the categories of number of availability of sources of funding,
the level of importance of testing of entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same’ is ‘Failed
to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.52 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Money and wealth between Categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, is 10.093 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.002) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of money and wealth
is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.52 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Opportunity between Categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, is 9.419 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.002) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of number of
219 | P a g e
availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of opportunity is
same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.52 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Recognition between Categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, is 3.938 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.048) is
more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of recognition is
same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.52 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Satisfying work relationships between Categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, is 5.648 with df (degree of
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
Value (.018) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the
categories of number of availability of sources of funding, the level of
importance of satisfying work relationships is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.52 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Career security between Categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, is 1.551 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.214) is
more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of career security is
same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
Table: 4.52; F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Categories of Number of Availability of
Sources of Funding
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Personal achievementBetween Groups 15.201 1 15.201 12.871 .000
Within Groups 529.077 448 1.181
220 | P a g e
Total 544.278 449
Status and Prestige
Between Groups 1.009 1 1.009 1.160 .282
Within Groups 389.711 448 .870
Total 390.720 449
Economic necessity
Between Groups 7.325 1 7.325 6.901 .009
Within Groups 475.555 448 1.062
Total 482.880 449
Flexibility in work / family
Between Groups .015 1 .015 .013 .909
Within Groups 504.583 448 1.126
Total 504.598 449
Independence
Between Groups 8.245 1 8.245 6.273 .013
Within Groups 588.780 448 1.314
Total 597.024 449
Learning and Personal
growth
Between Groups 7.646 1 7.646 7.779 .006
Within Groups 440.354 448 .983
Total 448.000 449
Test my own ideas
Between Groups 2.019 1 2.019 1.958 .162
Within Groups 461.939 448 1.031
Total 463.958 449
Money and Wealth
Between Groups 11.001 1 11.001 10.093 .002
Within Groups 488.279 448 1.090
Total 499.280 449
Opportunity
Between Groups 10.712 1 10.712 9.419 .002
Within Groups 509.486 448 1.137
Total 520.198 449
Recognition
Between Groups 4.152 1 4.152 3.938 .048
Within Groups 472.428 448 1.055
Total 476.580 449
Satisfying work
relationships
Between Groups 5.666 1 5.666 5.648 .018
Within Groups 449.359 448 1.003
Total 455.024 449
Career security
Between Groups 1.773 1 1.773 1.551 .214
Within Groups 512.005 448 1.143
Total 513.778 449
4.53 Most Available Source of Funding
From the Table: 4.53 & Figure: 4.53 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, most available source of funding for 364 (80.9%) entrepreneurs
are banks, for 45 (10.0%) entrepreneurs are private investors, for 17 (3.8%)
entrepreneurs are venture capitalists and for 24 (5.3%) entrepreneurs are
government loan programs.
221 | P a g e
Table: 4.53; Most Available Source of Funding
Most available source of funding
Frequency Percent
Banks 364 80.9
Private investors 45 10.0
Venture capitalists 17 3.8
Government loan programs 24 5.3
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.53; Most Available Source of Funding
Most Available Source of Funding
4.54 Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & Most Available Source ofFunding
Table: 454 shows enterprise being/ not being started by self & most
available source of funding. It may be observed that for enterprises started by self
most (=300) enterprises tend to have bank as most available source of funding and
least (=13) enterprises tend to have venture capitalist as most available source of
funding whereas for enterprises not started by self most (=64) enterprises tend to
have bank as most available source of funding and least (=4) enterprises tend to
have venture capitalist and government loan programs as most available sources
of funding.
4517
221 | P a g e
Table: 4.53; Most Available Source of Funding
Most available source of funding
Frequency Percent
Banks 364 80.9
Private investors 45 10.0
Venture capitalists 17 3.8
Government loan programs 24 5.3
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.53; Most Available Source of Funding
Most Available Source of Funding
4.54 Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & Most Available Source ofFunding
Table: 454 shows enterprise being/ not being started by self & most
available source of funding. It may be observed that for enterprises started by self
most (=300) enterprises tend to have bank as most available source of funding and
least (=13) enterprises tend to have venture capitalist as most available source of
funding whereas for enterprises not started by self most (=64) enterprises tend to
have bank as most available source of funding and least (=4) enterprises tend to
have venture capitalist and government loan programs as most available sources
of funding.
364
17 24Banks
Private investors
Venture capitalists
Government loanprograms
221 | P a g e
Table: 4.53; Most Available Source of Funding
Most available source of funding
Frequency Percent
Banks 364 80.9
Private investors 45 10.0
Venture capitalists 17 3.8
Government loan programs 24 5.3
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.53; Most Available Source of Funding
Most Available Source of Funding
4.54 Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & Most Available Source ofFunding
Table: 454 shows enterprise being/ not being started by self & most
available source of funding. It may be observed that for enterprises started by self
most (=300) enterprises tend to have bank as most available source of funding and
least (=13) enterprises tend to have venture capitalist as most available source of
funding whereas for enterprises not started by self most (=64) enterprises tend to
have bank as most available source of funding and least (=4) enterprises tend to
have venture capitalist and government loan programs as most available sources
of funding.
Banks
Private investors
Venture capitalists
Government loanprograms
222 | P a g e
Table: 454; Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & Most AvailableSource of Funding
Did enterprise start by self? * Most available source of funding
Most available source of funding Total
Banks Private
investors
Venture
capitalists
Government loan
programs
Did enterprise start by self?
Yes 300 39 13 20 372
No 64 6 4 4 78
Total 364 45 17 24 450
4.55 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Most Available Source of Funding
Table: 4.55 shows sex of entrepreneurs & most available source of funding.
It may be observed that for male entrepreneurs most (=290) enterprises tend to
have bank as most available source of funding and least (=14) enterprises tend to
have venture capitalist as most available source of funding whereas for female
entrepreneurs most (=74) enterprises tend to have bank as most available source of
funding and least (=3) enterprises tend to have venture capitalist as most available
source of funding.
Table: 4.55; Sex of Entrepreneurs & Most Available Source of Funding
Sex * Most available source of funding
Most available source of funding Total
Banks Private investors Venture capitalists Government loan programs
Sex
Male 290 37 14 19 360
Female 74 8 3 5 90
Total 364 45 17 24 450
4.56 Enterprise being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture &Most Available Source of Funding
Table: 4.56 shows enterprise being/ not being entrepreneurs’ first
entrepreneurial venture & most available source of funding. It may be observed
that for enterprise being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture most (=307)
223 | P a g e
enterprises tend to have bank as most available source of funding and least (=12)
enterprises tend to have venture capitalist as most available source of funding
whereas for enterprise not being entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture most
(=57) enterprises tend to have bank as most available source of funding and least
(=1) enterprises tend to have government loan programs as most available source
of funding
Table: 4.56; Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & Most AvailableSource of Funding
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? * Most available source of funding
Most available source of funding Total
Banks Private
investors
Venture
capitalists
Government
loan programs
Is this your first
entrepreneurial venture?
Yes 307 37 12 23 379
No 57 8 5 1 71
Total 364 45 17 24 450
4.57 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Most Available Source ofFunding
Table: 4.57 shows entrepreneurs’ highest educational level & most available
source of funding. Having total counts below 10 is excluded from analysis. It may
be observed that among Primary educated entrepreneurs most (=8) entrepreneurs
tend to have banks as most available sources of funding and least (=0) enterprise
tends to have venture capitalist and government loan programs as most available
sources of funding. Among Secondary educated entrepreneurs most (=22)
entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding and least
(=0) enterprise tends to have venture capitalist and government loan programs as
most available sources of funding. Among Highschool (10th) passed entrepreneurs
most (=52) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding
and least (=1) enterprise tends to have government loan programs as most
available source of funding. Among Intermediate (12th) passed entrepreneurs most
(=83) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding and
least (=4) enterprise tends to have government loan programs as most available
source of funding. Among Bachelors’ degree holder entrepreneurs most (=113)
224 | P a g e
entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding and least
(=1) enterprise tends to have venture capitalist as most available source of
funding. Among Post Graduate entrepreneurs most (=70) entrepreneurs tend to
have banks as most available source of funding and least (=6) enterprise tends to
have venture capitalist as most available sources of funding. Among Masters’
degree holder entrepreneurs most (=16) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most
available source of funding and least (=4) enterprises tends to have venture
capitalist and government loan programs as most available sources of funding.
Table: 4.57; Enterprise being/ not being Started by Self & Most AvailableSource of Funding
Your highest educational level * Most available source of funding
Most available source of funding Total
Banks Private
investors
Venture
capitalists
Government
loan programs
Your highest
educational
level
Illiterate 0 0 1 1 2
(Up to) Primary (5th) 8 2 0 0 10
Secondary (8th) 22 6 0 0 28
High School (10th) 52 6 2 1 61
Intermediate (12th) 83 6 5 4 98
Bachelor’s degree 113 10 1 8 132
Post Graduate 70 12 6 7 95
Master’s degree 16 3 2 2 23
Ph. D. 0 0 0 1 1
Total 364 45 17 24 450
4.58 Entrepreneurs with / without Any Supplemental, Continuing Education orTraining & Most Available Source of Funding
Table: 4.58 shows entrepreneurs with / without any supplemental,
continuing education or training & most available source of funding. It may be
observed that among entrepreneurs with any supplemental, continuing education
or training most (=100) entrepreneurs tend to have bank as most available source
225 | P a g e
of funding and least (=0) entrepreneurs tend to have venture capitalists as most
available source of funding enterprise whereas among entrepreneurs without any
supplemental, continuing education or training most (=264) entrepreneurs tend to
have bank as most available source of funding and least (=14) entrepreneurs tend
to have government loan programs as most available source of funding enterprise.
Table: 4.58; Entrepreneurs with / without Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Most Available Source of Funding
Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical, professional or functional business
skills) * Most available source of funding
Most available source of funding Total
Banks Private
investors
Venture
capitalists
Government
loan programs
Any supplemental, continuing education
or training (technical, professional or
functional business skills)
Yes 100 8 0 10 118
No 264 37 17 14 332
Total 364 45 17 24 450
4.59 Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business & Most Available Source of Funding
Table: 4.59 shows enterprises’ type of industry/business & most available
source of funding. It may be observed that for enterprises in Professional Services
most (=49) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding
and least (=0) enterprise tends to have venture capitalist as most available source
of funding. For enterprises in Consumer Services most (=50) entrepreneurs tend to
have banks as most available source of funding and least (=0) enterprise tends to
have venture capitalist as most available source of funding. For enterprises in
Guest Services most (=38) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available
source of funding and least (=3) enterprise tends to have venture capitalist as most
available source of funding. For enterprises in Manufacturing most (=49)
entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding and least
(=0) enterprise tends to have venture capitalist as most available source of
funding. For enterprises in Transportation or Public Utilities most (=23)
entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding and least
(=1) enterprise tends to have government loan programs as most available source
of funding. For enterprises in Retail most (=73) entrepreneurs tend to have banks
226 | P a g e
as most available source of funding and least (=3) enterprise tends to have
government loan programs as most available source of funding. For enterprises in
Wholesale most (=30) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source
of funding and least (=0) enterprise tends to have venture capitalist as most
available source of funding. For enterprises in Agricultural & Allied Sector most
(=22) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding and
least (=0) enterprise tends to have private investors as most available source of
funding. For enterprises in Construction Related activities most (=27)
entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of funding and least
(=1) enterprise tends to have venture capitalist as most available source of
funding. For enterprises in Mining, Extraction, Oil most (=5) entrepreneurs tend to
have banks as most available source of funding and least (=0) enterprise tends to
have private investors as most available source of funding.
Table: 4.59; Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business & Most Available Sourceof Funding
Type of Industry/Business * Most available source of funding
Most available source of funding Total
Banks Private
investor
Venture
capitalists
Govt.
loan
programs
Type of
Industry/
Business
Professional services (e.g. accounting,
consulting)49 5 0 2 56
Consumer services (e.g. hairdressing, auto
service)50 10 0 3 63
Guest services (e.g. hotel, restaurant ) 38 12 3 4 57
Manufacturing (consumer or durable
goods)49 5 0 5 59
Transportation or public utilities 23 4 3 1 31
Retail ( including import/export) 73 4 5 3 85
Wholesale (including import/ export) 30 2 0 1 33
Agricultural or agricultural related 22 0 5 2 29
227 | P a g e
Construction related (Including all trades) 27 2 1 2 32
Mining, extraction, oil 3 1 0 1 5
Total 364 45 17 24 450
4.60 Most Available Source of Funding & Presently Available Number of Sourcesof Funding for them
Table: 4.60 shows most available source of funding & presently available
number of sources of funding for them. It may be observed that among
entrepreneurs having bank as most available source of funding most (=175)
entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=2) entrepreneur
tend to have more than 10 sources of funding. Among entrepreneurs having
private investors as most available source of funding most (=16) entrepreneurs
tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding and least (=2) entrepreneur tend to have
more than 10 sources of funding.
Among entrepreneurs having venture capitalists as most available source of
funding most (=12) entrepreneurs tend to have none to 2 sources of funding and
least (=0) entrepreneur tend to have 6 to 10 sources of funding. Among
entrepreneurs having government loan programs as most available source of
funding most (=12) entrepreneurs tend to have 3 to 5 sources of funding and least
(=1) entrepreneur tend to have 6 to 10 sources of funding.
Table: 4.60; Most Available Source of Funding & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding for them
Most available source of funding * Presently available number of sources of funding
Presently available number of sources of funding Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
Most
available
source of
funding
Banks 58 175 116 13 2 364
Private investors 12 16 11 4 2 45
Venture capitalists 6 6 4 0 1 17
Government loan programs 2 7 12 1 2 24
Total 78 204 143 18 7 450
228 | P a g e
4.61 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes of Entrepreneurshipbetween the Types of Most Available Source of Funding
From the Table: 4.61 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Personal achievement between types of most
available source of funding, is 13.060 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for
between groups and 445 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the types of most available
source of funding, the level of importance of personal achievement is same’ is
‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.61 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for status and prestige between types of most available
source of funding, is 3.833 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for between groups
and 445 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.004) is less than .01 at
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most available source of funding,
the level of importance of status and prestige is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.61 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Economic necessity between types of most available
source of funding, is 3.995 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for between groups
and 445 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.003) is less than .01 at
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most available source of funding,
the level of importance of economic necessity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.61 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Flexibility in work/family between types of most
available source of funding, is 5.098 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for
between groups and 445 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.001) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most available
source of funding, the level of importance of flexibility in work/family is same’
is ‘Rejected’.
229 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.61 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Independence between types of most available
source of funding, is 7.993 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for between groups
and 445 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most available source of funding,
the level of importance of independence is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.61 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Learning and Personal growth between types of
most available source of funding, is 5.592 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for
between groups and 445 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most available
source of funding, the level of importance of learning and personal growth is
same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.61 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas between types of
most available source of funding, is 4.694 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for
between groups and 445 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.001) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most available
source of funding, the level of importance of testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas is
same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.61 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Money and Wealth between types of most available
source of funding, is 6.306 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for between groups
and 445 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most available source of funding,
the level of importance of money and wealth is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.61 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Opportunity between types of most available source
230 | P a g e
of funding, is 4.840 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for between groups and 445
for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.001) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most available source of funding,
the level of importance of opportunity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.61 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Recognition between types of most available source
of funding, is 3.128 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for between groups and 445
for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.015) is more than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most available source of funding,
the level of importance of recognition is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.61 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Satisfying work relationships between types of most
available source of funding, is 3.503 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for
between groups and 445 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.008) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most available
source of funding, the level of importance of satisfying work relationships is
same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.61 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Career security between types of most available
source of funding, is 1.356 with df (degree of freedom) of 4 for between groups
and 445 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.248) is more than .01 at
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the types of most available source of funding,
the level of importance of career security is same’ ‘Failed to Reject’.
Table: 4.61; F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Causes ofEntrepreneurship between the Types of Most Available Source of Funding
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Personal achievement Between Groups 57.182 4 14.296 13.060 .000
231 | P a g e
Within Groups 487.095 445 1.095
Total 544.278 449
Status and Prestige
Between Groups 13.015 4 3.254 3.833 .004
Within Groups 377.705 445 .849
Total 390.720 449
Economic necessity
Between Groups 16.740 4 4.185 3.995 .003
Within Groups 466.140 445 1.048
Total 482.880 449
Flexibility in work /
family
Between Groups 22.109 4 5.527 5.098 .001
Within Groups 482.489 445 1.084
Total 504.598 449
Independence
Between Groups 40.019 4 10.005 7.993 .000
Within Groups 557.006 445 1.252
Total 597.024 449
Learning and
Personal growth
Between Groups 21.442 4 5.361 5.592 .000
Within Groups 426.558 445 .959
Total 448.000 449
Test my own ideas
Between Groups 18.785 4 4.696 4.694 .001
Within Groups 445.173 445 1.000
Total 463.958 449
Money and Wealth
Between Groups 26.784 4 6.696 6.306 .000
Within Groups 472.496 445 1.062
Total 499.280 449
Opportunity
Between Groups 21.687 4 5.422 4.840 .001
Within Groups 498.510 445 1.120
Total 520.198 449
Recognition
Between Groups 13.031 4 3.258 3.128 .015
Within Groups 463.549 445 1.042
Total 476.580 449
Satisfying work
relationships
Between Groups 13.892 4 3.473 3.503 .008
Within Groups 441.132 445 .991
Total 455.024 449
Career security
Between Groups 6.188 4 1.547 1.356 .248
Within Groups 507.590 445 1.141
Total 513.778 449
4.62 Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with Their Enterprise
From the Table: 4.62 it may be seen that for 450 observed entrepreneurs,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for satisfaction with enterprise’s sales, profits and
overall satisfaction on the scale of 1 (Completely dissatisfied) to 5 (Completely
satisfied) is 3.67 with Std. Deviation of .856.
232 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.62 it may be seen that for 450 observed entrepreneurs,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for likelihood of continuing the same business on
the scale of 1 (Not any business) to 5 (Same Business, same way) is 3.67 with
Std. Deviation of .943.
Table: 4.62; Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Satisfaction with enterprise’s
sales, profits and overall
satisfaction
450 4 1 5 3.67 .856
Likelihood of continuing the
same business450 4 1 5 3.67 .943
4.62.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise
From the Table: 4.62.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for satisfaction with enterprise’s sales, profits and
overall satisfaction on the scale of 1 (Completely dissatisfied) to 5 (Completely
satisfied) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 16.687 with df
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not satisfied
with their enterprises’ sales, profit and overall satisfaction’ is ‘Rejected’ as the
mean is 3.67 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.62.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for likelihood of continuing the same business on the
scale of 1 (Not any business) to 5 (Same business, same way) against the mid-
rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 15.040 with df (degree of freedom) of 449
and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t wish to continue with same enterprises’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.67 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
Table: 4.62.1; T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Satisfaction with their Enterprise
233 | P a g e
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df p-Value
(1-tailed)
Mean
Difference
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Satisfaction with enterprise’s sales,
profits and overall satisfaction16.687 449 .000 .673 .57 .78
Likelihood of continuing the same
business15.040 449 .000 .669 .55 .78
4.63 Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies
From the Table: 4.63 it may be seen that for 450 observed entrepreneurs,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for risk bearing on the scale of 1 (In general, I have
a strong attraction for low–risk projects with normal and certain rates of
return) to 5 (In general, I have a strong attraction for high– risk projects with
chances of a very high return) is 3.07 with Std. Deviation of 1.178.
From the Table: 4.63 it may be seen that for 450 observed entrepreneurs,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for decision-making on the scale of 1 (Typically
adopt a bold, aggressive posture in order to maximize the probability of
exploiting potential opportunities) to 5 (Typically adopt a cautious, “wait and
see” posture in order to minimize the probability of making costly decisions)
is 3.38 with Std. Deviation of 1.187.
From the Table: 4.63 it may be seen that for 450 observed entrepreneurs,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for participation in professional / trade
associations on the scale of 1 (No participation) to 5 (Active, involved and
high levels of participation) is 3.80 with Std. Deviation of 1.013.
From the Table: 4.63 it may be seen that for 450 observed entrepreneurs,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for business applications of personal contacts on
the scale of 1 (No business applications) to 5 (Many, frequent and of great
benefit to enterprise) is 3.60 with Std. Deviation of 1.034.
Table: 4.63; Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies
234 | P a g e
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Rating Scale:
1 (In general, I have a strong
attraction for low–risk projects
with normal and certain rates of
return) to 5 (In general, I have a
strong attraction for high– risk
projects with chances of a very
high return)
450 4 1 5 3.07 1.178
Rating Scale:
1 (Typically adopt a bold,
aggressive posture in order to
maximize the probability of
exploiting potential
opportunities) to 5 (Typically
adopt a cautious, “wait and see”
posture in order to minimize the
probability of making costly
decisions)
450 4 1 5 3.38 1.187
Participation in professional /
trade associations450 4 1 5 3.80 1.013
Business applications of personal
contacts450 4 1 5 3.60 1.034
From the Figure: it may be seen for personal entrepreneurial attitude &
tendencies mean rating is highest (3.80) for participation in professional / trade
associations whereas lowest (3.07) mean rating is for risk bearing. It means that
major attitude & personal tendency of entrepreneurs tends to be participation in
professional / trade associations and minor attitude & personal tendency of
entrepreneurs tends to be risk bearing.
Figure: 4.63; Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies
235 | P a g e
4.63.1 T Test for Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies
From the Table: 4.63.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, on the scale of 1 (In general, I have a strong attraction
for low–risk projects with normal and certain rates of return) to 5 (In
general, I have a strong attraction for high– risk projects with chances of a
very high return) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 1.321 with
df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘in general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have a
strong attraction for low–risk projects with normal and certain rates of return’
is ‘Failed to Reject’ as the mean is 3.07 and the p Value (.094) is more than .01
at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.63.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, on the scale of 1 (Typically adopt a bold, aggressive
posture in order to maximize the probability of exploiting potential
opportunities) to 5 (Typically adopt a cautious, “wait and see” posture in
order to minimize the probability of making costly decisions) against the mid-
rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 6.833 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh typically adopt a bold, aggressive posture in order to
maximize the probability of exploiting potential opportunities’ is ‘Rejected’ as
3.8 3.6 3.383.07
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
4
Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude &Tendencies
Personal EntrepreneurialAttitude & Tendencies
236 | P a g e
the mean is 3.38 and the p Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.63.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for participation in professional / trade associations on
the scale of on the scale of 1 (No participation) to 5 (Active, involved and high
levels of participation) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is
16.845 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore
the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t
participate in professional / trade associations’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.80
and the p Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.63.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for business applications of personal contacts on the
scale of 1 (No business applications) to 5 (Many, frequent and of great benefit
to enterprise) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.262 with df
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have business
applications of personal contacts’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.60 and the p
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Table: 4.63.1; T Test for Personal Entrepreneurial Attitude & Tendencies
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df Sig. (1-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Rating Scale:
1 (In general, I have a strong attraction
for low–risk projects with normal and
certain rates of return) to 5 (In general, I
have a strong attraction for high– risk
projects with chances of a very high
return)
1.321 449 .094 .073 -.07 .22
237 | P a g e
Rating Scale:
1 (Typically adopt a bold, aggressive
posture in order to maximize the
probability of exploiting potential
opportunities) to 5 (Typically adopt a
cautious, “wait and see” posture in order
to minimize the probability of making
costly decisions)
6.833 449 .000 .382 .24 .53
Participation in professional / trade
associations16.845 449 .000 .804 .68 .93
Business applications of personal
contacts12.262 449 .000 .598 .47 .72
4.64 Entrepreneurs’ Psychology
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I push myself and feel real satisfaction when
my work is among the best on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly
agree) is 3.21 with Std. Deviation of 1.174.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for happens in my enterprise is affected more by
my abilities, control and guidance than by external influences on the scale of 1
(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.52 with Std. Deviation of 1.060.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I need to know that it’s already been done
before I’m willing to try it on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly
agree) is 3.51 with Std. Deviation of 1.054.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I respect rules and established procedures
because they guide me on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly
agree) is 3.57 with Std. Deviation of 1.074.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I Feel self-conscious when I am with very
successful entrepreneur(s) on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly
agree) is 3.55 with Std. Deviation of 1.061.
238 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am ultimately responsible for my own
enterprise’s success on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)
is 3.60 with Std. Deviation of 1.032.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am quite independent of the opinions of
others on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.64 with
Std. Deviation of 1.089.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for In pursuing business opportunities, I enjoy
intimidating other on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is
3.62 with Std. Deviation of 1.059.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for My goals and ambitions are generally modest
and easily achieved on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)
is 3.53 with Std. Deviation of 1.070.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I enjoy the uncertainty and risks of business;
they energize me more than circumstances with predictable outcomes on the
scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.50 with Std. Deviation
of 1.019.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I do not consider myself to be particularly
inventive or creative on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)
is 3.58 with Std. Deviation of 1.097.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Nothing that life can offer is a substitute for
great achievement on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is
3.25 with Std. Deviation of 1.224.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I spend more time thinking about my future
239 | P a g e
goals than my past accomplishments on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree) is 3.52 with Std. Deviation of 1.083.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am uncomfortable when I have complete
responsibility for deciding how and when to do my work on the scale of 1
(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.54 with Std. Deviation of 1.055.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I seldom get a sense of pride and
accomplishment from my work on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree) is 3.56 with Std. Deviation of 1.052.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I get excited creating my own business
opportunities on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.61
with Std. Deviation of 1.063.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I entered in entrepreneurship by choice not by
obligation to ensure livelihood on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree) is 3.60 with Std. Deviation of 1.038.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am willing to risk my personal and family’s
material well being for the sake of my enterprise on the scale of 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.46 with Std. Deviation of 1.064.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am confident of my abilities and feel good
about myself on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.42
with Std. Deviation of 1.078.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for An opportunity to beat a competitor in a
business deal is always a personal thrill on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to
5 (Strongly agree) is 3.60 with Std. Deviation of 1.083.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I enjoy being able to use old business concepts
240 | P a g e
in new ways on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.49
with Std. Deviation of 1.133.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for success comes from conforming to accepted
business practices more so than constantly doing new things on the scale of 1
(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.49 with Std. Deviation of 1.069.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I can control most situations I find myself in on
the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.54 with Std.
Deviation of 1.116.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for it is important to continually look for new way
to do things in the enterprise on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree) is 3.52 with Std. Deviation of 1.095.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I like a job in which I don’t have to answer to
any one on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.48 with
Std. Deviation of 1.113.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I frequently find myself in situations where I
am powerless to control the outcome(s) on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to
5 (Strongly agree) is 3.43 with Std. Deviation of 1.135.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I often approach business tasks in unique ways
on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.51 with Std.
Deviation of 1.101.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I buy insurance every time I travel on the scale
of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.40 with Std. Deviation of
1.181.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I do not enjoy being the catalyst for change in
241 | P a g e
business affairs on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is
3.52 with Std. Deviation of 1.125.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Most business circumstances happen because
of luck, whether good or bad on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree) is 3.53 with Std. Deviation of 1.131.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for My knack for dealing with people has enabled
me to create many of my business opportunities on the scale of 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.58 with Std. Deviation of 1.098.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I find that I can think better when I have
guidance and advice from others on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree) is 3.57 with Std. Deviation of 1.121.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I frequently have doubts about myself or my
abilities when making business proposals on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree)
to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.54 with Std. Deviation of 1.142.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am in total control of my destiny on the scale
of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.53 with Std. Deviation of
1.097.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I worry about what my business associates
think of me on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.47
with Std. Deviation of 1.101.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for In business, I enjoy turning circumstances to
my advantage on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.59
with Std. Deviation of 1.102.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I am driven to ever greater efforts by an
242 | P a g e
unquenched ambition on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly
agree) is 3.57 with Std. Deviation of 1.034.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Successful entrepreneur pursue any
opportunity, and do what they have to do in order to survive on the scale of 1
(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.60 with Std. Deviation of 1.062.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I thrive in situations which encourage and
reward my creativity on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly
agree) is 3.55 with Std. Deviation of 1.084.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I need to know the answer before I’ll ask a
question on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.52 with
Std. Deviation of 1.036.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I judge my work by considering whether it
meets the minimum requirements for the task on the scale of 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.52 with Std. Deviation of 1.074.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for My goal when starting this enterprise was to
‘do the kind of work I wanted to do’on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree) is 3.56 with Std. Deviation of 1.075.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for My goal when starting this enterprise was to
‘make more money than otherwise’ on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree) is 3.51 with Std. Deviation of 1.075.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I, sometime, lack working capital/liquid
assets/funds to sustain which contributes in industrial sickness on the scale of
1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.49 with Std. Deviation of 1.109.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I think women entrepreneurs in MSMEs in
243 | P a g e
U.P. have problems beyond men entrepreneurs’ problems on the scale of 1
(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.50 with Std. Deviation of 1.047.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for I think I have become competent entrepreneur
to achieve long term objectives of the enterprise in effective and efficient
manner on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.62 with
Std. Deviation of 1.082.
