Cite this article as:

Olatunji, A.G. (2015). “Socio-cultural factors Influencing Entrepreneurial Behaviour”

in Asamu, F.F, Babatunde, B.E (eds) Sociology: Current and African Perspectives Ilorin:
Integrity Publications

SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS INFLUENCING

ENTREPRENURIAL BEHAVIOUR: A GENERAL OVERVIEW

BY:
OLATUNJI ABDULGANIY
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ilorin
Email: larrygey@gmail.com
+2348033926164

Abstract
Entrepreneurship has been one of the most hotly discussed issues in the 21 st century, this cannot
be divorced from the general discovery of many governments all over the world that
entrepreneurship development provide a formidable base for socio-economic and political
development of any nation in the modern world. Consequent upon this, researchers from
Economics and some managerial disciplines have put vested interest in the study of
entrepreneurial phenomenon and as such, entrepreneurial studies has largely focused on
economics and managerial issues with gross neglect of the socio-cultural dynamics of
entrepreneurial phenomenon. Whereas entrepreneurship is not only a social phenomenon, but
has also been a subject of discussion of some early scholars in the field of Sociology. In other
words, because entrepreneurship is a social phenomenon and more so because human being is
essentially a socio-cultural being, it is therefore a necessity to give a vested academic interest
into the relevance of sociological factors in entrepreneurial reality. It is based on this
conception that this chapter seeks to theoretically examine the probable influence of socio-
cultural factors on entrepreneurial behaviour. At the end of discussion, this paper recommends
that socio-cultural factors should be given utmost importance in general entrepreneurial
policies and academic discussions generally.

1
Keywords: Behaviour, Culture, Entrepreneurship, Sociology,

2
Introduction
Generally, Social Sciences research concerning entrepreneurship has a long history and is
extended to the fields of Economics (Schumpeter, 1934), Sociology (Weber, 1930), and
Psychology (McClelland, 1961). Consequently, the meaning of entrepreneurship is numerous
and what makes an entrepreneur is a complex question. It includes factors from the socio-cultural
background in which an individual was raised - his or her individual personal characteristics and
individual social environment, ethnic affiliation, personality traits and so on. Since then, because
of the importance of entrepreneurial activities in human life, different scholars in the social
science disciplines have looked into the discourse from different perspectives. In Economics for
instance, entrepreneurs are seen as agent of economic development, in managerial disciplines
entrepreneurs are referred to as founders and managers of a business entity. In the field of
Psychology, entrepreneurs are described as individuals with special psychological traits which
make entrepreneurship not only possible for them but also make them to be successful in it.
However, the discussion on entrepreneurship cannot be completed without considering
the socio-cultural context in which entrepreneurial activities take place and this is the main thrust
of sociology of entrepreneurship. The focus of sociological inquiry regarding the phenomenon of
entrepreneurship does not really lie in the definition; rather, it lies in the dynamics of the cultural
processes and the socio-cultural environment in which the activities take place. In other words,
the basic focus of sociological approach to the study of entrepreneurship is to look into the
relevance of social factors concerning entrepreneurial phenomenon. Thus, the focus of
sociological studies regarding entrepreneurship is to look into the social nature of the concept
and how socio-cultural processes affect and influence its incidence, maintenance and continuity.
This agrees with the view of Alexander (2003) who persuasively called on sociologists to
put a vested interest in the study of the influence of culture on various social facts in the society
because of the potential influence of culture on human behaviour generally. According to Loucks
(1981), entrepreneurship is culture embedded and therefore, researchers on the subject should put
more interest in studying the socio-cultural features of entrepreneurial phenomena, and how
differences in socio-economic background, values and belief system, attitudes and shared norms,
influence their behaviour. This is because socio-cultural factors have a substantial influence in
creating entrepreneur as well as entrepreneurship (Katz, 1991; Abimbola, 2007) . For example,
social and cultural factors that place a high value on innovation, risk taking and independence is

