A comparative study of entrepreneurship in education in two transition economies: The case of Russia and China

Abid Ullah

Статья в журнале

Экономические отношения
Том 10, Номер 4 (Октябрь-декабрь 2020)

Цитировать:
Abid Ullah A comparative study of entrepreneurship in education in two transition economies: The case of Russia and China // Экономические отношения. – 2020. – Том 10. – № 4. – С. 1077-1094. – doi: 10.18334/eo.10.4.111484.

Эта статья проиндексирована РИНЦ, см. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=44491638

Аннотация:
To survive and compete in the current era, countries around the world are working hard to strengthen their economy. The importance of economy has attracted the attention of policy makers and compelled them to find the pillars which support the building of an economy. One of the pillars is entrepreneurship which plays a backbone role in the development of economy. Educational institutions are playing an important role in teaching and promoting entrepreneurship. The environment and curricula of educational institutions are the factors that can influence the career intentions of the youth to become entrepreneurs. This article put lights on approaches of two Post-Socialist countries Russia and China about entrepreneurship in their education systems.

Ключевые слова: entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, transition economies

JEL-классификация: A20, I21, I25, F63



Introduction

The contribution of academia as an actor in the regional economic development and entrepreneurial ecosystem is of vital importance [1] (Mariani, Carlesi, Scarfò, 2018). Entrepreneurship also plays a key role in social and economic development of a country by increasing productivity, creating jobs and bringing innovation [2–3] (Cavallo, Ghezzi, Balocco, 2019; Cavallo, Ghezzi, Colombelli, Casali, 2020; Hahn, Minola, Eddleston, 2018). In the last twenty years, researchers have been investigating entrepreneurship from different angles not only the concept of entrepreneurship but its process as well. The entrepreneurship educators have made significant contribution to the field by designing curricula and introducing different training programs. Entrepreneurship research gained popularity in the late 20th century; however, the focus of research was primarily on open market economies. Despite being major global economic players, the two countries are still in the early stage of adopting entrepreneurship as a key economic driver. Recently, China has made amendments to change their education policies and encouraged entrepreneurship in their education system. By realizing the advantage of wider geographical country and lofty natural resources, Russia has also realized the importance of entrepreneurship. In comparison, the concept of entrepreneurship in Russia attracted the attention in late 1980s. Different Laws on activities of entrepreneurship were approved in 1989, but still compared to other countries, Russia is new to market economy. And therefore, the planned economy concept of the former Soviet Union time still influences the career decisions of the younger generation. This article explores and compares the injection of entrepreneurship concept in the education system of these two countries.

Research Questions:

· How these two countries introduced entrepreneurship in their education system?

· In comparison, which country has adopted entrepreneurship is an important economic driver?

Entrepreneurship in Russia

Russia is considered to be one of the world’s biggest country with unmatched capabilities for instance, nuclear and energy resources. It is the very same reason that Russia has tremendous potential for growth and development in its different sectors, therefore, it is important for entrepreneurs to explore it. However, it is pertinent to bear in mind that Russia once been part of the Soviet Union which were against the liberalization of economy, their current laws are still impeding entrepreneurs from discovering diverse areas.

The evolution of Russian economy from the communist to free market has provided Russian a lead in development to accumulate human and natural resources. This happened because of the strategic location of the late Soviet Union. During the late 1980s the entrepreneurial mindset and attitude of the country was at the lowest ebb which resulted in economic unproductivity and anarchy within their citizen. The failing economic deterioration requires an immediate remedy which further requires a competent headship that has to shape up the nation’s economy on sound economic footings subsequently the fall of Soviet Union in 1990s. This led to the rise of former leaders in late 1990s whose beliefs were largely inconsistent to support strong macroeconomic equilibrium of Russia.

Later on, After V. Putin holding the reign of the country in the early 2000s, the country has witnessed with the tremendous success in its institutional stability and macroeconomic growth. The high demand of oil and gas and its resources within the global market and the attracting price for the same commodity has paved the way for stable Russian economical GDP that has achieved high growth along with the engagement of huge private sectors. But, still some challenges have been faced by the entrepreneurial fraternity in their progress. De jure’ law which right now is existing and according to [4, 5] (Aidis, 2007; Aidis, Estrin, Mickiewicz, 2008) seems sensible, however, since it is of discriminating nature in application of that law that’s why the result has led to instability of firm. Moreover, Gelman in the 2004 said that defective legal environment and unethical practices is still continues to obstruct the Russian market that has been traced to the Soviet Union’s communist ideology.

Just because of this unfortunate situations, businesses which has been hugely connected with Government, they are the one who controls the Russian Market. Additionally, the patchy income distribution has been portrayed by the absence of property rights, which is characterized by social inequalities of the two extremes: rich and poor.

