Show me the money: the impact of funding on entrepreneurship education at German universities

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONThe role of entrepreneurship in economic growth has been widely recognized (e.g., Schumpeter, 1934; Drucker, 1985), and required skill set for successfiil entrepreneurs has been largely established (e.g., McClelland, 1987; Timmons, 1994). Investing into teaching and training of potential entrepreneurs is thus seen as worthwhile (cf. Charney and Libecap, 2000).Research into Entrepreneurship Education (EE) is abundant, and many studies confirm a positive effect of EE on students' entrepreneurial interest, attitudes and financial performance (e.g., Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Kuratko, 2005; Fayolle et al., 2006; Pittaway and Cope, 2007; Mueller, 2009; Martin et al, 2013). Even critics of benefit of EE acknowledge that entrepreneurial skills can at least partly be acquired through training (Brockhaus, 1993; Aronsson, 2004; Haase and Lautenschlager, 2011b). EE has consequently turned into a political priority on national and supranational agendas. Two out of eight key competences for life-long learning set out by European Union (EU) are key to starting up a business: Sense of initiative and Entrepreneurship (cf. Recommendation 2006/962/EC by European Parliament and European Council, 2006). In consequence, European fiinding for EE encompasses both national and supranational (Le., EU) sources. In addition to this increased diversity of public fiinds, universities have successfiilly started to attract private co-fiinding for their EE activities.The current challenge is thus not so much to attract enough shortand mid-term EE fiinding, but how to best combine diverse sources in order to ensure long-term support. An OECD-study on EE at Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) identifies sustainability as the main issue of public EE fiinding in Europe (Wilson, 2008, p. 130). The objective of becoming self-financing over time is even increasingly a prerequisite for obtaining public EE fiinding in Germany (cf. Kulicke, 2010). The ongoing debate is, therefore, not about justification of investment itself, but about monitoring and qualifying its outcomes for policymakers, fiinding agencies, donors and HEIs.In this context case of Germany is of interest because country's national policy makers are comparatively supportive of EE fiinding and EE at university level can boast an above average rating when compared to other GEM countries (Sternberg and Lueckgen, 2005). Ready availability of public funding for EE paired with a favorable rating of EE prompts question whether these two facts are related to each other. With regard to funding of EE at universities, Germany has followed example of UK and US, where endowments were critical in establishing entrepreneurship at HEIs (Klandt, 2004). German entrepreneurship chairs are at present mostly financed through third party finding (Schleinkofer and Kulicke, 2009; Klandt et al, 2008). The development from private to public fiinding results in a growing complexity; at German universities entrepreneurship chair, its EE program, and individual courses may each be fiinded through different sources. The German context is thus unique in that staff working with a chair may be fiinded by various types of sources. Yet most studies on EE fiinding sources in Germany only analyze fiinding of entrepreneurship chairs (e.g., Schleinkofer and Kulicke, 2009; Klandt, 2004), which leads to a research gap with regard to micro-fiinding of EE at course level and its implications.Our study aims at filling this gap in order to increase transparency for policymakers, funding agencies, private donors and HEIs. To that end we assess design of individual courses, their respective funding, and any resulting patterns through following research questions:1. What is current funding mix of EE at level of individual courses at German universities?2. What EE designs does our sample encompass? …