3
more likely to instigate positive entrepreneurial behaviour than a system with contrasting values
(Islam, 2000; Muller and Thomas, 2001).
In this regard, socio-cultural factors are important variables to be considered in the
definition, examination, analysis and study of entrepreneurship. According to Smallbone, Leigh
and North, (1995), it is important to examine the dynamism in the behavioural pattern of the
entrepreneur bearing the influence of cultural forces in mind, these authors are of the view that, it
is the system of values and beliefs that determine the mindset and automatically govern personal
behaviour; this mindset is the result of the past experiential learning from socio cultural
environment. In other words, social actions (by entrepreneurs) are meaningful human behaviours
which cannot be separated from their socio-economic and cultural background (Bloodgood and
Sapienza, 1995). To this extent, various entrepreneurship behavioural traits such as innovation,
achievement orientation, internal locus of control, risk taking and so on; have higher possibility
of been influenced by the socio-cultural background of the entrepreneur. It based on the above
that this chapter theoretically examined the influence of socio-cultural factors on entrepreneurial
behaviour.
Conceptual Clarification
In order to make this work more comprehensive, there is the need to conceptually clarify
some important terms that are relevant to the chapter.
Who is an Entrepreneur and What is Entrepreneurship?
Entrepreneur is derived from the French verb “entrepende” which means ‘to undertake’,
‘to attempt’, ‘to try in hand’, ‘to contract for’, or ‘to adventure’, ‘to try’, ‘to risk’ (Abimbola,
2007; Sarkin-Daji, 2009). Conceptually, there has not been a general accepted definition of the
terms entrepreneur and entrepreneurship. There have only been variants of definitions depending
on the field and the area and angle at which individual researcher sees it (Bamiduro, 1999; Wale-
Awe, 2010; Olatunji, Muhammed and Raji, 2013). The definition used by individuals is
influenced by various factors such as individual discipline, the intent, or what one hopes to
accomplish. Kilby (1971) compared the concept of entrepreneurship with an imaginary animal
which he called ‘The Heffalump’, the animal according to Kilby is a large and important animal
which has been hunted by many individuals using various ingenious trapping devices; all who
claim to have caught sight of it report that it is enormous, but they disagree on its particularities,
some hunters have used as bait, their own favorite dishes and have then tried to persuade people

4
that what they caught was a Heffalump. However, very few are convinced, and the search goes
on (Olatunji, 2012)
According to Shane (2003:12), an entrepreneur can be defined as "one who undertakes
innovations, finance and business acumen in an effort to transform innovations into economic
goods”. According to Knight (1921) and Drucker (1985), entrepreneurship is about taking risk.
The behaviour of the entrepreneur reflects a kind of personal idea, spending much time as well as
capital on an uncertain venture (Elizabeth, 2006; Salihu, 2009). The work of McClelland in the
early to mid-1960s suggested that the key to entrepreneurship lies in achievement orientation
(McClelland, 1961). According to him, the zeal to achieve ignites the drive to excel, to achieve a
goal in relation to a set of standards put forward by the culture of the society (Chell, Haworth
and Brearley, 1991).
According to Bygrave and Hofer (1991), the simplest definition of entrepreneurship is an
individual that organizes, operates, and takes on the risks of a business venture. The definition of
entrepreneurship from as far back as the eighteenth century sees it as an economic term used to
describe the process of bearing the risk of buying at certain prices and selling at uncertain prices
(Morris & Lewis, 1991). Sarkin-Daji (2009) defines an entrepreneur as an individual who is
willing to and has ability to seek investment opportunities in an environment and be able to
establish and run a business outfit successfully based on identified opportunities.
Entrepreneurship is the ability to create something (usually a business entity) from
practically nothing, ‘it is initiating, building and watching an enterprise rather than watching
one’ (Okpara, 2005:25). Nwangwu (2007) opined that entrepreneurship is a process of bringing
together the factors of production, which include land, labour and capital so as to provide a
product or service for public consumption. According to Okpara (2005), entrepreneurship is the
knack for sensing opportunities where others see chaos, contradiction and confusion; it is the
ability to build a founding team to complement one’s own skill and talent. It is the know-how to
find, marshal and control economic/business resources. What could be inferred from the
definitions of entrepreneur above is that entrepreneurs are individuals who initiated a business
entity and assume the risks and benefits of the business venture. They are individuals who
believe that they are the master of their own fate, the driver of their own ship. Though, these
definitions sees entrepreneurs as founders of a business organization but entrepreneurs include
not just the original founders of business firms but also second-generation operators of family