From the Table: 4.64 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Because I’m unsure of myself, I spend a lot of
time looking for someone who can tell me how to solve all my entrepreneurial
problems on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.34 with
Std. Deviation of 1.127.
Table: 4.64; Entrepreneurs’ Psychology
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
I push myself and feel real
satisfaction when my work is
among the best
450 4 1 5 3.21 1.174
Happens in my enterprise is
affected more by my abilities,
control and guidance than by
external influences
450 4 1 5 3.52 1.060
I need to know that it’s already
been done before I’m willing to
try it
450 4 1 5 3.51 1.054
I respect rules and established
procedures because they guide
me
450 4 1 5 3.57 1.074
I Feel self-conscious when I am
with very successful
entrepreneur(s)
450 4 1 5 3.55 1.061
244 | P a g e
I am ultimately responsible for
my own enterprise’s success450 4 1 5 3.60 1.032
I am quite independent of the
opinions of others450 4 1 5 3.64 1.089
In pursuing business
opportunities, I enjoy
intimidating other
450 4 1 5 3.62 1.059
My goals and ambitions are
generally modest and easily
achieved
450 4 1 5 3.53 1.070
I do not consider myself to be
particularly inventive or creative450 4 1 5 3.50 1.019
I enjoy the uncertainty and risks
of business; they energize me
more than circumstances with
predictable outcomes
450 4 1 5 3.58 1.097
Nothing that life can offer is a
substitute for great achievement450 4 1 5 3.25 1.224
I spend more time thinking about
my future goals than my past
accomplishments
450 4 1 5 3.52 1.083
I am uncomfortable when I have
complete responsibility for
deciding how and when to do my
work
450 4 1 5 3.54 1.055
I seldom get a sense of pride and
accomplishment from my work450 4 1 5 3.56 1.052
I get excited creating my own
business opportunities450 4 1 5 3.61 1.063
I entered in entrepreneurship by
choice not by obligation to
ensure livelihood
450 4 1 5 3.60 1.038
I am willing to risk my personal
and family’s material well being
for the sake of my enterprise
450 4 1 5 3.46 1.064
245 | P a g e
I am confident of my abilities
and feel good about myself450 4 1 5 3.42 1.078
An opportunity to beat a
competitor in a business deal is
always a personal thrill
450 4 1 5 3.60 1.083
I enjoy being able to use old
business concepts in new ways450 4 1 5 3.49 1.133
Success comes from conforming
to accepted business practices
more so than constantly doing
new things
450 4 1 5 3.49 1.064
I can control most situations I
find myself in450 4 1 5 3.54 1.116
It is important to continually look
for new way to do things in the
enterprise
450 4 1 5 3.52 1.095
I like a job in which I don’t have
to answer to any one450 4 1 5 3.48 1.113
I frequently find myself in
situations where I am powerless
to control the outcome(s)
450 4 1 5 3.43 1.135
I often approach business tasks in
unique ways450 4 1 5 3.51 1.101
I buy insurance every time I
travel450 4 1 5 3.40 1.181
I do not enjoy being the catalyst
for change in business affairs450 4 1 5 3.52 1.125
Most business circumstances
happen because of luck, whether
good or bad
450 4 1 5 3.53 1.131
My knack for dealing with
people has enabled me to create
many of my business
opportunities
450 4 1 5 3.58 1.098
246 | P a g e
I find that I can think better when
I have guidance and advice from
others
450 4 1 5 3.57 1.121
I frequently have doubts about
myself or my abilities when
making business proposals
450 4 1 5 3.54 1.142
I am in total control of my
destiny450 4 1 5 3.53 1.097
I worry about what my business
associates think of me450 4 1 5 3.47 1.101
In business, I enjoy turning
circumstances to my advantage450 4 1 5 3.59 1.102
I am driven to ever greater
efforts by an unquenched
ambition
450 4 1 5 3.57 1.034
Successful entrepreneur pursue
any opportunity, and do what
they have to do in order to
survive
450 4 1 5 3.60 1.062
I thrive in situations which
encourage and reward my
creativity
450 4 1 5 3.55 1.084
I need to know the answer before
I’ll ask a question450 4 1 5 3.52 1.036
I judge my work by considering
whether it meets the minimum
requirements for the task
450 4 1 5 3.52 1.074
My goal when starting this
enterprise was to ‘do the kind of
work I wanted to do’
450 4 1 5 3.56 1.075
My goal when starting this
enterprise was to ‘make more
money than otherwise’
450 4 1 5 3.51 1.075
247 | P a g e
I, sometime, lack working
capital/liquid assets/funds to
sustain which contributes in
industrial sickness
450 4 1 5 3.49 1.109
I think women entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in U.P. have problems
beyond men entrepreneurs’
problems
450 4 1 5 3.50 1.047
I think I have become competent
entrepreneur to achieve long
term objectives of the enterprise
in effective and efficient manner
450 4 1 5 3.62 1.082
Because I’m unsure of myself, I
spend a lot of time looking for
someone who can tell me how to
solve all my entrepreneurial
problems
450 4 1 5 3.34 1.127
Figure: gives mean rating in ascending order for entrepreneurs’
psychological factors. From the Figure: it may be seen among entrepreneurs’
psychological factors mean rating is highest (3.64) for I am quite independent of
the opinions of others whereas lowest (3.21) mean rating is for I push myself
and feel real satisfaction when my work is among the best. It means that major
psychological factor of entrepreneurs tends to be their independence of the
opinions from others and minor psychological factor of entrepreneurs tends to
be their drive for themselves and feeling of real satisfaction when their work is
among the best.
Figure: 4.64; Entrepreneurs’ Psychology
248 | P a g e
3.643.623.623.613.63.63.63.63.593.583.583.573.573.573.563.563.553.553.543.543.543.533.533.533.523.523.523.523.523.523.513.513.513.53.53.493.493.493.483.473.46
3.433.42
3.43.34
3.253.21
2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
I am quite independent of…In pursuing business…
I think I have become…I get excited creating my…
I am ultimately…I entered in…
An opportunity to beat a…Successful entrepreneur…
In business, I enjoy…I enjoy the uncertainty…
My knack for dealing with…I respect rules and…
I find that I can think…I am driven to ever…
I seldom get a sense of…My goal when starting…
I Feel self-conscious when…I thrive in situations which…I am uncomfortable when…
I can control most…I frequently have doubts…My goals and ambitions…
Most business…I am in total control of my…Happens in my enterprise…
I spend more time…It is important to…
I do not enjoy being the…I need to know the…I judge my work by…
I need to know that it’s…I often approach business…
My goal when starting…I do not consider myself…
I think women…I enjoy being able to use…
Success comes from…I, sometime, lack working…
I like a job in which I don’t…I worry about what my…I am willing to risk my…
I frequently find myself in…I am confident of my…
I buy insurance every time…Because I’m unsure of…
Nothing that life can offer…I push myself and feel real…
Entrepreneurs’ Psychology
Entrepreneurs’ Psychology
249 | P a g e
4.64.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Psychological Variables
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I push myself and feel real satisfaction when my
work is among the best on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly
disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 3.814 with df
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t push
themselves and don’t feel real satisfaction when their work is among the best is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.21 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for happens in my enterprise is affected more by my
abilities, control and guidance than by external influences on the scale of 1
(Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as
Test Value, is 10.453 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘happenings in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh are not affected more by entrepreneurs’ abilities, control and guidance
than by external influences’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.52 and the p-Value
(.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I need to know that it’s already been done before
I’m willing to try it on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.290 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t need to know that it’s already
been done before they are willing to try it’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.51 and
the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I respect rules and established procedures because
they guide me on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 11.322 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t respect rules and established
250 | P a g e
procedures as they guide them’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.57 and the p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I Feel self-conscious when I am with very successful
entrepreneur(s) on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 11.020 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t feel self-conscious when they
are with very successful entrepreneur(s)’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.55 and
the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am ultimately responsible for my own enterprise’s
success on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the
mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.239 with df (degree of freedom) of
449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not ultimately responsible for
their own enterprises’ success’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.60 and the p-Value
(.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am quite independent of the opinions of others on
the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating
value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.383 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs
in Uttar Pradesh are not quite independent of the opinions of others’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.64 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for In pursuing business opportunities, I enjoy
intimidating other on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.414 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy intimidating other in
251 | P a g e
pursuing business opportunities’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.62 and the p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for My goals and ambitions are generally modest and
easily achieved on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.440 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh generally don’t have modest and
easily achievable goals and ambitions’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.53 and the
p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I do not consider myself to be particularly inventive
or creative on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against
the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.406 with df (degree of freedom)
of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not particularly inventive or
creative’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.50 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01
at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I enjoy the uncertainty and risks of business; they
energize me more than circumstances with predictable outcomes on the scale
of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e.
3) as Test Value, is 11.134 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs
in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy the uncertainty and risks of business and they
don’t energize them more than circumstances with predictable outcomes’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.58 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for nothing that life can offer is a substitute for great
achievement on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against
the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 4.389 with df (degree of freedom) of
449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
252 | P a g e
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t believe that nothing that life
can offer is a substitute for great achievement’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.25
and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I spend more time thinking about my future goals
than my past accomplishments on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5
(Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.276
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t spend more
time thinking about their future goals than their past accomplishments’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.52 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am uncomfortable when I have complete
responsibility for deciding how and when to do my work on the scale of 1
(Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as
Test Value, is 10.858 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh are comfortable when they have complete responsibility for deciding
how and when to do their work’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.54 and the p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I seldom get a sense of pride and accomplishment
from my work on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 11.385 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t get a sense of pride and
accomplishment from their work’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.56 and the p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I get excited creating my own business opportunities
on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating
value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.153 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
253 | P a g e
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs
in Uttar Pradesh don’t get excited creating their own business opportunities’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.61 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I entered in entrepreneurship by choice not by
obligation to ensure livelihood on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly
disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.211 with df
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enter in
entrepreneurship by choice but by obligation to ensure livelihood’ is ‘Rejected’
as the mean is 3.60 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am willing to risk my personal and family’s
material well being for the sake of my enterprise on the scale of 1 (Strongly
agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value,
is 9.263 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore
the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not
willing to risk their personal and family’s material well being for the sake of
their enterprise’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.46 and the p-Value (.000) is less
than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am confident of my abilities and feel good about
myself on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the
mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 8.351 with df (degree of freedom) of 449
and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not confident of their abilities and they don’t feel
good about themselves’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.42 and the p-Value (.000)
is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for An opportunity to beat a competitor in a business
deal is always a personal thrill on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly
254 | P a g e
disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 11.714 with df
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh an opportunity
to beat a competitor in a business deal is not a personal thrill’ is ‘Rejected’ as
the mean is 3.60 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I enjoy being able to use old business concepts in
new ways on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the
mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.153 with df (degree of freedom) of 449
and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy being able to use old business concepts in
new ways’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.49 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Success comes from conforming to accepted
business practices more so than constantly doing new things on the scale of 1
(Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as
Test Value, is 9.790 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh don’t believe that success comes from conforming to accepted business
practices more so than constantly doing new things’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
3.49 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I can control most situations I find myself in on the
scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value
(i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.302 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs
in Uttar Pradesh can’t control most situations they find themselves in’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.54 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for It is important to continually look for new way to do
255 | P a g e
things in the enterprise on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly
disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.161 with df
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t think that it’s
important to continually look for new way to do things in the enterprise’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.52 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I like a job in which I don’t have to answer to any
one on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-
rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.148 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t like a job in which they don’t have to answer to
any one’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.48 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01
at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I frequently find myself in situations where I am
powerless to control the outcome(s) on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5
(Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 8.058
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t frequently
find themselves in situations where they are powerless to control the
outcome(s)’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.43 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I often approach business tasks in unique ways on
the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating
value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.803 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs
in Uttar Pradesh don’t often approach business tasks in unique ways’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.51 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
256 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I buy insurance every time I travel on the scale of 1
(Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as
Test Value, is 7.264 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh don’t buy insurance every time they travel’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
3.40 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I do not enjoy being the catalyst for change in
business affairs on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.720 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enjoy being the catalyst for change
in business affairs’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.52 and the p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Most business circumstances happen because of
luck, whether good or bad on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly
disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.964 with df
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t believe that
business circumstances happen because of luck, whether good or bad’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.53 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for My knack for dealing with people has enabled me to
create many of my business opportunities on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to
5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 11.292
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t think that
their knack for dealing with people has enabled them to create many of their
business opportunities’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.58 and the p-Value (.000)
is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
257 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I find that I can think better when I have guidance
and advice from others on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly
disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.807 with df
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t find that they
can think better when they have guidance and advice from others’ is ‘Rejected’
as the mean is 3.57 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I frequently have doubts about myself or my
abilities when making business proposals on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to
5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.987
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have doubts
frequently about themselves or their abilities when making business proposals’
is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.54 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am in total control of my destiny on the scale of 1
(Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as
Test Value, is 10.273 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh are not in total control of their destiny’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
3.53 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I worry about what my business associates think of
me on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-
rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.078 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t worry about what their business associates
think about them’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.47 and the p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
258 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for In business, I enjoy turning circumstances to my
advantage on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the
mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 11.339 with df (degree of freedom) of
449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy turning circumstances
to their advantage in business’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.59 and the p-Value
(.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I am driven to ever greater efforts by an
unquenched ambition on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly
disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 11.620 with df
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not driven to
ever greater efforts by an unquenched ambition’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
3.57 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Successful entrepreneur pursue any opportunity,
and do what they have to do in order to survive on the scale of 1 (Strongly
agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value,
is 11.943 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t think that successful entrepreneurs pursue any opportunity, and do what
they have to do in order to survive’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.60 and the p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I thrive in situations which encourage and reward
my creativity on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against
the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.832 with df (degree of freedom)
of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t thrive in situations which
encourage and reward their creativity’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.55 and the
p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
259 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I need to know the answer before I’ll ask a question
on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating
value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.735 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs
in Uttar Pradesh don’t need to know the answer before they ask a question’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.52 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I judge my work by considering whether it meets the
minimum requirements for the task on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5
(Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.178
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t judge their
work by considering whether that meets the minimum requirements for the task’
is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.52 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for My goal when starting this enterprise was to ‘do the
kind of work I wanted to do on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly
disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 11.141 with df
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t start their
enterprises for doing the kind of work they want to do’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean
is 3.56 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for My goal when starting this enterprise was to ‘make
more money than otherwise on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly
disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.002 with df
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t start their
enterprise to make more money than otherwise’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
3.51 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
260 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I, sometime, lack working capital/liquid assets/funds
to sustain which contributes in industrial sickness on the scale of 1 (Strongly
agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value,
is 9.307 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore
the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh never lack
working capital/liquid assets/funds (which contributes in industrial sickness) to
sustain’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.49 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01
at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I think women entrepreneurs in MSMEs in U.P.
have problems beyond men entrepreneurs’ problems on the scale of 1
(Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as
Test Value, is 10.082 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh don’t think women entrepreneurs in MSMEs in U.P. have problems
beyond men entrepreneurs’ problems’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.50 and the
p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for I think I have become competent entrepreneur to
achieve long term objectives of the enterprise in effective and efficient
manner on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the
mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.198 with df (degree of freedom) of
449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have not become competent
entrepreneur to achieve long term objectives of their enterprises in effective and
efficient manner’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.62 and the p-Value (.000) is less
than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.64.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Because I’m unsure of myself, I spend a lot of time
looking for someone who can tell me how to solve all my entrepreneurial
problems on the scale of 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree) against the
mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 6.316 with df (degree of freedom) of 449
261 | P a g e
and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t spend a lot of time looking for someone who
can tell them how to solve all their entrepreneurial problems because they are
unsure of themselves’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.34 and the p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Table: 4.64.1; T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Psychological Variables
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df p-Value
(1-tailed)
Mean
Difference
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
I push myself and feel real satisfaction
when my work is among the best3.814 449 .000 .211 .07 .35
Happens in my enterprise is affected
more by my abilities, control and
guidance than by external influences
10.453 449 .000 .522 .39 .65
I need to know that it’s already been
done before I’m willing to try it10.290 449 .000 .511 .38 .64
I respect rules and established
procedures because they guide me11.322 449 .000 .573 .44 .70
I Feel self-conscious when I am with
very successful entrepreneur(s)11.020 449 .000 .551 .42 .68
I am ultimately responsible for my own
enterprise’s success12.239 449 .000 .596 .47 .72
I am quite independent of the opinions
of others12.383 449 .000 .636 .50 .77
In pursuing business opportunities, I
enjoy intimidating other12.414 449 .000 .620 .49 .75
My goals and ambitions are generally
modest and easily achieved10.440 449 .000 .527 .40 .66
I do not consider myself to be
particularly inventive or creative10.406 449 .000 .500 .38 .62
262 | P a g e
I enjoy the uncertainty and risks of
business; they energize me more than
circumstances with predictable
outcomes
11.134 449 .000 .576 .44 .71
Nothing that life can offer is a
substitute for great achievement4.389 449 .000 .253 .10 .40
I spend more time thinking about my
future goals than my past
accomplishments
10.276 449 .000 .524 .39 .66
I am uncomfortable when I have
complete responsibility for deciding
how and when to do my work
10.858 449 .000 .540 .41 .67
I seldom get a sense of pride and
accomplishment from my work11.385 449 .000 .564 .44 .69
I get excited creating my own business
opportunities12.153 449 .000 .609 .48 .74
I entered in entrepreneurship by choice
not by obligation to ensure livelihood12.211 449 .000 .598 .47 .72
I am willing to risk my personal and
family’s material well being for the
sake of my enterprise
9.263 449 .000 .464 .33 .59
I am confident of my abilities and feel
good about myself8.351 449 .000 .424 .29 .56
An opportunity to beat a competitor in
a business deal is always a personal
thrill
11.714 449 .000 .598 .47 .73
I enjoy being able to use old business
concepts in new ways9.153 449 .000 .489 .35 .63
Success comes from conforming to
accepted business practices more so
than constantly doing new things
9.790 449 .000 .491 .36 .62
I can control most situations I find
myself in10.302 449 .000 .542 .41 .68
263 | P a g e
It is important to continually look for
new way to do things in the enterprise10.161 449 .000 .524 .39 .66
I like a job in which I don’t have to
answer to any one9.148 449 .000 .480 .34 .62
I frequently find myself in situations
where I am powerless to control the
outcome(s)
8.058 449 .000 .431 .29 .57
I often approach business tasks in
unique ways9.803 449 .000 .509 .37 .64
I buy insurance every time I travel 7.264 449 .000 .404 .26 .55
I do not enjoy being the catalyst for
change in business affairs9.720 449 .000 .516 .38 .65
Most business circumstances happen
because of luck, whether good or bad9.964 449 .000 .531 .39 .67
My knack for dealing with people has
enabled me to create many of my
business opportunities
11.292 449 .000 .584 .45 .72
I find that I can think better when I
have guidance and advice from others10.807 449 .000 .571 .43 .71
I frequently have doubts about myself
or my abilities when making business
proposals
9.987 449 .000 .538 .40 .68
I am in total control of my destiny 10.273 449 .000 .531 .40 .66
I worry about what my business
associates think of me9.078 449 .000 .471 .34 .61
In business, I enjoy turning
circumstances to my advantage11.339 449 .000 .589 .45 .72
I am driven to ever greater efforts by
an unquenched ambition11.620 449 .000 .567 .44 .69
Successful entrepreneur pursue any
opportunity, and do what they have to
do in order to survive
11.943 449 .000 .598 .47 .73
264 | P a g e
I thrive in situations which encourage
and reward my creativity10.832 449 .000 .553 .42 .69
I need to know the answer before I’ll
ask a question10.735 449 .000 .524 .40 .65
I judge my work by considering
whether it meets the minimum
requirements for the task
10.178 449 .000 .516 .38 .65
My goal when starting this enterprise
was to ‘do the kind of work I wanted to
do’
11.141 449 .000 .564 .43 .70
My goal when starting this enterprise
was to ‘make more money than
otherwise’
10.002 449 .000 .507 .38 .64
I, sometime, lack working
capital/liquid assets/funds to sustain
which contributes in industrial sickness
9.307 449 .000 .487 .35 .62
I think women entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in U.P. have problems beyond
men entrepreneurs’ problems
10.082 449 .000 .498 .37 .63
I think I have become competent
entrepreneur to achieve long term
objectives of the enterprise in effective
and efficient manner
12.198 449 .000 .622 .49 .75
Because I’m unsure of myself, I spend
a lot of time looking for someone who
can tell me how to solve all my
entrepreneurial problems
6.316 449 .000 .336 .20 .47
4.65 Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about Their Enterprises
From the Table: 4.65 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (In dealing with its competitors,
my enterprise typically responds to actions which competitors initiate) to 5
(My enterprise typically initiates actions which our competitors then respond
to) is 3.58 with Std. Deviation of 1.005.
265 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.65 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Is seldom the first business to
introduce new products or services, administrative techniques, operating
technologies etc.) to 5 (Is very often the first business to introduce new
products or services, administrative techniques, operating technologies etc.)
is 3.54 with Std. Deviation of .960.
From the Table: 4.65 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (In general, the top manager(s) of
my enterprise favour a strong emphasis on the marketing of tried and true
products and services) to 5 (Favour a strong emphasis on R & D,
technological leadership and innovations) is 3.59 with Std. Deviation of 1.048.
From the Table: 4.65 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for How many new lines of products or services
has your enterprise marketed in the past five (5) years? on the scale of 1 (No
new lines of products or services) to 5 (Many new lines of products or
services) is 3.45 with Std. Deviation of .941.
From the Table: 4.65 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Regarding changing product or service lines,
how would you characterize your enterprise’s tendency to change products
or services? on the scale of 1 (Changes have been mostly of a minor nature) to
5 (Changes have usually been quite dramatic) is 3.45 with Std. Deviation of
.941.
From the Table: 4.65 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for My assessment of the enterprise’s level of
technology in terms of the work that we do, and how we do it, is: on the scale
of 1 (Low technology) to 5 (High technology) is 3.45 with Std. Deviation of
.941.
Table: 4.65; Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about Their Enterprises
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
266 | P a g e
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statisti
c
Statistic
Rating Scale:
1 (In dealing with its
competitors, my enterprise
typically responds to
actions which competitors
initiate) to 5 (My enterprise
typically initiates actions
which our competitors then
respond to)
450 4 1 5 3.58 1.007
Rating Scale:
1 (Is seldom the first
business to introduce new
products or services,
administrative techniques,
operating technologies etc.)
to 5 (Is very often the first
business to introduce new
products or services,
administrative techniques,
operating technologies etc.)
450 4 1 5 3.54 .960
Rating Scale:
1 (In general, the top
manager(s) of my
enterprise favour a strong
emphasis on the marketing
of tried and true products
and services) to 5 (Favour
a strong emphasis on R &
D, technological leadership
and innovations)
450 4 1 5 3.59 1.048
267 | P a g e
How many new lines of
products or services has
your enterprise marketed in
the past five (5) years?
Rating Scale:
1 (No new lines of
products or services) to 5
(Many new lines of
products or services)
450 4 1 5 3.53 1.068
Regarding changing
product or service lines,
how would you
characterize your
enterprise’s tendency to
change products or
services?
Rating Scale:
1 (Changes have been
mostly of a minor nature)
to 5 (Changes have usually
been quite dramatic)
450 4 1 5 3.16 1.074
My assessment of the
enterprise’s level of
technology in terms of the
work that we do, and how
we do it, is
Rating Scale:
1 (Low technology) to 5
(High technology)
450 4 1 5 3.92 1.001
4.65.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about Their Enterprises
From the Table: 4.65.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, on the scale of 1 (In dealing with its competitors, my
enterprise typically responds to actions which competitors initiate) to 5 (My
enterprise typically initiates actions which our competitors then respond to)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.312 with df (degree of
268 | P a g e
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in dealing with their competitors,
typically responds to actions which competitors initiate’ is ‘Rejected’ as the
mean is 3.58 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.65.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, on the scale of 1 (Is seldom the first business to
introduce new products or services, administrative techniques, operating
technologies etc.) to 5 (Is very often the first business to introduce new
products or services, administrative techniques, operating technologies etc.)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 11.882 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, are seldom the first business to introduce new
products or services, administrative techniques, operating technologies etc.’
is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.54 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.65.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, on the scale of 1 (In general, the top manager(s) of my
enterprise favour a strong emphasis on the marketing of tried and true
products and services) to 5 (Favour a strong emphasis on R & D,
technological leadership and innovations) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as
Test Value, is 11.922 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘top management in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, favour a strong emphasis on the marketing of tried and true products
and services’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.59 and the p-Value (.000) is less
than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.65.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for “How many new lines of products or services has
your enterprise marketed in the past five (5) years?” on the scale of 1 (No new
lines of products or services) to 5 (Many new lines of products or services)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.461 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘in the past five years, no new lines of products or services have been introduced
269 | P a g e
by entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.53
and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.65.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for “Regarding changing product or service lines, how
would you characterize your enterprise’s tendency to change products or
services?” on the scale of 1 (Changes have been mostly of a minor nature) to 5
(Changes have usually been quite dramatic) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3)
as Test Value, is 3.248 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘changes in the product or service lines
of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are mostly of a minor nature’ is ‘Rejected’ as the
mean is 3.16 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.65.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for “My assessment of the enterprise’s level of
technology in terms of the work that we do, and how we do it, is:” on the scale
of 1 (Low technology) to 5 (High technology) against the mid-rating value (i.e.
3) as Test Value, is 19.448 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, the level of technology, in terms of the work that they do and how they
do, is low’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.92 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Table: 4.65.1; T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception and Opinion about TheirEnterprises
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df p-Value
(1-tailed)
Mean
Difference
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Rating Scale:
1 (In dealing with its competitors, my
enterprise typically responds to actions
which competitors initiate) to 5 (My
enterprise typically initiates actions
which our competitors then respond to)
12.312 449 .000 .584 .46 .71
270 | P a g e
Rating Scale:
1 (Is seldom the first business to
introduce new products or services,
administrative techniques, operating
technologies etc.) to 5 (Is very often
the first business to introduce new
products or services, administrative
techniques, operating technologies
etc.)
11.882 449 .000 .538 .42 .65
Rating Scale:
1 (In general, the top manager(s) of my
enterprise favor a strong emphasis on
the marketing of tried and true
products and services) to 5 (Favor a
strong emphasis on R & D,
technological leadership and
innovations)
11.922 449 .000 .589 .46 .72
How many new lines of products or
services has your enterprise marketed in
the past five (5) years?
Rating Scale:
1 (No new lines of products or
services) to 5 (Many new lines of
products or services)
10.461 449 .000 .527 .40 .66
Regarding changing product or service
lines, how would you characterize your
enterprise’s tendency to change
products or services?