As per reports of Khamidulin, unearths that the transformation of Russian economy in 1980s was championed by perestroika and glasnost “more opportunities was offered for the people by Perestroika” [6] (Khamidulin, 1988). The 1988 era has witnessed many publication with the word such as “mafia” as the explanations for the organized crime links was related with the financial scandals, corruption, coercion, drug trading and black-market racketeering [7] (Keller, 1988). But if we look in the Russian background, Poland has totally reshaped its state enterprises under the umbrella of the state, where as in Russia no such transformation has taken place even in the private firms because of the fluctuation of subsidy in the economy [8] (Belyanova, Rozinsky, 1995).

It was adamant to change privatization under specific groups [9] (Boycko, Shleifer, 1994) in the case of state enterprises. It was reiterated by Aoki, 1995 [10] (Aoki, 1995). As summarized the circumstances by Vamosi that “the same physical frames, the similar administrative technology and the very identical ‘old’ culture prevail” [11] (Vamosi, 2003). In the 1994, an approved budget have been granted by the Russian Federal Science and Technology to provide financial support to Small Innovative Enterprises, the managerial incompetence of small enterprises resulted by nonpayment’s of dividend.

The tremendous development has been made by Kazakhstan, whereas, Russia growth has been stagnant, according to research of Zhuplev et. al. in 1998 [12] (Zhuplev, Kiesner, Kozhakmetov, Liang, Konkov, 1998). It happened because of the lack of individual skill in the field of Russian entrepreneurs instead of network skills. Radaev further stated in 1993 that each sole proprietorship business holder in Russia had either engineering or technical experience, however, on another hand Hisrich and Gratchev 1995 reiterated that in spite of the experiences, businesses seriously lacks expertise [13, 14] (Radaev, 1993; Hisrich, Gratchev, 1995). The accomplishment of glasnost and perestroika must be acknowledged through philosophical change of the Russians, stressed by Behrman and Rondinelli in 1999 [15] (Behrman, Rondinelli, 1999). After the commencement of perestroika structural economic changes were obvious in two decades, at that point when contrasted with the resistance from attitudinal changes of people’s culture.

A strategy utilized by Russian president for the change of contrasting individual mindsets was not reasonable for the adjustment of market economy. Transforming the economy from centralized to a free market in Russia isn't ascribed to deficiencies of variables, for example, engineering, technical, designing, and building items. It happened because of the high number of educated workforce than the west. Its real mishap was the absence of business experience for the advancement of culture of development in its spheres. This was because of the learning gap of administrators who had their useful encounters in the past which isn't reasonable for new developing markets.

Business education in Russia

Especially in Soviet time Russia, education was arranged in a specific pattern (programmy povychenija kvalifikatsii) therefore it was kept under the eye of Soviet State Committee for Public Education, that intended towards the people who previously attained their degrees in the different fields such as engineering, furthermore, they worked in managerial department or with the intent to acquire a giant managerial status. This prompted the emergence of Academy of Social Sciences and the Academy of National Economy, entrusted with the preparation of Communist Party officials and managers of industrial respectively [16, p. 310] (Oksana S. Gréen, 2009, p. 310).

Alongside everything else, additionally the profile of the executive’s instruction in Russia has changed significantly during the last twenty years. According to Puffer study in 1994, on business academics in Russia mirrors the change of Russian academics stance in three measurements with spotlight on building up the mentality of modern managers [17] (Puffer Sheila, 1994).

As stated before, toward the start of her transformation change process stressed on the requirement for professional education by academic managers which therefore resulted in the growth of managerial education over the whole length and breadth of the nation each seeking after for more learning. Law on the State Enterprise that energizes competency level on managerial and administrative capacities with the help of competent leadership was needed attendant in decentralized decision making process towards enterprise level from ministries with self-financed and competitive advantages. The establishment of separate and private business schools supported by the new legislation of cooperatives. This ascends to an unprecedented search for specialized business knowledge, which resulted in the rise of number of Russian/Western business schools [16, p. 311] (Oksana S. Gréen, 2009, p. 311).

An establishment phase of business education in Post-Soviet Russia

Before the post-soviet period of Russia business school and business education has two dissimilar features. Whereas, it should be noticed that it had been drastic growth in the number of business related educational schools compared to the latter. Business school had been classified by the institution of advanced education with one to two week courses provided in business, along a variable degree of status and quality because of the absence of qualified and educated market-based administrative teaching personnel [16, p. 311] (Oksana S. Gréen, 2009, p. 311). This anyway was because of the absence of involvement in the private segment business not really the teaching experience in their different discipline and furthermost the cross-covering of faculty staff from private colleges to non-public schools with appealing incentives.

It was too portrayed with a great deal of uncertainties and inadequate business vocabulary with in the Russia. Though still some key terms are yet to be deduced from the planned economy related to English for instance, biznes, biznesmén, menedzer, markéting, audítor, logistik, and so forth Randall, in 2001 are used [18] (Randall Laura, 2001). These were toeing the line with the main reading material in business studies. In any case, there still exist clashing thoughts among Russian and Western administration literatures based on global economy dependent on researchers' individual method of commentary. Complete dependence on the undergraduate educational cost charges a considerable lot of whom were not monetarily balanced to be utilized as a key source of subsidizing was noteworthy setback in educational business, in light of the modest number.