5
owned firms, franchisees, and owner managers who have bought out the founders of existing
firms (Longenecker, Moore and Petty, 2003). In essence, an entrepreneur is an individual who
owns a business entity and assume the responsibility of profit and loss of the business venture.
Culture, Society and Entrepreneurship: A Synopsis
One unique distinction between human and animal is the possession of culture by the
former. The existence of culture among human groups makes human being one of the most
superlative beings created by nature (Harris, 1995; Ritzier, 2011). Technically, culture represents
all of human behaviours and attitudes that are learned (directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly)
through the process of social interaction and which are inherited by generations. Selznick and
Broom (1968) describe culture as social heritage. Culture is so much attached to human life that
human animal is often classified as cultural being. Culture is a very important phenomenon in
human life because it determines how individual acts, thinks and behaves in any social setting.
Because cultural elements determine human behaviour, social scientist have always found it
difficult if not impossible to study, understand or predict the behavioural pattern of people in any
human society around the globe without studying their culture (Olatunji, 2009, Olatunji and
Ejalonibu, 2014).
Hofstede (1989) defines culture as the collective programming of the mind that
distinguishes people included in one category from another; this may include an ethnic group;
religious group; family group; etc. In this sense, culture includes systems of values and values
are among the fundamental elements of culture (Adler, 1997). The collective mental knowledge
influences the way societies or communities organize knowledge and social behavior (Kroeber
and Kluckhohn, 1952 cited in Harris, 1995). While culture is the total way of life of the people, it
is important to note that cultural processes and practices do not take place in a vacuum, rather, it
takes place among human being in the society.
Society according to Schaefer, (2006) is a fairly large number of people who live in a
specific community and are relatively independent of the people outside it and usually participate
in a common culture. A society is the largest form of human grouping and it consist of people
who share a common heritage and culture, members of the society learn this culture through the
process of socialization and transmit it from one generation to the next (Broom and Selznick,
1968 cited in Olatunji, 2009). Human being is created in such a way that he must live
conveniently as human, he must live with co-human being, this fact has made human group

6
living inevitable. Apart from the fact that all human being are born into a family which is the
foundation of social living, it is also important to note that family living cannot be convenient
without living with other people in the society. According to Broom and Selznick, (1968), the
term society is derived from the word ‘social’ which means human living in interdependence
while the word social means living and persisting in the company of other humans.
In this regard, human being as specie could be best described as a social being because
we live our lives in the company of other humans. Human societies are organized into various
size of social grouping such as nomadic bands, villages, cities and countries in which we work,
trade, play, reproduce and interact in many other ways. The word socio-cultural in this regard is
an interface used to describe the close relationship between the society and culture (Olatunji and
Ejalonibu 2013, 2014). Generally, differences and similarities in cultural patterns and practices
across societies most often account for the differences and similarities in human societies
worldwide. In essence, the cultural pattern of a society influences the way they do things
generally.
The main point that could be derived from the analysis above is that culture and society
are two inter-dependent terms and both have profound impacts upon individual behaviour.
Milner (1994) sees culture as fundamental to any social system; the cultural orientation of a
society reflects the complex interaction of values, attitudes and behaviours displayed by its
members (Oke, 2003; Schaefer, 2006). These values, in turn, affect the attitudes of individuals,
which again form their behaviour choices in any given situation. The continually changing
patterns of individual and group behaviour eventually influence the society's culture, and the
cycle begins again. Thus, the socio-cultural system is the basic determinant of behaviour, in the
same vein; the socio-cultural system is the basic determinant of entrepreneurial behaviour
(Gamage et.al. 2003; Yonkers, 2003; Abimbola, 2007). In essence, socio-cultural variables are
important factors influencing entrepreneurial behaviour. In other to have a comprehensive
overview of these factors, the next sub-section of this chapter is used to analyse various socio-
cultural variables that have been observed by this author (through various literatures) as
influencing entrepreneurial behaviour.
SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS INFLUENCING ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR
Behaviour is such an important human characteristics that it has been the focus of all
social science and most humanities’ disciplines. The behaviour of a person is the means through

7
which all his dreams, thoughts, intentions, motivations and his wills and pleasures are expressed.
Therefore behaviour is the effective platform for thoughts, intentions, likes and dislikes that are
expressed to some target groups or to a general public at large. Specifically, entrepreneurial
behaviour refers to different actions taken by individuals that give rise to the creation of a
business venture or those actions that are expressed by the entrepreneur as he engages in his
everyday entrepreneurial dealings. In this regard, entrepreneurial behaviour has been described
as those human behavioural dispositions such as identifying and exploiting opportunities or the
creation or development of new entrepreneurial ventures.
Entrepreneurial behaviour is also increasingly been recognized as facilitative innovation
within established business organizations (Kuratko, Ireland, Covin, & Hornsby, 2005). However,
it should be noted that human behaviours generally are functions of specific socio-cultural
systems whereby cultural factors dictate individual behaviour (Hofstede 1993; 2001). In other
words, socio-cultural factors have a substantial influence on entrepreneurial behaviour.
Technically, entrepreneurial behaviours cannot be separated from its social and cultural contexts,
this is so because entrepreneurial world is channelled through a well-integrated socio-cultural
system in which the value system becomes the crucial determinant of an individual’s actions
(Gamage, et.al, 2003). Redding (1996) noted that culture has a major influence on
entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviour. De Alwis & Senathiraja (2003) observed that business
value formation is influenced by socio-cultural and personal background factors such as age,
ethnicity, religion and education, of the businessman. Inferring from the above, it is evident that
socio-cultural elements are important factors influencing entrepreneurial behaviour. This is so,
not only because entrepreneurship is a cultural element but more importantly because
entrepreneurial behaviour is enormously influenced by cultural variables. In a nutshell, there are
lots of socio-cultural factors which are observed to have influence on entrepreneurial behavior
some of those factors are highlighted further.
1 Ethnicity and Entrepreneurial Behaviour
Ethnic is an adjective that refers to differences between categories of people and these
differences must be strong enough to mark one group off the other (Patterson, 1980 cited in
Abimbola, 2007). Schaefer, (2006) define ethnic group as a group which is set apart from others
primarily because of its national origin or distinctive cultural pattern. An ethnic group is also
conceived as consisting of those who regard themselves as being alike by virtual descent, real or