Rating Scale:
1 (Changes have been mostly of a
minor nature) to 5 (Changes have
usually been quite dramatic)
3.248 449 .000 .164 .03 .30
271 | P a g e
My assessment of the enterprise’s level
of technology in terms of the work that
we do, and how we do it, is
Rating Scale:
1 (Low technology) to 5 (High
technology)
19.448 449 .000 .918 .80 1.04
4.66 Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
From the Table: 4.66 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Serving a distinct and unique market niche on
the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.32 with Std.
Deviation of 1.183.
From the Table: 4.66 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Access to the market (e.g. location) on the scale
of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.32 with Std. Deviation of
1.121.
From the Table: 4.66 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Unique technology of product on the scale of 1
(Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.46 with Std. Deviation of 1.167.
From the Table: 4.66 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Unique technology in process or production on
the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.42 with Std.
Deviation of 1.138.
From the Table: 4.66 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Lower price than the competition on the scale
of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.43 with Std. Deviation of
1.109.
From the Table: 4.66 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Significantly higher quality than the
competition on the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.48
with Std. Deviation of 1.099.
272 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.66 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Broad product / service lines providing
customer convenience on the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High
competence) is 3.57 with Std. Deviation of 1.139.
From the Table: 4.66 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Significantly higher levels of customer service
and support on the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) is 3.55
with Std. Deviation of 1.178.
Table: 4.66; Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Serving a distinct and unique
market niche450 4 1 5 3.32 1.183
Access to the market (e.g.
location)450 4 1 5 3.32 1.121
Unique technology of product 450 4 1 5 3.46 1.167
Unique technology in process or
production450 4 1 5 3.42 1.138
Lower price than the competition 450 4 1 5 3.43 1.109
Significantly higher quality than
the competition450 4 1 5 3.48 1.099
Broad product / service lines
providing customer convenience450 4 1 5 3.57 1.139
Significantly higher levels of
customer service and support450 4 1 5 3.55 1.178
From the Figure: 4.66 it may be seen for factor of competitive advantage for
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh mean rating is highest (3.57) for broad product /
service lines providing customer convenience whereas lowest (3.32) mean
rating is for access to the market (e.g. location). It means that major factor of
273 | P a g e
competitive advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh tends to be broad product /
service lines providing customer convenience and minor factor of competitive
advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh tends to be access to the market.
Figure: 4.66; Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
4.66.1 T Test for Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
From the Table: 4.66.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Serving a distinct and unique market niche on the
scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) against the mid-rating
value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 5.740 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs
in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in serving a distinct and
unique market niche’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.32 and the p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.66.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Access to the market (e.g. location) on the scale of 1
(Low competence) to 5 (High competence) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3)
3.57
3.48
3.55
3.463.43 3.42
3.32 3.32
3.153.2
3.253.3
3.353.4
3.453.5
3.553.6
Factors of Competitive Advantage forMSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
Factors of CompetitiveAdvantage for MSMEs inUttar Pradesh
274 | P a g e
as Test Value, is 6.097 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in access to the market (e.g.
location)’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.32 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.66.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Unique technology of product on the scale of 1 (Low
competence) to 5 (High competence) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 8.400 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t have competitive advantage in unique technology of product’ is ‘Rejected’
as the mean is 3.46 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.66.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Unique technology in process or production on the
scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) against the mid-rating
value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 8.204 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs
in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in unique technology
process or production’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.42 and the p-Value (.000)
is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.66.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Lower price than the competition on the scale of 1
(Low competence) to 5 (High competence) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3)
as Test Value, is 8.204 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in offering lower price than the
competition’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.43 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.66.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Significantly higher quality than the competition on
the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) against the mid-rating
value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.265 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
275 | P a g e
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs
in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in providing significantly
higher quality than the competition’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.48 and the p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.66.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Broad product / service lines providing customer
convenience on the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.554 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in
offering broad product / service lines providing customer convenience’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.57 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.66.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for Significantly higher levels of customer service and
support on the scale of 1 (Low competence) to 5 (High competence) against the
mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.963 with df (degree of freedom) of 449
and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have competitive advantage in significantly
higher levels of customer service and support’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.55
and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Table: 4.66.1; T Test for Factors of Competitive Advantage for MSMEs inUttar Pradesh
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df p-Value
(1-tailed)
Mean
Difference
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Serving a distinct and unique market
niche5.740 449 .000 .320 .18 .46
Access to the market (e.g. location) 6.097 449 .000 .322 .19 .46
Unique technology of product 8.400 449 .000 .462 .32 .60
276 | P a g e
Unique technology in process or
production7.748 449 .000 .416 .28 .55
Lower price than the competition 8.204 449 .000 .429 .29 .56
Significantly higher quality than the
competition9.265 449 .000 .480 .35 .61
Broad product / service lines providing
customer convenience10.554 449 .000 .567 .43 .71
Significantly higher levels of customer
service and support9.963 449 .000 .553 .41 .70
4.67 Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning
From the Table: 4.67 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for existence of a current, comprehensive and
detailed business plan on the scale of 1 (Does not exist) to 5 (Current,
comprehensive and detailed) is 3.77 with Std. Deviation of 1.110.
From the Table: 4.67 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for existence of written job descriptions on the
scale of 1 (Does not exist for any position) to 5 (Detailed job descriptions
exist for all position) is 3.18 with Std. Deviation of 1.068.
From the Table: 4.67 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for standard operating procedures are in place
for most processes within the enterprise on the scale of 1 (Never true) to 5
(Always true) is 3.85 with Std. Deviation of 1.029.
Table: 4.67; Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
There exists a current,
comprehensive and detailed
business plan
450 4 1 5 3.77 1.110
277 | P a g e
There is existence of written job
descriptions450 4 1 5 3.18 1.068
Standard operating procedures
are in place for most processes
within the enterprise
450 4 1 5 3.85 1.029
From the Figure: 4.67 it may be seen for enterprises’ organisation and
planning mean rating is highest (3.85) for standard operating procedures are in
place for most processes within the enterprise whereas lowest (3.18) mean
rating is for there is existence of written job descriptions. It means that major
component of enterprises’ organisation and planning in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh tends to be standard operating procedures being in place for most
processes within the enterprise and minor component of enterprises’
organisation and planning in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh tends to be existence of
written job descriptions.
Figure: 4.67; Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning
4.67.1 T Test for Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning
From the Table: 4.67.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for existence of a current, comprehensive and detailed
business plan on the scale of 1 (Does not exist) to 5 (Current, comprehensive
and detailed) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 14.784 with df
3.85 3.773.18
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
Enterprises’ Organisation andPlanning
Enterprises’ Organisationand Planning
278 | P a g e
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have current,
comprehensive and detailed business plan’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.77 and
the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.67.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for existence of written job descriptions on the scale of 1
(Does not exist for any position) to 5 (Detailed job descriptions exist for all
position) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 3.665 with df
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have detailed
job descriptions for any position’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.18 and the p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.67.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for standard operating procedures are in place for most
processes within the enterprise on the scale of 1 (Never true) to 5 (Always
true) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 17.495 with df (degree
of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have operating procedures in
place for most processes within the enterprise’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.85
and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Table: 4.67.1; T Test for Enterprises’ Organisation and Planning
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df p-Value
(1-tailed)
Mean
Difference
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
There exists a current, comprehensive
and detailed business plan14.784 449 .000 .773 .64 .91
There is existence of written job
descriptions3.665 449 .000 .184 .05 .31
279 | P a g e
Standard operating procedures are in
place for most processes within the
enterprise
17.495 449 .000 .849 .72 .97
4.68 Enterprises and their Relationship with Their Industry
From the Table: 4.68 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Our enterprise rarely change its
marketing practices to keep up with the market and competitors) to 5 (Our
enterprise must change its marketing practices extremely, frequently e.g.
semi-annually) is 3.26 with Std. Deviation of 1.150.
From the Table: 4.68 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (The rate of at which products /
services are getting obsolete in the industry is very slow e.g. basic metal like
copper) to 5 (The rate of obsolescence is very high as in some fashion goods
and semiconductors) is 3.08 with Std. Deviation of 1.195.
From the Table: 4.68 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Actions of competitors are quite
easy to predict as in some basic industries) to 5 (Actions of competitors are
unpredictable) is 3.31 with Std. Deviation of 1.104.
From the Table: 4.68 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Research and development within the
industry on the scale of 1 (Virtually no R&D in industry e.g. bakery,
publishing, real estate) to 5 (Extremely R & D oriented industry e.g.
telecommunications, space, drugs) is 3.55 with Std. Deviation of .941.
From the Table: 4.68 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Demands and consumer tastes
fairly easy to forecast e.g. for milk companies) to 5 (Demands and consumer
tastes are almost unpredictable e.g. high-fashion) is 3.42 with Std. Deviation
of 1.113.
From the Table: 4.68 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Production and / or service
technology is not subject to very much change and is well established e.g. in
280 | P a g e
steel production) to 5 (Modes of production/service change often, and in a
major way e.g. advanced electronics) is 3.56 with Std. Deviation of 1.029.
Table: 4.68; Enterprises and their Relationship with Their Industry
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Rating scale:
1 (Our enterprise rarely change
its marketing practices to keep up
with the market and competitors)
to 5 (Our enterprise must change
its marketing practices
extremely, frequently e.g. semi-
annually)
450 4 1 5 3.26 1.150
Rating scale:
1 (The rate of at which products /
services are getting obsolete in
the industry is very slow e.g.
basic metal like copper) to 5
(The rate of obsolescence is very
high as in some fashion goods
and semiconductors)
450 4 1 5 3.08 1.195
Rating scale:
1 (Actions of competitors are
quite easy to predict as in some
basic industries) to 5 (Actions of
competitors are unpredictable)
450 4 1 5 3.31 1.104
Rating scale:
Research and development withinthe industry
1 (Virtually no R&D in industrye.g. bakery, publishing, real estate)to 5 (Extremely R & D orientedindustry e.g. telecommunications,space, drugs)
450 4 1 5 3.55 .941
281 | P a g e
Rating scale:
1 (Demands and consumer tastes
fairly easy to forecast e.g. for
milk companies) to 5 (Demands
and consumer tastes are almost
unpredictable e.g. high-fashion)
450 4 1 5 3.42 1.113
Rating scale:
1 (Production and / or service
technology is not subject to very
much change and is well
established e.g. in steel
production) to 5 (Modes of
production/service change often,
and in a major way e.g. advanced
electronics)
450 4 1 5 3.56 1.029
4.68.1 T Test for Enterprises’ Relationship with Their Industry
From the Table: 4.68.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Our enterprise rarely change its
marketing practices to keep up with the market and competitors) to 5 (Our
enterprise must change its marketing practices extremely, frequently e.g.
semi-annually) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 4.715 with
df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh rarely change rarely
marketing practices to keep up with the market and competitors’ is ‘Rejected’ as
the mean is 3.26 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.68.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (The rate of at which products / services
are getting obsolete in the industry is very slow e.g. basic metal like copper) to
5 (The rate of obsolescence is very high as in some fashion goods and
semiconductors) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 1.420 with
df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think that the rate
of at which products / services are getting obsolete in their industry is very slow’
282 | P a g e
is ‘Failed to Reject’ as the mean is 3.08 and the p-Value (.078) is more than .01
at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.68.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Actions of competitors are quite easy to
predict as in some basic industries) to 5 (Actions of competitors are
unpredictable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 5.890 with df
(degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘actions of competitors of entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh are quite easy to predict’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.31 and the p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.68.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value for Research and development within the industry on the
scale of 1 (Virtually no R&D in industry e.g. bakery, publishing, real estate)
to 5 (Extremely R & D oriented industry e.g. telecommunications, space,
drugs)against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 12.325 with df (degree
of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘virtually there is no research and development (R & D) within the industry of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.55 and the p-Value
(.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.68.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Demands and consumer tastes fairly
easy to forecast e.g. for milk companies) to 5 (Demands and consumer tastes
are almost unpredictable e.g. high-fashion) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3)
as Test Value, is 8.092 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Demands
and consumer tastes are fairly easy to forecast’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.42
and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.68.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Production and / or service technology
is not subject to very much change and is well established e.g. in steel
production) to 5 (Modes of production/service change often, and in a major
way e.g. advanced electronics) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 11.457 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
283 | P a g e
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Production and
/ or service technology is not subject to very much change and is well
established’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.56 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Table: 4.68.1; T Test for Enterprises’ Relationship with Their Industry
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df p-Value
(1-tailed)
Mean
Difference
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Rating scale:
1 (Our enterprise rarely change its
marketing practices to keep up with the
market and competitors) to 5 (Our
enterprise must change its marketing
practices extremely, frequently e.g.
semi-annually)
4.715 449 .000 .256 .12 .40
Rating scale:
1 (The rate of at which products /
services are getting obsolete in the
industry is very slow e.g. basic metal
like copper) to 5 (The rate of
obsolescence is very high as in some
fashion goods and semiconductors)
1.420 449 .078 .080 -.07 .23
Rating scale:
1 (Actions of competitors are quite
easy to predict as in some basic
industries) to 5 (Actions of competitors
are unpredictable)
5.890 449 .000 .307 .17 .44
284 | P a g e
Rating scale:
Research and development within theindustry
1 (Virtually no R&D in industry e.g.bakery, publishing, real estate) to 5(Extremely R & D oriented industry e.g.telecommunications, space, drugs)
12.325 449 .000 .547 .43 .66
Rating scale:
1 (Demands and consumer tastes fairly
easy to forecast e.g. for milk
companies) to 5 (Demands and
consumer tastes are almost
unpredictable e.g. high-fashion)
8.092 449 .000 .424 .29 .56
Rating scale:
1 (Production and / or service
technology is not subject to very much
change and is well established e.g. in
steel production) to 5 (Modes of
production/service change often, and in
a major way e.g. advanced electronics)
11.457 449 .000 .556 .43 .68
4.69 Problems that have been Creating Difficulties for Enterprises
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for registration of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh on the
scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.46 with Std. Deviation of
1.070.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for establishment of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh on
the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.66 with Std.
Deviation of .919.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for uncertainly about the economy on the scale of 1
(No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.63 with Std. Deviation of .948.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for choosing a direction for enterprise on the scale
285 | P a g e
of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.71 with Std. Deviation of
1.019.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for regulations and paperwork on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.63 with Std. Deviation of 1.021.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for time management on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.73 with Std. Deviation of 1.045.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for general management skills on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.39 with Std. Deviation of 1.152.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for changing customer needs on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.56 with Std. Deviation of 1.026.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for obtaining finances on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.66 with Std. Deviation of 1.040.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for uncertainty about the political situation on the
scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.66 with Std. Deviation of
1.065.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for taxes, tax laws (including mandated benefits)on
the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.56 with Std.
Deviation of 1.094.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for quality of products / services on the scale of 1
(No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.53 with Std. Deviation of 1.062.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for changing economic condition on the scale of 1
(No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.54 with Std. Deviation of 1.067.
286 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for intense competition on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.63 with Std. Deviation of 1.034.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for cost control on the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to
5 (Great difficulties) is 3.43 with Std. Deviation of 1.053.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for educating the workforce on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.42 with Std. Deviation of 1.128.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for attracting quality workers on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.37 with Std. Deviation of 1.114.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for productivity on the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to
5 (Great difficulties) is 3.31 with Std. Deviation of 1.151.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for lack of suppliers / health of suppliers on the
scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.33 with Std. Deviation of
1.086.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for competing globally on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.42 with Std. Deviation of 1.138.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for motivating employees on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.32 with Std. Deviation of 1.121.
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for incorporating new / emerging technologies on
the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.29 with Std.
Deviation of 1.114.
287 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.69 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for marketing problems on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) is 3.34 with Std. Deviation of 1.229.
Table: 4.69; Problems that have been Creating Difficulties for Enterprises
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Registration of MSMEs in U.P. 450 4 1 5 3.46 1.070
Establishment of MSMEs in U.P. 450 4 1 5 3.66 .919
Uncertainly about the economy 450 4 1 5 3.63 .948
Choosing a direction for
enterprise450 4 1 5 3.71 1.019
Regulations and paperwork 450 4 1 5 3.63 1.021
Time management 450 4 1 5 3.73 1.045
General management skills 450 4 1 5 3.39 1.152
Changing customer needs 450 4 1 5 3.56 1.026
Obtaining finances 450 4 1 5 3.66 1.040
Uncertainty about the political
situation450 4 1 5 3.66 1.065
Taxes, tax laws (including
mandated benefits)450 4 1 5 3.56 1.094
Quality of products / services 450 4 1 5 3.53 1.062
Changing economic condition 450 4 1 5 3.54 1.067
Intense competition 450 4 1 5 3.63 1.034
Cost control 450 4 1 5 3.43 1.053
Educating the workforce 450 4 1 5 3.42 1.128
Attracting quality workers 450 4 1 5 3.37 1.104
288 | P a g e
Productivity 450 4 1 5 3.31 1.151
Lack of suppliers / health of
suppliers450 4 1 5 3.33 1.086
Competing globally 450 4 1 5 3.42 1.138
Motivating employees 450 4 1 5 3.32 1.121
Incorporating new / emerging
technologies450 4 1 5 3.29 1.114
Marketing problems 450 4 1 5 3.34 1.229
From the Figure: 4.69 it may be seen for problems that have been creating
difficulties for enterprises mean rating is highest (3.73) for time management
whereas lowest (3.29) mean rating is for incorporating new/emerging
technologies. It means that major problem of entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh tends to be time management and minor problem of entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh tends to be incorporating new/emerging technologies.
Figure: 4.69; Problems that have been Creating Difficulties for Enterprises
289 | P a g e
4.69.1 T Test for Problems that have been Creating Difficulties for Enterprises
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for registration of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh on the scale
of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3)
as Test Value, is 9.079 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh have no difficulties in registration of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.46 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for establishment of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh on the
scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value
(i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 15.124 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs
3.733.71
3.663.663.66
3.633.633.63
3.563.56
3.543.53
3.463.433.423.42
3.393.37
3.343.333.323.31
3.29
3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
Time managementChoosing a direction for…
Establishment of MSMEs in…Obtaining finances
Uncertainty about the…Uncertainly about the…
Regulations and paperworkIntense competition
Changing customer needsTaxes, tax laws (including…
Changing economic…Quality of products / services
Registration of MSMEs in…Cost control
Educating the workforceCompeting globally
General management skillsAttracting quality workers
Marketing problemsLack of suppliers / health of…
Motivating employeesProductivity
Incorporating new /…
Problems that have been CreatingDifficulties for Enterprises
Problems that have beenCreating Difficulties forEnterprises
290 | P a g e
in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in establishment of MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.66 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for uncertainly about the economy on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 14.027 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties for their enterprises due to uncertainty about the economy’
is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.63 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for choosing a direction for enterprise on the scale of 1
(No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as
Test Value, is 14.800 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh have no difficulties in choosing a direction for enterprise for their
enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.71 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for regulations and paperwork on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 13.152 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties for their enterprises due to regulations and paperwork’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.63 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for time management on the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to
5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 14.891
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties
291 | P a g e
in time management’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.73 and the p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for general management skills on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 7.246 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties regarding general management skills’ is ‘Rejected’ as the
mean is 3.39 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for changing customer needs on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 11.481 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties due to change in customer needs’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean
is 3.56 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for obtaining finances on the scale of 1 (No difficulties)
to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is
13.422 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore
the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no
difficulties in obtaining finances’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.66 and the p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for uncertainty about the political situation on the scale
of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3)
as Test Value, is 13.053 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh have no difficulties due to uncertainty about the political situation’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.66 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
292 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for taxes & tax laws (including mandated benefits) on
the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating
value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.819 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs
in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties regarding taxes & tax laws’ is ‘Rejected’
as the mean is 3.56 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for quality of products / services on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 10.657 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in maintaining quality of products / services’ is ‘Rejected’
as the mean is 3.53 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for changing economic condition on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 10.820 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties regarding change in economic conditions’ is ‘Rejected’ as
the mean is 3.54 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for intense competition on the scale of 1 (No difficulties)
to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is
12.987 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore
the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no
difficulties regarding intense competition’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.63 and
the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for cost control on the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5
293 | P a g e
(Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 8.593
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties
in cost control’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.43 and the p-Value (.000) is less
than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for educating the workforce on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 7.896 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in educating the workforce’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
3.42 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for attracting quality workers on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 7.132 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in attracting quality workers’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
3.37 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for productivity on the scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5
(Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 5.775
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties
in maintaining productivity’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.31 and the p-Value
(.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for lack of suppliers / health of suppliers on the scale of 1
(No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as
Test Value, is 6.508 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh have no difficulties due lack of suppliers / health of suppliers’ is
294 | P a g e
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.33 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for competing globally on the scale of 1 (No difficulties)
to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is
7.828 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore
the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no
difficulties in competing globally’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.42 and the p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for motivating employees on the scale of 1 (No
difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 6.097 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in motivating employees’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.32
and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for incorporating new / emerging technologies on the
scale of 1 (No difficulties) to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value
(i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 5.545 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs
in Uttar Pradesh have no difficulties in incorporating new / emerging
technologies’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.29 and the p-Value (.000) is less
than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.69.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for marketing problems on the scale of 1 (No difficulties)
to 5 (Great difficulties) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is
5.791 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore
the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have no
difficulties regarding marketing problems’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.34 and
the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Table: 4.69.1; T Test for Problems that have been Creating Difficulties forEnterprises
295 | P a g e
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df p-Value
(1-tailed)
Mean
Difference
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Registration of MSMEs in U.P. 9.079 449 .000 .458 .33 .59
Establishment of MSMEs in U.P. 15.124 449 .000 .656 .54 .77
Uncertainly about the economy 14.027 449 .000 .627 .51 .74
Choosing a direction for enterprise 14.800 449 .000 .711 .59 .84
Regulations and paperwork 13.152 449 .000 .633 .51 .76
Time management 14.891 449 .000 .733 .61 .86
General management skills 7.246 449 .000 .393 .25 .53
Changing customer needs 11.481 449 .000 .556 .43 .68
Obtaining finances 13.422 449 .000 .658 .53 .78
Uncertainty about the political
situation13.053 449 .000 .656 .53 .79
Taxes, tax laws (including mandated
benefits)10.819 449 .000 .558 .42 .69
Quality of products / services 10.657 449 .000 .533 .40 .66
Changing economic condition 10.820 449 .000 .544 .41 .67
Intense competition 12.987 449 .000 .633 .51 .76
Cost control 8.593 449 .000 .427 .30 .56
Educating the workforce 7.896 449 .000 .420 .28 .56
Attracting quality workers 7.132 449 .000 .371 .24 .51
Productivity 5.775 449 .000 .313 .17 .45
Lack of suppliers / health of suppliers 6.508 449 .000 .333 .20 .47
Competing globally 7.828 449 .000 .420 .28 .56
296 | P a g e
Motivating employees 6.097 449 .000 .322 .19 .46
Incorporating new / emerging
technologies5.545 449 .000 .291 .16 .43
Marketing problems 5.791 449 .000 .336 .19 .49
4.70 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Problems of Entrepreneurs inMSMEs in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in registration of MSMEs in U.P. between
the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 2.391 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.002) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem in registration of MSMEs is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in establishment of MSMEs in U.P.
between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 2.605 with df (degree of freedom) of 1
for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.001)
is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in establishment of MSMEs is same’ is
‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to uncertainty about the economy
between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 3.407 with df (degree of freedom) of 1
for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000)
is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the economy is same’ is
‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in choosing a direction for enterprise
297 | P a g e
between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 4.752 with df (degree of freedom) of 1
for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000)
is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in choosing a direction for enterprise is same.’ is
‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to regulations and paperwork between
the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 4.186 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem due to regulations and paperwork is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in time management between the districts
of Uttar Pradesh, is 4.394 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups
and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
problem in time management is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem related to general management skills
between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 6.839 with df (degree of freedom) of 1
for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000)
is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem related to general management skills is same.’ is
‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to change in customer needs between
the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 3.935 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is
298 | P a g e
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem due to change in customer needs is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in obtaining finances between the districts
of Uttar Pradesh, is 2.801 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups
and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
problem in obtaining finances is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to uncertainty about the political
situation between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 3.792 with df (degree of
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the
districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the
political situation is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem regarding taxes, tax laws (including
mandated benefits) between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 6.042 with df
(degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and
corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of problem regarding
taxes, tax laws (including mandated benefits) is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem regarding quality of products / services
between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 5.444 with df (degree of freedom) of 1
for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000)
is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
299 | P a g e
Pradesh, the level of problem regarding quality of products / services is same.’ is
‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to change in economic condition
between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 3.697 with df (degree of freedom) of 1
for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000)
is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to change in economic condition is same.’ is
‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to intense competition between the
districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 2.213 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between
groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.004) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem due to intense competition is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in cost control between the districts of
Uttar Pradesh, is 2.740 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and
448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
problem in cost control is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in educating the workforce between the
districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 2.902 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between
groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem in educating the workforce is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
300 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in attracting quality workers between the
districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 3.352 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between
groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem in attracting quality workers is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem related to productivity between the
districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 3.181 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between
groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem related to productivity is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to lack of suppliers / health of
suppliers between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 2.727 with df (degree of
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the
districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of problem due to lack of suppliers / health
of suppliers is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in competing globally between the districts
of Uttar Pradesh, is 2.441 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups
and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.001) is less than .01 at
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
problem in competing globally is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in motivating employees between the
districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 1.680 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between
301 | P a g e
groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.043) is more than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for
entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem in motivating employees is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in incorporating new / emerging
technologies between the districts of Uttar Pradesh, is 2.366 with df (degree of
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
Value (.002) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the
districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of problem in incorporating new / emerging
technologies is same’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.70 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Marketing problems between the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, is 1.678 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448
for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.044) is more than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
marketing problems is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
Table: 4.70; F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Problems ofEntrepreneurs in MSMEs in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Registration of MSMEs in U.P.
Between Groups 44.178 17 2.599 2.391 .002
Within Groups 469.520 432 1.087
Total 513.698 449
Establishment of MSMEs in U.P.
Between Groups 35.291 17 2.076 2.605 .001
Within Groups 344.320 432 .797
Total 379.611 449
Uncertainly about the economy
Between Groups 47.680 17 2.805 3.407 .000
Within Groups 355.600 432 .823
Total 403.280 449
Choosing a direction for enterpriseBetween Groups 73.484 17 4.323 4.752 .000
Within Groups 392.960 432 .910
302 | P a g e
Total 466.444 449
Regulations and paperwork
Between Groups 66.260 17 3.898 4.186 .000
Within Groups 402.240 432 .931
Total 468.500 449
Time management
Between Groups 72.240 17 4.249 4.394 .000
Within Groups 417.760 432 .967
Total 490.000 449
General management skills
Between Groups 126.260 17 7.427 6.839 .000
Within Groups 469.120 432 1.086
Total 595.380 449
Changing customer needs
Between Groups 63.431 17 3.731 3.935 .000
Within Groups 409.680 432 .948
Total 473.111 449
Obtaining finances
Between Groups 48.178 17 2.834 2.801 .000
Within Groups 437.120 432 1.012
Total 485.298 449
Uncertainty about the political situation
Between Groups 66.171 17 3.892 3.792 .000
Within Groups 443.440 432 1.026
Total 509.611 449
Taxes, tax laws (including mandated
benefits)
Between Groups 103.158 17 6.068 6.042 .000
Within Groups 433.840 432 1.004
Total 536.998 449
Quality of products / services
Between Groups 89.280 17 5.252 5.444 .000
Within Groups 416.720 432 .965
Total 506.000 449
Changing economic condition
Between Groups 64.971 17 3.822 3.697 .000
Within Groups 446.640 432 1.034
Total 511.611 449
Intense competition
Between Groups 38.500 17 2.265 2.213 .004
Within Groups 442.000 432 1.023
Total 480.500 449
Cost control
Between Groups 48.480 17 2.852 2.740 .000
Within Groups 449.600 432 1.041
Total 498.080 449
Educating the workforce
Between Groups 58.580 17 3.446 2.902 .000
Within Groups 513.040 432 1.188
Total 571.620 449
Attracting quality workers
Between Groups 63.744 17 3.750 3.352 .000
Within Groups 483.280 432 1.119
Total 547.024 449
ProductivityBetween Groups 66.180 17 3.893 3.181 .000
Within Groups 528.640 432 1.224
303 | P a g e
Total 594.820 449
Lack of suppliers / health of suppliers
Between Groups 51.360 17 3.021 2.727 .000
Within Groups 478.640 432 1.108
Total 530.000 449
Competing globally
Between Groups 50.980 17 2.999 2.441 .001
Within Groups 530.640 432 1.228
Total 581.620 449
Motivating employees
Between Groups 34.998 17 2.059 1.680 .043
Within Groups 529.280 432 1.225
Total 564.278 449
Incorporating new / emerging technologies
Between Groups 47.424 17 2.790 2.366 .002
Within Groups 509.440 432 1.179
Total 556.864 449
Marketing problems
Between Groups 42.011 17 2.471 1.678 .044
Within Groups 636.320 432 1.473
Total 678.331 449
4.71 Entrepreneurs’ Perception about External Environment
From the Table: 4.71 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Environment for our enterprise
is very safe, little threat to the survival and well-being of my enterprise) to 5
(Environment for our enterprise is very risky, one false step can mean my
enterprise’s undoing) is 3.42 with Std. Deviation of 1.150.
