Entrepreneurial behavior of undergraduate students: A study of state agriculture university

Introduction

Entrepreneurship has long been recognized as a critical driver of economic growth, employment generation, and societal transformation across the world. Schumpeter (1934) [19] was among the first to articulate the pivotal role of the entrepreneur as an innovator who disrupts existing market equilibrium through the introduction of new products, methods, and organizational forms. In subsequent decades, entrepreneurship research evolved substantially, with scholars like Drucker (1985) [9] emphasizing that entrepreneurship is not merely a personality trait but a purposeful discipline rooted in systematic innovation and opportunity recognition. Today, governments worldwide regard entrepreneurship as a primary policy instrument for accelerating economic development, reducing unemployment, and fostering competitive advantage in global markets. Agripreneurship is an employment strategy that can lead to economic self-sufficiency of rural people. Agripreneurship development through training is a key element for the promotion of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), particularly, the first-generation agripreneurs (Ahmed et al. 2011) [1] . State Agriculture Universities (SAUs) in India serve as the principal institutional pillars for agricultural higher education, research, and extension. Established under the Radhakrishnan Commission recommendations of 1955 and modeled on the American Land Grant University pattern, SAUs have been mandated to integrate teaching, research, and extension functions for the holistic development of the agricultural sector (ICAR, 2019). Undergraduate programs at these universitiesencompassing disciplines such as agriculture, horticulture, agribusiness management, agricultural engineering, and food technologyenroll students predominantly from rural and agrarian backgrounds. Bairwa et al. (2014) [4] noted that such students, by virtue of their direct exposure to agricultural challenges and rural ecosystems, possess a unique contextual advantage for agri-entrepreneurship. The cultivation of entrepreneurial behavior within this student population is therefore not only educationally significant but also carries direct implications for agricultural transformation and rural development. Entrepreneurial behavior is a multi-dimensional construct that encompasses cognitive, motivational, and actionoriented components. McClelland (1961) [14] identified the need for achievement (n-Ach) as the foundational psychological driver of entrepreneurial behavior, arguing that individuals with high achievement motivation are more inclined to pursue innovative and risky ventures. 9 Subsequent researchers have expanded this framework to www.extensionjournal.com include risk-taking propensity (Brockhaus, 1980) [7] , innovativeness (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996) [13] , self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986) [5] , and decision-making ability as core dimensions of entrepreneurial behavior. In agricultural education research, Swanson and Redmond (2006) [21] demonstrated that entrepreneurial behavior among agriculture students is significantly influenced by prior farm experience, family entrepreneurial background, and the quality of entrepreneurship education received. Recognizing the imperative of entrepreneurship education, the Government of India has initiated several policy and programmatic interventions aimed at fostering an entrepreneurial culture among agricultural graduates. The Agri-Clinics and Agri-Business Centres (ACABC) scheme, launched in 2002, was among the first structured attempts to channelize trained agriculture graduates into selfemployment ventures (NABARD, 2018). The RKVY-REALTAAR (Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana -Remunerative Approaches for Agriculture and Allied sector Rejuvenation) program has further institutionalized agristartup support through dedicated Agri-Business Incubators (R-ABIs) at agriculture universities (Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, 2020) [8] . The National Education Policy 2020 [18] has additionally called for the mainstreaming of entrepreneurship education across all disciplines of higher education, including agriculture, emphasizing experiential learning, problem-solving, and innovation (Ministry of Education, GoI, 2020) [16] . Despite the growing policy emphasis on agrientrepreneurship and the expanding body of research on student entrepreneurial behavior, systematic empirical investigations focused specifically on the entrepreneurial behavior of undergraduate students in State Agriculture Universities remain limited. While studies such as those by Mishra et al. (2019) [17] and Singh and Bhowmick (2015) [20] have explored entrepreneurial intentions among Indian agricultural students, a comprehensive assessment of the multidimensional entrepreneurial behavior encompassing innovativeness, risk-taking, achievement motivation, leadership orientation, and decision-making within the specific institutional context of SAUs is notably absent from the literature. This gap is particularly significant given that SAU students constitute a strategically important population for India's agri-entrepreneurship ecosystem.