The quest for potential students and constrained resources among organizations escalate which requires partnership for strategic move with outsider business schools and collaboration's around the world. This has come about to a one-sided move of information, abilities from Western business schools to their accomplices in Russia. Universities, for example, the Leningrad State Technical Institute later St. Petersburg Technical University and the Plekhanov Russian Economic Academy in Moscow were results of such partnership, where the teaching staff were welcome to draw up new business prospectus and furthermore filling in as visiting showing staff along their ally universities for the extension of business education within Russia [18] (Randall Laura, 2001). For instance, ally with Italy and United States of America has given rise to the first professional MBA degree program in Russia.

However, it must be noted that such association may not proceed without the consequences of negative nature especially on the receiving hand. The unwillingness of faculty staff from accomplice universities in Russia [18] (Randall Laura, 2001).

Thus, the few who volunteered were not willing to stay there longer and thus has to embark on training of trainers within the shortest period. Some university personnel’s and managers were trained for onward transmission in the quest for business education. Also, brief visits to partner institutes by participants of various groups from Russia were also encouraged, a system that gave rise to Capitalist economy in Central and Eastern European countries but on the contrary Russia still met with challenges. Two groups of managers, one from state own enterprises forming the majority and older, while the rest were mostly younger from private sectors. In this way, very few sort of people who volunteered were not willing to remain there longer and therefore the same people has to start training to trainers on short notice. Some university managers and faculty were prepared for ahead transmission in the journey for business instructions. Managers of two groups, one from the state-owned enterprise which forms the majority and are the older one, while the rest were mostly the younger s from private areas.

The latter were concerned only with the know-how, thus less regard for western experience, while the former stresses much emphasis on economic models’ enhancement in management rather than relationship building among people. Participants were tangled unacquainted market-oriented terminologies like risk, bankruptcy, or debt, which probes into a lot of debates among participants based on their own experience which varies as compared to western business courses. Thus, to reach a more positive solution to better suite professional managers after a period of uncertainties in the educational system, it became a concerted effort for Western and Russian schools to undertake a decisive strategic approach in restructuring the entire system in order to meet the growing demands of professionals. Only in the case of having knowledge the latter has to concerned, in this way less respect for western experience, whereas the former underscores much emphasis on economic model's enhancement in the institute management instead of building relationship with people.

Business Education in the form of institution in Russia

Since there was a need for the training of personnel at managerial positions by the government of Russia through an initiative called “Presidential Program”, which cut across all spheres of the country, this initiative aims at empowering managers through retraining and acquisition of extra managerial competences either in abroad or at mega Russian business companies in Russia. Since there was a requirement for the training of work force at administrative positions by the Government of Russia through an activity called "Presidential Program", which cut over all spheres of the country, the purpose of this initiative is to empower managers by acquisition and retraining of additional managerial competences either at mega Russian business companies or in board in Russia.

In addition, Russian Association for Business Education (RABE) has also significantly contributed to the advancement of business education in Russia through both internal and external links with western standardized business school system, with the objective to bring Russian professional parallel to the standard of abroad. Such initiatives gave rise to the recognition of MBA degree for the first time by the government of Russia in which permission was granted to about 31 business schools to award such state diplomas [14] (Hisrich., Gratchev, 1995). This was a right step in the right direction with students having the opportunity to specialize in diverse areas of interest.

There was a dramatic rise in the number of MBA graduates just five years after accreditation by the state thus ranking almost parallel to Germany and Japan but yet still fall short of United States which has a long track record. According to Sheila business education in the country is threefold state business schools, private business schools, and private consulting firms which are clearly differentiated from one school to another based on variables such as the staff composition, programs offered, diplomas granted, and so on [17] (Puffer Sheila, 1994). Schools that are privately owned were allowed to take up lease agreement in state own buildings based on conditions ranging from European standard methods of teaching business, employing staff from Russian state universities, private businesses, and Western business schools, and as well as collecting tuition in U.S. dollars or euros and award of Russian MBA diploma to graduates.

However, there were number business schools offering programs in one way or the other but after the broke out of the financial crises the number as declined just to a percent [16] (Oksana S. Gréen, 2009). Despite the transformation in the sector, some top business which are yet to be identified by name still remains unchanged [19] (Arkhangelskaya, Panasiouk, 2014). Though, there were number of business colleges offering programs in a single manner or the other however after the broke out of the financial related crisis the number as declined just to a percent [16] (Oksana S. Gréen, 2009).