From the Table: 4.71 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Environment for our enterprise
is very rich in investment and marketing opportunities) to 5 (Environment
for our enterprise is very stressful, exacting, hostile; very hard to keep
afloat) is 3.33 with Std. Deviation of 1.061.
From the Table: 4.71 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (An environment demanding
little in the way of technological sophistication) to 5 (Technologically, a very
sophisticated and complex environment for our enterprise) is 3.52 with Std.
Deviation of 1.107.
From the Table: 4.71 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (An environment that my
enterprise can control and manipulate to its own advantage, such as a
304 | P a g e
dominant enterprise has in an industry with little competition and few
hindrances) to 5 (A dominating environment in which my enterprise’s
initiatives count for very little against the tremendous political,
technological or competitive forces) is 3.50 with Std. Deviation of 1.125.
From the Table: 4.71 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Minimal requirements for
registration or licensing, present few rules and regulations that govern
entrepreneurial activity, and provides a favourable environment for
entrepreneurs) to 5 (Excessive requirements for registration and licensing,
high costs in fulfilling procedural requirements, and a generally
unfavourable attitude towards entrepreneurship) is 3.43 with Std. Deviation
of 1.119.
Table: 4.71; Entrepreneurs’ Perception about External Environment
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Rating Scale:
1 (Environment for our
enterprise is very safe, little
threat to the survival and well-
being of my enterprise) to 5
(Environment for our enterprise
is very risky, one false step can
mean my enterprise’s undoing)
450 4 1 5 3.42 1.150
Rating Scale:
1 (Environment for our
enterprise is very rich in
investment and marketing
opportunities) to 5 (Environment
for our enterprise is very
stressful, exacting, hostile; very
hard to keep afloat)
450 4 1 5 3.33 1.061
305 | P a g e
Rating Scale:
1 (An environment demanding
little in the way of technological
sophistication) to 5
(Technologically, a very
sophisticated and complex
environment for our enterprise
450 4 1 5 3.52 1.107
Rating Scale:
1 (An environment that my
enterprise can control and
manipulate to its own advantage,
such as a dominant enterprise has
in an industry with little
competition and few hindrances)
to 5 (A dominating environment
in which my enterprise’s
initiatives count for very little
against the tremendous political,
technological or competitive
forces)
450 4 1 5 3.50 1.125
Rating Scale:
1 (Minimal requirements for
registration or licensing, present
few rules and regulations that
govern entrepreneurial activity,
and provides a favourable
environment for entrepreneurs)
to 5 (Excessive requirements for
registration and licensing, high
costs in fulfilling procedural
requirements, and a generally
unfavourable attitude towards
entrepreneurship)
450 4 1 5 3.43 1.119
4.71.2 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception about External Environment
From the Table: 4.71.2 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Environment for our enterprise is very
safe, little threat to the survival and well-being of my enterprise) to 5
306 | P a g e
(Environment for our enterprise is very risky, one false step can mean my
enterprise’s undoing) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 7.709
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh is
very safe with little threat to the survival and well-being of their enterprises’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.42 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.71.2 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Environment for our enterprise is very
rich in investment and marketing opportunities) to 5 (Environment for our
enterprise is very stressful, exacting, hostile; very hard to keep afloat) against
the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 6.619 with df (degree of freedom) of
449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘environment
for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh is very rich in investment and
marketing opportunities’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.33 and the p-Value
(.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.71.2 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (An environment demanding little in the
way of technological sophistication) to 5 (Technologically, a very
sophisticated and complex environment for our enterprise against the mid-
rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.007 with df (degree of freedom) of 449
and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘environment for
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh demands little in the way of
technological sophistication’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.52 and the p-Value
(.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.71.2 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (An environment that my enterprise can
control and manipulate to its own advantage, such as a dominant enterprise
has in an industry with little competition and few hindrances) to 5 (A
dominating environment in which my enterprise’s initiatives count for very
little against the tremendous political, technological or competitive forces)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.468 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
307 | P a g e
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh has an environment that their
enterprises can control and manipulate to their own advantage’ is ‘Rejected’ as
the mean is 3.50 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.71.2 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value on the scale of 1 (Minimal requirements for registration
or licensing, present few rules and regulations that govern entrepreneurial
activity, and provides a favourable environment for entrepreneurs) to 5
(Excessive requirements for registration and licensing, high costs in fulfilling
procedural requirements, and a generally unfavourable attitude towards
entrepreneurship) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 8.213
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘there are Minimal requirements for registration or licensing,
present few rules and regulations that govern entrepreneurial activity, and
provides a favourable environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.43 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Table: 4.71.2; T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Perception about ExternalEnvironment
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df p-Value
(1-tailed)
Mean
Difference
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Rating Scale:
1 (Environment for our enterprise is
very safe, little threat to the survival
and well-being of my enterprise) to 5
(Environment for our enterprise is very
risky, one false step can mean my
enterprise’s undoing)
7.709 449 .000 .418 .28 .56
308 | P a g e
Rating Scale:
1 (Environment for our enterprise is
very rich in investment and marketing
opportunities) to 5 (Environment for
our enterprise is very stressful,
exacting, hostile; very hard to keep
afloat)
6.619 449 .000 .331 .20 .46
Rating Scale:
1 (An environment demanding little in
the way of technological
sophistication) to 5 (Technologically, a
very sophisticated and complex
environment for our enterprise
10.007 449 .000 .522 .39 .66
Rating Scale:
1 (An environment that my enterprise
can control and manipulate to its own
advantage, such as a dominant
enterprise has in an industry with little
competition and few hindrances) to 5
(A dominating environment in which
my enterprise’s initiatives count for
very little against the tremendous
political, technological or competitive
forces)
9.468 449 .000 .502 .37 .64
Rating Scale:
1 (Minimal requirements for
registration or licensing, present few
rules and regulations that govern
entrepreneurial activity, and provides a
favourable environment for
entrepreneurs) to 5 (Excessive
requirements for registration and
licensing, high costs in fulfilling
procedural requirements, and a
generally unfavourable attitude
towards entrepreneurship)
8.213 449 .000 .433 .30 .57
4.72 Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment
309 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.72 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for In general, I face environmental problems
external to my enterprise on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly
agree) is 3.37 with Std. Deviation of 1.149.
From the Table: 4.72 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for within my geographic area, there are a large
quantity of small enterprises and a diversity of economic activity on the scale
of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.57 with Std. Deviation of
1.097.
From the Table: 4.72 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for within my geographic area, there is a
supportive public attitude towards entrepreneurship (e.g. recognition of
exemplary entrepreneurial performance) on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree)
to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.57 with Std. Deviation of 1.131.
From the Table: 4.72 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for educational and training programs as well as
necessary information to improve technical, vocational and business skills are
available in my area on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)
is 3.48 with Std. Deviation of 1.117.
From the Table: 4.72 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for within my geographic area, non-financial
assistance is available through modern transportation and communication
facilities, counselling support services and other programs on the scale of 1
(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.56 with Std. Deviation of 1.122.
From the Table: 4.72 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for within my geographic area, financial
institutions are willing to finance small entrepreneurs on the scale of 1
(Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.49 with Std. Deviation of 1.123.
From the Table: 4.72 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for within my geographic area, financial assistance
is available in the form of venture capital, low-cost loans and alternative
310 | P a g e
sources of financing on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)
is 3.55 with Std. Deviation of 1.094.
From the Table: 4.72 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for MSMEs related policies of both central as well
as state govt. have been achieved their objectives on the scale of 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.48 with Std. Deviation of 1.164.
From the Table: 4.72 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for adequate support to MSMEs of U.P. in terms
of grants, subsidies and incentives is adequate with fair, unbiased and
impartial allocation/selection and effective and efficient and/or corruption-
free distribution on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is
3.39 with Std. Deviation of 1.096.
From the Table: 4.72 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for MSMEs of U.P face managerial problems even
they are not responsible for that on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree) is 3.48 with Std. Deviation of 1.051.
From the Table: 4.72 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for MSMEs’ (of U.P.) benefits to the governments
overweigh the costs of MSMEs to governments on the scale of 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) is 3.66 with Std. Deviation of 1.093.
From the Table: 4.72 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating for Within your geographic area, how would you
rate the ‘infrastructure’ (transportation system, roadway,
telecommunication systems, etc) on the scale of 1 (Inadequate) to 5 (Excellent)
is 3.51 with Std. Deviation of 1.143.
Table: 4.72; Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
311 | P a g e
In general, I face environmental
problems external to my
enterprise
450 4 1 5 3.37 1.149
Within my geographic area, there
are a large quantity of small
enterprises and a diversity of
economic activity
450 4 1 5 3.57 1.097
Within my geographic area, there
is a supportive public attitude
towards entrepreneurship (e.g.
recognition of exemplary
entrepreneurial performance)
450 4 1 5 3.57 1.131
Educational and training
programs as well as necessary
information to improve technical,
vocational and business skills are
available in my area
450 4 1 5 3.48 1.117
Within my geographic area, non-
financial assistance is available
through modern transportation
and communication facilities,
counselling support services and
other programs
450 4 1 5 3.56 1.122
Within my geographic area,
financial institutions are willing
to finance small entrepreneurs
450 4 1 5 3.49 1.123
within my geographic area,
financial assistance is available
in the form of venture capital,
low-cost loans and alternative
sources of financing
450 4 1 5 3.55 1.094
MSMEs related policies of both
central as well as state govt. have
been achieved their objectives
450 4 1 5 3.48 1.164
312 | P a g e
Adequate support to MSMEs of
U.P. in terms of grants, subsidies
and incentives is adequate with
fair, unbiased and impartial
allocation/selection and effective
and efficient and/or corruption-
free distribution
450 4 1 5 3.39 1.096
MSMEs of U.P face managerial
problems even they are not
responsible for that
450 4 1 5 3.48 1.051
MSMEs’ (of U.P.) benefits to the
governments overweigh the costs
of MSMEs to governments
450 4 1 5 3.66 1.093
Within your geographic area,
how would you rate the
“infrastructure” (transportation
system, roadway, tele-
communication systems, etc)
450 4 1 5 3.51 1.143
From the Figure: 4.72 it may be seen considering entrepreneurs opinion
about external environment mean rating is highest (3.66) for MSMEs’ (of U.P.)
benefits to the governments overweigh the costs of MSMEs to governments
whereas lowest (3.37) mean rating is for in general, I face environmental
problems external to my enterprise. It means that in entrepreneurs’opinion
problems related to the environment external to them are not creating much
problem.
Figure: 4.72; Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment
313 | P a g e
4.72.1 T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about External Environment
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for in general, I face environmental problems external
to my enterprise on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 6.850 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘in general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t face
environmental problems external to their enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean
is 3.37 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for within my geographic area, there are a large
quantity of small enterprises and a diversity of economic activity on the scale
of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e.
3.66
3.57
3.57
3.56
3.55
3.51
3.49
3.48
3.48
3.48
3.39
3.37
3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7
MSMEs’ (of U.P.) benefits tothe governments…
Within my geographicarea, there are a large…
Within my geographicarea, there is a supportive…
Within my geographicarea, non-financial…
within my geographicarea, financial assistance is…
Within your geographicarea, how would you rate…
Within my geographicarea, financial institutions…
Educational and trainingprograms as well as…
MSMEs related policies ofboth central as well as…
MSMEs of U.P facemanagerial problems even…
Adequate support to MSMEsof U.P. in terms of…
In general, I faceenvironmental problems…
Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about ExternalEnvironment
Entrepreneurs’ Opinion aboutExternal Environment
314 | P a g e
3) as Test Value, is 10.956 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs
in Uttar Pradesh don’t have a large quantity of small enterprises and a diversity
of economic activity within their geographic area’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
3.57 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for within my geographic area, there is a supportive
public attitude towards entrepreneurship (e.g. recognition of exemplary
entrepreneurial performance)on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.713
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t feel that there
is a supportive public attitude towards entrepreneurship’ is ‘Rejected’ as the
mean is 3.57 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for educational and training programs as well as
necessary information to improve technical, vocational and business skills are
available in my area on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.073 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘educational and training programs as well as necessary information to improve
technical, vocational and business skills are not available for entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.48 and the p-Value
(.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for within my geographic area, non-financial assistance
is available through modern transportation and communication facilities,
counselling support services and other programs on the scale of 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value,
is 10.505 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh non-financial assistance through modern transportation and
communication facilities, counselling support services and other programs is
315 | P a g e
not available’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.56 and the p-Value (.000) is less
than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for within my geographic area, financial institutions are
willing to finance small entrepreneurs on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to
5 (Strongly agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9,233
with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh financial
institutions are not willing to finance small entrepreneurs’ is ‘Rejected’ as the
mean is 3.49 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for within my geographic area, financial assistance is
available in the form of venture capital, low-cost loans and alternative
sources of financing on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree)
against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 10.599 with df (degree of
freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh financial assistance is not
available in the form of venture capital, low-cost loans and alternative sources
of financing’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.55 and the p-Value (.000) is less
than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for MSMEs related policies of both central as well as
state govt. have been achieved their objectives on the scale of 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value,
is 8.828 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore
the null hypothesis that ‘MSMEs related policies of both central as well as state
govt. have not been achieved their objectives’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.48
and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for adequate support to MSMEs of U.P. in terms of
grants, subsidies and incentives is available with fair, unbiased and impartial
allocation/selection and effective and efficient and/or corruption-free
distribution on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) against
316 | P a g e
the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 7.571 with df (degree of freedom) of
449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is not
adequate support available for MSMEs of Uttar Pradesh in terms of grants,
subsidies and incentives with fair, unbiased and impartial allocation/selection
and effective and efficient and/or corruption-free distribution’ is ‘Rejected’ as
the mean is 3.39 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for MSMEs of U.P face managerial problems even they
are not responsible for that on the scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly
agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.774 with df (degree
of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t face managerial problems’ is
‘Rejected’ as the mean is 3.48 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for MSMEs’ (of U.P.) benefits to the governments
overweigh the costs of MSMEs to governments on the scale of 1 (Strongly
disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value,
is 12.896 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh MSMEs’ benefits to the
governments don’t overweigh the costs of MSMEs to governments’ is ‘Rejected’
as the mean is 3.66 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.72.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for within your geographic area, how would you rate
the “infrastructure” (transportation system, roadway, telecommunication
systems, etc)on the scale of 1 (Inadequate) to 5 (Excellent) against the mid-
rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.487 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘infrastructure
facilities for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are inadequate’ is ‘Rejected’ as the
mean is 3.51 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
317 | P a g e
Table: 4.72.1; T Test for Entrepreneurs’ Opinion about ExternalEnvironment
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 3
t df p-Value
(1-tailed)
Mean
Difference
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
In general, I face environmental
problems external to my enterprise6.850 449 .000 .371 .23 .51
Within my geographic area, there are a
large quantity of small enterprises and
a diversity of economic activity
10.956 449 .000 .567 .43 .70
Within my geographic area, there is a
supportive public attitude towards
entrepreneurship (e.g. recognition of
exemplary entrepreneurial
performance)
10.713 449 .000 .571 .43 .71
Educational and training programs as
well as necessary information to
improve technical, vocational and
business skills are available in my area
9.073 449 .000 .478 .34 .61
Within my geographic area, non-
financial assistance is available
through modern transportation and
communication facilities, counseling
support services and other programs
10.505 449 .000 .556 .42 .69
Within my geographic area, financial
institutions are willing to finance small
entrepreneurs
9.233 449 .000 .489 .35 .63
within my geographic area, financial
assistance is available in the form of
venture capital, low-cost loans and
alternative sources of financing
10.599 449 .000 .547 .41 .68
MSMEs related policies of both central
as well as state govt. have been
achieved their objectives
8.828 449 .000 .484 .34 .63
318 | P a g e
Adequate support to MSMEs of U.P. in
terms of grants, subsidies and
incentives is adequate with fair,
unbiased and impartial
allocation/selection and effective and
efficient and/or corruption-free
distribution
7.571 449 .000 .391 .26 .52
MSMEs of U.P face managerial
problems even they are not responsible
for that
9.774 449 .000 .484 .36 .61
MSMEs’ (of U.P.) benefits to the
governments overweigh the costs of
MSMEs to governments
12.896 449 .000 .664 .53 .80
Within your geographic area, how
would you rate the “infrastructure”
(transportation system, roadway, tele-
communication systems, etc)
9.487 449 .000 .511 .37 .65
4.73 Skills and Ability at the Time of Starting the Enterprise and at Present
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for at the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the developing a business plan is 2.94 with Std. Deviation of
1.318 and mean rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available &
Affordable) for at present availability / affordability of assistance of the
skills and ability of your management in the developing a business plan is
3.32 with Std. Deviation of 1.150.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for at the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the strategic planning is 3.00 with Std. Deviation of 1.156
and mean rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available &
Affordable) for at present availability / affordability of assistance of the
skills and ability of your management in the strategic planning is 3.47 with
Std. Deviation of 1.076.
319 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for at the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the start-up operations is 2.92 with Std. Deviation of 1.275
and mean rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available &
Affordable) for at present availability / affordability of assistance of the
skills and ability of your management in the start-up operations is 3.43 with
Std. Deviation of 1.113.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for at the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the personnel is 3.00 with Std. Deviation of 1.123 and mean
rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available & Affordable) for at
present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and ability of
your management in the personnel is 3.50 with Std. Deviation of 1.068.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for at the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the finance is 2.90 with Std. Deviation of 1.190 and mean
rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available & Affordable) for at
present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and ability of
your management in the finance is 3.51 with Std. Deviation of 1.024.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for at the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the inventory control / purchasing is 2.92 with Std.
Deviation of 1.153 and mean rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5
(Available & Affordable) for at present availability / affordability of
assistance of the skills and ability of your management in the inventory
control / purchasing is 3.54 with Std. Deviation of 1.049.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for at the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
320 | P a g e
management in the feasibility analysis is 3.04 with Std. Deviation of 1.228
and mean rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available &
Affordable) for at present availability / affordability of assistance of the
skills and ability of your management in the feasibility analysis is 3.58 with
Std. Deviation of 1.050.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for at the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the pro-forma financial analysis is 2.82 with Std. Deviation
of 1.228 and mean rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available &
Affordable) for at present availability / affordability of assistance of the
skills and ability of your management in the pro-forma financial analysis is
3.49 with Std. Deviation of 1.133.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for at the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the accounting is 2.92 with Std. Deviation of 1.191 and mean
rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available & Affordable) for at
present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and ability of
your management in the accounting is 3.52 with Std. Deviation of 1.056.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for at the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the general management skills is 3.04 with Std. Deviation of
1.206 and mean rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available &
Affordable) for at present availability / affordability of assistance of the
skills and ability of your management in the general management skills is
3.53 with Std. Deviation of .997.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for at the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the production is 3.06 with Std. Deviation of 1.214 and mean
rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available & Affordable) for at
321 | P a g e
present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and ability of
your management in the production is 3.55 with Std. Deviation of 1.073.
From the Table: 4.73 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ mean rating on the scale of 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) for at the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the marketing is 2.03 with Std. Deviation of 1.227 and mean
rating on the scale of 1 (Not available) to 5 (Available & Affordable) for at
present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and ability of
your management in the marketing is 3.49 with Std. Deviation of 1.131.
Table: 4.73; Skills and Ability at the Time of Starting the Enterprise and atPresent
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std.
Deviation
Pair 1
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the developing a business plan3.32 450 1.150
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the developing a business plan2.94 450 1.318
Pair 2
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the strategic planning3.47 450 1.076
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the strategic planning3.00 450 1.156
Pair 3
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the start-up operations3.43 450 1.113
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the start-up operations2.92 450 1.275
Pair 4
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the personnel3.50 450 1.068
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the personnel3.00 450 1.123
Pair 5At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the finance3.51 450 1.024
322 | P a g e
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the finance2.90 450 1.190
Pair 6
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the inventory control / purchasing3.54 450 1.049
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the inventory control / purchasing2.92 450 1.153
Pair 7
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the feasibility analysis3.58 450 1.050
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the feasibility analysis3.04 450 1.228
Pair 8
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the pro-forma financial analysis3.49 450 1.133
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the pro-forma financial analysis2.82 450 1.228
Pair 9
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the accounting3.52 450 1.056
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the accounting2.92 450 1.191
Pair 10
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the general management skills3.53 450 .997
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the general management skills3.04 450 1.206
Pair 11
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the production3.55 450 1.073
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the production3.06 450 1.214
Pair 12
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills and
ability of your management in the marketing3.49 450 1.131
At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the marketing3.03 450 1.227
4.73 (a) Confidence Interval of the Difference for Change in Skills and Ability
323 | P a g e
Table: gives confidence interval of the difference for change in skills and
ability.
Table: 4.73 (a) Confidence Interval of the Difference for Change in Skills andAbility
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
Mean Std.
Deviation
99% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
developing a business plan - At the time of starting
the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the developing a business
plan
.378 1.586 .184 .571
Pair 2
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
strategic planning - At the time of starting the
enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of
your management in the strategic planning
.476 1.411 .303 .648
Pair 3
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
start-up operations - At the time of starting the
enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of
your management in the start-up operations
.513 1.527 .327 .699
Pair 4
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
personnel - At the time of starting the enterprise,
availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the personnel
.496 1.464 .317 .674
Pair 5
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
finance - At the time of starting the enterprise,
availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the finance
.607 1.520 .421 .792
324 | P a g e
Pair 6
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
inventory control / purchasing - At the time of
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and
ability of your management in the inventory
control / purchasing
.622 1.450 .445 .799
Pair 7
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
feasibility analysis - At the time of starting the
enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of
your management in the feasibility analysis
.544 1.535 .357 .732
Pair 8
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
pro-forma financial analysis - At the time of
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and
ability of your management in the pro-forma
financial analysis
.673 1.458 .495 .851
Pair 9
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
accounting - At the time of starting the enterprise,
availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the accounting
.598 1.462 .419 .776
Pair 10
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
general management skills - At the time of starting
the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability
of your management in the general management
skills
.496 1.461 .317 .674
Pair 11
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
production - At the time of starting the enterprise,
availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the production
.496 1.426 .322 .669
Pair 12
At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the
marketing - At the time of starting the enterprise,
availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the marketing
.462 1.465 .284 .641
325 | P a g e
4.73.1 Dependent Sample T Test for Change in Skills and Ability afterestablishment of Enterprise
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the developing a business plan
- At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of
your management in the developing a business plan on the scale of 1
(Poor/Not available) to 5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-
rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 5.052 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and
affordability of skills in the developing of a business plan after establishment of
enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is .378 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the strategic planning - At the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the strategic planning on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to
5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 7.148 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,
don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and affordability of skills in
the strategic planning after establishment of their enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as
the mean is .476 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the start-up operations - At
the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the start-up operations on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available)
to 5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as
Test Value, is 7.133 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence
326 | P a g e
Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and affordability of
skills in the start-up operations after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’
as the mean is .513 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence
Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the personnel - At the time of
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the personnel on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5
(Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 7.180 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,
don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and affordability of skills in
the personnel after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
.496 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the finance - At the time of
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the finance on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5
(Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 8.467 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,
don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and affordability of skills in
the finance after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is .607
and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the inventory control /
purchasing - At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills
and ability of your management in the inventory control / purchasing on the
scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against
327 | P a g e
the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.104 with df (degree of freedom) of
449 and 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that
‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the inventory control /
purchasing after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is .622
and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the feasibility analysis - At
the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the feasibility analysis on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to
5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 7.525 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,
don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and affordability of skills in
the feasibility analysis after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the
mean is .544 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the pro-forma financial
analysis - At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and
ability of your management in the pro-forma financial analysis on the scale of
1 (Poor/Not available) to 5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-
rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 9.794 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and
affordability of skills in the pro-forma financial analysis after establishment of
enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is .673 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the accounting - At the time of
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
328 | P a g e
management in the accounting on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5
(Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 8.671 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,
don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and affordability of skills in
the accounting after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
.598 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the general management skills
- At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of
your management in the general management skills on the scale of 1
(Poor/Not available) to 5 (Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-
rating value (i.e. 3) as Test Value, is 7.195 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and
99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and
affordability of the general management skills after establishment of
enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is .496 and the p-Value (.000) is less than
.01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the production - At the time of
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the production on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5
(Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 7.374 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,
don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and affordability of skills in
the production after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
.496 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
From the Table: 4.73.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ t value, for At present availability / affordability of assistance
of the skills and ability of your management in the marketing - At the time of
329 | P a g e
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of your
management in the marketing on the scale of 1 (Poor/Not available) to 5
(Excellent/Available & Affordable) against the mid-rating value (i.e. 3) as Test
Value, is 6.692 with df (degree of freedom) of 449 and 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,
don’t enhance their skills and ability/availability and affordability of skills in
the marketing after establishment of enterprises’ is ‘Rejected’ as the mean is
.462 and the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Table: 4.73.1; Dependent Sample T Test for Change in Skills and Abilityafter establishment of Enterprise
Paired Samples Test
Mean t df p-Value
(1-tailed)
Pair 1
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the developing a business
plan - At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the
skills and ability of your management in the developing a
business plan
.378 5.052 449 .000
Pair 2
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the strategic planning - At the
time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and
ability of your management in the strategic planning
.476 7.148 449 .000
Pair 3
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the start-up operations - At
the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and
ability of your management in the start-up operations
.513 7.133 449 .000
Pair 4
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the personnel - At the time of
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of
your management in the personnel
.496 7.180 449 .000
Pair 5
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the finance - At the time of
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of
your management in the finance
.607 8.467 449 .000
330 | P a g e
Pair 6
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the inventory control /
purchasing - At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of
the skills and ability of your management in the inventory
control / purchasing
.622 9.104 449 .000
Pair 7
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the feasibility analysis - At
the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and
ability of your management in the feasibility analysis
.544 7.525 449 .000
Pair 8
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the pro-forma financial
analysis - At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of
the skills and ability of your management in the pro-forma
financial analysis
.673 9.794 449 .000
Pair 9
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the accounting - At the time
of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of
your management in the accounting
.598 8.671 449 .000
Pair 10
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the general management
skills - At the time of starting the enterprise, availability of the
skills and ability of your management in the general
management skills
.496 7.195 449 .000
Pair 11
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the production - At the time
of starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of
your management in the production
.496 7.374 449 .000
Pair 12
At present availability / affordability of assistance of the skills
and ability of your management in the marketing - At the time of
starting the enterprise, availability of the skills and ability of
your management in the marketing
.462 6.692 449 .000
4.74 Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise (Including AllBenefits)
From the Table 4.74 & Figure 4.74 it may be seen that for 450 observed
entrepreneurs, most (171/450) entrepreneurs’ annual level of personal (gross)
income from the enterprise (including all benefits) is in the range of Rs. 4 Lakhs
to Rs. 15 Lakhs and for least (17/450) entrepreneurs’ annual level of personal
331 | P a g e
(gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits) is in the range of Rs. 15
Lakhs to Rs. 1 Crore.
