Introduction

As the world becomes increasingly competitive and growth-oriented, entrepreneurship has

become an efficient strategy with which to enhance a countrys economic and societal
development efforts (Cornwall, 1998; Schumpeter, 1934) and for peace building (Strong, 2009)
and achieve sustainable competitiveness (Schaper and Volery 2004; Venkatachalam and Waqif
2005). Through entrepreneurial activities, several countries have been able to generate wealth,
improve the survival rate of firms, enhance the adoption of technological change, and create job
opportunities (Gurol and Atsan 2006). In fact, entrepreneurship is the engine that drives many
nations economic growth and competitiveness (Kuratko and Hodgetts 2007). Consequently,
entrepreneurship has emerged as one of the most popular topics among scholars, students, and
policy-makers and has become an important disciplinary field (Davidsson and Wiklund 2001).
The highly competitive job environment has increased the interest of both undergraduate and
graduate students in studying entrepreneurship (Dickson, Solomon, and Weaver 2008; Solomon
2002) because permanent employment in organizations is no longer guaranteed (Collins,
Hannon, and Smith 2004). The supposition that university graduates can acquire a job easily no
longer reflects the realities of employment market (Seet and Seet, 2006).
Pakistan today has young population with almost 60 percent below the age of 30. This
demographic change indicate that large amount of jobs and work opportunities are needed right
now otherwise unemployment rate will increase to a dangerous level and it will definitely bring
its consequence may be in the form of increased crime rate or increased suicide rate etc. By
educating and equipping the younger population with the skills required both inside Pakistan as
well as in the labor scarce countries the addition to our labor force can become a source of
continuous supply to the rest of the world. On the other hand, an uneducated, unemployable
youth with poor skills can create a social and political upheaval for the country.
Research on entrepreneurship in adverse, even dangerous, conditions is relatively scarce
(e.g., Branzei& Abdelnour, 2010). Specifically, while research in this area is developing, scholars
havenot begun to uncover the motivational processes that drive individuals entrepreneurial
decisions in adverse conditions. To increase our understanding of what affects peoples intentions
to start businesses in such conditions, we need to look at both those dangers that exist in the
operating environment, as well as individuals persistence in the face of such dangers
(resilience). In this research, we examine the developmental role of resilience on entrepreneurial
intentions in highly adverse conditions, that is, in danger-stricken Pakistan. Pakistan is an
extremely challenging context within which to operate a business. The lack of security i.e
terrorism is such that it is difficult to travel, and there exists a constant fear of corruption, bad
governance and political instability.
Pakistan shares its longest border with India and the Indo-Pak relations have been marked
by decades of severe adversary including three wars and frequent minor cross-border military
infiltrations from both sides. The governments of both countries have blamed their counterparts
for funding and supporting separatist/terrorist organizations activities in their territories.
Pakistan shares its second longest border with Afghanistan. The America-Afghan war in the post
9/11 era has adversely affected security situation in Pakistan. Retreating from Afghan territory,
Taliban were pushed in bordering zones of Pakistan. At present Khyber Pakhtunkhwah (KPK)
province, border province with Afghanistan, is the source of almost all terrorist activities in
Pakistan ( Muhammad, Muhammad & Muhammad, 2011).
The instability of government, inefficiency of political parties, and a weak political
culture create the scenario for a politically instable state. Political instability has become a
serious problem especially for the developing and underdeveloped countries ( Memon, Memon,
Sheikh & Memon, 2011). These issues that present challenges for existing businesses may also
have a negative influence on individuals willingness to start new firms. At the same time,
however, new businesses constantly emerge, and people are willing to risk their assets and even
their lives in pursuit of a business opportunity that provides independence and income for their
families (Cusack & Malmstrom, 2010, 2011). The purpose of our research is to understand key
perceptual and cognitive factors that may affect the pursuit of entrepreneurial initiatives under
such dangerous conditions.
Resilience, an ability to go on with life, or to continue living a purposeful life, after
hardship or adversity (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). It has recently earned its place in
entrepreneurship research from the viewpoint of entrepreneurs beginning again after previously
failed attempts (Cope, 2011; Hayward, Forster, Sarasvathy, & Fredrickson, 2010) and resilient
enterprises operating under terror conditions (Branzei & Abdelnour, 2010). Here, we examine the
importance of resilience on individuals intentions to launch entrepreneurial ventures in adverse
environments. Intent to start a firm is a widely used cognitive construct in entrepreneurship
literature (Thompson, 2009) and intentions are the first step in a typically long-term process of
starting a new business (Krueger, 1993; Thompson, 2009).
Self-efficacy has not been explored as an antecedent of entrepreneurial intentions
in dangerous contexts. According to social cognitive theorys idea of triadic reciprocity, behavior,
personal factors, and environmental influences all operate interactively as determinants of each
other (Bandura, 1986). In a dangerous environment, the effect of self-efficacy may be dependent
on additional personal influences that have been overlooked in previous research from safer
environments, such as individuals resilience. Also, the adverse environment itself may be an
important factor that affects entrepreneurial intentions through individuals perceptions of
danger. While resilience, in general, is key to understanding coping in and after crises (Tedeschi
& Calhoun, 2004; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000), it has yet to be linked to entrepreneurial
initiatives in adverse conditions. Understanding these connections has tremendous implications
for promoting entrepreneurship in places facing severe adversity.
Risk taking propensity refers to the propensity of an individual to exhibit risk taking or
risk avoidance when confronted with risky situations. Entrepreneurship is historically associated
with risk taking. In the literature on entrepreneurship, thus, entrepreneurs are generally
characterized as having a greater propensity to take risks than other groups (Cromie, 2000;
Mueller and Thomas, 2000). Here we, investigate the impact of risk taking propensity on
entrepreneurial intentions through resilience in adverse condition.