So far just 3 MBA certified programs in Russia stands to be internationally recognized while the rest still yet to be found out. To encourage smooth activities, the greater part of the business schools are into some type of organizational cooperation with business schools of western especially in area of raising of funds, acquisition of teaching materials, curricular development, and exchange programs of faculty. Business colleges in two biggest urban areas of Russia, Moscow and St. Petersburg stands to lead in the honor of second MBA degrees in collaboration with their outside accomplices. As per the database of the Company Begin.ru, database has uncovered 19 institution in Moscow offering MBA with 10 offering altogether Russian state MBA degree programs, 5 mixes of both Russian and Western, while 4 grants Western MBA degree from the universities of abroad. In St. Petersburg, 12 schools that operate with similarities, 6 on just Russian state MBA degree programs, 4 Western MBA degree, and 2 a blend of both [14] (Hisrich, Gratchev, 1995).

Adaptation of Western style business education in Russia

In consistent criterion have been used to differentiate between "purely western" from the rest. Though to act in given circumstances, collaboration with Russian institutions grounded on standardized western curriculum as instructed in the west would be helped. In Russia international MBA schools have included schools of America which is ranked first in terms of numbers followed by the Great Britain and then French and therefore others from Germany, Sweden, Belgium and the rest of European countries [14] (Hisrich, Gratchev, 1995).

However, despite the number of American business schools, specialists claimed the European system of business education best suits the Russian than the Americans due to its cost advantage and less time consumption. However, it must be noted that the above mention criteria are not rigid. Whereas, European education system of business rather most compatible with the Russian education system than the Americans because of the less time consumption and its advantage of cost despite the high number of American business schools claimed by the specialists. Therefore, it have to be noticed that the criteria mentioned above are not rigid.

Entrepreneurship education in Russia

The universities in 1990s were tasked by the central government to undertake research and development initiatives as a roadmap for robust economic growth. Between the period 2005 to 2008, science and technology centers were established across the country by the federal government. Entrepreneurship education system has a tripartite sort of combined structure based on universities, industries and government, explained by Uvarov Alexander, Perevodchikov Evgeniyin 2012 [20] (Uvarov, Perevodchikov, 2012).

Young entrepreneurs mostly acquire entrepreneurship skills and financial support through prosperous entrepreneurs. This was supported by legislature from the Federal government that encourages innovative drives and development from 2009 to 2011.A main case is Ingria technology located in St Petersburg, Skolkovo center located in southwest Moscow and Kazan's IT focus. The high school of economics report has recognized between 80 to 90 techno parks and therefore, above 100 hatcheries supporting startup business based on small scale in Russia [19] (Arkhangelskaya, Panasiouk, 2014). Financial support and entrepreneurship skill have been mostly acquired by young entrepreneurs through prosperous entrepreneurs. From 2001 to 2009 innovative drive and development have also been encouraged and supported by legislature from federal based government. During 2012, Entrepreneurial institutions with the courtesy of the federal government have been extended to equip special project donation through its constitutional based law of 217 along with the 218–220 degrees with emphasis on teamwork with fellow universities. Between the period of 2010 and 2012 boost up innovation and development initiatives were handed down by the similar law through higher education and industry collaboration [21, p. 38] (Finley, 1965, p. 38).

To promote education of entrepreneurship through conferences were launched by the Russian Association for Entrepreneurship Education (RUAEE) since 2008. Therefore, it emerged in the rise of universities offering master’s level entrepreneurial degrees, however, the rise in number is still remains less than the number expected when it is compared to the universities offering program on entrepreneurship in their curriculum. For example, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, National Research Ogarev Mordovia State University, Siberian State Aerospace University (SibSAU), are some of the universities offering entrepreneurship programs.

The development of business education in China

A Very stiff resistance was observed to transformed education into Chinese business education because of the political and sociological mindset of the Chinese culture. In spite of the specific challenges, marvelous success was registered within Chinese business education. The model had been entrenched even after the decades of world war that based on planning and command which further relegate innovativeness mere for only a simple production unit of the national economic scheme [22] (Huang, 2008).

Western-styled market economics and organizational behavior subjects were attributed by the Stigmas stated by Wang 1987 were considered as antisocialist and therefore were banned for teaching in higher education institutions of the country prior to 1978 [23] (Li, Maxwell, 1989). At that time the Chinese higher education institutes were a carbon copy of the tripartite management philosophy education of soviet, comprising of wide range universities, financial & economic colleges and technological institutes [24, 25] (Wang, 1987; Borgonjon, Vanhonacker, 1994). West based Management concepts were gradually substituted in the late 1980s with Marxist dogma and Soviet-socialist style that was only let to initiate in Shanghai Jiaotong University [26] (Shi, 2000).

At that time subjects like Marketing, Strategic Management, management information, and human resource management were of great demand. After 1979 ideologies like Taylorism became more popular which dominated 1966–1976 revolution of cultural based that relied upon Marxist and Socialist sort of concepts. Without risking the socialist ideologies the idea was to increase rapid economic transformation and efficiency in production [27] (Newell, 1999). According to many western researchers it was generally understood that the Quantitative methodologies were unfairly used in the Chinese Management education [25, 28] (Borgonjon, Vanhonacker, 1994; Warner, 1992). Moreover, transition towards more flexible innovative managerial capability from a rigid administrative system of operations grabbed a center stage afterwards in 1979 that eventually led to an intense economic growth with the help of entrepreneurship ventures [29] (Branine, 1996).