Table: 4.74; Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits)
Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits)
Frequency Percent
Up to Rs. 50,000 26 5.8
Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 94 20.9
Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000 142 31.6
Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000 171 38.0
Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000 17 3.8
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.74; Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits)
Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise (Including All Benefits)
4.75 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Personal (Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs fromtheir Enterprises
Table: 4.75 shows sex of entrepreneurs & personal (gross) income of
entrepreneurs from their enterprises. We can observe that among male
entrepreneurs most (=152/360) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross)
income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=16/360)
entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of
171
331 | P a g e
(gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits) is in the range of Rs. 15
Lakhs to Rs. 1 Crore.
Table: 4.74; Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits)
Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits)
Frequency Percent
Up to Rs. 50,000 26 5.8
Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 94 20.9
Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000 142 31.6
Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000 171 38.0
Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000 17 3.8
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.74; Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits)
Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise (Including All Benefits)
4.75 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Personal (Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs fromtheir Enterprises
Table: 4.75 shows sex of entrepreneurs & personal (gross) income of
entrepreneurs from their enterprises. We can observe that among male
entrepreneurs most (=152/360) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross)
income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=16/360)
entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of
2694
142
17 Up to Rs. 50,000
Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000
Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000
Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000
Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs.1,00,00,000
331 | P a g e
(gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits) is in the range of Rs. 15
Lakhs to Rs. 1 Crore.
Table: 4.74; Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits)
Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits)
Frequency Percent
Up to Rs. 50,000 26 5.8
Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 94 20.9
Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000 142 31.6
Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000 171 38.0
Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000 17 3.8
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.74; Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits)
Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise (Including All Benefits)
4.75 Sex of Entrepreneurs & Personal (Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs fromtheir Enterprises
Table: 4.75 shows sex of entrepreneurs & personal (gross) income of
entrepreneurs from their enterprises. We can observe that among male
entrepreneurs most (=152/360) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross)
income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=16/360)
entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of
Up to Rs. 50,000
Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000
Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000
Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000
Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs.1,00,00,000
332 | P a g e
Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore whereas among female entrepreneurs most (=36/90)
entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of
Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs and least (=9/90) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal
(gross) income from their enterprises of up to Rs. 50,000.
Table: 4.75; Sex of Entrepreneurs & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises
Sex * Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits)
Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all
benefits)
Total
Up to Rs.
50,000
Rs. 50,000 to
Rs. 2,00,000
Rs. 2,00,000 to
Rs. 4,00,000
Rs. 4,00,000 to
Rs. 15,00,000
Rs. 15,00,000 to
Rs. 1,00,00,000
Sex
Male 17 58 117 152 16 360
Female 9 36 25 19 1 90
Total 26 94 142 171 17 450
4.76 Enterprises being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ First Entrepreneurial Venture& Personal (Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises
Table: 4.76 shows enterprises being/ not being entrepreneurs’ first
entrepreneurial venture & personal (gross) income of entrepreneurs from their
enterprises. We can observe that among enterprises being entrepreneurs’ first
entrepreneurial venture most (=152/379) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal
(gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least
(=15/379) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore whereas among enterprises not being
entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture most (=29/71) entrepreneurs tend to
have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs
and least (=2/71) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from
their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore.
Table: 4.76; Enterprises being/ not being Entrepreneurs’ FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Personal (Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from
their Enterprises
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? * Annual level of personal (gross) income from the
enterprise (including all benefits)
333 | P a g e
Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including
all benefits)
Total
Up to Rs.
50,000
Rs. 50,000
to Rs.
2,00,000
Rs. 2,00,000
to Rs.
4,00,000
Rs. 4,00,000
to Rs.
15,00,000
Rs. 15,00,000
to Rs.
1,00,00,000
Is this your first
entrepreneurial
venture?
Yes 22 65 125 152 15 379
No 4 29 17 19 2 71
Total 26 94 142 171 17 450
4.77 Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises
Table: 4.77 shows entrepreneurs’ highest educational level & personal
(gross) income of entrepreneurs from their enterprises. The cases having total
counts below 10 have been excluded from analysis. We can observe that among
Primary (5th) educated entrepreneurs most (=4/10) entrepreneurs tend to have their
personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs and least
(=0/10) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among Secondary (8th) educated
entrepreneurs most (=19/28) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross)
income from their enterprises of Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs and least (=0/28)
entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of
Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs. Among Highschool (10th) passed entrepreneurs most
(=23/61) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs and least (=0/61) entrepreneurs tend to have
their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore.
Among Intermediate (12th) passed entrepreneurs most (=37/98) entrepreneurs tend
to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 2 Lakhs to 4
Lakhs and least (=3/98) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income
from their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among Bachelors’ degree
holder entrepreneurs most (=62/132) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal
(gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least
(=4/132) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among Post Graduate entrepreneurs most
334 | P a g e
(=40/95) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=4/95) entrepreneurs tend to
have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of up to Rs. 50,000.
Among Masters’ degree holder entrepreneurs most (=13/23) entrepreneurs tend to
have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15
Lakhs and least (=0/23) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income
from their enterprises of up to Rs. 50,000 or Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore.
Table: 4.77; Entrepreneurs’ Highest Educational Level & Personal (Gross)Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises
Your highest educational level * Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise
(including all benefits)
Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including
all benefits)
Total
Up to Rs.
50,000
Rs. 50,000
to Rs.
2,00,000
Rs. 2,00,000
to Rs.
4,00,000
Rs. 4,00,000
to Rs.
15,00,000
Rs. 15,00,000
to Rs.
1,00,00,000
Your
highest
educational
level
Illiterate 1 1 0 0 0 2
(Up to)
Primary (5th)3 4 2 1 0 10
Secondary
(8th)3 19 5 0 1 28
High School
(10th)2 23 18 18 0 61
Intermediate
(12th)5 17 37 36 3 98
Bachelor’s
degree8 20 38 62 4 132
Post
Graduate4 8 34 40 9 95
Master’s
degree0 2 8 13 0 23
Ph. D. 0 0 0 1 0 1
335 | P a g e
Total 26 94 142 171 17 450
4.78 Entrepreneurs with/ without Any Supplemental, Continuing Education orTraining & Personal (Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from theirEnterprises
Table: 4.78 shows entrepreneurs with/ without any supplemental, continuing
education or training & personal (gross) income of entrepreneurs from their
enterprises. We can observe that among entrepreneurs having any supplemental,
continuing education or training most (=58/118) entrepreneurs tend to have their
personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 2 Lakhs to 4 Lakhs and least
(=4/118) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of up to Rs. 50,000 whereas among entrepreneurs not having any
supplemental, continuing education or training most (=113/332) entrepreneurs
tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to
15 Lakhs and least (=7/332) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross)
income from their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore.
Table: 4.78; Entrepreneurs with/ without Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Personal (Gross) Income of Entrepreneurs from
their Enterprises
Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical, professional or functional business
skills) * Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits)
Annual level of personal (gross) income from the
enterprise (including all benefits)
Total
Up to
Rs.
50,000
Rs.
50,000 to
Rs.
2,00,000
Rs.
2,00,000
to Rs.
4,00,000
Rs.
4,00,000
to Rs.
15,00,000
Rs.
15,00,000
to Rs.
1,00,00,000
Any supplemental, continuing
education or training
(technical, professional or
functional business skills)
Yes 4 11 35 58 10 118
No 22 83 107 113 7 332
Total 26 94 142 171 17 450
4.79 Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/Business & Personal (Gross) Income ofEntrepreneurs from their Enterprises
336 | P a g e
Table: 4.79 shows entrepreneurs’ type of industry/business & personal
(gross) income of entrepreneurs from their enterprises. The cases having total
counts below 10 have been excluded from analysis. We can observe that among
enterprises in Professional Services most (=38/56) enterprises tend to have their
personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 2 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and
least (=0/56) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of up to Rs. 50,000. Among enterprises in Consumer Services most
(=38/63) enterprises tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs or Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=2/63)
entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of
Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among enterprises in Guest Services most (=22/57)
enterprises tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs.
4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=2/57) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal
(gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among
enterprises in Manufacturing most (=28/59) enterprises tend to have their personal
(gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=0/59)
entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of
up to Rs. 50,000. Among enterprises in Transportation and Public Utilities most
(=15/31) enterprises tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=1/31) entrepreneurs tend to
have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1
Crore. Among enterprises in Retail most (=39/85) enterprises tend to have their
personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 2 Lakhs to 4 Lakhs and least
(=3/85) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among enterprises in Wholesale most
(=11/33) enterprises tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of Rs. 2 Lakhs to 4 Lakhs and least (=1/33) entrepreneurs tend to have
their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of up to Rs. 50,000. Among
enterprises in Agricultural & Allied Sector most (=11/29) enterprises tend to have
their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 50,000 to 2 Lakhs and
least (=0/29) entrepreneurs tend to have their personal (gross) income from their
enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs to 1 Crore. Among enterprises in Construction Related
activities most (=22/32) enterprises tend to have their personal (gross) income
from their enterprises of Rs. 4 Lakhs to 15 Lakhs and least (=0/32) entrepreneurs
337 | P a g e
tend to have their personal (gross) income from their enterprises of Rs. 15 Lakhs
to 1 Crore.
Table: 4.79; Entrepreneurs’ Type of Industry/Business & Personal (Gross)Income of Entrepreneurs from their Enterprises
Type of Industry/Business * Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all
benefits)
Annual level of personal (gross) income from the
enterprise (including all benefits)
Total
Up to
Rs.
50,000
Rs.
50,000 to
Rs.
2,00,000
Rs.
2,00,000
to Rs.
4,00,000
Rs.
4,00,000
to Rs.
15,00,000
Rs.
15,00,000
to Rs.
1,00,00,000
Type of
Industry/
Business
Professional services (e.g.
accounting, consulting)0 15 19 19 3 56
Consumer services (e.g.
hairdressing, auto service)5 19 18 19 2 63
Guest services (e.g. hotel,
restaurant )6 9 18 22 2 57
Manufacturing (consumer or
durable goods)0 12 17 28 2 59
Transportation or public
utilities3 4 8 15 1 31
Retail ( including
import/export)6 13 39 24 3 85
Wholesale (including import/
export)1 8 11 10 3 33
Agricultural or agricultural
related2 11 7 9 0 29
Construction related
(Including all trades)2 3 5 22 0 32
Mining, extraction, oil 1 0 0 3 1 5
Total 26 94 142 171 17 450
338 | P a g e
4.80 Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise (Including AllBenefits) & Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
Table: 4.80 shows presently available number of sources of funding in each
category of entrepreneurs’ annual level of personal (gross) income from the
enterprise. We can observe that in income level of up to Rs. 50,000 most (13/26)
entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding presently available and least
(0/26) entrepreneurs tend to have more than 10 sources of funding presently
available. In income level of Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2 Lakhs most (57/94) entrepreneurs
tend to have 1 or 2 sources of funding presently available and least (0/94)
entrepreneurs tend to have more than 10 sources of funding presently available. In
income level of Rs. 2 Lakhs to Rs. 4 Lakhs most (69/142) entrepreneurs tend to
have 1 or 2 sources of funding presently available and least (2/142) entrepreneurs
tend to have more than 10 sources of funding presently available. In income level
of 4 Lakhs to Rs. 15 Lakhs most (77/171) entrepreneurs tend to have 3 to 5
sources of funding presently available and least (10/171) entrepreneurs tend to
have 6 or more sources of funding presently available. In income level of 15
Lakhs to Rs. 1 Crore most (7/17) entrepreneurs tend to have 1 or 2 sources of
funding presently available and least (0/17) entrepreneurs tend to have more than
10 sources of funding presently available.
Table: 4.80; Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits) & Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits) * Presently
available number of sources of funding
Presently available number of sources of funding Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
Annual level
of personal
(gross)
income from
the enterprise
(including all
benefits)
Up to Rs. 50,000 7 13 5 1 0 26
Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 18 57 16 3 0 94
Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000 24 69 40 7 2 142
Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000 26 58 77 5 5 171
Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000 3 7 5 2 0 17
Total 78 204 143 18 7 450
339 | P a g e
4.81 Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise (Including AllBenefits) & Most Available Source of Funding
Table: 4.81 shows most available source of funding in each category of
entrepreneurs’ annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise. We
can observe that in income level of up to Rs. 50,000 most (19/26) entrepreneurs
tend to have banks as most available source of funding and least (0/26)
entrepreneurs tend to have venture capitalists as most available source of funding.
In income level of Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2 Lakhs most (79/94) entrepreneurs tend to
have banks as most available source of funding and least (2/94) entrepreneurs tend
to have venture capitalists as most available source of funding. In income level of
Rs. 2 Lakhs to Rs. 4 Lakhs most (116/142) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as
most available source of funding and least (6/142) entrepreneurs tend to have
government loan programs as most available source of funding. In income level of
4 Lakhs to Rs. 15 Lakhs most (137/171) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most
available source of funding and least (6/171) entrepreneurs tend to have venture
capitalists as most available source of funding. In income level of 15 Lakhs to Rs.
1 Crore most (13/17) entrepreneurs tend to have banks as most available source of
funding and least (0/17) entrepreneurs tend to have venture capitalists as most
available source of funding.
Table: 4.81; Annual Level of Personal (Gross) Income from the Enterprise(Including All Benefits) & Most Available Source of Funding
Annual level of personal (gross) income from the enterprise (including all benefits) * Most available
source of funding
Most available source of funding Total
Banks Private
investors
Venture
capitalists
Govt. loan
programs
Annual level of
personal
(gross) income
from the
enterprise
(including all
benefits)
Up to Rs. 50,000 19 4 0 3 26
Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 79 10 2 3 94
Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 4,00,000 116 11 9 6 142
Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 15,00,000 137 17 6 11 171
Rs. 15,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000 13 3 0 1 17
Total 364 45 17 24 450
340 | P a g e
4.82 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises
From Table: 4.82 & Figure: 4.82 it may be seen that out of 450 observed
enterprises 342 (76%) enterprises have sales growth as one of the objectives of
their enterprises and 108 (24%) don’t have sales growth as one of the objectives of
their enterprises. It means that most of the enterprise have sales growth as one of
their enterprises’ objectives.
Table: 4.82; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises
Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise
Frequency Percent
Yes 342 76.0
No 108 24.0
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.82; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises
Is Sales Growth One of the Objectives of Your Enterprise?
4.83 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprises Started by Self & Having Sales
Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.83 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Enterprises started by self & Having sales growth as one of
enterprises’ objectives, none of cell of counts are showing less than 5 counts
therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable for the data.
108
340 | P a g e
4.82 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises
From Table: 4.82 & Figure: 4.82 it may be seen that out of 450 observed
enterprises 342 (76%) enterprises have sales growth as one of the objectives of
their enterprises and 108 (24%) don’t have sales growth as one of the objectives of
their enterprises. It means that most of the enterprise have sales growth as one of
their enterprises’ objectives.
Table: 4.82; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises
Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise
Frequency Percent
Yes 342 76.0
No 108 24.0
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.82; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises
Is Sales Growth One of the Objectives of Your Enterprise?
4.83 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprises Started by Self & Having Sales
Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.83 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Enterprises started by self & Having sales growth as one of
enterprises’ objectives, none of cell of counts are showing less than 5 counts
therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable for the data.
342
108
340 | P a g e
4.82 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises
From Table: 4.82 & Figure: 4.82 it may be seen that out of 450 observed
enterprises 342 (76%) enterprises have sales growth as one of the objectives of
their enterprises and 108 (24%) don’t have sales growth as one of the objectives of
their enterprises. It means that most of the enterprise have sales growth as one of
their enterprises’ objectives.
Table: 4.82; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises
Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise
Frequency Percent
Yes 342 76.0
No 108 24.0
Total 450 100.0
Figure: 4.82; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises
Is Sales Growth One of the Objectives of Your Enterprise?
4.83 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprises Started by Self & Having Sales
Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.83 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Enterprises started by self & Having sales growth as one of
enterprises’ objectives, none of cell of counts are showing less than 5 counts
therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable for the data.
342
Yes
No
341 | P a g e
Table: 4.83; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprises Started by Self &
Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
Did enterprise start by self? * Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise
Is sales “growth” one of the
objectives of your enterprise
Total
Yes No
Did enterprise start by self?
YesCount 303 69 372
Expected Count 282.7 89.3 372.0
NoCount 39 39 78
Expected Count 59.3 18.7 78.0
TotalCount 342 108 450
Expected Count 342.0 108.0 450.0
4.83.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Enterprises Started by Self &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.83.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Enterprises started by self & Having sales
growth as one of enterprises’ objectives, is 34.969 with df (degree of freedom)
of 1 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant
relationship between the enterprises started by self and having sales growth as
one of enterprises’ objectives’ is ‘Rejected’
Table: 4.83.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between EnterprisesStarted by Self & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 34.969a 1 .000
Continuity Correctionb 33.266 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 31.013 1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear Association 34.892 1 .000
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 18.72.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
4.83.2 Strength of Association between Enterprises Started by Self & Having SalesGrowth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
342 | P a g e
From Table: 4.83.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Enterprises
started by self & Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives’
measures of strength of association Phi Correlation Coefficient (=.279),
Cramer’s V (=.279) and Contingency Coefficient (=.269) all are low it implies
that despite of statistically significant relationship between Enterprises started by
self & Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives their strength of
association is poor.
Table: 4.83.2; Strength of association between Enterprise Start by Self &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .279 .000
Cramer's V .279 .000
Contingency Coefficient .269 .000
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.84 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Having Sales Growth as
One of Enterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.84 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Having sales growth as one of
enterprises’ objectives, none of cell of counts are showing less than 5 counts
therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable for the data.
Table: 4.84; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Sex of Entrepreneurs & Having
Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
Sex * Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise
Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise Total
Yes No
Sex
MaleCount 292 68 360
Expected Count 273.6 86.4 360.0
FemaleCount 50 40 90
Expected Count 68.4 21.6 90.0
TotalCount 342 108 450
Expected Count 342.0 108.0 450.0
343 | P a g e
4.84.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs & HavingSales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.84.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Sex of entrepreneurs & Having sales
growth as one of enterprises’ objectives, is 25.780 with df (degree of freedom)
of 1 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant
relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and having sales growth as one of
enterprises’ objectives’ is ‘Rejected’
Table: 4.84.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Sex ofEntrepreneurs & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 25.780a 1 .000
Continuity Correctionb 24.398 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 23.401 1 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 25.722 1 .000
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 21.60.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
4.84.2 Strength of Association between Sex of Entrepreneurs & Having SalesGrowth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.84.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Sex of
entrepreneurs & Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives’
measures of strength of association Phi Correlation Coefficient (=.239),
Cramer’s V (=.239) and Contingency Coefficient (=.233) all are low it implies
that despite of statistically significant relationship between Sex of entrepreneurs &
Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives their strength of
association is poor.
Table: 4.84.2; Strength of association between Sex of Entrepreneurs &Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
344 | P a g e
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .239 .000
Cramer's V .239 .000
Contingency Coefficient .233 .000
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.85 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprise being Entrepreneur’s FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’Objectives
From Table: 4.85 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Enterprise being entrepreneur’s first entrepreneurial venture
& Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives, none of cell of counts
are showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of Independence is
suitable for the data.
Table: 4.85; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Enterprise being Entrepreneur’sFirst Entrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as One of
Enterprises’ Objectives
Is this your first entrepreneurial venture? * Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise
Is sales “growth” one of the
objectives of your enterprise
Total
Yes No
Is this your first
entrepreneurial venture?
YesCount 302 77 379
Expected Count 288.0 91.0 379.0
NoCount 40 31 71
Expected Count 54.0 17.0 71.0
TotalCount 342 108 450
Expected Count 342.0 108.0 450.0
4.85.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Enterprise being Entrepreneur’sFirst Entrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as One ofEnterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.85.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Enterprise being entrepreneur’s firstentrepreneurial venture & Having sales growth as one of enterprises’objectives, is 17.867 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 and 99% Confidence Level.
Since the p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level, therefore the
null hypothesis that ‘there is no significant relationship between enterprise
345 | P a g e
being entrepreneur’s first entrepreneurial venture and having sales growth as
one of enterprises’ objectives’ is ‘Rejected’
Table: 4.85.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Enterprise beingEntrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as
One of Enterprises’ Objectives
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 17.867a 1 .000
Continuity Correctionb 16.610 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 16.080 1 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 17.828 1 .000
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 17.04.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
4.85.2 Strength of Association between Enterprise being Entrepreneur’s FirstEntrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’Objectives
From Table: 4.85.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Enterprise
being entrepreneur’s first entrepreneurial venture & Having sales growth as
one of enterprises’ objectives’ measures of strength of association Phi
Correlation Coefficient (=.199), Cramer’s V (=.199) and Contingency
Coefficient (=.195) all are low it implies that despite of statistically significant
relationship between Enterprise being entrepreneur’s first entrepreneurial venture
& Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives their strength of
association is poor.
Table: 4.85.2; Strength of Association between Enterprise beingEntrepreneur’s First Entrepreneurial Venture & Having Sales Growth as
One of Enterprises’ Objectives
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi .199 .000
Cramer's V .199 .000
346 | P a g e
Contingency Coefficient .195 .000
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.86 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises & EntrepreneursHighest Educational Level
Table: 4.86 shows the entrepreneurs having sales as one of the objectives of
enterprises for entrepreneurs’ each level of highest education. Among the
entrepreneurs who has sales growth as an objective of their enterprise most
(94/342) entrepreneurs are Bachelors’ degree holder and least (1/342)
entrepreneurs are Ph.D. degree holder whereas among the entrepreneurs who
don’t have sales growth as an objective of their enterprise most (38/108)
entrepreneurs are Bachelors’ degree holder and least (0/108) entrepreneurs are
illiterate or Ph.D. degree holder.
Table: 4.86; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Entrepreneurs Highest Educational Level
Your highest educational level * Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise
Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise Total
Yes No
Your highest
educational
level
Illiterate 2 0 2
(Up to) Primary (5th) 9 1 10
Secondary (8th) 22 6 28
High School (10th) 48 13 61
Intermediate (12th) 70 28 98
Bachelor’s degree 94 38 132
Post Graduate 77 18 95
Master’s degree 19 4 23
Ph. D. 1 0 1
Total 342 108 450
347 | P a g e
4.87 ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, Continuing Education or
Training & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.87 it may be seen that, for 450 observed enterprises in
relation to the Any supplemental, continuing education or training & Having
sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives, none of cell of counts are
showing less than 5 counts therefore Chi Square test of Independence is suitable
for the data.
Table: 4.87; ᵡ2 Test of Independence for Any Supplemental, Continuing
Education or Training & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’Objectives
Any supplemental, continuing education or training (technical, professional or functional business
skills) * Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise
Is sales “growth” one of the
objectives of your enterprise
Total
Yes No
Any supplemental, continuing
education or training (technical,
professional or functional business
skills)
YesCount 79 39 118
Expected Count 89.7 28.3 118.0
NoCount 263 69 332
Expected Count 252.3 79.7 332.0
TotalCount 342 108 450
Expected Count 342.0 108.0 450.0
4.87.1 Hypothesis Testing for Association between Any Supplemental, ContinuingEducation or Training & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’Objectives
From Table: 4.87.1 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
Pearson’s ᵡ2 Value in relation to the Any supplemental, continuing education
or training & Having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives, is 7.183
with df (degree of freedom) of 1 and 99% Confidence Level. Since the p-Value
(.007) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level, therefore the null hypothesis
that ‘there is no significant relationship between any supplemental, continuing
education or training and having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives’is ‘Rejected’
Table: 4.87.1; Hypothesis Testing for Association between Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Having Sales Growth as One of
Enterprises’ Objectives
Chi-Square Tests
348 | P a g e
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.183a 1 .007
Continuity Correctionb 6.526 1 .011
Likelihood Ratio 6.871 1 .009
Linear-by-Linear Association 7.167 1 .007
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 28.32.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
4.87.2 Strength of Association between Any Supplemental, Continuing Education orTraining & Having Sales Growth as One of Enterprises’ Objectives
From Table: 4.87.2 it may be seen that for 450 in relation to the Any
supplemental, continuing education or training & Having sales growth as one
of enterprises’ objectives’ measures of strength of association Phi Correlation
Coefficient (= -.126), Cramer’s V (=.126) and Contingency Coefficient (=.125)
all are very low it implies that despite of statistically significant relationship
between Any supplemental, continuing education or training & Having sales
growth as one of enterprises’ objectives their strength of association is very
poor.
Table: 4.87.2; Strength of Association between Any Supplemental,Continuing Education or Training & Having Sales Growth as One of
Enterprises’ Objectives
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal
Phi -.126 .007
Cramer's V .126 .007
Contingency Coefficient .125 .007
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
4.88 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises & Enterprises’ Type ofIndustry/Business
349 | P a g e
Table: 4.88 shows the entrepreneurs having sales as one of the objectives of
enterprises for entrepreneurs’ each type of business/industry. Among the
entrepreneurs who has sales growth as an objective of their enterprise most
(77/342) entrepreneurs are in retail and least (4/342) entrepreneurs are in mining,
extraction, oil whereas among the entrepreneurs who don’t have sales growth as
an objective of their enterprise most (27/108) entrepreneurs are in professional
services and least (1/108) entrepreneurs are in mining, extraction, oil.
Table: 4.88; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Enterprises’ Type of Industry/Business
Type of Industry/Business * Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise
Is sales “growth” one of the
objectives of your enterprise
Total
Yes No
Type of
Industry/
Business
Professional services (e.g. accounting, consulting) 29 27 56
Consumer services (e.g. hairdressing, auto service) 43 20 63
Guest services (e.g. hotel, restaurant ) 38 19 57
Manufacturing (consumer or durable goods) 45 14 59
Transportation or public utilities 24 7 31
Retail ( including import/export) 77 8 85
Wholesale (including import/ export) 29 4 33
Agricultural or agricultural related 24 5 29
Construction related (Including all trades) 29 3 32
Mining, extraction, oil 4 1 5
Total 342 108 450
4.89 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises & Presently AvailableNumber of Sources of Funding
Table: 4.89 shows the entrepreneurs having sales as one of the objectives of
enterprises for entrepreneurs’ each category of presently available sources of
funding. Among the entrepreneurs who have sales growth as an objective of their
350 | P a g e
enterprise most (169/342) entrepreneurs have 1 or 2 sources of funding presently
available and least (7/342) entrepreneurs have more than 10 sources of funding
presently available whereas among the entrepreneurs who don’t have sales growth
as an objective of their enterprise most (58/108) entrepreneurs have 3 to 5 sources
of funding presently available and least (0/108) entrepreneurs have more than 10
sources of funding presently available.
Table: 4.89; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises &Presently Available Number of Sources of Funding
Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise * Presently available number of sources of
funding
Presently available number of sources of funding Total
None 1 or 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10
Is sales “growth” one of the
objectives of your enterprise
Yes 64 169 85 17 7 342
No 14 35 58 1 0 108
Total 78 204 143 18 7 450
4.90 Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises & Most AvailableSource of Funding
Table: 4.90 shows the entrepreneurs having sales as one of the objectives of
enterprises for entrepreneurs’ each category of most available source of funding.
Among the entrepreneurs who have sales growth as an objective of their enterprise
most (280/342) entrepreneurs have banks as most available source of funding and
least (13/342) entrepreneurs have venture capitalists as most available source of
funding whereas among the entrepreneurs who don’t have sales growth as an
objective of their enterprise most (84/108) entrepreneurs have banks as most
available source of funding and least (4/108) entrepreneurs have venture
capitalists as most available source of funding.