This understanding is especially important for the numerous government and business,
school-led entrepreneurship training programs currently underway in developing countries like
Pakistan and elsewhere, and those still in the design phase. If we understand what drives
entrepreneurial intentions in adverse conditions, we can design better programs to specifically
enhance entrepreneurial efforts.
We report on primary survey research with a sample of Pakistani men and women to
examine the effects of resilience (Sinclair & Wallston, 2004), self-efficacy (Zhao et al., 2005),
and perceived danger (King, King, & Vogt, 2003) on entrepreneurial intentions (Lin & Chen,
2009). We begin with the theoretical background of our research. Based on this, we present
hypotheses, which are then empirically tested with primary survey data from 272 Afghans.
Methods are described in the following section, after which we deliver the results of the
empirical study. We conclude with a discussion of the key findings in relation to previous
literature, and suggest some recommendations for policy and future research.

Literature Background and Hypothesis

The relevance of social cognitive theory in forming the behavior of ones in
entrepreneurial decision has been tested by various studies (Ahmed, Xavier & Bakar 2014,v
Gaglio, 2004; Krueger 2000;). The development of competencies and the regulation of actions of
individuals has been tried to understand through social cognitive theory. Competencies required
to become a successful entrepreneur and entrepreneurship is a planned and managed action, so,
the social cognitive theory is a close germane for the study of entrepreneurial intentions (Krueger
et al., 2000). Social cognitive theory reveals that environmental events, personal factors, and
individual behaviors interact to affect individuals ultimate actions ((Bandura, 1986; Wood &
Bandura, 1989). These actions are regulated by forethought. The links of self-efficacy beliefs,
outcome expectations, and personal goals, derived from social cognitive theory, social cognitive
career theory which individuals use to regulate their own career goals (Lent, Brown, & Hackett,
1994). So, therefore, when an individual plans to start a new venture, intentions are the first step
in planning the course of action to achieve this goal. This theory demonstrate a well-fitted
framework for the current study since resilience is an ability to go on with life specifically
through environmental adversity (Bullough Renko & Myatt, 2014; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).
Variables in social cognitive (e.g., self-efficacy) function in concert with other personal factors
(e.g., gender, business experience, and resilience) and environments (e.g., danger zones) to affect
career goals, such as those related to entrepreneurship (Lent & Brown, 1996). While social
cognitive theory has been used to investigate the roles of resilience and self-efficacy in other
kinds of stressful situations (e.g., Bonanno, Rennicke, & Dekel, 2005; Major, Richards, Cooper,
Cozzarelli, & Zubek, 1998; Mubarak, 1997), research incorporating these builds in the context of
entrepreneurship in general, and danger zone entrepreneurship in particular, is missing.
Following the social cognitive theory, we present our hypothesis and there justifications. We
also, specifically address living and working in dangerous environment and its influence of the
perceived danger on ones entrepreneurial intentions.
Entrepreneurial Intentions
Entrepreneurship is one of the most important fields in business research and practice,
and it has a vital role in economic development. Entrepreneurship has also been recognized as a
driver to sustain and promote competitive advantages (Covin and Miles, 1999). Entrepreneurship
research studies entrepreneurial behaviors, practices, and success factors. Entrepreneurship has
been broadly studied in various disciplines including management science, economics,
psychology, sociology, and anthropology (Ireland and Webb, 2007; Simpeh, 2011). There is a
long history in entrepreneurship research. Schumpeters (1934) pioneering works in the 1930s
paved the way for todays entrepreneurship research and practice. In his book,
Schumpeter connected entrepreneurs theoretically with innovation. He insisted that
entrepreneurs contributed to economic growth through innovation. The issues relating to
entrepreneurial interest and intention to start business have been handled by previous studies;
prominent among which is Ajzen (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior. Generally, intentions
toward a purposive behavior are critical to our understanding of that behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1980). Thus, the study of entrepreneurial intentions, or the intention of carrying out
entrepreneurial behaviors (Lin & Chen, 2009), is a worthwhile approach to gaining further
understanding of the field of entrepreneurship.
According to Bird (1988), intentionality is a state of mind directing a persons attention
(and therefore experience and action) toward a specific object (goal) or a path in order to achieve
something (means). Krueger (1993) asserts that intentions represent the degree of commitment
toward some future target behavior, and that entrepreneurial intentions refer to the specific target
behavior of starting a business. Several intentions models in the field of entrepreneurship have
been developed over the years (Bird, 1988; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Krueger; Krueger, Reilly, &
Carsrud, 2000; Shapero, 1985; Shapero & Sokol, 1982). Krueger (2000)argues that
entrepreneurial intentions develop from perceptions of desirability and feasibility of
entrepreneurial action. a perceived lack of security in the environment may make traveling for
business challenging or even impossible, thus negatively affecting the feasibility of a new
venture. Krueger also argues that self-efficacy has a direct impact on the feasibility of
entrepreneurship and that a personal propensity to act on opportunities (such as resilience in this
study) may facilitate the realization of intentions. In other words, in the case of dangerous
contexts, self efficacy and resilience make up the infrastructure (Krueger) that supports
entrepreneurial intentions.
Studies on entrepreneurial intentions (e.g., Douglas & Shepherd, 2002; Gupta,
Turban,Wasti, & Sikdar, 2009; Lin & Chen, 2009; Manolova, Eunni, & Gyoshev, 2008) have
set the stage for a more in-depth examination of the entrepreneurial intentions of people in
conflict zones. These individual-level intentions are the profound mechanism through which
entrepreneurial energies of a nation are ultimately directed toward rebuilding and economic
development following a conflict.
Therefore, for the purpose of this study, entrepreneurial intentions are defined as an
individuals desire and commitment to start and run his/her own business (Krueger, 1993;
Llewellyn & Wilson, 2003).