Materials and Methods

Study Area

The study was conducted at VCSG Uttarakhand University of Horticulture and Forestry, Ranichauri, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand, India (altitude approximately 2200 m above sea level). The campus houses two constituent colleges: the College of Forestry and the College of Hill Agriculture, which together enroll a substantial number of undergraduate students in natural resource-based disciplines.

Selection of Respondents

The target population comprised full-time undergraduate students (aged 17-21 years) enrolled in B.Sc. programmes (Forestry & Agriculture). A digitally administered questionnaire was distributed via WhatsApp groups and email IDs. Participants were given one week to complete their responses, with a single reminder sent to encourage participation.

Sampling Procedure

Simple random sampling method was adopted, given its practicality in reaching a digitally active student population. The initial target was 200 responses; however, a total of 44 fully completed and valid responses were received through Google Forms. Incomplete or duplicate entries were excluded. Respondent demographic information was collected to ensure reasonable representativeness of the sample.

Data Collection Instrument

A structured questionnaire was developed to assess seven entrepreneurial dimensions: (i) information-seeking behaviour, (ii) risk-taking ability, (iii) decision-making ability, (iv) innovativeness, (v) leadership qualities, (vi) management and planning orientation, and (vii) market orientation.

Results and Discussion

Profile of Respondents

Information-Seeking Behaviour

The mean familiarity of respondents with entrepreneurship was 3.33 on a five-point scale (range = 3.0), indicating moderate awareness that falls between 'Average' and 'High'. Table 2 summarizes mean scores and ranges for various information sources. [7] , who characterized entrepreneurs as moderate and calibrated risk-takers.

Leadership Abilities

Leadership qualities were found to be moderately but inconsistently developed. Only 23.3% of students consistently participate in group discussions, while 62.8% do so occasionally. Similarly, 20.9% always initiate discussions on new practices, and 65.1% report that their ideas are 'sometimes' valued in meetings. This pattern is consistent with Kroon, who found leadership to be a relatively stronger entrepreneurial attribute compared to opportunity obsession and proactive behaviour. A positive correlation was observed between interest in entrepreneurship and participation in discussions on new practices. The scatter plot analysis confirmed that students with higher entrepreneurial interest were more likely to engage in peer learning activities, suggesting that interest is a meaningful precursor to participatory behaviour.

Decision-Making Ability

Decision-making capacity was cautious and incremental. A majority (67.4%) tries new practices only occasionally, and only 7% always reinvest business earnings. Additionally, 16.3% are consistently willing to borrow capital for ventures. Importantly, 51.2% have never attended a training programme or meeting, limiting their exposure to structured decision-support frameworks. These observations align with Kirzner, who noted that entrepreneurial decision-making under uncertainty depends heavily on accumulated knowledge and market awareness.

Innovativeness

Table 4 presents respondent views on innovation-related statements using a five-point scale (SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, UD = Undecided, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree). The data reveal cautious innovation attitudes: the majority of respondents were either undecided or disagreed with statements affirming the benefits of early technology adoption. This conservatism may reflect the practical constraints of rural and forest-based environments, where adoption of unproven technologies carries substantial risk. Ward (2004) similarly noted that limited guidance and funding constrain students' capacity to translate innovative ideas into action.

Management and Market Orientation

Regarding planning orientation, 79.5% disagreed that periodic performance review is important, while 62.8% agreed that prior product launch decisions are necessary. Only 16.3% agreed that timely input assessment is important, with 83.7% disagreeing. These findings reflect limited formal planning literacy among the sample. Market orientation was more nuanced: 57% agreed that market news is useful, and 81.4% agreed that grading produce helps achieve better prices. However, only 14% believe that enterprises should be designed around market demand, suggesting that market-driven thinking is not yet deeply embedded. Kohli and Jaworski's emphasis on market intelligence as a core entrepreneurial competency underscores the need for market orientation training in these disciplines.

Barriers to Entrepreneurship

Respondents identified a diverse range of challenges to venture creation. The most frequently cited barriers were financial constraints (lack of seed capital, funding, and investment), limited market knowledge and access to distribution channels, insufficient legal and regulatory knowledge, challenges in team-building, and difficulties in customer acquisition and business scaling. Additional qualitative responses highlighted the absence of trusted mentors, lack of physical infrastructure, and personal risk aversion. These findings resonate broadly with the literature, www.extensionjournal.com particularly Nabi, Parimaladevi and Husain, who emphasized that institutional and social support systems are critical to converting entrepreneurial intent into action.