Table: 4.90; Sales Growth as One of the Objectives of Enterprises & MostAvailable Source of Funding
Is sales “growth” one of the objectives of your enterprise * Most available source of funding
Most available source of funding Total
351 | P a g e
Banks Private
investors
Venture
capitalists
Government
loan programs
Is sales “growth” one of the
objectives of your enterprise
Yes 280 32 13 17 342
No 84 13 4 7 108
Total 364 45 17 24 450
4.91 F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Problems of Entrepreneurs inMSMEs between the Enterprises with and without having Sales Growth asOne of their Enterprises’ Objectives
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in registration of MSMEs in U.P. between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 6.984 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.009) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in
registration of MSMEs is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in establishment of MSMEs in U.P.
between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of
the objectives of their enterprises, is 4.095 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.044) is
more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in
establishment of MSMEs is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to uncertainty about the economy
between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of
the objectives of their enterprises, is 1.854 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.174) is
352 | P a g e
more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem due
to uncertainty about the economy is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in choosing a direction for enterprise
between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of
the objectives of their enterprises, is 16.428 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in
choosing a direction for enterprise is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to regulations and paperwork between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 14.224 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem due
to regulations and paperwork is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in time management between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 9.037 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.003) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in
time management is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
353 | P a g e
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem related to general management skills
between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of
the objectives of their enterprises, is 57.366 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem
related to general management skills is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to change in customer needs between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 7.328 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.007) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem due
to change in customer needs is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in obtaining finances between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 22.930 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in
obtaining finances is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to uncertainty about the political
situation between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth
as one of the objectives of their enterprises, is 34.651 with df (degree of
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
354 | P a g e
Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are
having and who are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise,
the level of problem due to uncertainty about the political situation is same.’ is
‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem regarding taxes, tax laws (including
mandated benefits) between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have
sales growth as one of the objectives of their enterprises, is 29.569 with df
(degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and
corresponding p-Value (.000) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level.
Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of
entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not having sales growth as an
objective of their enterprise, the level of problem regarding taxes, tax laws
(including mandated benefits) is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem regarding quality of products / services
between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of
the objectives of their enterprises, is 22.536 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem
regarding quality of products / services is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to change in economic condition
between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of
the objectives of their enterprises, is 18.492 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
355 | P a g e
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem due
to change in economic condition is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to intense competition between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 19.340 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.000) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem due
to intense competition is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in cost control between Entrepreneurs who
have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the objectives of their
enterprises, is 4.462 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448
for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.035) is more than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both
types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not having sales growth as
an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in cost control is same’ is
‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in educating the workforce between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 1.711 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.192) is
more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in
educating the workforce is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in attracting quality workers between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
356 | P a g e
objectives of their enterprises, is 7.438 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.007) is
less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in
attracting quality workers is same.’ is ‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem related to productivity between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is .313 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.576) is
more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem
related to productivity is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem due to lack of suppliers / health of
suppliers between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth
as one of the objectives of their enterprises, is 7.635 with df (degree of
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
Value (.006) is less than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are
having and who are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise,
the level of problem due to lack of suppliers / health of suppliers is same.’ is
‘Rejected’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in competing globally between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is 2.225 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.136) is
more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
357 | P a g e
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in
competing globally is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in motivating employees between
Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the
objectives of their enterprises, is .140 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for
between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.709) is
more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in
Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not
having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of problem in
motivating employees is same’ is ‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Problem in incorporating new / emerging
technologies between Entrepreneurs who have and who don’t have sales
growth as one of the objectives of their enterprises, is 1.777 with df (degree of
freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448 for within groups and corresponding p-
Value (.183) is more than .01 at 99% Confidence Level. Therefore the null
hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are
having and who are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise,
the level of problem in incorporating new / emerging technologies is same’ is
‘Failed to Reject’.
From the Table: 4.91 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises,
entrepreneurs’ F-value for Marketing problems between Entrepreneurs who
have and who don’t have sales growth as one of the objectives of their
enterprises, is .000 with df (degree of freedom) of 1 for between groups and 448
for within groups and corresponding p-Value (.983) is more than .01 at 99%
Confidence Level. Therefore the null hypothesis that ‘in Uttar Pradesh for both
types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who are not having sales growth as
an objective of their enterprise, the level of marketing problems is same’ is
‘Failed to Reject’.
358 | P a g e
Table: 4.91; F Test & Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Problems ofEntrepreneurs in MSMEs between the Enterprises with and without having
Sales Growth as One of their Enterprises’ Objectives
ANOVA
Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Registration of MSMEs in U.P.
Between Groups 7.885 1 7.885 6.984 .009
Within Groups 505.813 448 1.129
Total 513.698 449
Establishment of MSMEs in U.P.
Between Groups 3.439 1 3.439 4.095 .044
Within Groups 376.173 448 .840
Total 379.611 449
Uncertainly about the economy
Between Groups 1.662 1 1.662 1.854 .174
Within Groups 401.618 448 .896
Total 403.280 449
Choosing a direction for enterprise
Between Groups 16.499 1 16.499 16.428 .000
Within Groups 449.945 448 1.004
Total 466.444 449
Regulations and paperwork
Between Groups 14.417 1 14.417 14.224 .000
Within Groups 454.083 448 1.014
Total 468.500 449
Time management
Between Groups 9.689 1 9.689 9.037 .003
Within Groups 480.311 448 1.072
Total 490.000 449
General management skills
Between Groups 67.584 1 67.584 57.366 .000
Within Groups 527.796 448 1.178
Total 595.380 449
Changing customer needs
Between Groups 7.615 1 7.615 7.328 .007
Within Groups 465.497 448 1.039
Total 473.111 449
Obtaining finances
Between Groups 23.630 1 23.630 22.930 .000
Within Groups 461.668 448 1.031
Total 485.298 449
Uncertainty about the political situation
Between Groups 36.587 1 36.587 34.651 .000
Within Groups 473.024 448 1.056
Total 509.611 449
Taxes, tax laws (including mandated
benefits)
Between Groups 33.248 1 33.248 29.569 .000
Within Groups 503.750 448 1.124
Total 536.998 449
Quality of products / services
Between Groups 24.234 1 24.234 22.536 .000
Within Groups 481.766 448 1.075
Total 506.000 449
359 | P a g e
Changing economic condition
Between Groups 20.281 1 20.281 18.492 .000
Within Groups 491.330 448 1.097
Total 511.611 449
Intense competition
Between Groups 19.885 1 19.885 19.340 .000
Within Groups 460.615 448 1.028
Total 480.500 449
Cost control
Between Groups 4.912 1 4.912 4.462 .035
Within Groups 493.168 448 1.101
Total 498.080 449
Educating the workforce
Between Groups 2.175 1 2.175 1.711 .192
Within Groups 569.445 448 1.271
Total 571.620 449
Attracting quality workers
Between Groups 8.934 1 8.934 7.438 .007
Within Groups 538.090 448 1.201
Total 547.024 449
Productivity
Between Groups .416 1 .416 .313 .576
Within Groups 594.404 448 1.327
Total 594.820 449
Lack of suppliers / health of suppliers
Between Groups 8.882 1 8.882 7.635 .006
Within Groups 521.118 448 1.163
Total 530.000 449
Competing globally
Between Groups 2.874 1 2.874 2.225 .136
Within Groups 578.746 448 1.292
Total 581.620 449
Motivating employees
Between Groups .176 1 .176 .140 .709
Within Groups 564.102 448 1.259
Total 564.278 449
Incorporating new / emerging technologies
Between Groups 2.201 1 2.201 1.777 .183
Within Groups 554.664 448 1.238
Total 556.864 449
Marketing problems
Between Groups .001 1 .001 .000 .983
Within Groups 678.330 448 1.514
Total 678.331 449
4.92 Targeted Annual Percentage Sales Growth
From the Table: 4.92 it may be seen that for 342 enterprises which has sales
growth as one of their enterprises’ objectives targeted annual percentage sales
growth is 12.67 with Std. Deviation of 5.31.
Table: 4.92; Targeted Annual Percentage Sales Growth
Descriptive Statistics
360 | P a g e
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Targeted Annual Percentage
Sales Growth342 27.00 3.00 30.00 12.6687 5.30944
4.93 Total Change in Gross Sales Achieved over the Past 5 Years as a CumulativePercentage
From the Table: 4.93 it may be seen that for 450 observed enterprises total
change in gross sales achieved over the past 5 years as a cumulative
percentage is 8.42 with Std. Deviation of 5.43.
Table: 4.93; Total Change in Gross Sales Achieved over the Past 5 Years as aCumulative Percentage
Descriptive Statistics
N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Total Change in Gross Sales
Achieved over the Past 5 Years
as a Cumulative Percentage
450 43.00 2.00 45.00 8.4162 5.43054
361 | P a g e
5. Findings & Conclusions
5.1 Findings
Table: 5.1 gives result of hypotheses tested. The confidence level for each
test is 99 % i.e. level of significance for testing is .01 for all hypotheses.
Table: 5.1; Findings of Hypotheses Testing
Sl.No.
Null Hypothesis Test Sig.
Decision(99%
Confidence)
1there is no significant relationship betweenthe sex of entrepreneurs and the starting the
business by self ᵡ2 Test.001 Rejected
2there is no significant relationship between
the category of entrepreneurs and sex ofentrepreneurs ᵡ2 Test
.086Failed to
Reject
3there is no significant relationship between
the category of entrepreneurs andentrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture ᵡ2 Test
.014Failed to
Reject
4there is no significant relationship betweenthe any supplemental, continuing educationor training and category of Entrepreneurs ᵡ2 Test
.635 Failed toReject
5there is no significant relationship betweensex of entrepreneurs and starting enterprise
by self ᵡ2 Test.061 Failed to
Reject
6
there is no significant relationship betweenstarting enterprise by self and any
supplemental, continuing education ortraining
ᵡ2 Test.198
Failed toReject
7there is no significant relationship betweenthe category of entrepreneurs and starting
enterprise by self ᵡ2 Test.661
Failed toReject
8
there is no significant relationship betweenthe sex of entrepreneurs and any
supplemental, continuing education ortraining
ᵡ2 Test.335
Failed toReject
9
there is no significant relationship betweenbeing entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurialventure and any supplemental, continuing
education or trainingᵡ2 Test
.175 Failed toReject
362 | P a g e
10
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have previous relevant experience
and/or educational background within thefield of their enterprise
T Test .000 Rejected
11for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
personal achievement is not an importantcause of their entrepreneurship
T Test .000 Rejected
12for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshstatus and prestige is not an important cause
of their entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected
13for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesheconomic necessity is not an important cause
of their entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected
14for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
Flexibility in work / family is not animportant cause of their entrepreneurship
T Test .000 Rejected
15for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
independence is not an important cause oftheir entrepreneurship
T Test .000 Rejected
16for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
learning and personal growth is not animportant cause of their entrepreneurship
T Test .000 Rejected
17for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshtest their own ideas is not an important cause
of their entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected
18for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshmoney and wealth is not an important cause
of their entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected
19for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshopportunity is not an important cause of their
entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected
20for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshrecognition is not an important cause of their
entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected
21for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
satisfying work relationships is not animportant cause of their entrepreneurship
T Test .000 Rejected
22for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
career security is not an important cause oftheir entrepreneurship
T Test .000 Rejected
363 | P a g e
23
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of personal achievement is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
24
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of status and prestige is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
25
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of economic necessity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
26
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of flexibility in work/family is same
F Test&
ANOVA.001 Rejected
27
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of independence is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
28
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of learning and personal growth is same
F Test&
ANOVA.013 Failed to
Reject
29
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importanceof testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same
F Test&
ANOVA.040 Failed to
Reject
30
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of money and wealth is same’
F Test&
ANOVA.061
Failed toReject
31
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of opportunity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.001 Rejected
32
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of recognition is same
F Test&
ANOVA.002 Rejected
33
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of satisfying work relationship is same
F Test&
ANOVA.009 Rejected
34
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who start and who don’t startbusiness themselves, the level of importance
of career security is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
364 | P a g e
35
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of importance of personalachievement is same’
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
36
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of importance of status and prestige
is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
37
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of importance of economic necessity
is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
38
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of importance of flexibility inwork/family is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
39
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of importance of independence issame
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
40
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs, in all thedistricts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
importance of learning and personal growthis same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
41
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs, in all thedistricts of Uttar Pradesh, the level of
importance of testing entrepreneurs’ ownideas is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
42
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of importance of money and wealth
is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
43for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of importance of opportunity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
44for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of importance of recognition is same
F Test&
ANOVA.006 Rejected
45
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of importance of satisfying workrelationships is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
46
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of importance of career security is
same
F Test&
ANOVA.001 Rejected
365 | P a g e
47for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
outside funding / financing is not availablewhen they start the enterprise
T Test .000 Rejected
48
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of personal achievement is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
49
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of personal achievement is same
F Test&
ANOVA.282
Failed toReject
50
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of economic necessity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.009 Rejected
51
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of flexibility in work/family is
same
F Test&
ANOVA.909
Failed toReject
52
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of independence is same
F Test&
ANOVA.013 Failed to
Reject
53
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of learning and professional
growth is same
F Test&
ANOVA.006 Rejected
54
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of testing of entrepreneurs’ own
ideas is same
F Test&
ANOVA.162
Failed toReject
55
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of money and wealth is same
F Test&
ANOVA.002 Rejected
56
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of opportunity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.002 Rejected
57
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of recognition is same
F Test&
ANOVA.048
Failed toReject
58
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of satisfying work relationships is
F Test&
ANOVA.018
Failed toReject
366 | P a g e
same
59
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the categories of number of
availability of sources of funding, the level ofimportance of career security is same
F Test&
ANOVA.214
Failed toReject
60
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the types of most available
source of funding, the level of importance ofpersonal achievement is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
61
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
funding, the level of importance of status andprestige is same
F Test&
ANOVA.004 Rejected
62
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
funding, the level of importance of economicnecessity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.003 Rejected
63
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
funding, the level of importance of flexibilityin work/family is same
F Test&
ANOVA.001 Rejected
64
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
funding, the level of importance ofindependence is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
65
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source offunding, the level of importance of learning
and personal growth is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
66
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source offunding, the level of importance of testing
entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same
F Test&
ANOVA.001 Rejected
67
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
funding, the level of importance of money andwealth is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
68
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
funding, the level of importance ofopportunity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.001 Rejected
69
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
funding, the level of importance ofrecognition is same
F Test&
ANOVA.015
Failed toReject
367 | P a g e
70
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshin all the types of most available source of
funding, the level of importance of satisfyingwork relationships is same
F Test&
ANOVA.008 Rejected
71
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the types of most available
source of funding, the level of importance ofcareer security is same
F Test&
ANOVA.248
Failed toReject
72entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
are not satisfied with their enterprises’ sales,profit and overall satisfaction
T Test .000 Rejected
73entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t wish to continue with same enterprises T Test .000 Rejected
74
in general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in UttarPradesh have a strong attraction for low–risk
projects with normal and certain rates ofreturn
T Test .094 Failed toReject
75
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshtypically adopt a bold, aggressive posture in
order to maximize the probability ofexploiting potential opportunities
T Test .000 Rejected
76entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t participate in professional / tradeassociations
T Test .000 Rejected
77entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t have business applications of personalcontacts
T Test .000 Rejected
78
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t push themselves and don’t feel realsatisfaction when their work is among the
best
T Test .000 Rejected
79
happenings in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh arenot affected more by entrepreneurs’ abilities,
control and guidance than by externalinfluences
T Test .000 Rejected
80entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t need to know that it’s already been
done before they are willing to try itT Test .000 Rejected
81entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t respect rules and establishedprocedures as they guide them
T Test .000 Rejected
82entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t feel self-conscious when they are with
very successful entrepreneur(s)T Test .000 Rejected
368 | P a g e
83entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not ultimately responsible for their own
enterprises’ successT Test .000 Rejected
84entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not quite independent of the opinions of
othersT Test .000 Rejected
85entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t enjoy intimidating other in pursuing
business opportunitiesT Test .000 Rejected
86entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
generally don’t have modest and easilyachievable goals and ambitions
T Test .000 Rejected
87entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not particularly inventive or creative
T Test .000 Rejected
88
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t enjoy the uncertainty and risks of
business and they don’t energize them morethan circumstances with predictable outcomes
T Test .000 Rejected
89entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t believe that nothing that life can offer isa substitute for great achievement
T Test .000 Rejected
90entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t spend more time thinking about their
future goals than their past accomplishmentsT Test .000 Rejected
91
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare comfortable when they have complete
responsibility for deciding how and when todo their work
T Test .000 Rejected
92entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t get a sense of pride andaccomplishment from their work
T Test .000 Rejected
93entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t get excited creating their own businessopportunities
T Test .000 Rejected
94entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t enter in entrepreneurship by choice butby obligation to ensure livelihood
T Test .000 Rejected
95
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not willing to risk their personal and
family’s material well being for the sake oftheir enterprise
T Test .000 Rejected
369 | P a g e
96entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not confident of their abilities and they
don’t feel good about themselvesT Test .000 Rejected
97for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
an opportunity to beat a competitor in abusiness deal is not a personal thrill
T Test .000 Rejected
98entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t enjoy being able to use old business
concepts in new waysT Test .000 Rejected
99
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t believe that success comes from
conforming to accepted business practicesmore so than constantly doing new things
T Test .000 Rejected
100entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
can’t control most situations they findthemselves in
T Test .000 Rejected
101
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t think that it’s important to continually
look for new way to do things in theenterprise
T Test .000 Rejected
102entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t like a job in which they don’t have to
answer to any oneT Test .000 Rejected
103
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t frequently find themselves in situations
where they are powerless to control theoutcome(s)
T Test .000 Rejected
104entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t often approach business tasks in uniqueways
T Test .000 Rejected
105entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t buy insurance every time they travel T Test .000 Rejected
106entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
enjoy being the catalyst for change inbusiness affairs
T Test .000 Rejected
107entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t believe that business circumstances
happen because of luck, whether good or badT Test .000 Rejected
108
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t think that their knack for dealing withpeople has enabled them to create many of
their business opportunities
T Test .000 Rejected
370 | P a g e
109entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t find that they can think better when theyhave guidance and advice from others
T Test .000 Rejected
110
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have doubts frequently about
themselves or their abilities when makingbusiness proposals
T Test .000 Rejected
111entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
are not in total control of their destinyT Test .000 Rejected
112entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t worry about what their businessassociates think about them
T Test .000 Rejected
113entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t enjoy turning circumstances to their
advantage in businessT Test .000 Rejected
114entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshare not driven to ever greater efforts by an
unquenched ambitionT Test .000 Rejected
115
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t think that successful entrepreneurspursue any opportunity, and do what they
have to do in order to survive
T Test .000 Rejected
116entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t thrive in situations which encourage
and reward their creativityT Test .000 Rejected
117entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t need to know the answer before they aska question
T Test .000 Rejected
118
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t judge their work by considering
whether that meets the minimum requirementsfor the task
T Test .000 Rejected
119entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t start their enterprises for doing the kindof work they want to do
T Test .000 Rejected
120entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t start their enterprise to make more
money than otherwiseT Test .000 Rejected
121
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshnever lack working capital/liquid assets/funds(which contributes in industrial sickness) to
sustain
T Test .000 Rejected
371 | P a g e
122
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t think women entrepreneurs in MSMEs
in U.P. have problems beyond menentrepreneurs’ problems
T Test .000 Rejected
123
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave not become competent entrepreneur to
achieve long term objectives of theirenterprises in effective and efficient manner
T Test .000 Rejected
124
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t spend a lot of time looking for someone
who can tell them how to solve all theirentrepreneurial problems because they are
unsure of themselves
T Test .000 Rejected
125entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in
dealing with their competitors, typicallyresponds to actions which competitors initiate
T Test .000 Rejected
126
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, are seldom the firstbusiness to introduce new products or
services, administrative techniques, operatingtechnologies etc.