Perceived Danger
Previous studies have observed patterns in entrepreneurial activity after disasters(Tang,
2006) and war (El Jack, 2007). errorism2 has been found to have a negative impact on economic
growth and has been cited as repelling private investment and leading to an increase in
government spending (Blomberg, Hess, & Orphanides, 2004).Terrorism can be defined as the
the premeditated use or threat of use of violence by individuals or sub-national groups to obtain
a political or social objective through the intimidation of a large audience, beyond that of the
immediate victim (Sandler and Enders,2005).
In the recent history, Pakistan is facing the menace of terrorism. Besides facing the
consequences of Afghan War, Pakistanis also affected by various ethnic, religious and linguistic
conflicts which have increased terrorists activities. These conflicts have severely affected the
socio-economic structure of Pakistan (Hyder, Akram & Padda, 2015). Bloomberg et al. (2004)
empirically look into the impact of terrorism on 177 countries over the period 1968-2000. The
study finds the impact of terrorism on economic growth as negative. Further findings show that
terrorism results in shifting of resources from investment spending to government spending.
Inter alia, Collier (1999), Frey et al. (2007), Enders and Sandler (2008), Eckstein and
Tsiddon (2004) and Mirza and Verdier (2008) have discussed theoretical framework regarding
channels through which terrorism impede economic growth. The potential costs of terrorism
borne by an economy, in terms of hampered economic growth, can be classified as direct and
indirect costs. Collier et al. (2002) estimated the share of private wealth held abroad increases
from 9%to 20% for countries experiencing sustained period of internal conflict. In addition to
capital flight, the phenomena of human capital flight or brain drain, population displacement,
destruction of social capital and psychological effects including depression and posttraumatic
stress disorders are also associated with terrorism and internal conflicts.
Common personal reactions to war and terrorism can include, for example, social
isolation, increased mental health difficulties, work and school absenteeism, interpersonal
violence, and group conflict (Maguen, Papa, & Litz, 2008). The effects of war and terrorism on
economies are widely felt and challenge the operations of businesses. Those negative effects may
be strongly felt by entrepreneurs and those just planning to start businesses in particular. For
example, war and terrorism result in declines in buyer demand, increased transaction costs,
interruptions in supply chains, and new government regulations and procedures intended to stem
emergent threats (Czinkota, Knight, Liesch, & Steen, 2010); all of which may discourage
individuals from pursuing new business opportunities.
The environment play a key role in the promotion of economic activities and this is the
environment that ultimately converts the entrepreneurial energy into productive directions, such
as starting businesses. After all, the prevailing laws, institutions, political stability and legal
procedures of an economy are prime determinants of the profitability of entrepreneurial activities
(Baumol, 1996). In danger environment, people do activities that are likely to be focused on
mere survival and protection of their and their families lives .Due to living for mere survival,
many individuals may work inside the home, search for employment provided by someone else,
or beg on the streets. In such a danger environment the entrepreneurial activities required to start
a new business needs facing an additional level of risk and vulnerability. While controlling for
need based (necessity) entrepreneurship, we propose that in such adverse conditions, the
perception of danger and the constant threat of violence have negative effects on entrepreneurial
intentions. For example in danger zone (danger environment). fair, effective, and efficient
business practices may become compromised due to weak rule of l aw. This insecurity can cause
of afraid of starting a business due to but not limited to 1) fear of others perceiving the