To self-autonomy from the “government production units” it was a vigorous transformation through SOEs due to which decision making not remained restricted in the longer run, therefore, it has given rise to (FDI) Foreign direct investment programs along with the incursion of both rural and private enterprises emerging from the time when there was slight or completely no policy restriction from the local based government.

Because of these unfortunate tragic circumstances, It became wise for the government to integrate more training program of capacity building on management in the 1980s by using management practices of western methods [30] (Li, 1996). Whereas, among the packages, between the USA department of commerce and government of China signed the cooperative management training agreement in 1984 that leads towards the foundation of Technical Management Development and National Center for Industrial Science in Dalian which resulted in the growth of MBA education in the country [25, 31] (Borgonjon, Vanhonacker, 1994; Fischer, 1999). Though, when commitment to the agreement could not maintained by US government then some setbacks later erupted [31] (Fischer, 1999).

The MBA courses were delivered on the various areas by the State University of New York at Buffalo through Dalian Institute of Technology [30] (Li, 1996). China Europe Management Institute, China Enterprise Management Association and European commission have jointly funded the latter initiative program in Beijing in 1984 [30] (Li, 1996). By the association of top business schools along with the support of teaching staff MBA and Executive MBA programs were introduced in European Foundation for Management Development [30] (Li, 1996). Some clandestine motives were then unearthed, in spite of the much success which these two projects have listed. After 10 years 241 MBA graduates, obtained prominent position in the government [30] (Li, 1996). The program was later transferred to Shanghai in September 1994 and re-branded China Europe International Business School (CEIBS), which now takes the form of joint venture initiative between European Union Committee and Shanghai Municipal Government using Pudong campus of Shanghai Jiaotong University as it resources base [31] (Fischer, 1999).

Conversely, Sino-European program based agreement with European partners from 1984 to 1994 was able to pass out 236 graduates at managerial status [32] (Wang, 1999). This cooperation is now ranked 43rd world wide, one of the top international MBA education institutes in Mainland China with outstanding English MBA programs in the whole of Asia [32] (Wang, 1999).

In 1980’s Contemporary Chinese economy was because of realism and potential of Deng Xiaoping, according to Clarke 1999 [33] (Clarke, 1999). Recruiting more Chinese managers was thus related a need by Borgonjon and Vanhonaker in 1994 [25] (Borgonjon, Vanhonacker, 1994). Therefore, Massive development in Chinese domestic MBA programs witnessed by the later part of 1980s [25, 34, 33] (Borgonjon, Vanhonacker, 1994; Zhao, 1997; Clarke, 1999). Thus, after national Academic Degree Committee Tasked Management professors massive successful progress was registered in 1988 to conduct a practicable study in Chinese universities for MBA education [24] (Wang, 1987).

Many criteria’s like admission, course structure, training objectives, teaching methods and MBA’s degree award laid down by the group in the period of 1989, in Chinese universities [30] (Li, 1996). Prototype testing for the MBA based program, subsequently in 1990, was launched with the approval of State Council in few selected universities [35] (Peng, 2003). It is also kept in mind that 1990 marks the education commencement of structured MBA in mainland China. For a pilot examination in 9 universities a total of 86 fresh admitted in MBA which is facilitated by National MBA Coordination Group in 1991 [34] (Zhao, 1997). In 1993, 17 more universities added totaling 26 became eligible to offer MBA program.

In 1995, approval was granted to 30 others [34] (Zhao, 1997) in spite of the marvelous achievements. It poses a huge challenge due to the lack of both material and human resources for these experimental universities, therefore, it tends to rely more on their western partners. For example, Nanjing University associated with the Missouri-Columbia university, Western Ontario University aided Oinghua, and Fordham University cooperated with Beijing University, all copied western curriculum [36] (Southworth, 1999). In 1994, National MBA Guiding Committee launched that replaced National Coordination Group along the objective of quality assessing [34] (Zhao, 1997). It was by admission, standardizing screening and examination practices [34, 35] (Zhao, 1997; Peng, 2003).

In 1997, for entrance examination, MBA entrance examination system (GRK), structured GMAT became compulsory [36]. On chinses business context specific case material had been prepared [35] (Peng, 2003). Currently, 62 officially accredited programs of MBA are existing along the number of students which is ranging from 86 in 1991 to approximately 15,000 in 2002. Furthermore, 100% rise in the number of student’s enrolment and paradigm curve into economic oriented management style witnessed due to the open door policy reform, asserted by Peng in 2003 [28] (Warner, 1992).

This poses a major challenge for professional managers to comprehend the trends and the applicability of the new policy for a sustainable growth in volatile competitive markets. To make this a reality, equipping professional managers with Western MBA style of education was eminent and it thus took a center stage in 1980s and by the last decade of 20th century, China’s MBA education has reached an unprecedented growth level [36].