T Test .000 Rejected
127top management in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,favour a strong emphasis on the marketing of
tried and true products and servicesT Test .000 Rejected
128in the past five years, no new lines of products
or services have been introduced byentrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
T Test .000 Rejected
129changes in the product or service lines ofMSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are mostly of a
minor natureT Test .000 Rejected
130in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, the level of
technology, in terms of the work that they doand how they do, is low
T Test .000 Rejected
131entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t have competitive advantage in serving adistinct and unique market niche
T Test .000 Rejected
132entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t have competitive advantage in access tothe market (e.g. location)
T Test .000 Rejected
133entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have competitive advantage in unique
technology of productT Test .000 Rejected
372 | P a g e
134entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have competitive advantage in unique
technology process or productionT Test .000 Rejected
135entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t have competitive advantage in offeringlower price than the competition
T Test .000 Rejected
136
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have competitive advantage in
providing significantly higher quality than thecompetition
T Test .000 Rejected
137
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have competitive advantage in offering
broad product / service lines providingcustomer convenience
T Test .000 Rejected
138
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have competitive advantage in
significantly higher levels of customer serviceand support
T Test .000 Rejected
139entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t have current, comprehensive anddetailed business plan
T Test .000 Rejected
140entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have detailed job descriptions for any
positionT Test .000 Rejected
141entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t have operating procedures in place formost processes within the enterprise
T Test .000 Rejected
142entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshrarely change rarely marketing practices to
keep up with the market and competitorsT Test .000 Rejected
143
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshthink that the rate of at which products /
services are getting obsolete in their industryis very slow
T Test .078 Failed toReject
144actions of competitors of entrepreneurs inMSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are quite easy to
predictT Test .000 Rejected
145virtually there is no research and
development (R & D) within the industry ofMSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
T Test .000 Rejected
146in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Demands andconsumer tastes are fairly easy to forecast
T Test .000 Rejected
373 | P a g e
147in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Production and /
or service technology is not subject to verymuch change and is well established
T Test .000 Rejected
148entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in registration of MSMEsin Uttar Pradesh
T Test .000 Rejected
149entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in establishment ofMSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
T Test .000 Rejected
150entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties for their enterprises due
to uncertainty about the economyT Test .000 Rejected
151entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in choosing a direction forenterprise for their enterprises
T Test .000 Rejected
152entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties for their enterprises due
to regulations and paperworkT Test .000 Rejected
153entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in time managementT Test .000 Rejected
154entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties regarding generalmanagement skills
T Test .000 Rejected
155entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties due to change in customerneeds
T Test .000 Rejected
156entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties in obtaining finances
T Test .000 Rejected
157entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties due to uncertainty aboutthe political situation
T Test .000 Rejected
158entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties regarding taxes & tax
lawsT Test .000 Rejected
159entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in maintaining quality ofproducts / services
T Test .000 Rejected
160entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties regarding change ineconomic conditions
T Test .000 Rejected
374 | P a g e
161entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties regarding intensecompetition
T Test .000 Rejected
162entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in cost controlT Test .000 Rejected
163entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in educating theworkforce
T Test .000 Rejected
164entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in attracting qualityworkers
T Test .000 Rejected
165entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
have no difficulties in maintainingproductivity
T Test .000 Rejected
166entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties due lack of suppliers /
health of suppliersT Test .000 Rejected
167entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties in competing globally
T Test .000 Rejected
168entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties in motivating employees
T Test .000 Rejected
169entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties in incorporating new /
emerging technologiesT Test .000 Rejected
170entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhave no difficulties regarding marketing
problemsT Test .000 Rejected
171
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in registration of MSMEs
is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.002
Rejected
172
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem in establishment ofMSMEs is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.001
Rejected
173
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem due to uncertainty about
the economy is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
174
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in choosing a direction
for enterprise is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
375 | P a g e
175
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem due to regulations and
paperwork is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
176
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in time management is
same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
177
‘for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem related to generalmanagement skills is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
178
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem due to change incustomer needs is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
179
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in obtaining finances is
same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
180
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem due to uncertainty about
the political situation is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
181
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem regarding taxes, tax laws
(including mandated benefits) is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
182
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem regarding quality ofproducts / services is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
183
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem due to change ineconomic condition is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
184
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem due to intensecompetition is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.004
Rejected
185for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in cost control is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
186
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem in educating theworkforce is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
376 | P a g e
187
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,
the level of problem in attracting qualityworkers is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
188
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem related to productivity is
same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
189
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem due to lack of suppliers /
health of suppliers is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.000
Rejected
190
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in competing globally is
same
F Test&
ANOVA
.001
Rejected
191
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in motivating employees
is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.043Failed to
Reject
192
for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in UttarPradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of problem in incorporating new /
emerging technologies is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.002
Rejected
193for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh,the level of marketing problems is same
F Test&
ANOVA
.044Failed to
Reject
194
environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs inUttar Pradesh is very safe with little threat to
the survival and well-being of theirenterprises
T Test .000 Rejected
195environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs inUttar Pradesh is very rich in investment and
marketing opportunitiesT Test .000 Rejected
196environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs inUttar Pradesh demands little in the way of
technological sophisticationT Test .000 Rejected
197
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshhas an environment that their enterprises can
control and manipulate to their ownadvantage
T Test .000 Rejected
198
there are Minimal requirements forregistration or licensing, present few rules
and regulations that govern entrepreneurialactivity, and provides a favourable
environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs inUttar Pradesh
T Test .000 Rejected
377 | P a g e
199in general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in UttarPradesh don’t face environmental problems
external to their enterprisesT Test .000 Rejected
200
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t have a large quantity of small
enterprises and a diversity of economicactivity within their geographic area
T Test .000 Rejected
201entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshdon’t feel that there is a supportive public
attitude towards entrepreneurshipT Test .000 Rejected
202
educational and training programs as well asnecessary information to improve technical,
vocational and business skills are notavailable for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in
Uttar Pradesh
T Test .000 Rejected
203
for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshnon-financial assistance through modern
transportation and communication facilities,counselling support services and other
programs is not available
T Test .000 Rejected
204for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
financial institutions are not willing tofinance small entrepreneurs
T Test .000 Rejected
205
for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradeshfinancial assistance is not available in theform of venture capital, low-cost loans and
alternative sources of financing
T Test .000 Rejected
206MSMEs related policies of both central aswell as state govt. have not been achieved
their objectivesT Test .000 Rejected
207
there is not adequate support available forMSMEs of Uttar Pradesh in terms of grants,subsidies and incentives with fair, unbiased
and impartial allocation/selection andeffective and efficient and/or corruption-free
distribution
T Test .000 Rejected
208entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
don’t face managerial problems T Test .000 Rejected
209in Uttar Pradesh MSMEs’ benefits to thegovernments don’t overweigh the costs of
MSMEs to governmentsT Test .000 Rejected
210infrastructure facilities for MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh are inadequateT Test .000 Rejected
378 | P a g e
211
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the developing of a business plan after
establishment of enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
212
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the strategic planning after establishment
of their enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
213
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the start-up operations after establishment
of enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
214
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the personnel after establishment of
enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
215
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the finance after establishment of
enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
216
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the inventory control / purchasing after
establishment of enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
217
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the feasibility analysis after establishment
of enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
218
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the pro-forma financial analysis after
establishment of enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
219
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the accounting after establishment of
enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
220
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of thegeneral management skills after
establishment of enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
379 | P a g e
221
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the production after establishment of
enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
222
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh,don’t enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skillsin the marketing after establishment of
enterprises
Dependent
T Test .000 Rejected
223there is no significant relationship betweenthe enterprises started by self and having
sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives ᵡ2 Test.000 Rejected
224there is no significant relationship betweenthe sex of entrepreneurs and having salesgrowth as one of enterprises’ objectives ᵡ2 Test
.000 Rejected
225
there is no significant relationship betweenenterprise being entrepreneur’s first
entrepreneurial venture and having salesgrowth as one of enterprises’ objectives
ᵡ2 Test.000 Rejected
226
there is no significant relationship betweenany supplemental, continuing education ortraining and having sales growth as one of
enterprises’ objectives ᵡ2 Test.007 Rejected
227
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem inregistration of MSMEs is same
F Test&
ANOVA.009 Rejected
228
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem inestablishment of MSMEs is same
F Test&
ANOVA.044
Failed toReject
229
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem due touncertainty about the economy is same
F Test&
ANOVA.174
Failed toReject
230
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem inchoosing a direction for enterprise is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
380 | P a g e
231
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem due toregulations and paperwork is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
232
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem in timemanagement is same
F Test&
ANOVA.003 Rejected
233
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem relatedto general management skills is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
234
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem due tochange in customer needs is same
F Test&
ANOVA.007 Rejected
235
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem inobtaining finances is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
236
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem due touncertainty about the political situation is
same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
237
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problemregarding taxes, tax laws (including
mandated benefits) is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
238
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problemregarding quality of products / services is
same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
239
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem due tochange in economic condition is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
381 | P a g e
240
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem due tointense competition is same
F Test&
ANOVA.000 Rejected
241
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem in costcontrol is same
F Test&
ANOVA.035 Failed to
Reject
242
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem ineducating the workforce is same
F Test&
ANOVA.192 Failed to
Reject
243
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem inattracting quality workers is same
F Test&
ANOVA.007 Rejected
244
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem relatedto productivity is same
F Test&
ANOVA.576
Failed toReject
245
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem due tolack of suppliers / health of suppliers is same
F Test&
ANOVA.006 Rejected
246
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem incompeting globally is same
F Test&
ANOVA.136
Failed toReject
247
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem inmotivating employees is same
F Test&
ANOVA.709
Failed toReject
248
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of problem inincorporating new / emerging technologies is
same
F Test&
ANOVA.183
Failed toReject
382 | P a g e
249
in Uttar Pradesh for both types ofentrepreneurs, who are having and who arenot having sales growth as an objective of
their enterprise, the level of marketingproblems is same
F Test&
ANOVA.983 Failed to
Reject
5.2 Conclusions
In order to attain objectives of this research effort, from Table: 5.1, we may
conclude that:
1. There is significant relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and the
starting the business by self
2. There is no significant relationship between the category of entrepreneurs
and sex of entrepreneurs
3. There is no significant relationship between the category of entrepreneurs
and entrepreneurs’ first entrepreneurial venture
4. There is no significant relationship between the any supplemental,
continuing education or training and category of Entrepreneurs
5. There is no significant relationship between sex of entrepreneurs and
starting enterprise by self
6. There is no significant relationship between starting enterprise by self and
any supplemental, continuing education or training
7. There is no significant relationship between the category of entrepreneurs
and starting enterprise by self
8. There is no significant relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and
any supplemental, continuing education or training
9. There is no significant relationship between being entrepreneurs’ first
entrepreneurial venture and any supplemental, continuing education or
training
10. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have previous relevant
experience and/or educational background within the field of their
enterprise
11. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh personal achievement is an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
12. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh status and prestige is an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
383 | P a g e
13. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh economic necessity is an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
14. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Flexibility in work / family
is an important cause of their entrepreneurship
15. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh independence is an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
16. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh learning and personal
growth is an important cause of their entrepreneurship
17. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh test their own ideas is an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
18. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh money and wealth is an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
19. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh opportunity is an important
cause of their entrepreneurship
20. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh recognition is an important
cause of their entrepreneurship
21. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh satisfying work
relationships is an important cause of their entrepreneurship
22. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh career security is an
important cause of their entrepreneurship
23. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of personal achievement
is not same
24. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of status and prestige is
not same
25. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of economic necessity is
not same
26. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of flexibility in
work/family is not same
384 | P a g e
27. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of independence is not
same
28. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of learning and personal
growth is same
29. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of testing entrepreneurs’
own ideas is same
30. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of money and wealth is
same
31. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of opportunity is not
same
32. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of recognition is not
same
33. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of satisfying work
relationship is not same
34. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of career security is not
same
35. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who start and who don’t
start business themselves, the level of importance of personal achievement
is not same
36. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of status and prestige is not same
37. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of economic necessity is not same
38. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of flexibility in work/family is not same
385 | P a g e
39. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of independence is not same
40. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level
of importance of learning and personal growth is not same
41. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs, in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh, the level
of importance of testing entrepreneurs’ own ideas is not same
42. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of money and wealth is not same
43. for entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of opportunity is not same
44. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of recognition is not same
45. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of satisfying work relationships is not
same
46. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of importance of career security is not same
47. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh outside funding / financing
is available when they start the enterprise
48. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
personal achievement is not same
49. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
personal achievement is same
50. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
economic necessity is not same
51. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
flexibility in work/family is same
52. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
independence is same
386 | P a g e
53. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
learning and professional growth is not same
54. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
testing of entrepreneurs’ own ideas is same
55. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
money and wealth is not same
56. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
opportunity is not same
57. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
recognition is same
58. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
satisfying work relationships is same
59. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the categories of
number of availability of sources of funding, the level of importance of
career security is same
60. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of personal
achievement is not same
61. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of status and prestige
is not same
62. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of economic necessity
is not same
63. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of flexibility in
work/family is not same
387 | P a g e
64. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of independence is not
same
65. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of learning and
personal growth is not same
66. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of testing
entrepreneurs’ own ideas is not same
67. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of money and wealth
is not same
68. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of opportunity is not
same
69. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of recognition is same
70. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of satisfying work
relationships is not same
71. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the types of most
available source of funding, the level of importance of career security is
same
72. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are satisfied with their
enterprises’ sales, profit and overall satisfaction
73. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh wish to continue with same
enterprises
74. In general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have a strong
attraction for low–risk projects with normal and certain rates of return
75. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t adopt a bold, aggressive
posture in order to maximize the probability of exploiting potential
opportunities
76. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh participate in professional /
trade associations
388 | P a g e
77. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have business applications of
personal contacts
78. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh push themselves and don’t feel
real satisfaction when their work is among the best
79. Happenings in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are affected more by
entrepreneurs’ abilities, control and guidance than by external influences
80. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh need to know that it’s already
been done before they are willing to try it
81. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh respect rules and established
procedures as they guide them
82. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh feel self-conscious when they
are with very successful entrepreneur(s)
83. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are ultimately responsible for
their own enterprises’ success
84. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are quite independent of the
opinions of others
85. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enjoy intimidating other in
pursuing business opportunities
86. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh generally have modest and
easily achievable goals and ambitions
87. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are particularly inventive or
creative
88. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enjoy the uncertainty and risks
of business and they energize them more than circumstances with
predictable outcomes
89. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh believe that nothing that life can
offer is a substitute for great achievement
90. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh spend more time thinking about
their future goals than their past accomplishments
91. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not comfortable when they
have complete responsibility for deciding how and when to do their work
92. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh get a sense of pride and
accomplishment from their work
389 | P a g e
93. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh get excited creating their own
business opportunities
94. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enter in entrepreneurship by
choice but by obligation to ensure livelihood
95. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are willing to risk their personal
and family’s material well being for the sake of their enterprise
96. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are confident of their abilities
and they don’t feel good about themselves
97. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh an opportunity to beat a
competitor in a business deal is a personal thrill
98. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enjoy being able to use old
business concepts in new ways
99. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh believe that success comes from
conforming to accepted business practices more so than constantly doing
new things
100. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh can control most situations they
find themselves in
101. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think that it’s important to
continually look for new way to do things in the enterprise
102. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh like a job in which they don’t
have to answer to any one
103. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh frequently find themselves in
situations where they are powerless to control the outcome(s)
104. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh often approach business tasks in
unique ways
105. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh buy insurance every time they
travel
106. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t enjoy being the catalyst
for change in business affairs
107. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh believe that business
circumstances happen because of luck, whether good or bad
108. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think that their knack for
dealing with people has enabled them to create many of their business
opportunities
390 | P a g e
109. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh find that they can think better
when they have guidance and advice from others
110. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have doubts frequently about
themselves or their abilities when making business proposals
111. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are in total control of their
destiny
112. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh worry about what their business
associates think about them
113. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh enjoy turning circumstances to
their advantage in business
114. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are driven to ever greater efforts
by an unquenched ambition
115. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think that successful
entrepreneurs pursue any opportunity, and do what they have to do in order
to survive
116. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh thrive in situations which
encourage and reward their creativity
117. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh need to know the answer before
they ask a question
118. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh judge their work by considering
whether that meets the minimum requirements for the task
119. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh start their enterprises for doing
the kind of work they want to do
120. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh start their enterprise to make
more money than otherwise
121. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh may lack working capital/liquid
assets/funds (which contributes in industrial sickness) to sustain
122. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think women entrepreneurs in
MSMEs in U.P. have problems beyond men entrepreneurs’ problems
123. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have become competent
entrepreneur to achieve long term objectives of their enterprises in
effective and efficient manner
391 | P a g e
124. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh spend a lot of time looking for
someone who can tell them how to solve all their entrepreneurial problems
because they are unsure of themselves
125. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in dealing with their
competitors, don’t responds always to actions which competitors initiate
126. MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, are not often first business to introduce new
products or services, administrative techniques, operating technologies etc.
127. Top management in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, don’t favour a strong
emphasis on the marketing of tried and true products and services
128. In the past five years, new lines of products or services have been
introduced by entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
129. Changes in the product or service lines of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are not
mostly of a minor nature
130. In MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, the level of technology, in terms of the work
that they do and how they do, is not low
131. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
serving a distinct and unique market niche
132. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
access to the market (e.g. Location)
133. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
unique technology of product
134. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
unique technology process or production
135. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
offering lower price than the competition
136. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
providing significantly higher quality than the competition
137. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
offering broad product / service lines providing customer convenience
138. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have competitive advantage in
significantly higher levels of customer service and support
139. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have current, comprehensive
and detailed business plan
392 | P a g e
140. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have detailed job descriptions
for any position
141. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have operating procedures in
place for most processes within the enterprise
142. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh frequently change marketing
practices to keep up with the market and competitors
143. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh think that the rate of at which
products / services are getting obsolete in their industry is very slow
144. Actions of competitors of entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are
not easy to predict
145. Virtually there is research and development (R & D) within the industry of
MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
146. In MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Demands and consumer tastes are not so easy
to forecast
147. In MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh Production and / or service technology is
subject to very much change and is well established
148. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in registration
of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
149. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in
establishment of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
150. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties for their
enterprises due to uncertainty about the economy
151. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in choosing a
direction for enterprise for their enterprises
152. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties for their
enterprises due to regulations and paperwork
153. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in time
management
154. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties regarding
general management skills
155. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties due to change
in customer needs
156. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in obtaining
finances
393 | P a g e
157. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties due to
uncertainty about the political situation
158. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties regarding taxes
& tax laws
159. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in maintaining
quality of products / services
160. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties regarding
change in economic conditions
161. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties regarding
intense competition
162. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in cost control
163. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in educating
the workforce
164. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in attracting
quality workers
165. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in maintaining
productivity
166. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties due lack of
suppliers / health of suppliers
167. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in competing
globally
168. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in motivating
employees
169. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties in
incorporating new / emerging technologies
170. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have difficulties regarding
marketing problems
171. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in registration of MSMEs is not same
172. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in establishment of MSMEs is not same
173. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the economy is not
same
394 | P a g e
174. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in choosing a direction for enterprise is not
same
175. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to regulations and paperwork is not same
176. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in time management is not same
177. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem related to general management skills is not
same
178. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to change in customer needs is not same
179. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in obtaining finances is not same
180. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to uncertainty about the political
situation is not same
181. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem regarding taxes, tax laws (including
mandated benefits) is not same
182. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem regarding quality of products / services is not
same
183. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to change in economic condition is not
same
184. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to intense competition is not same
185. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in cost control is not same
186. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in educating the workforce is not same
187. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in attracting quality workers is not same
395 | P a g e
188. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem related to productivity is not same
189. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem due to lack of suppliers / health of suppliers
is not same
190. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in competing globally is not same
191. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in motivating employees is same
192. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of problem in incorporating new / emerging
technologies is not same
193. For entrepreneurs of MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, in all the districts of Uttar
Pradesh, the level of marketing problems is same
194. Environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh is not very safe
with little threat to the survival and well-being of their enterprises
195. Environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh is not very rich
in investment and marketing opportunities
196. Environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh does not
demands little in the way of technological sophistication
197. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh don’t have an environment that
their enterprises can control and manipulate to their own advantage
198. There are not minimal requirements for registration or licensing, present
few rules and regulations that govern entrepreneurial activity, and provides
an unfavourable environment for entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar
Pradesh
199. In general, entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh face environmental
problems external to their enterprises
200. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh have a large quantity of small
enterprises and a diversity of economic activity within their geographic
area
201. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh feel that there is a supportive
public attitude towards entrepreneurship
396 | P a g e
202. Educational and training programs as well as necessary information to
improve technical, vocational and business skills are available for
entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh
203. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh non-financial assistance
through modern transportation and communication facilities, counselling
support services and other programs is available
204. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh financial institutions are
willing to finance small entrepreneurs
205. For entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh financial assistance is
available in the form of venture capital, low-cost loans and alternative
sources of financing
206. MSMEs related policies of both central as well as state govt. have been
achieved their objectives
207. There is adequate support available for MSMEs of Uttar Pradesh in terms
of grants, subsidies and incentives with fair, unbiased and impartial
allocation/selection and effective and efficient and/or corruption-free
distribution
208. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh face managerial problems
209. In Uttar Pradesh MSMEs’ benefits to the governments overweigh the costs
of MSMEs to governments
210. Infrastructure facilities for MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh are adequate
211. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the developing of a
business plan after establishment of enterprises
212. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the strategic planning after
establishment of their enterprises
213. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the start-up operations after
establishment of enterprises
214. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the personnel after
establishment of enterprises
397 | P a g e
215. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the finance after
establishment of enterprises
216. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the inventory control /
purchasing after establishment of enterprises
217. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the feasibility analysis after
establishment of enterprises
218. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the pro-forma financial
analysis after establishment of enterprises
219. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the accounting after
establishment of enterprises
220. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of the general management skills after
establishment of enterprises
221. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the production after
establishment of enterprises
222. Entrepreneurs in MSMEs in Uttar Pradesh, enhance their skills and
ability/availability and affordability of skills in the marketing after
establishment of enterprises
223. There is significant relationship between the enterprises started by self and
having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives
224. There is significant relationship between the sex of entrepreneurs and
having sales growth as one of enterprises’ objectives
225. There is significant relationship between enterprise being entrepreneur’s
first entrepreneurial venture and having sales growth as one of enterprises’
objectives
226. There is significant relationship between any supplemental, continuing
education or training and having sales growth as one of enterprises’
objectives
398 | P a g e
227. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in registration of MSMEs is not same
228. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in establishment of MSMEs is same
229. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to uncertainty about the economy is same
230. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in choosing a direction for enterprise is not same
231. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to regulations and paperwork is not same
232. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in time management is not same
233. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem related to general management skills is not same
234. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to change in customer needs is not same
235. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in obtaining finances is not same
236. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to uncertainty about the political situation is not same
237. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem regarding taxes, tax laws (including mandated benefits) is not
same
399 | P a g e
238. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem regarding quality of products / services is not same
239. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to change in economic condition is not same
240. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to intense competition is not same
241. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in cost control is same
242. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in educating the workforce is same
243. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in attracting quality workers is not same
244. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem related to productivity is same
245. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem due to lack of suppliers / health of suppliers is not same
246. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in competing globally is same
247. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in motivating employees is same
248. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
problem in incorporating new / emerging technologies is same
400 | P a g e
249. In Uttar Pradesh for both types of entrepreneurs, who are having and who
are not having sales growth as an objective of their enterprise, the level of
marketing problems is same
401 | P a g e
6. Bibliography/References
1. Adelman, Philip J.; and Alan M. Marks. (2001). Entrepreneurial
Finance: Finance for Small Businesses, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
2. Africa, Matthew. (2000). The Misuse of Licensing Evidence in Fair Use
Analysis: New Technologies, New Markets and the Courts. California Law
Review, vol. 88, pp. 1145-84.
3. Aldrich, Howard E.; and Martha Argelia Martinez. (Summer 2001).
Many Are Called, but Few Are Chosen: An Evolutionary Perspective for the
Study of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, pp. 41-56.
4. Amabile, Teresa M. (September – October 1998). How to Kill Creativity.
Harvard Business Review, pp. 77-87.
5. Anestopoulou, Maria. (2001). Challenging Intellectual Property Law in the
Internet: An Overview of the Legal Implications of the MP3 technology.
Information & Communications Technology Law, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 319-37.
6. Ang, James S.; and James C. Brau. (2002). Firm Transparency and the
Costs of Going Public. Journal of Financial Research, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1-
17.
7. Antoncic, Bostjan; and Robert D. Hisrich. (1999). An Integrative
Conceptual Model. In Leo Paul Dana, ed., International
Entrepreneueurship: An Anthology. Singapore: NTU-Entrepreneurship
Development Center, pp. 15-32.
8. Ardichvili, Alexander; and Richard N. Cardozo. (2000). A Model of
Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition Process. Journal of Enterprising
Culture, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 103-19.
9. Ardichvili, Alexander; Richard Cardozo; and Sourav Ray. (2003). A
Theory of Entrepreneurial Opportunity Identification and Development.
Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 105-24.
10. Ardichvili, Alexander; Richard N. Cardozo; Kathleen Tune; and Judy
Reinach. (2002). The Role of Angle investors in the Assembly of Non-
Financial Resources of New Ventures: Conceptual Framework and
402 | P a g e
Empirical Evidence. Journal of Enterprising Culture; vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 39-
65.
11. Armstrong, Peter; (2001). Science, Enterprise and Profit: Ideology in the
Knowledge- Driven Economy. Economy and Society, vol. 30, no.4, pp. 524-
52.
12. Avila, Stephen M; Ramon A. Avila; and Douglas W. Naffziger. (May
2003). A Comparison of Family Owned Business: Succession Planners and
Nonplanners. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, vol. 57, no. 3, pp.
85-92.
13. Barney, Jay B. (2001). Resource-Based “Theories” of Competitive
Advantage: A Ten Year Retrospective on the Resource-Based View.
Journal of Management, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 643-751.
14. Baron, Robert A.; and Gideon D. Markman. (2000). Beyond Social
Capital: How Social Skills Can Enhance Entrepreneurs’ Success. Academy
of Management Executive, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 106-16.
15. Barth, Mary E.; Donald P. Cram; and Karen K. Nelson. (2001).
Accruals and the Prediction of Future Cash Flows. The Accounting Review,
vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 27-58.
16. Bartlett, Christopher A; and Sumantra Goshal. (1996) Release the
Entrepreneurial Hostages from your Corporate Hierarchy. Strategy &
Leadership, vol.24, no.4, pp. 36-42.
17. Basu, Anuradha; and Simon C. Parker. (2001). Family Finance and New
Business Start-Ups. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, vol. 63, no.
3, pp. 333-58.
18. Baum, J. Robert; Edwin A, Locke; and Ken G. Smith. (2001). A
Multidimensional Model of Venture Growth. Academy of Management
Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 292-304.
19. Bazerman, Max H.; and Jared R. Curhan. (2000). Negotiation. Annual
Review of Psychology, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 279-315.
20. Becattini, Giacomo. (2002). Industrial Sectors and Industrial Districts:
Tools for Industrial Analysis. European Planning Studies, vol. 10, no. 4, pp.
483-93.
21. Bergmann Lichtenstein, Benyamin M.; and Candida G. Brush. (Spring
2001). How do “Resource Bundles” Develop and Change in New Ventures?
403 | P a g e
A Dynamic Model and Longitudinal Exploration. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, pp. 37-58.
22. Berkovitch, Elzar; Ronen Israel; and Yossef Spiegel. (2000). Managerial
Compensation and Capital Structure. Journal of Economics & Management
Strategy, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 549-84.
23. Boden, Richard J.; and Brian Headd. (October 2002). Race and Gender
Differences in Business Ownership and Business Turnover. Business
Economics, pp. 61-72.
24. Bodie, Zvi; Robert S. Kaplan; and Robert C. Merton. (2003). For the
Last Time: Stock Options Are an Expense. Harvard Business Review, vol.
81, no. 3, pp. 62-71.
25. Borins, Sandford. (2000). Loose Cannons and Rule Breakers, or
Enterprising Leader? Some Evidence about Innovative Public Managers.
Public Administration Review, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 498-507.
26. Bradley, Daniel J.; and Bradford D. Jordan. (2002). Partial Adjustment
to Public Information and IPO Underpricing. Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 595-616.
27. Brau, James C.; and Jerome S. Osteryoung. (2001). The Determinants of
Successful Micro-IPOs: An Analysis of Issues Made under the Small
Corporate Offering Registration (SCOR) Procedure. Journal of Small
Business Management, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 209-27.
28. Braunschwig, Carolina. (January 2003). Nano Nonsense. VC Journal, pp.
18-26.
29. Brouwer, Maria T. (2002). Weber, Schumpeter and Knight on
Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. Journal of Evolutionary
Economics, vol. 12, pp. 83-105.
30. Brush, Candida G.; Patricia G. Greene; and Myra M. Hart. (2001).
From Initial Idea to Unique Advantage: The Entrepreneurial Challenge of
Constructing a Resource Base. Academy of Management Executive, vol. 15,
no. 1, pp. 64-80.
31. Bruton, Garry D.; Vance H. Fried; and Robert D. Hisrich. (Summer
2000). CEO Dismissal in Venture Capital Backed Firms: Further Evidence
from an Agency Perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 69-
77.
404 | P a g e
32. Bruton, Gary D.; and Yuri Rubanik. (2002). Resources of the Firm,
Russian High-Technology Startups and Firm Growth. Journal of Business
Venturing, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 553-77.
33. Bucar, Branko; and Robert Hisrich. (2001). Ethics of Business Managers
vs. Entrepreneurs. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, vol. 6, no.
1, pp. 59-83.
34. Buckley, William M. (July 2, 2003). Dot-Com Hope: Akamai, Others
Discover New Life. Wall Street Journal – Eastern Edition, vol. 242, no. 2,
pp. B1-B2.
35. Bunderson, J. Stuart; and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe. (2002). Comparing
Alternative Conceptualizations of Functional Diversity in Management
Teams: Process and Performance Effects. Academy of Management Journal,
vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 875-93.
36. Burmeister, Paul. (March 2003). What to Present to Venture Capitalists.
Strategic Finance, pp. 36-39.
37. Burpitt, William J.; and Dennis A. Rondinelli. (2000). Small Firms’
Motivations for Exporting: To Earn and Learn? Journal of Small Business
Management, October 2000, pp. 1-14.
38. Bushrod, Lisa. (June 2001). Investing Seed Capital. European Venture
Capital Journal, pp. 46-49.
39. Callison, William J. (Fall 2000). Venture Capital and Corporate
Governance: Evolving the Limited Liability Company to Finance the
Entrepreneurial Business. Journal of Corporation Law, pp. 97-124.
40. Calori, Roland; Leif Melin; Tugrul Atamer; and Peter Gustavsson.
(2000). Innovative International Strategies, Journal of World Business, Vol.
35, no. 4, pp. 333-54.
41. Campbell, Steven V. (1997). An Investigation of the Direct Costs of
Bankruptcy Reorganization for Closely Held Firms. Journal of Small
Business Management, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 21-29.
42. Carpenter, Robert E.; and Bruce C. Petersen. (2002). Capital Market
Imperfections, High-Tech Investment and New Equity Financing.
Economical Journal, vol. 112, pp. 54-72.
405 | P a g e
43. Carrier, Camille. (1994). Intrapreneurship in Large Firms and SMEs: A
Comparative Study. International Small Business Journal, vol.12, no 3, pp.
54-61.
44. Certo, S. Trevis; Catherine M. Daily; and Dan R. Dalton. (Winter 2001).
Signaling Firm Value through Board Structure: An Investigation of Initial
Public Offerings. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 33-50.
45. Champion, David. (February 2001). Too Soon to IPO? Harvard Business
Review, pp. 35-46.
46. Chandler, Gaylen N.; and Douglas W. Lyon. (2001). Entrepreneurial
Teams in New Ventures: Composition Turnover and Performance. Academy
of Management Proceedings, pp. A1-A6.
47. Chrisman, James J.; and W. Ed McMullan. (Spring 2000). A Preliminary
Assessment of Outsider Assistance as a Knowledge Resource: The Long-
Term Impact of New Venture Counseling. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, pp. 37-53.
48. Colarelli O’ Connor, Gina; and Mark Rice. (2001). Opportunity
Recognition and Breakthrough Innovation in Large Established Firms.
California Management Review, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 95-116.
49. Coleman, Susan. (2002). Constraints Faced by Women Small Business
Owners: Evidence form the Data. Journal of Development
Entrepreneurship, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 151-74.
50. Coleman, Susan. (July 2000). Access to Capital and Terms of Credit: A
Comparison of Men and Women Owned Small Businesses. Journal of Small
Business Management, pp. 37-52.
51. Collingwood, Harris. (March 2003). The Private-Capital Survival Guide.
Inc., pp. 100-9.
52. Comiskey, Eugene E.; and Charles W. Mulford. (1998). Analyzing
Small-Company Financial Statements: Some Guidance for Lenders.
Commercial Lending Review, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 30-42.
53. Corwin, Shane A.; and Jeffrey H. Harris. (Spring 2001). The Initial
Listing Decisions of Firms That Go Public. Financial Management, pp. 35-
55.
54. Cowley, Louise. (December-January 2002). Venture Capital Hotspots.
European Venture Capital Journal, pp. 42-45.
406 | P a g e
55. Cowling, Marc. (2000). Are Entrepreneurs Different across Countries?
Applied Economics Letters, vol. 7, pp. 785-89.
56. Cyr, Linda A.; Diane E. Johnson; and Theresa M. Welbourne. (2000).
Human Resources in Initial Public offering Firms: Do Venture Capitalists
Make a Difference? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 25, no. 1,
pp. 79-91.
57. Dahl, Darren W.; and Page Moreau. (2002). The Influence and Value of
Analogical Thinking during New Product Ideation. Journal of Marketing
Research, vol. 39, pp. 47-60.
58. Danaher, Peter J.; Bruce G. S. Hardie; and William P. Putsis Jr.
(November 2001). Marketing-Mix variables and the Diffusion of
Successive Generations of a Technological Innovation. Journal of
Marketing Research, vol. 38, pp. 501-14.
59. Danis, Wade M.; and Andrew V. Shipilov. (2002). A Comparison of
Entrepreneurship Development in Two Post- Communist Countries: The
Cases of Hungary and Ukraine. Journal of Development Entrepreneurship,
vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 67-94.
60. Danneels, Erwin. (2002). The Dynamics of Product Innovations and Firm
Competences. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 1095-122.
61. David, Byron L. (1994). How Internal Venture Groups Innovate. Research–
Technology Management, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 38-43.
62. Davidson, Steve. (September 2000). Recent Research on Trends in Small
Business Bank Lending. Community Banker, pp. 40-42.
63. Davidsson, Per; Bruce Kirchhoff; Abdulnasser Hatemi; and Halena
Gustavsson. (2002). Empirical Analysis of Business Growth Factors Using
Swedish Data. Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 40, no. 4, pp.
332-50.
64. Davis, Craig R. (Summer 2002). Calculated Risk: A Framework for
Evaluating Product Development. MIT Sloan Management Review, pp. 71-
77.
65. Davis, James. (May 2003). Staking Your Life on a Betting Future.
Accountancy, vol. 131, no. 1317, pp. 54-56.
66. Davis, Peter S.; and Paula D. Harveston. (2000). Internationalization and
Organizational Growth: The Impact of Internet Usage and Technology
407 | P a g e
Involvement among Entrepreneur-Led Family Business. Family Business
Review, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 107-20.
67. Delmar, Frederic; Per Davidsson; and William B. Gartner. (2003).
Arriving at the High-Growth Firm. Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 18,
no. 2, pp. 189-217.
68. Denis, David, J.; and Atulya Sarin. (Fall-Winter 2002). Taxes and the
Relative Vauation of S Corporations and C Corporations. Journal of Applied
Finance, pp. 5-14.
69. Dias, Sam; David Pihlens; and Lorena Ricci. (2002). Understanding the
Drivers of Customer Value. The Fusion of Macro of and Micro-Modeling.
Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, vol. 10, no.
3, pp. 269-81.
70. Dibb, Sally. (2002). Marketing Planning Best Practice. The Marketing
Review, vol. 2, pp. 441-59.
71. Dibb, Sally; and Lyndon Simkin. (2000). Pre-Empting Implementation
Barriers: Foundations, Processes and Actions __ The Need for Internal
Relationships. Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 16, pp. 483-503.
72. Dietmeyer, Brian J.; and Max J. Bazerman. (2001). Value Negotiation.
Executive Excellence, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 7.
73. Douglas, Evan J.; and Dean A. Shepherd. (Spring 2002). Self-
Employment as a Career Choice: Attitudes, Entrepreneurial Intentions and
Utility Maximization. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, pp. 81-90.
74. Drayton, William. (2002). The Citizen Sector: Becoming as
Entrepreneurial and Competitive as Business. California Management
Review, vol. 44, no. 3, pp.120-32.
75. Duffy, John F. (2002). Harmony and Diversity in Global Patent Law.
Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 17, pp. 685-726.
76. Dyer, Linda M: and Christopher A. Ross. (April 2000). Ethnic
Enterprises and Their Clientele. Journal of Small Business Management, pp.
48-66.
77. Ehrhardt, Michael C.; and Phillip R. Daves. (Fall-Winter 2000). Capital
Budgeting: The Valuation of Unusual, Irregular, or Extraordinary Cash
Flows. Financial Practice and Education, pp. 106-14.
408 | P a g e
78. Ensley, Michael D.; James W. Carland; and Joann C. Carland. (October
2000). Investigating the Existence of the Lead Entrepreneur, Journal of
Small Business Management, pp. 59-77.
79. Erikson, Truls. (2002). Entrepreneurial Capital: The Emerging Venture’s
Most Important Asset and Competitive Advantage. Journal of Business
Venturing, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 275-91.
80. Ernst & Young LLP. (1997). Outline for a Business Plan.
81. Ernzer, Marc; and Wolfgang Wimmer. (2002). From Environmental
Assessment Results to Design for Environment Product Changes: An
Evaluation of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods. Journal of Engineering
Design, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 233-42.
82. Feldman, Daniel: and Mark C. Bolino. (July 2000). Career Patterns of the
Self-Employed: Career Motivations and Career Outcomes. Journal of Small
Business Management, pp. 53-67.
83. Fillis, Ian. (2002). An Andalusian Dog or a Rising Star? Creativity and the
Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface. Journal of Marketing Management,
vol. 18, pp. 379-95.
84. Fiol, C. Marlene; and Edward J. O’Connor. (2003). Waking Up!
Mindfulness in the Face of Bandwagons. Academy of Management Review,
vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 54-71.
85. Formaini, Robert L. (Fourth Quarter 2001). The Engine of Capitalist
Process: Entrepreneurs in Economic Theory. Economic and Financial
Review, pp. 2-11.
86. France, M.; and S. Siwolop. (1996). How to Skin a Copycat. Business
Week, pp. 4-7.
87. George, Gerard; and Ganesh N. Prabhu. (2000). Developmental
Financial Institutions as Catalysts of Entrepreneurship in Emerging
Economies. Academy of Management Review, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 620-29.
88. George, Gerard; Shaker A. Zahra; and Robley D. Wood. (2002). The
Effect of Business-University Alliances on Innovative Output and Financial
Performance: A Study of Publicly Traded Biotechnology Companies.
Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 557-90.
409 | P a g e
89. Ghauri, Pervez; and Tony Fang. (2001) . Negotiating with the Chinese: A
Socio-Cultural Analysis. Journal of World Business, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 303-
25.
90. Gifford, Sharon. (1998). Limited Entrepreneurial Attention and Economic
Development. Small Business Economics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 17-30.
91. Girard, Bryan. (May 2002). Is There an ESOP in Our Company’s Future?
Strategic Finance, vol. 83, no. 11, pp. 48-51.
92. Goldenberg, Jacob; Roni Horowitz; Amnon Levav; and David
Mazursky. (March 2003). Finding Your Innovation Sweet Spot. Harvard
Business Review, pp. 120-29.
93. Gongming Qian. (2002). Multinationality, Product Diversification and
Profitability of Emerging US Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Journal
of Business Venturing, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 611-34.
94. Goodden, Randall. (2001). Product Liability Prevention – The Next
Dimension in Quality. Total Quality Management, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 623-
28.
95. Goold, Michael; and Andrew Campbell. (March 2002). Do You Have a
Well-Designed Organization? Harvard Business Review, pp. 117-24.
96. Gramlich, Jeffrey D.; Mary Lea McNally; and Jacob Thomas. (2001).
Balance Sheet Management: Case of Short-Term Obligations Reclassified
as Long-Term Debt. Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 39, no. 2, pp.
283-95.
97. Grote, Jim (July 2002). The role of the Planner in Start-Ups: Angels,
Advisors, Devil’s Advocates. Journal of Financial Planning, pp. 54-61.
98. Gulati, Ranjay; and Monica C. Higgins. (2003). Which Ties Matter
When? The Contingent Effects of Interorganizational Partnership on IPO
Success. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 127-45.
99. Gutner, T. (August 12, 1996). The Moves if You’re Broke. Business Week,
pp. 110-3.
100. Hansen, Morten T.; Henry W. Chesbrough; Nitin Nohria; and Donald
N. Sull. (September-October 2000) Networked Incubators. Harvard
Business Review, pp. 74-84.
410 | P a g e
101. Hayton, James C.; Gerard George; and Shaker A. Zahra (Summer
2002). National Culture and Entrepreneurship: A Review of Behavioral
Research. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, pp. 33-52.
102. Hean Tat Keh; Maw Der Foo; and Boon Chong Lim. (Winter 2002).
Opportunity Evaluation under Risky Conditions: The Cognitive Processes of
Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 125-48.
103. Hisrich, Robert D. (1986). The Woman Entrepreneur: Characteristics,
Skills, Problem and Prescriptions for Success. The Art and Science of
Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 61-84.
104. Holmberg, Stevan R.; and Kathryn B. Morgan. (2003). Franchise
Turnover and Failure: New Research and Perspectives. Journal of Business
Venturing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 403-19.
105. Hope, Jeremy; and Robin Fraser. (February 2001). Figures of Hate.
Financial Management, pp. 22-25.
106. Hope, Jeremy; and Robin Fraser. (October 2000). Beyond Budgeting.
Financial Management, pp. 30-35.
107. How, Janice C.Y.; and John S. Howe. (2001). Warrants in Initial Public
offering: Empirical Evidence. Journal of Business, vol. 74, pp. 433-57.
108. Huang, Xueli; Geoffrey N. Soutar; and Alan Brown. (2002). New
Product Development Process in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises;
Some Australian Evidence. Journal of Small Business Management, vol.
40, no. 1, pp. 27-42.
109. Johnson, Scott. (February 2003). Using and Protecting Trademarks. The
CPA Journal, pp. 39-41.
110. Johnston, Jarrod; and Jeff Madura. (2002). The performance of internet
Firms Following Their Initial Public Offering. Financial Review, vol. 37,
pp. 525-50.
111. Jordan, Charles E.; and Marilyn A. Waldron. (2001). Predicting Cash
Flow from Operations: Evidence on the Comparative Abilities for a
Continuum of Measures. Journal of Applied Business Research, vol. 17, no.
3, pp. 87-94.
112. Kambil, Ajit; Erik, D. Eselius; and Karen A. Monteiro. (March 2000).
Fast Venturing: The Quick Way to Start Web Businesses. Sloan
Management Review, pp. 55-67.
411 | P a g e
113. Keh, Hean T.; Maw Der Foo; and Boon C. Lim. (2002). Opportunity
Evaluation under Risky Conditions: The Cognitive Processes of
Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, vol. 27, no. 2, pp 125-
49.
114. Kelley, Donna J.; and Mark P. Rice. (2002). Advantage beyond Founding
the Strategic Use of Technologies. Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 17,
no. 1, pp. 41-58.
115. Kelly, Donna J.; and Mark P. Rice. (2002). Leveraging the Value of
Proprietary Technologies. Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 40,
no. 1, pp. 1-16.
116. Kenis, Patrick; and David Knoke. (2002). How Organizational Field
Networks Shape Interoganizational Tie-Formation Rates. Academy of
Management Review, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 275-94.
117. Khatoon, Akram. (2002). Making Woman Entrepreneur. Economics
Review, vol. 7, pp. 22-23.
118. Kim, W. Chan; and Renee Mauborgne. (September-October 2000).
Knowing a Winning Business Idea When You See One. Harvard Business
Review, pp. 129-38.
119. Krueger, Norris F. Jr. (2000). The Cognitive Infrastructure of Opportunity
Emergence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 5-23.
120. Kuemmerle, Walter. (May 2002). A Test for the Fainthearted. Harvard
Business Review, pp. 122-27.
121. Laukkanen, Mauri. (2000). Exploring Alternative Approaches in High-
Level Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Micro-Mechanisms for
Endogenous Regional Growth. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
vol. 12, p. 25-47.
122. Lawrence, William F.; Barry S. White; Thomas J. Kowalski; Susan K.
Lehnhardt; and David A. Zwally. (2001). Licensing Intellectual Property.
Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 208-17.
123. Lee, Sang N.; and Suzanne J. Peterson. (2000). Culture, Entrepreneurial
Orientation and Global Competitiveness. Journal of World Business, vol.
35, no. 4, pp. 401-16.
412 | P a g e
124. Lerner, Josh. (Fourth Quarter 2002). Boom and Bust in the Venture Capital
Industry and the Impact on Innovation. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Economic Review, pp. 25-39.
125. Lerner, Miri; Candida Brush; and Robert Hisrich. (1997). Israeli
Women Entrepreneurs: An Examination of Factors Affecting Performance.
Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 315-39.
126. Lerouge, Cindy; and Angela Picard. (November 2000). A Blueprint for
Bricks to Clicks. Strategic Finance, pp. 26-35.
127. Levesque, Moren; and Dean A. Shepherd. (2004). Entrepreneurs’ Choice
of Entry Strategy in Emerging and Developed Markets. Journal of Business
Venturing, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 29-45.
128. Lichtenstein, Benyamin; G. Thomas Lumpkin; and Rodney Sharder.
(2003). A Theory of Entrepreneurial Action. In J. Katz and D.A. Shepherd,
eds., Advances in Entrepreneurship: Firm Emergence and Growth (vol. 6).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
129. Lieberman, Marvin B.; and David B. Montgomery. (1998). First-Mover
(Dis)advantages: Retrospective and Link with the Resource-Based View.
Strategic Management Journal, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 1111-26.
130. Light, Ivan; and Steven Gold. (2000). Ethnic Economies. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
131. Lim, Yee Fen. (2002). Internet Governance, Resolving the Unresolvable:
Trademark Law and Internet Domain Names. International Review of Law
Computers & Technology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 199-209.
132. Lindsay, Noel J.; and Justin Craig. (Winter 2002). A Framework for
Understanding Opportunity Recognition. The Journal of Private Equity. pp.
13-24.
133. Ling-yee, Li; and Gabriel O. Ogunmokun. (2001). Effect of Export
Financing Resources and Supply-Chain Skills on Export Competitive
Advantages: Implications for Superior Export Performance. Journal of
World Business, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 260-79.
134. Lodish, Leonard. (May-June 2001). Building Marketing Models That
Make Money. Interfaces, vol. 31, no. 3, part 2, pp. S45-S55.
135. Logue, Dennis E.; Richard J. Rogalski; James K. Seward; and Lynn
Foster-Johnson. (2002). What Is Special about the Roles of Underwriter
413 | P a g e
Reputation and Market Activities in Initial Public Offerings? Journal of
Business, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 213-43.
136. Lumpkin, G.T.; and G.G. Dess. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial
Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance. Academy of
Management Review, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 135-72.
137. Luo, Yadong. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities in International Expansion.
Journal of World Business, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 355-78.
138. Maddy, Monique. (2000). Dream Deferred: The Story of a High-Tech
Entrepreneur in a Low-Tech World. Harvard Business Review, vol. 78, no.
3, pp. 56-69.
139. Magretta, Joan.(May 2002). Why Business Models Matter. Harvard
Business Review, pp. 86-92.
140. Marino, Louis; Karen Strandholm; Kevin H. Steensma; and Mark K.
Weaver. (2002). The Moderating Effect of National Culture on the
Relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Strategic Alliance
Portfolio Extensiveness. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, vol. 26, no.
4, pp. 145-61.
141. Mason, Colin M.; and Richard T. Harrison. (2002). Barriers to
Investments in the Informal Venture Capital Sector. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, vol. 14, pp. 271-87.
142. Maurer, Steven D.; and Michael T. Zugelder. (2000). Trade Secret
Management in High Technology: A Legal Review and Research Agenda.
The Journal of High Technology Management Research, vol. 11, no. 2, pp.
155-74.
143. McDougall, P. P.; and B. M. Oviatt. (1997). International
Entrepreneurship Literature in the 1990s and Directions for Future
Research. In D. L. Sexton and R. W. Smilor, eds., Entrepreneurship 2000.
Chicago, IL: Upstart Publishing Company, pp. 291-320.
144. McEvily, Susan K.; and Bala Chakravarthy. (2002). The Persistence of
Knowledge-Based Advantage: An Empirical Test for Product Performance
and Technological Knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 23 no.
4, pp. 285-306.
145. McMullen, Jeffery S.; and Dean A. Shepherd. (2003). A Theory of
Entrepreneurial Action. In J. Katz and D.A. Shepherd, eds., Advances in
414 | P a g e
Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth (vol.6). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press, pp. 203-48.
146. Melewar, T. C.; and John Sounders. (2000). Global Corporate Visual
Identity Systems: Using an Extended Marketing Mix. European Journal of
Marketing, vol. 34, nos. 5-6, pp. 538-50.
147. Michael, Steven C. (2000). Investment to Create Bargaining Power: The
Case of Franchising. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 497-
517.
148. Michael, Steven C. (2003). First Mover Advantage through Franchising.
Journal of Business Venturing. Vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 61-81.
149. Minerm, J.; R. Norman; and J. S. Brecker. (1992). Defining the Inventor-
Entrepreneur in the Context of Established Typologies. Journal of Business
Venturing, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 103-13.
150. Mitchel, Ronald K.; Brock Smith; Kristie W. Seawright; and Eric A.
Morse. (2000). Cross- Cultural Cognitions and the Venture Creation
Decision, Academy of Management Journal, vol.43, no5, pp. 974-93.
151. Modigliani, Franco; and Enrico Perotti. (2000). Security Markets versus
Bank Finance: Legal Enforcement and Investors’ Protection. International
Review of Finance, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 81-96.
152. Morris, Michael H.; John W Watling; and Minet Schindehutte. (July
2000). Venture Capitalists Involvement in Portfolio Companies: Insight
from South Africa. Journal of Small Business Management, pp. 68-77.
153. Mueller, Janice M. (2002). Patent Misuse through the Capture of Industry
Standards. Berkley Technology Law Journal, vol. 17, pp. 623-84.
154. Mueller, Stephen L.; and Srecko Goic. (2002). Entrepreneurial potential
in Transition Economies: A View from Tomorrow’s Leaders. Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 399-414.
155. Muller, Holger M.; and Karl Warberyd. (2001). Inside versus Outside
Ownership: A Political Theory of the Firm. RAND Journal of Economics,
vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 527-41.
156. Newiss, Hilary; and Audrey Horton. (2001). Practical and Legal
Preparation for Young Companies Seeking Technology Transfer. Journal of
Commercial Biotechnology, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 335-42.
415 | P a g e
157. Nicholls-Nixon, Charlene L.; and Arnold C. Cooper. (2000). Strategic
Experimentation: Understanding Change and Performance in New Ventures.
Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 15, no. 5/6, pp. 493-524.
158. Nodoushani, Omid; and Patricia A. Nodoushani. (2002). Industrial
Espionage: The Dark Side of the “Digital Age”. Competitiveness Review,
vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 96-101.
159. Nour, Mohamad A.; and Adam Fadlalla. (Spring 2000). A Framework
for Web Marketing Strategies. Information System Management, pp. 41-50.
160. Oetzel, Jennifer M.; Richard A. Bettis; and Marc Zenner. (2001).
Country Risk Measures: How Risky Are They? Journal of World Business,
vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 128-45.
161. Osborne, Stephen W.; Thomas W. Falcone; and Prashanth B.
Nagendra. (2000). From Unemployed to Entrepreneur: A Case Study in
Intervention. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.
115-36.
162. Park, Choelsoon. (2003). Prior Performance Characteristics of Related and
Unrelated Acquirers. Strategic Management Journal, nol. 24, no. 5, pp. 471-
81.
163. Park, Seung H.; Roger R. Chen; and Scott Gallagher. (2002). Firm
Resources as Moderators of the Relationship between Market Growth and
Strategic Alliances in Semiconductor Start-Ups. Academy of Management
Journal, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 527-46.
164. Pearce II, John A.; and Louise Hatfield. (2002). Performance Effects of
Alternative Joint Venture Resource Responsibility Structures. Journal of
Business Venturing, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 343-65.
165. Pelham, Alfred M. (2000). Market Orientation and Other Potential
Influences on Performance in Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturing
Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 48-67.
166. Penrose, Edith. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Business. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
167. Perry, Stephen C. (2001). The Relationship between Written Business
Plans and the Failure of Small Businesses in the U.S. Journal of Small
Business Management, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 201-8.
416 | P a g e
168. Perry, Stephen C. (2002). A Comparison of Failed and Non- Failed Small
Businesses in the United States: Do Men and Women Use Different
Planning and Decision Making Strategies? Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 415-28.
169. Pettus, Michael L. (2001). The Resource-Based View as a Developmental
Growth Process: Evidence from the Deregulated Trucking Industry.
Academy of Management Journal, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 878-97.
170. Phillips, Paul A.; Fiona M. Davies.; and Luiz Moutinho. (2001). The
Interactive Effects of Strategic Marketing Planning and Performance: A
Neutral Networking Analysis. Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 17,
pp. 159-82.
171. Pope, Ralph A. (2002). Why Small Firms Export: Another Look. Journal of
Small Business Management, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 17-26.
172. Prasad, Dev; Garry D. Bruton; and George Vozikis. (2000). Signaling
Value to Business Angles: The Proportion of the Entrepreneur’s Net Worth
Invested in a New Venture as a Decision Signal. Venture Capital, vol. 2, no.
3, pp. 167-82.
173. Prince, C. J. (January 2000). The Ultimate Business Plan. Success, pp. 44-
49.
174. Ranft, Annette L.; and Hugh M. O’ Neil. (2001). Board Composition and
High-Flying Founders: Hints of Trouble to Come? Academy of Management
Executive, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 126-38.
175. Rebecca Reuber, A.; and Eileen Fischer. (2002). Foreign Sales and Small
Firm Growth: The Moderating Role of the Management Team.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 29-46.
176. Renzulli, Linda A; Howard Aldrich; and Junes Moody. (2000). Family
Matters: Gender, Networks and Entrepreneurial Outcomes. Social Forces,
vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 523-46.
177. Rezaee, Zabihollah. (February 2003) High Quality Financial Reporting.
The Six- Legged Stool. Strategic Finance, pp. 26-30.
178. Robb, Alicia M. (2002). Entrepreneurial Performance by Women and
Minorities: The Case of New Firms. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 383-97.
417 | P a g e
179. Robins, Fred. (2000). The Marketing E-Mix. The Marketing Review, vol. 1,
pp. 249-74.
180. Robinson, William T.; and Sungwook Min. (2002). Is the First to Market
the First to Fail? Empirical Evidence for Industrial Goods Businesses.
Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 120-29.
181. Ronde, Thomas. (2001). Trade Secrets and Information Sharing. Journal of
Economics & Management Strategy, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 391-417.
182. Ruback, Richard S. (Summer 2002). Capital Cash Flows: A Simple
Approach to Valuing Risky Cash Flows. Financial Management, pp. 85-
103.
183. Rugman, Alan M.; and Alan Verbeke. (2002). Edith Penrose’s
Contribution to the Resource-Based View of Strategic Management.
Strategic Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 769-81.
184. Ryan, Kenneth E. (2003). Product Liability Risk Control. Professional
Safety, February 2003, pp. 20-25.
185. Sahlman, William A. (1997). How to Write a Great Business Plan.
Harvard Business Review, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 98-108.
186. Sarkar, M. B.; R. A. J. Echambadi; and Jeffrey S. Harrison. (2001).
Alliance Entrepreneurship and firm market performance. Strategic
management Journal, vol. 22, no 6/7. Pp. 201-12.
187. Schmid Klein, Linda; Thomas J. O’Brien; and Stephen R.Peters.
(2002). Debt vs. Equity and Asymmetric Information: A Review. The
Financial Review, vol. 37, pp. 317-50.
188. Schulze, William S.; Michael H. Lubatkin; and Richard N. Dino (2003).
A Social Capital Model of High Growth Ventures. Academy of Management
Journal, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 374-85.
189. Shane, Scott. (2000). Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of
Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Organization Science, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 448-
69.
190. Shane, Scott; and Daniel Cable. (2002). Network Ties, Reputation and the
Financing of New Ventures. Management Science, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 364-
81.
418 | P a g e
191. Shane, Scott; and Daniel Cable. (2002). Network Ties, Reputation and the
Financing of New Ventures. Management Science, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 364-
81.
192. Shapiro, Carl. (2001). Navigating the Patent Ticket: Cross Licenses, Patent
Pools and Standard Setting. NBER Innovation Policy & the Economy, vol. 1,
no. 1, pp. 119-50.
193. Shephard, Dean A.; and Andrew Zacharakis. (Spring 2001). Speed to
Initial public Offering of VC-Backed Companies. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, pp. 59-69.
194. Shephard, Dean A.; and Andrew Zackarakis. (2000). Structuring Family
Business Succession: An Analysis of the Future Leader’s Decision Making.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 25-39.
195. Shepherd, Dean A.; Evan J. Douglas; and Mark Shanley. (2000). New
Venture Survival: Ignorance, External Shocks and Risk Reduction
Strategies. Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 15, no. 5-6, pp. 393-410.
196. Shepherd, Dean A.; Richard Etenson; and Andrew Croch. (2000). The
Venture Strategy and Profitability: A Venture Capitalist’s Assessment.
Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 15, pp. 449-67.
197. Skripsky, Harold. (2001). Fail to Plan, Plan to Fail: A look at a Yearly
Operating Business Plan. Journal of Leisure Property, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 282-
86.
198. Sonfield, Matthew; Robert Lussier; Joel Corman; and Mary
McKinney. (2001). Gender Comparisons in Strategic Decision-making: An
Empirical Analysis of the Entrepreneurial Strategy Matrix. Journal of Small
Business Management, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 165-73.
199. Sonnenfeld, Jeffrey A. (September 2002). What Makes Great Boards
Great. Harvard Business Review, pp. 106-13.
200. Sorenson, Olav; and Toby E. Stuart. (2001). Syndication Networks and
the Spatial Distribution of Venture Capital Investments. American Journal
of Sociology, vol. 106, no. 6, pp. 1546-88.
201. Spears, Nancy. (2001). Time Pressure and Information in Sales Promotion
Strategy: Conceptual Framework and Content Analysis. Journal of
Advertising, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 67-76.
419 | P a g e
202. Steier, Lloyd; and Royston Greenwood. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the
Evolution of Angel Financial Networks. Organizational Studies, vol. 21, no.
1, pp. 163-92.
203. Steinglod, F. S. (1998). Legal Guide for Starting and Running a Small
Business (Vol. 1). Berkeley, CA: Nolo Press.
204. Stopford, John M.; and Charles W. F. Baden-Fuller. (1994). Creating
Corporate Entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 15, no. 7,
pp. 521-36.
205. Strischek, Dev. (October 2001). A Banker’s Perspective on Working
Capital and Cash Flow Management. Strategic Finance, pp. 38-45.
206. Takala, Tuomo; and Paul Pallab. (2000). Individual, Collective and Social
Responsibility of the Firm. Business Ethics: A European Review, vol. 9, no.
2, pp. 109-18.
207. Tarantino, David. (September-October 2001). Understanding Financial
Statements. The Physician Executive, pp. 72-76.
208. Teplensky Jill D.; John R. Kimberly; Alan L. Hillman; and J. Stanford
Schwartz. (1993). Scope, Timing and Strategic Adjustment in Emerging
Markets: Manufacturer Strategies and the Case of MRI. Strategic
Management Journal, vol. 14, pp. 505-27.
209. Tidd, Joe; and Kirsten Bodley. (2002). The Influence of Project Novelty
on the New Product Development Process. R&D Management, vol. 32, no.
2, pp. 127-38.
210. Ucbasaran, Deniz; Mike Wright; Paul Westhead; and Lowell W.
Busenitz. (2003). The Impact of Entrepreneurial Experience on Opportunity
identification and Exploitation: Habitual and Novice Entrepreneurs. In J.
Katz and D. A. Shepherd, eds., Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm
Emergence and Growth (vol.6). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
211. Ucbasaran, Deniz; Paul Westhead; and Mike Wright. (Summer 2001).
The focus of Entrepreneurial Research: Contextual and Process Issues.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 57-80.
212. Van Auken, Howard E. (2001). Financing Small Technology-Based
Companies: The Relationship between Familiarity with Capital and Ability
to Price and Negotiate Investment. Journal of Small Business Management,
vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 240-58.
420 | P a g e
213. Van Osnabrugge, Mark; and Robert J. Robinson. (2000). Angel
Investing: Matching Start-Up Funds with Start-Up Companies. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
214. Wang, Shouhong. (2000). Managing the Organizational Aspects of
Electronic Commerce. Human Systems Management, vol. 19, pp. 49-59.
215. Wansink, Brian. (Summer 2000). New Techniques to Generate Key
Marketing Insights. Marketing Research, pp. 28-36.
216. Watson, Warren; Wayne Stewart Jr.; and Anat BarNir. (2003). The
Effects of Human Capital, Organizational Demography and Interpersonal
Processes on Venture Partner Perceptions of Firm Profit and Growth.
Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 145-65.
217. Wennekers, Sander; and Roy Thurik. (1999). Linking Entrepreneurship
and Economic Growth. Small Business Economics, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 27-55.
218. Wetzel, William. (September-October 2002). Angel Money and Sustainable
Business. In Business, pp. 26-28.
219. Wiklund, Johan; and Dean A. Shephard. (2003). Aspiring for, and
Achieving Growth: The Moderating Role of Resources and Opportunities.
Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1919-42.
220. Wiklund, Johan; Per Davidsson; and Frederic Delmar. (2003).What do
They Think and Feel about Growth? An Expectancy-Value Approach to
Small Business Manager’s Attitudes toward Growth. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 247-71.
221. Williams, Devid. (2001). Writing a Marketing Report. The Marketing
Review, vol. 1, pp. 363-72.
222. Williams, Steve. (2000). An Empirical Application of Transaction-Costs
Theory to Organizational Design Characteristics. Journal of Psychology,
vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 81-92.
223. Xiao, Jing J.; M. J. Alhabeeb; Gong-Soog Hon; and George W. Haynes.
(2001). Attitude toward Risk and Risk-Taking Behavior of Business-
Owning Families. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 307-
25.
224. Yates, Don; and Davis, Mark. (January–February 2001). Your Company
Does Not Exist. Journal of Business Strategy, pp. 14-18.
421 | P a g e
225. Zahra, Shaker A.; Donald O. Neubaum; and Galal M. El-Hagrassey.
(2002). Competitive Analysis and New Venture Performance:
Understanding the Impact of Strategic Uncertainty and Venture Origin.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1-29.
226. Zimmerman, Monica A.; and Gerald Z. Zeitz. (2002). Beyond Survival:
Achieving New Venture Growth by Building Legitimacy. Academy of
Management Review, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 414-32.
422 | P a g e
AppendixA.1 Questionnaire used for Data Collection
423 | P a g e
424 | P a g e
425 | P a g e
426 | P a g e
427 | P a g e