8
fictitious, and who are so regarded by others (Edna, 1980). Weber (1978) defines ethnic groups
as “human group characterized by a subjective belief in their common descent given their real or
perceived similarities in one or more characteristics: physical types or race, customs, language,
religion and in perceptible differences in the conduct of everyday life” (Cited in Abimbola,
2007:63).
Barth (1969) explains that as long as there existed marked differences in behaviour of
different ethnic groups, then ethnic group persists as a significant unit that could influence social
action generally. In this regard, certain ethnic groups may have a greater predisposition to
entrepreneurial behaviour than other groups because; individual ethnicity affects attitude and
behaviour (Baskerville, 2003). Shapero and Sokol (1982) contend that it is no accident that
entrepreneurship is highly identified with certain ethnic groups: Jews, Lebanese, Ibos in Nigeria,
Jains and Parisis in India, Guajarati in East Africa etc. Edna (1980) has described this aspect in
his research in this way:
Figure: 1: Inter-Relationship between Ethnic solidarity, social hostility and small business

ETHNIC SOLIDARITY

SOCIAL HOSTILITY SMALL BUSINESS

CONCENTRATION
Source: Edna B. J. M: (1980) The Economic Basis of Ethnic Solidarity in Small Business in
Japanese American Society 1980, London: University of California Press

In a research carried out by Alwis and Senathiraja (2003) among entrepreneurs in Sri-
Lanka, it was found out that, ethnicity play a dominant role in determining entrepreneurial
behaviour other than religion, education and age. The foregoing explanation points to the fact
that ethnic affiliation is one of those socio-cultural factors influencing entrepreneurial behaviour.
2 Religion and Entrepreneurship Behaviour
Religion according to Schaefer, (2006), is a unified system of beliefs and practices
related to sacred things. According to Broom and Selznick (1968), religion is a universal
phenomenon because it exists everywhere - from the simple most isolated to the most complex

9
and urbane; religious beliefs and practices exist in all known human society. Religion is one of
the basic social institutions and has been a subject of sociological discourse almost from the start
of the discipline (Olatunji, 2010). The founding fathers of Sociology like August Comte, Karl
Marx and Max Weber all have study the influence of religion on human behaviour. However,
Weber (1930) is the first to discover the influence of religious beliefs and practices on
entrepreneurial behaviour and the consequential effects of the behaviour on the economic
development of the society.
Weber (1930) identifies the historical conditions under which industrial capitalism arises
in the West and how it flourished. Weber’s study also demonstrates the decisive role of religious
value in the making of effective entrepreneurs. He argued that it was the doctrines self discipline
that produced and helped to sustain that body of ideas and habits, which favour the rational
pursuit of economic gain, that modern industrial capitalism had its root. Observing from the
works of the fore-runners, many scholars consider religion as an important socio-cultural
attribute influencing economic development.
3 Family Background and Entrepreneurship Behaviour
Family according to Shankar-Rao (1998) is a set of people related by blood, marriage or
some other affinities or upon other agreed relationship or adoption which share the primary
responsibility of reproduction and caring for its members. Conventionally, a family consists of
the father, the mother and the child (ren) (Cuff, et.al. 2006). The family like religion is another
important basic social institution. It is often described as the bedrock of human society. The
family, particularly the father or mother, plays the most powerful role in establishing the
desirability and credibility of entrepreneurial action for an individual. A person imbibes certain
norms and values and the way of life practiced in a society through his upbringing in the family.
Milton Singer from his study of entrepreneurs of Madras concluded that the joint family
organization plays a positive role in promoting positive entrepreneurial behaviour (Singer, 1972).
The findings of Singer suggested that joint family units provide financial, physical and social
security to make entrepreneurial activities not only possible but also successful. Nanayakkara
(1999) observed that Sri Lankan cultural context, the child rearing practices as well as values
transmitted by the elders to the children have created a dependence syndrome and making the
child continuously depending on the family. Similarly, Alwis and Senathraja, (2003) asserts that
the Sri Lankan family based value system as well as religious values are not favourable in