Summary and Conclusions

This study examined the entrepreneurial behaviour of undergraduate students at VCSG UUHF, Ranichauri, across seven characteristics: information-seeking, risk-taking, leadership, decision-making, innovativeness, management/planning orientation, and market orientation. Major findings are: 70.7% of the respondents are willing to try new practices, particularly when introduced through media channels, reflecting an openness to change. 64.3% of the respondents report as risk-takers, but 77.3% are uncomfortable in taking risks even with a high probability of failure. Only 23.3% of the respondents consistently engage in group discussions. As far as decision making is concerned, reinvestment, and hiring decisions are predominantly occasional rather than systematic, reflecting financial conservatism. In innovation hesitancy, students demonstrate caution around adopting new technology, reflecting practical uncertainty in field contexts. Informal information dependency of students heavily on friends and social media, while formal channels like training programmes and extension officers remain significantly underutilized. Financial constraints, market inexperience, and absence of mentorship are the most critical perceived obstacles to new venture creation. The findings reveal that the majority of students display basic entrepreneurial attributes particularly willingness to adopt new practices (70.7%) and risk-taking (64.3%), significant gaps persist in proactive decision-making, consistent leadership engagement, and access to formal entrepreneurial information channels. Students predominantly rely on informal information sources such as peers and social media, with 44.2% never having accessed training programmes. Financial constraints, limited market knowledge, and fear of failure are identified as primary barriers to venture creation. The study recommends targeted entrepreneurship education, mentorship programmes, and institutional support mechanisms to bridge existing capability gaps and foster a vibrant entrepreneurial culture among forestry and agriculture students.

References

1. Ahmed T, Hasan S, Haneef R. Entrepreneurial characteristics of the agripreneurs under the scheme of Agriclinics and Agri-business Centres. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development. 2011;6(2):145-149.
2. Ahmed T, Hasan S, Haneef R, Riyal M. Comparative study of training need assessment of agri-entrepreneurs under Agri-Clinics and Agri-Business Center Scheme in India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2019;8(4):2287-2297.
3. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50(2):179-211.
4. Bairwa SL, Lakra K, Kushwaha S, Meena LK, Kumar P. Agripreneurship development as a tool to upliftment of agriculture. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2014;4(3):1-4.
5. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1986.
6. Bird B. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review. 1988;13(3):442-453.
7. Brockhaus RH. Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal. 1980;23(3):509-520.
8. Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India. RKVY-REALTAAR: Programme Guidelines. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; 2020.
9. Drucker PF. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York: Harper & Row; 1985.
10. Krueger NF, Carsrud AL. Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. 1993;5(4):315-330.
11. Lans T, Biemans H, Verstegen J, Mulder M. Entrepreneurial competence in higher agri-food education: Findings from a research and development project. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2013;14(1):53-66.
12. Lumpkin GT, Dess GG. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review. 1996;21(1):135-172.
13. McClelland DC. The Achieving Society. Princeton (NJ): D. Van Nostrand Company; 1961.
14. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India. Annual Report 2021-22. New Delhi: Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; 2022.
15. Ministry of Education, Government of India. National Education Policy 2020. New Delhi: Ministry of Education; 2020.
16. Mishra CS, Zachary RK, Kumar N. Entrepreneurial intentions among agricultural students in India: An empirical study. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2019;32(2):179-188.
17. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. Agri-Clinics and Agri-Business Centres Scheme: Performance Review Report. Mumbai: NABARD; 2018.
18. Schumpeter JA. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1934.
19. Singh G, Bhowmick B. An exploratory study on the entrepreneurial orientation and attitude of Indian agricultural students. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. 2015;24(3):372387.
20. Swanson BE, Redmond EC. Entrepreneurship education and the agriculture graduate: A study of attitudinal change. Journal of Extension. 2006;44(2):19.
21. Yadav GP. Entrepreneurial development of women in Bikapur block of Faizabad district: A study of DWCRA programmes. Pantnagar: G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology; 2000.