entrepreneurs to be a worthwhile target for extortion or kidnapping; 2) loss or theft of business,
resources, employees or saved monetary gains if danger activities happen too close to business
operations; or 3) takeover the from insurgents or criminals. The kinds of dangers listed above
would disrupt the perceptions if entrepreneurial intentions develop from perceptions of
desirability and feasibility (Krueger, 2000), and therefore any potential entrepreneurial action.
Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of danger are negatively related to the intent to start and own a
business.
Resilience
We use Tedeschi and Calhouns (2004) definition of resilience: an ability to go on with
life, or to continue living a purposeful life, after hardship or adversity. Resilience, emerges from
relatively ordinary processes that result from unique and unexpected dynamics (Masten, 2001;
Sutcliff & Vogus, 2003), and it can be learned over time and with experience. So, Such type of
learning is made possible through a steadfast acceptance of reality, a deep belief that life is
meaningful, and a remarkable ability to improvise (Coutu, 2002). Positive emotions (gratitude,
interest, love, etc.) have been found to coexist among the more often expected negative emotions
(anger, fear, anxiety, and sadness) that result from crises (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000; Tedeschi
& Calhoun, 2004). Positive emotions make people resilient against depression and can actually
cause them to thrive in the face of crisis (Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003).
Especially with respect to the individual unit of analysis, resilience specifically, has not received
as much attention in entrepreneurship research. A broad framework of individual differences is
needed to understand resilient outcomes in response to adverse conditions (Westphal & Bonanno,
2007).
For those who are able to take action in the face of adversitylike Afghan
businesspeople positive reactions add to resilience and productive action (Hobfoll et al., 2007).
The notion of resilience has a central role in entrepreneurship research: Entrepreneurs are likely
to remain optimistic in the face of adversity and setbacks (Baron & Markman,2000; Markman,
Baron, & Balkin, 2005). For example, those starting businesses at times of war and terror may
discover ways to circumvent constraints or change them through their actions, whereas less
resilient people are easily discouraged by impediments and challenges. Among failed
entrepreneurs, those who are more resilient are the ones likely to start again, should another
business opportunity appear (Hayward et al., 2010).
 We expect resilience to moderate the perceived danger and entrepreneurial intention
relationship mentioned in hypothesis 1. More resilient individuals are less affected by perceived
danger and are more likely to start and run a business in danger environment. Resilience may
have a particularly significant bearing on entrepreneurial decisions under circumstances that are
notoriously challenging. Resilience can be thought of as a resource that individuals are able to
mobilize in a time of stress (Hobfoll, 2002). When entrepreneurs are able to be resilient, they are
better able to cope with the dangerous environment around them; they are able to take action in
the face of adversity, rather than recoil in fear (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000;Tedeschi &
Calhoun, 2004). Potential entrepreneurs who have this ability to grow and learn from adversity
would therefore be better positioned to partake in the actions needed to start and grow a business
(Krueger, 2000). Bullough, Renko and Myatt (2014) found in their study that there is marginally
significant moderation effect of resilience on the perceived dangerintention. They also
suggested in their study that further research is needed to confirm this marginally significant
moderated relationship of resilience between Perceived danger-intention. Therefore, we
hypothesize that higher levels of resilience reduce the negative effect of perceived danger on
entrepreneurial intentions.