Entrepreneurship education in China

In 2007, at the 17th Communist Party’s National Congress held in China has emphasized the urgent need for innovation and entrepreneurship as the key drives for social and economic growth in modern economies. Thus, it became a concerted devotion for the Government of China to take a more proactive stride towards entrepreneurial education in its institutions. This is envisaged her Ministry of Education (MOE)’s policy document “Opinions on Vigorously Promoting Entrepreneurial Education in Universities and Start-ups by College Students” 2010, and “Opinions on Comprehensively Improving the Quality of Higher Education” [37, 35] (Peng, 2003).

The annual report of 2015 by Chinese State Council’s has revealed the governments strategic plan and its commitment to enhance entrepreneurial education and encourages businesses to ventures into such activities which they described as a means to supplement individual incomes and creation of employment opportunities [38]. Such reforms on entrepreneurial education came into a limelight in June 2016, with MOE institutionalizing institutions across the country into entrepreneurial education [39].

Thus, the entrepreneurial models of education were based on the existing entrepreneurial environment of the country which is empowered through formal intellectual and structural adjustments programs granted by universities. Such educational programs are mostly championed by the senior management of the university governing council. The entrepreneurial environment focuses on all-inclusive educational approach thus interconnects teaching, research service and partnership building with national business groups. Such initiatives create a platform for multiple players to combine resources to facilitate entrepreneurial activities through innovation actions.

Three major models of entrepreneurship education in Chinese universities

In order to achieve the goals of entrepreneurial education, it is prudent to device an entrepreneurial educational model. David Higgins, et al., in 2013, stressed the shortfalls of traditional educational approaches and its inabilities to prepare entrepreneurs to withstand intricacies and engaging in innovative business prospects [40] (David Higgins, Kelly Smith, Mohammed Mirza, 2013).

China’s entrepreneurial education model has three major dimensions that are widely practiced in colleges and universities. First, “the model of specialized entrepreneurship education”, focusing on entrepreneurial practice and nurturing of entrepreneurial aptitudes through extramural activities associated to such competencies. Among prominent universities such as ZJU, Shanghai Jiaotong University, and Central South University uses such models. This is followed by “the program-driven model” which is aimed at research, integration and business practice methods of teaching. Students are empowered to undertake innovative initiatives through services ranging from entrepreneurship guidance, program practice, policy consultation, resources support, as a means for project development. Xian Jiaotong University, Nankai University and Wenzhou University are typical of such model. “multi-agent whole-process participation” was the third model designed to blend “creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship.”

These models are used by Tsinghua University and Wuhan University of Technology. Special interest groups were targeted to support facilitates innovation drives through Maker Spaces, and entrepreneurship institutions establishment like in the case of X-lab [41] (Zhang, Guo, Hao, 2016). Despite the above stated models, there is still a need for more integrated entrepreneurial education system as alluded to by researchers. Enhancement of bottom-up entrepreneurial system of education including business societies, graduates and students etc according to Zhang et al., 2017 should be encouraged in China [42] (Zhang, Jiang, Tang, 2017).

The economical comparison of Russia and China

Economic condition of the country also activity related to business and entrepreneurship. In different stages of economic development country economy provide a ground to entrepreneurs to create and find the opportunities. Countries with factor-driven economies trying to move to efficiency-driven and efficiency-driven economies trying to move towards innovation driven economies to overcome the challenges and compete in the global market. In case of Russia and China both countries lie in different phases of economic development Russia is in factor-driven economies stage while China is in efficiency-driven economy stage.

The economy of Russia based on resources mostly due to which the country faced economic crises when the prices of oil fell down in the international market. As here we are focusing on entrepreneurship intention of the students in both countries therefore we will compare the total early stage-entrepreneurial activities (TEA) of both countries.

Table 1

Source Global Entrepreneurship Monitor


Economic status and entrepreneurship

Russia

China

Population
144.0 million (2018)
1,390.1 million (2018)

GDP
$1.6 Trillion (2018)
$13.61 Trillion (2018)

GDP per capita
$ 11,288.90 (2018)
$ 9770.85 (2018)

World bank doing business rating
77.37/100 (2018)
Rank 31/190
Value 73.64/100
Rank 46/190

Economic development phase
Factor-driven
Efficiency-driven

Total early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA)
Value 5.8 (2018)
Rank 43/48
Value 10.4 (2018)
Rank 26/48

Established business owner rate

Value 5.6
Rank 43/48

Value 3.2
Rank 44/48

Entrepreneurial employee activity (EEA)

Value 0.7
Rank 45/49

Value 1.0
Rank 42/49

High status to successful entrepreneurs
68
Rank 32/47
Value 68.7
Rank 30/47

Entrepreneurship as a good career
63.4
Rank 31/61
Value 60.8
Rank 29/47

Perceived opportunities
22.8
Rank 45/49
Value 35.1
Rank 35/49

Perceived capabilities
27.5
Rank 47/49
Value 24.2
Rank 48/49

Fear of failure
46.4
Rank 9/49
Value 41.7
Rank 13/49

Entrepreneurial education at school stage
Value 2.89
Rank 29/54
Value 3.38
Rank 19/54

Entrepreneurial education at post-school stage
Value 4.77
Rank 31/54
Value 5.27
Rank 15/54
Source: [43].