10
generating an individual achievement oriented work ethic similar to the Protestant work ethics of
the West. According to Abimbola (2007), 50 to 58 percent of company founders in the United
States had parents who were company owners, free professionals, independent artisans or
farmers.
In essence, family background is an important socio-cultural factor which influences
entrepreneurship. Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour (cited in Kruger, Reilly, and Carsrud,
2000) identifies perceived family norms as an important factor in entrepreneurial activity, family
and important social contacts, including network members establish these norms. In a study
conducted by Shivanni et.al (2010) on Indian entrepreneurs, it was found out in the study that the
moral and financial support received by the entrepreneur from their family was valuable for them
and it played a significant role in enabling them to carry out their entrepreneurial activities. It
was also discovered in the study that one of the reasons for less success of female entrepreneurs
in the study area is because they received less degree of family support as compared to their male
counterparts. Roomi (2010), study of female entrepreneurs in Pakistan also give similar result.
The study also revealed that the majority of the entrepreneurs who have received high family
support are from extended families.
4 Social Capital and Entrepreneurial Behaviour
According to Abimbola (2007), entrepreneurs need information, capital, skills, and labour
to start business activities. While they may hold some of these resources themselves, they often
complement their resources by accessing their contacts (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986). The contacts
that lead to successful outcomes are their social capital and they are key component of
entrepreneurial networks (Burt, 1992). Technically, social capital is considered to be the
combination of financial and non-financial resources also known as financial and non-financial
capital possessed by the entrepreneurs. Social capital; is therefore a metaphor used to indicate
that social relationship network could be utilized like a capital stock which can be used for other
benefits and advantages in business (Olatunji, 2013).
Newton (1997) considered social capital as subjective phenomenon formed by values and
interaction and it influence behaviour. Gabbay & Leenders (1999) define social capital as the set
of tangible or virtual resources that accrue to actors through the social structure, facilitating the
attainment of the actors’ goals (Lin, 1999; Portes, 1999). By this, they include contacts that assist
in getting things done. For example, some one that wants to start business and have someone

11
who knows about such business in it before is more likely to perform better in the business than
someone that do not have such contact. In other words, entrepreneurs range of social contacts
and variety of trusted social linkages is an important prerequisite to developing a favourable
entrepreneurial behaviour (Shane, 1993), the decision ‘to be an entrepreneur’ (Reynolds, 1991;
Abimbola, 2007), and for garnering the resources to start a new business (Shane, 1993).
Johansson (1988) emphasized that the entrepreneur’s informal ties have a crucial role to play in
making the entrepreneur to achieve his or her business goals.
In the studies of Chinese business, Hamilton, (1991) observe that network has been
viewed as one of the key factors contributing to the enhancing entrepreneurial behaviour leading
to enormous success of Chinese entrepreneurs in Hong Kong and other Asian countries. As
Hamilton (1991) compares Chinese family firms to their Western counterparts; he found out that
unlike Western families, the Chinese business network is a network of people joined together by
specific sets of familiar relationships; the closer the kinship ties; the more binding the obligation.
Redding (1986) viewed the Chinese as collectivist and group-dominated.
According to Roomi (2009), one of the most important reasons of slower growth of
women-owned businesses in Pakistan was that women encounter problems in work, family and
social life, all of which influence the development of human and social capital among women
entrepreneurs in the country. This lack of appropriate social capital to make meaningful
exchanges within business networks limits their opportunities to start business, growth of the
business, getting capital and other resources crucial for the development and growth of
businesses.
According to Abimbola (2007), networks have several useful properties for
entrepreneurs. The first is size; entrepreneurs can enlarge their networks to get crucial
information and other resources from knowledgeable others. The next is positioning;
entrepreneurs position themselves within a social network to shorten the path to knowledgeable
others to get what they need (Blau, 1977; Burt, 1992). Finally is relationship structure; social
contacts may be related to the entrepreneur or to each other through several types of relations or
interactions. In single stranded relations, each person performs only one activity with the
entrepreneur and is related to that person through only one type of relation. Multiplex ties, in
contrast, have several layers of different content or types of relationships (Scott, 1991). They
may play numerous roles in the entrepreneur’s support group. Researchers pay special attention