Hypothesis 2: Resilience moderates the negative danger-intent relationship such that this
relationship is weakened due to presence of higher levels of resilience.

1) We do not present hypothesis concerning resilience- intention relationship as it has been

tested and approved in previous studies that resilience is strongly and positively related to
entrepreneurial decisions

Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy
From its first conceptualization in entrepreneurship domain (Scherer, Adams,Carley, &
Wiebe, 1989), self-efficacy has been mostly used to explain entrepreneurial intention and
behavior ( Chen et al., 1998; DePillis & Reardon, 2007;Tyszka, Cieslik, Domurat, & Macko,
2011). Self-efficacy indicates ones level of confidence in his/her abilities to successfully
perform an intended and planed task (Bandura, 1997). On the other hand, the concept of self-
efficacy is the belief in ones own capabilities to perform an action and to attain different
outcomes (Bandura 1982).Thus, individuals considering themselves as capable of successfully
performing as entrepreneurs will have a greater probability of becoming entrepreneurs or, at
least,of exhibiting entrepreneurial intentions (Krueger and Carsrud 1993). Self-efficacy beliefs
take shape through a cognitive process of evaluating abilities and task requirements as well as
expectations of the consequences of a task accomplishment and highly motivates and directs
individuals thoughts, efforts, and behavior, particularly when they choose to carry out a
challenging and novel task such as entrepreneurship (Bandura, 2012). ESE has been identified as
the key personal trait that determines ones selection into entrepreneurship, endeavors to launch a
new venture, and persistence in theface of challenges and crisis throughout the entrepreneurship
process (Barbosa,Gerhardt, & Kickul, 2007; DePillis & Reardon, 2007; McGee, Peterson,
Mueller, &Sequeira, 2009). ESE has been consistently related to an individuals intent to engage
in entrepreneurship, and it has been found to be a key antecedent of entrepreneurial intentions
(Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Jung, Ehrlich, De Noble, &Baik, 2001; Sequeira, Mueller, & McGee,
2007; Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007;Zhao et al., 2005).
Self-efficacy and resilience are also related (Benight & Bandura, 2004; Linley &Joseph,
2004): Self-efficacy to manage intense stressors is related to how well people cope. Specifically,
previous literature on resilience suggests that individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy also
use greater coping strategies (Leana & Feldman,1994). If those who believe in their
entrepreneurial abilities are also resilient, theyshould be more likely to use entrepreneurship as a
mechanism to deal with an adverse environment. Resilience and self-efficacy reinforce one
another to affect behavior and decisions; belief in ones ability to exercise some measure of
control over the entrepreneurial process in the face of challenges and stressors goes hand in hand
with resilience (Bandura, 1997). Therefore, those who possess a high sense of ESE as well as
resilient abilities are better able to adopt strategies and courses of action designed to change
hazardous situations (such as poverty and lack of work at the time of war) into
more benign ones (realizing opportunities for entrepreneurship).
Even when people face with an adverse environment, such as the condition ( i.e. political
instability, war against terror, a long procedure for registrations and others like that) in Pakistan
over theyears, some of them may start a new business opportunities because of strong belief in
their skills and abilities they possess that enables them to overcome environmental adversity.
People possessing higher levels of self-efficacy are considered better able to cope with such
dangers and a resilient ability further reinforces the positive effects of ESE on entrepreneurial
decisions. In case of other words, we hope resilience and ESE to work together and to positively
relate to ones entrepreneurial intent. This relationship would indicate that if we want to drive
entrepreneurial activity in a country, especially in a country with severe adversity, then we need
to engage in activities that build both individuals self efficacy and resilience.
Hypothesis 3: Resilience moderates the positive ESEintent relationship such that this
relationship is strengthened at higher levels of resilience.
1. We do not present an other hypothesis regarding the effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy
on intent
because the relationship between these two has been widely tested and established in previous
research.