Conclusion

In conclusion China is giving more attention to their youth to prepare them as potential entrepreneurs. They have not only made entrepreneurship as the part of curricula in universities and colleges but in schools as well. In comparison, Russian education system needs attention of entrepreneurship education in schools, graduation and post-graduation level. By introducing entrepreneurship in their education ecosystem, these two countries may create potential entrepreneurs to tackle the future challenges.


Источники:

1. Mariani, G., Carlesi, A., & Scarfò, A. A. Academic spinoffs as a value driver for intellectual capital: The case of the University of Pisa. Journal of Intellectual Capital. -2018. –Vol 19.-Issue 1. –PP. 202–226.
2. Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Balocco, R.. Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: Present debates and future directions. International entrepreneurship and management journal. -2018a. PP.1-31.
3. Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., Colombelli, A., & Casali, G. L. Agglomeration dynamics of innovative startups in Italy beyond the industrial district era. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, -2018b. PP.1-24.
4. Hahn, D., Minola, T. & Eddleston, K. How do scientists contribute to the performance of innovative startups? An imprinting perspective on open innovation. Journal of Management Studies. -2018. https://doi. org/10.1111/joms.12418.
5. Aidis, R. ‘Russia: Firm entry and survival barriers’/ R. Aidis, Y. Adachi // Economic Systems. – 2007. -Vol. 31. –Issue 4. – PP. 391 – 411.
6. Aidis, R., S.Estrin, and T. Mickiewicz. ‘Institutions and Entrepreneurship Development in Russia: A Comparative Perspective’/ R. Aidis, S.Estrin, and T. Mickiewicz // Journal of Business Venturing. – 2008. –Vol. 23. –Issue 6. –PP. 656 – 672.
7. Khamidulin, E. 1988. “It’s Only the Beginning.” Moscow News 27, no. 3327 (July 3):
8. Keller, B. 1988. “In the New Russia, New Greed: Growing Private Sector Brings Crime and Corruption.” International Herald Tribune, July 26.
9. Belyanova, E., and I. Rozinsky. 1995. “Evolution of Commercial Banking in Russia and the Implications for Corporate Governance.” In Corporate Governance in Tran-sitional Economies, ed. Masahiko Aoki and Hyung-Ki Kim, 185–214. Washing-ton, DC: World Bank.
10. Boycko, M., and A. Shleifer. 1994. “What’s Next? Strategies for Enterprise Restruc-turing in Russia.” Transition 5 (November–December): 8–9.
11. Aoki, M. 1995. “Controlling Insider Control: Issues of Corporate Governance in Tran-sition Economies.” In Corporate Governance in Transitional Economies, ed. Masahiko Aoki and Hyung-Ki Kim, 3–29. Washington, DC: World Bank.
12. Vamosi, T. 2003. “The Role of Management Accounting in a Company in Transition from Command to Market Economy.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 10, no. 2: 194–209.
13. Zhuplev, A.V.; F. Kiesner; A.B. Kozhakmetov; T.W. Liang; and A. Konkov. 1998. “Traits of Successful Business Owners: A Comparative Study of Entrepreneurs in Singapore, the USA, Russia and Kazakhstan.” Journal of Enterprising Culture 6, no. 3: 257–68.
14. Radaev, V. 1993. “Emerging Russian Entrepreneurship: As Viewed by the Experts.” Economic and Industrial Democracy 14: 55–77.
15. Hisrich, R.D., and M.V. Gratchev. 1995. “The Russian Entrepreneur: Characteristics and Prescriptions for Success.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 10: 3–9.
16. Behrman, J.N., and D.A. Rondinelli. 1999. “The Transition to Market-oriented Econo-mies in Central and Eastern Europe: Lessons for Private Enterprise Development.” Global Focus 11, no. 4: 1–13.
17. Oksana. S. Gréen (2009). Entrepreneurship in Russia: Western ideas in Russian translation.Pp.385-392. Doctoral Dissertation at the Department of Sociology, University of Gothenburg Box-720, SE-40530, Goteborg, Sweden.
18. Puffer, Sheila (1994) ‘Understanding the bear: a portrait of Russian business leaders’, Academy of Management Executive, vol.8 (1):41-54.
19. OECD (2015), "SMEs and Entrepreneurship in the Russian Federation", in Russian Federation: Key Issues and Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264232907-6-en.
20. Randall, Laura M. (2001) Reluctant Capitalists: Russia’s Journey _rough Market Transition, New York and London: Routledge.
21. Alexander, U., & Evgeniy, P. (2012). The entrepreneurial university in Russia: from idea to reality. 10th Triple Helix Conference 2012. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 52 ( 2012 ) 45 – 51.
22. Arkhangelskaya, O., & Panasiouk, E. (2014). Challenges and solutions: business incubators and technoparks in Russia. Ernst & Young LLC. Pp, 2-3.
23. Rosenberg N and Birdzell LE (1986) How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation of the Industrial World. New York: Basic Books.