12
to the contribution of multiplex ties to entrepreneurship. They especially note that social network
members can contact and organize themselves, expanding the opportunities they make available
to the entrepreneur (Burt, 1992).
5 Influence of Education on Entrepreneurial Behaviour
According to Yonkers, (2003), one of the major concerns of the study of entrepreneurship
is the issue of whether entrepreneurs are born, or whether they can be created through training.
Before industrial revolution of 1750’s, formal education was not viewed as a critical factor in
entrepreneurship. However, the growth of high technology and heavy competition has resulted in
education becoming increasingly important. More often than not, education is increasingly
becoming an important factor for effectiveness in all human endeavours. This is because of its
function in the development of human mind and intellect (Dawey, 1966 cited in Selznick and
Broom, 1968).
Kent, Sexton and Vesper (1982) expressed the view that the most likely entrepreneurs to
fail would be those with experience but no formal education. The authors stated that the second
most likely entrepreneurs to fail would be those with formal education but no experience. In
summary, education and experience are other factors that influence entrepreneurial behaviour
because it has been generally observed that entrepreneurs appear to benefit from both appropriate
experience and education (Maxwell and Westerfield, 2002). Along with the informal learning in
a family, the child undergoes formal learning through education. Education is considered an
important socio-cultural factor that influences the behaviour of an entrepreneur, it is conceived
by some scholars such as (Paul, 2005; Okpara, 2006; Wale-Awe, 2010; Osalor, 2013), that
education received in schools and colleges inculcates the value of achievement and the value of
equality of opportunity and also enables people to acquire various types of technical skills
necessary to function adequately as an entrepreneur. These values and skills have an important
function as it encourage a highly motivated achievement oriented workforce, equipped with the
required skill (Alwis and Senalthraja, 2003).
In a study conducted by Alwis and Senathraja, (2003) on Sri-Lankan entrepreneurs, it
was found in the study that there is a significant relationship between the educational level of the
respondents and their level of business success. Respondents with higher levels of education
have been found to be more successful than those with lower levels of education. Highly
educated respondents and respondents with professional qualifications were found to be more

13
successful than the less educated ones. Kim (in Meng & Liang, 1996) conducted a research study
among entrepreneurs in Singapore and the study disclosed that successful entrepreneurs have
higher education levels compared to that of unsuccessful entrepreneurs. 67% of successful
entrepreneurs he studied are university graduates, while 23% are not. According to Staw (1991),
and Katz (in Holt, 1992), after entering the entrepreneurial world, those with higher levels of
education are likely to be more successful because university education provides them with
knowledge and modern managerial skills, making them more conscious of the reality of the
business world and thus in a position to use their learning capability to manage business
effectively. In a nutshell, educational background and work experience of the entrepreneur are
some of the background socio-cultural factors that influence entrepreneurial behaviour.
6 Gender Factor and Entrepreneurial Behaviour
According To Roomi (2009), religious prescriptions, cultural norms and actual practices
related to a woman’s status and role vary widely. Generally, there are diversities in the status of
women across classes, geographical regions, ethnic origin and the rural/urban divide due to
uneven socioeconomic development and the impact of tribal and feudal structures on women’s
lives (Roomi and Harrison, 2008). Internationally, research suggests numerous gender
differences among business owners at personal, professional, and institutional levels (Young,
1997; Carter et al., 2001; Brown et al., 2002). In a study conducted by Roomi (2009), on
Pakistan women, it was observed through the study that the female entrepreneurs were found to
have received lower level of family support and this difference between male and female
respondents is statistically significant.
Brush et al. (2004; 2005; 2006) in their research found out that “….women often lacked
the economic power and the social and family support structure to enter into business and to
grow their ventures” Bridge et al. (1998) have observed these to be important factors affecting
the growth and performance of women enterprises. Since the dawn of civilization, women have
been deprived of equal rights as of men in almost every field. Even today the subordination of
women in the society prevails in varying extents irrespective of country and culture (Yusuf,
1995). While the degree, the reasons and its impacts may vary, gender discrimination still
persists having roots in social systems worldwide (Alila and Paderson, 2001; Dhameja, 2002).