Propensity to Take Risk

This variable refers to acceptation of risk when engaging in an activity and hence related
to the probability of success of any activity being less than 100 per cent (Kuip and Verheul,
2003). Even the risk-taking propensity is often mentioned as a determinant of entrepreneurial
intentions (Bygrave, 1989). Risk taking propensity is an important element of entrepreneurship
and refers to the propensity of an individual to exhibit risk taking or risk avoidance, when
confronted with situations which might involve an element of risk (Gurol and Atsan, 2006).
the propensity for risk taking is defined as the perceived probability of receiving the
rewards associated with success of a proposed situation, which is required by an individual
before he will subject himself to the consequences associated with failure, the alternative
situation providing less reward as well as lesssevere consequences that the proposed situation.

Empirical studies also confirm the notion that entrepreneursare risk takers, although there
is no consensus in the literature about the extent of risk taking in an entrepreneurship process.In
fact, some studies have found that entrepreneurs are moderaterisk takers taking calculated risks
to avoid uncertain situations(Koh, 1996; Thomas and Mueller, 2000).While on the other hand
several empirical studies suggest thatsmall business entrepreneurs do not have positive attitudes
towards risk and do notconsider themselves as risk takers (Davidsson, 1989; Baron, 1998), nor
do they seem to differ from othergroupsin more objective tests on risk taking (Brockhaus,
1980).According to McClelland (1961) and Bellu (1988),entrepreneurs seem slightly
lessattracted to taking risks in situations known as pure shift games. Entrepreneur risktaking may
be specific or momentary (Beverland and Lockshin, 2001).

One of the explanations put forward by some authors (Janneyand Dess, 2006; Caliendo et
al., 2009) to justify such variances in thefindings, is that entrepreneurs may perceive the risk
context differentlyfrom other segments of the population. In such cases an actionwhich might
appear risky for an established company might notbe in an entrepreneurial context. Therefore an
entrepreneur whotakes on such risk may appear to be willing to take on a greater riskthan an
established company, even though the entrepreneur doesnot perceive this greater risk.
Research by Koh (1996) and Gurol and Atsan (2006) found thatstudents with more risk
taking propensity are more entrepreneuriallyinclined. In their study of students from Hong Kong
andSingapore, Ang and Hong (2000) showed that entrepreneurialintention is higher in those
students with higher propensity to takerisks. Supporting these views, Gurel et al. (2010) also
found thatthere is a positive relationship between propensity to take risks andintention to start up
a business. So, from different views and results from different previous studies by different
authors, therefore, we hypothesis;

Hypothesis 4: There is a positive relationship between propensity to take

risks and intention to start up a business.