24. Finley MI (1965) Technical innovation and economic progress in the ancient world. Economic History Review 18(1): 29–45.
25. Balazs E (1964) Chinese Civilization and Bureaucracy: Variations on a Theme. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26. Ho PT (1962) The Ladder of Success in Imperial China: Aspects of Social Mobility, 1368–1911. New York:
27. Rawski T (1989) Economic Growth in Prewar China. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
28. Reynolds BL (1982) Reform in Chinese industrial management: An empirical report. In: Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States (ed.) China under the Four Modernizations: Selected Papers,Part I. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp.119–137.
29. Liu G and Wang R (1984) Restructuring of the economy. In: Yu G (ed.) China’s Socialist Modernization. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, pp.89–97.
30. Harding H (1987) China’s Second Revolution: Reform after Mao. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Hitt MA,
31. Huang Y (2008) Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Newell, S. 1999. “The Transfer of Management Knowledge to China: Building Learning Communities Rather than Translating Western Textbooks?” Education + Training 41, nos. 6/7: 286–93.
33. Li, G., and P. Maxwell. 1989. “Higher Business Education in China.” Working Paper 4–89, Curtin Business School, Curtin University of Technology, Australia.
34. Wang, Z. 1987. “Management Education in China: Retrospects and Prospects.” Management Paper 5, Graduate School of Management, Monash University, Australia.
35. Borgonjon, J., and W.R. Vanhonacker. 1994. “Management Training and Education in the People’s Republic of China.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 5, no. 2: 327–56.
36. Shi, Y. 2000. “A Status Report on MBA Education in China.” International Journal of Educational Reform 9, no. 4: 328–34.
37. Zhao, S. 1997. “MBA Graduate Education in the People’s Republic of China.” Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 3, no. 1: 59–66.
38. Warner, M. 1992. How Chinese Managers Learn. London: Macmillan.
39. Branine, M. 1996. “Observations on Training and Management Development in the People’s Republic of China.” Personnel Review 25, no. 1: 25–39.
40. Fischer, W.A. 1999. “To Change China Redux: A Tale of Two Cities.” Education +Training 41, nos. 6/7: 277–85
41. Li, S. 1996. “MBA: Fast-track to Success.” Beijing Review (April 8–14): 17–20.
42. Southworth, D.B. 1999. “Building a Business School in China: The Case of the China Europe International Business School (CEIBS).” Education + Training 41, nos. 6/7: 325–30.
43. Wang, Z.M. 1999. “Current Models and Innovative Strategies in Management Education in China.” Education + Training 41, nos. 6/7: 312–18.
44. Economist Intelligence Unit. 2002. “Which MBA?” Available at http://mba.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=2002rankings/ (accessed April 12, 2017).
45. Clarke, T. 1999. “Economic Growth, Institutional Development and Personal Freedom: The Educational Needs of China.” Education + Training 41, nos. 6/7: 336–43. Columbia University Press.
46. Zhou, W. 1998. “MBA Education in China.” Journal of Higher Education in Jiangshu, no. 3: 64–66 (in Chinese).
47. Peng, Z. 2003. “Development of MBA Education in China: Opportunities and Challenges for Western Universities.” International Journal of Business and Management Education 11, no. 1.
48. General Office of the Ministry of Education (MOE), People’s Republic of China. 2010. “Opinions on Vigorously Promoting entrepreneurial Education in Universities and Start-ups by College Students.”
49. Ministry of Education (MOE), People’s Republic of China. 2012 “Opinions on Comprehensively Improving the Quality of Higher Education.”
50. General Office of the State Council, People’s Republic of China. 2015. “Opinions on Deepening the Reform of entrepreneurial Education in Colleges and Universities.”
51. David Higgins, Kelly Smith, Mohammed Mirza. 2013. “Entrepreneurial Education: Reflexive Approaches to Entrepreneurial Learning in Practice”. The Journal of Entrepreneurship. 22(2):135-160.
52. Zhang, X., Guo, J., and Hao, K. 2016. “Research on the Comprehensive “The Supply Front” Reform of Higher Education Promoting the Development of Innovation and Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Xi’an Jiaotong University, 36(1): 26-35.
53. Zhang, W., Jiang, Y. X., and Tang, X. P. 2017. University Innovation & Entrepreneurship Ecosystem for Engineering Edu- cation: A Multi-case Study of Entrepreneurship Education in China, American Society for Engineering Education.
54. Gem report (2018-2019), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2018-2019-global-report .

Страница обновлена: 11.10.2021 в 07:19:38