In contrast to the above, women entrepreneurs emerge out of a conscious effort on their
part to escape labour market with easy tendencies to confine women to relatively job insecurity

14
and degrading occupations. This is often a reflection of their low level of education especially, in
developing countries as well as the cultural and legal constraints that impede their entry into the
formal labour market. Also, they are motivated to enter into business as a way of shunning the
supervisory bondage of their male counterparts in formal employment. And they also want to get
away from these societal-imposed constraints against them in gaining equal access into the
formal labour market (Carson, 2003).
Furthermore, women venture into entrepreneurship with the aim of rejecting the social
stereotype associated with being a woman and the so-called “glass ceiling” – the apparent
impenetrable barrier that prevents female middle managers from moving up the corporate ladder
(Griffin, 2005). Owing a business for self attracts for the female owner the convenience of
flexible working time; ideal enough for her other pre-occupations, probably as house-keeper and
assuring her some material independence. Leaving paid employment to start a business thus
allows her more flexibility to manage these dual responsibilities and to have a more balance life
(Zellner 1994). According to Olson (1987), family security is one of the primary motives why
many women become entrepreneurs.
In contrast however, it is important to make some review regarding male factor in
entrepreneurship activities. It has been observed that the male gender dominated most human
activities generally. This same trend could be observed in entrepreneurship as well. Generally,
men as the stronger sex are more at advantage in entrepreneurship because of their ability to face
more stress than the female gender. Also, because the men are always the breadwinner of the
family; engaging in entrepreneurship activities became a sin-qua-non for the male folk. This
biological cum social factor are some of the reasons why men have dominated the
entrepreneurial scene since the primitive period to this modern world. In a nutshell, gender factor
is another important socio-cultural factor that could influence entrepreneurial behaviour.
7 The Push/Pull Factors and Entrepreneurial Behaviour
Thomas and David (1992) addressed the issue of entrepreneurship from a behavioural
perspective. Their analyses are based on the ‘contingency’ school, which assumes that the
environment is capable of emitting signals capable of encouraging or hindering entrepreneurship.
These signals according to them are referred to as the push and pull factors. The push factors are
usually characterised the origin while the pull factors are always at the destination. The push
factors are usually discouraging while the pull factors are always encouraging. For example,

15
people are ‘pushed’ into business by dissatisfaction or some other negative experiences with
existing employment; on the other hand, they are “pulled” by the existence of potentially
profitable opportunities or other positive expectations or the influence of parents, role models
and/or other socio-economic background factors. In relation to the environmental factors which
push entrepreneurs into business and which on the longrun has a way of influencing their
behaviour, Thomas and David (1992) identified the following factors: an increase in
entrepreneur rate, higher quit rates; high frequency of factory shut down; a decline in income or
earning power; a shrinking labour market; a high labour mobility and an increase in savings as
important push factors that determine entrepreneurial event. More so, expectations about an
expanding economy, favourable entrepreneurial policies, and enormous entrepreneurial role
models constitute some of the pull variables.
In Nigeria, Oshagbemi’s (1983) sample of entrepreneurs who ventured into business
found financial attraction as the primary pull factor that influence entrepreneurial behaviour.
Similarly, age, educational background, independence/security in self-employment; failure in
educational career; influence of parents and the inability to secure a better job are some other
important pull factors that could trigger entrepreneurial behaviour. Shapero (1975) generalized
that most entrepreneurs are displaced persons who have been dislodged from their familiar niche.
Shapero and Sokol (1982) found that refugees are more likely to start new ventures in their host
societies than they would in their countries of origin. According to Shapero (1984), the
establishing of an entrepreneurial venture is bore out of innovation – as a result of one's decision
to change one's life path, and to start a new one. Often, this is prompted by negative push factors
such as frustration or the loss of a job. People in societies with natural endowments are less
likely to be entrepreneurs compared to people with less natural economic endowments. This
could explain why foreigners are the dominant entrepreneurs in most oil rich countries of the
world, such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, etc
However, it is important to note that the socio-cultural factors influencing entrepreneurial
behavior are numerous that all of the factors cannot be effectively examined under a chapter of
this stature; this is so because of the dynamic nature of human being generally. MacMillan
(1988), for example, reports the results of survey of entrepreneurs in 11 countries. These authors
found that entrepreneurial behaviour could be influenced by factors which could be analyzed
through six dimensions namely: need for approval, perceived instrumentality of wealth,