Methodology
Data for the study is collected from graduate and undergraduate students under the faculty of
management and administrative sciences, The Government College University Faisalabad,
Punjab (Pakistan). We regard these respondents very appropriate for this study, as they have
higher chances to start their own business after completing education (Frank & Luthje, 2004;
Segal et al, 2005; Souitaris et al.2007). The research used random sampling method. After taking
approval from faculty, there were 150 questionnaires distributed and out of them 114 returned
back. In the study, 51% male and 49% took participate and average age of these respondents was
23. Similarly, more than 70% also pointed out that they have studied Entrepreneurship as course
subject- we can anticipate that they are having complete understanding and knowledge about
entrepreneurial environment. The data collected through structured questionnaire and each
question is measured through Likert scale and move from strongly disagree to strongly agree (1.
Strongly disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Neutral, 4. Agree, 5. Strongly agree).

This part involves 22 items. Part IV requests respondents to provide their views about their
occupational attractions based on autonomy and authority of job, its challenges and opportunities
as well as security. Part V includes items that provide information about respondents views
about the environmental aspects that inspire one to start business as well as how education
contributes to build up their intention. Last part includes only two items request respondent to
provide information about their family background regarding entrepreneurial linkage.
Measures
Entrepreneurial Intentions. We used Lin and Chens (2009) entrepreneurial intentions
questionnaire, which has 6 items asked on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree. Sample items include, I am ready to do anything to be an
entrepreneur and My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur. Reliability statistic
(Cronbachs alpha) for this scale suggests that the scale is reliable at a = .867 (Nunnally, 1978).
Perceived Danger Environment

Perceived danger was measured using King et al.s (1995, 2003) perceived threat scale originally
developed in 1995 and updated in 2003.We adapted the items according to environment scenario
in Pakistan. 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree were used in this
study. Cronbachs alpha for this scale is .742, which indicates a reliable scale (Nunnally, 1978).
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy

Perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a specific form of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and is

an individuals perceptions of their own entrepreneurial abilities (Forbes 2005). This study
utilises an adapted measure based on those previously employed by Chen et al. (1998) and
Forbes (2005). This item-scale addressed three different roles associated with entrepreneurial
business ownership. The three tasks included opportunity recognition and innovation; business,
financial and human resource management, and coping with risk and unexpected challenges.
Ratings were made on a five point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). The scale adapted for this study had a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of 0.89

Resilience
Resilience is an ability to go on with life, or to continue living a purposeful life, after hardship or
adversity (Tedeschi and Calhoun, 2004). We adapted items from Weick & Sutcliffe(2007) used
to test the resilience which has 5 items asked on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Risk Taking Propensity

This scale evaluates the general trend of the participants to take risks based on a series of items
regarding ones inclination toward and avoidance of risky situations. Items of risk taking
propensity were taken from Duijn (2006) work which was constructed from the work (Hisrich &
Peters, 2002). Since various questions were already tested by previous authors (Lthje & Franke,
2003; Krueger et al., 2000; Carayannis, Evans, & Hanson, 2003; Autio et al. 2001; Francis et al.,
2004; Kickul & Gundry, 2002; Hisrich & Peters, 2002), their research could be seen as pre-test
information.

Suggestion
If we are to promote equitable growth in Pakistan and one that has a strong correlation with
poverty alleviation and reducing unemployment, then the government needs to first take care that
it provides the risk takers with a friendly environment where they can take risks without fear and
second it has to undertake fresh legislations that allow these pioneers and employment creators to
safely assume that they will receive the reward or credit for the fruits of their labor and risk-
taking without falling prey to bureaucratic or political agendas. (Monnoo, 2010)

Results and discussions

Hypothesis statements
H1 Perceptions of danger environment are negatively related to the intention to
start and own a business
H2t resilience moderates the negative danger-intent relationship such that this
relationship is weaken due to presence of higher level of resilience
H3 resilience moderates the ESE-Intent relationship such that this relationship is
strengthened at high level of resilience
H4 there is positive relationship between propensity to take risk and intention to
start up a business

Table 2 Descriptive statistics

Entrepreneurial Intentions 2.13 1.113

2
Perceived Danger Environment 3.83 1.1
2
Entrepreneur Self Efficacy 1.81 0.776
8
Risk Taking Propensity 2.36 1.09
Resilience 1.93 0.867
7