16
communitarianism, need for personal development, need for independence, and need for escape
from all sorts financial insecurity. They found also that entrepreneurs from each country
emphasize each dimension differently.
Another factor that could influence entrepreneurial behaviour is the nature of business, in
terms of its structure and goals. In many instances, the nature of many businesses today is one
which required an all-time innovation from the owner in which if the owner is un-able to do so,
the business is bound to crumble. In this regard, the nature of business is another miscellaneous
factor that usually influences entrepreneurial behaviour. In addition to this, some studies have
emphasized the effect of cultural, political, and economic conditions of a country or region on
the general behaviour of the entrepreneurs in that area. For instance, in many countries of the
world today, people are generally encouraged to engage in entrepreneurship and as such are
often counsel from time to time on the favorable entrepreneurial behaviours which would lead to
the growth and development of their enterprise (Okpara, 2006; Roomi, 2009; Agu, 2010). In
another instance, corruption which has eaten deep into the social fabrics of a country like Nigeria
has made entrepreneurial investment discouraging and this has in a way or the other influence
their general entrepreneurial behaviour.
From a more general perspective, Bridge et al., (2008) pointed out that factors
influencing entrepreneurial behaviour could be located along a continuum from inborn attributes
of individuals to complex interrelationships amongst often changing cultural, political and
economic conditions at national, regional and local levels. Location, variation in size, scope and
buoyancy of demand in local markets, monetary and fiscal policies of government are other
likely miscellaneous factors that could influence entrepreneurial behaviour. Ariyo (2001)
highlights the possible factors that could influence entrepreneurial behaviour as: income;
security; independence, job dissatisfaction and inheritance.
Concluding Remarks
Generally, this chapter has provided explanations to entrepreneurship based on existing
entrepreneurial literatures; it gives a detailed review regarding the conceptual definition of
entrepreneur and entrepreneurship. The chapter has examined various scholarly views regarding
the definition of entrepreneurship, the varieties of definitions given by different scholars is a
reflection of the fact that there is no standard and universally accepted definition of who is an
entrepreneur. Although, there is no generally accepted definition of who is an entrepreneur and

17
what is entrepreneurship but there is strong indication from many of the literatures reviewed in
the study that an entrepreneur is essentially an individual who initiated a business enterprise and
assume the responsibility of profit and loss of the business. More so that entrepreneurship is an
act of initiating, building or revitalizing a business enterprise from virtually nothing.
From the general observation made from the various reviews, the researcher is of the
view that the reason why there has not been a standard or generally accepted definition of the
terms (entrepreneur and entrepreneurship), is fundamentally because entrepreneurship is
substantially a social phenomenon and no level of definition can totally exhaust all the possible
definitions of who is an entrepreneur and what basically constitute entrepreneurship.
More so, entrepreneurship is a social phenomenon and more so because scholars usually
attempt the definition of who is an entrepreneur from behavioural perspective and because it is
practically not possible for an individual to possess all the notable behavioural features of an
entrepreneur, individual researcher now picked on specific behavioural traits as the most
important feature or features of an entrepreneur and invariably based their definition on such
traits. As such, some researchers are of the view that an entrepreneur is an innovator, some are of
the conviction that an entrepreneur is a risk taker; some are of idea that an entrepreneur is an
individual with higher elements of achievement orientation and the list goes on.
The literatures reviewed in this chapter also looked into the meaning of society and
culture and the relationship between the two concepts and entrepreneurship. Although, only
minimal definitions were given regarding the meaning of the two inter-related terms: society and
culture; but it was established through the literatures that the two terms are not only inter-related
but also that, they have substantial influence on entrepreneurship. Furthermore, literatures were
also reviewed regarding various possible socio-cultural factors influencing entrepreneurial
behaviour; numerous factors were identified through literature review as important socio-cultural
factors influencing entrepreneurial behaviour. Although, researchers have stressed the
importance of specific factors as strong determinant of entrepreneurial behaviour but it is the
view of this researcher that none of the factors can singly influence entrepreneurial behaviour
wholly and independently without some elements of other socio-cultural factors. In other words,
it is important to consider all the identified factors as important socio-cultural factors influencing
entrepreneurial behaviour.

18
 Bye and large, it was observed through numerous reviews made in this chapter that
entrepreneurial behaviour is influenced by numerous socio-cultural factors in which:
1. None of the factors can singly influence behaviour wholly and independently without
some elements of other socio-cultural factors
2. It is not really possible a single entrepreneur possess all of the enumerated behavioral
traits
No matter the angle from which a researcher sees factors influencing entrepreneurial
actions, socio-cultural factors play immense roles in determining all entrepreneurial behaviours.
What could be deduced from the discussions thus far is that entrepreneurship is not only a social
phenomenon but also a phenomenon which incidence, continuity and its general dynamics are
largely influenced by various social factors. Based on these revelations, this chapter recommends
that sociology of entrepreneurship should be given prominence in general entrepreneurship
studies, in business studies and general managerial disciplines. More so, stakeholders of
entrepreneurial policies at the federal, state and local government levels should take note of the
importance of socio-cultural factors in the making and implementation of entrepreneurial
policies. All these steps become necessary as it has been unequivocally revealed that human
being is essentially a socio-cultural being and by extension that entrepreneurship is a also a
social phenomenon and that numerous socio-cultural factors play numerous roles in its general
functionality. This chapter also recommends that modern sociologists should put vested interest
in the sociology of entrepreneurship, this is necessary not only because entrepreneurship has
been one of the major discussions of classical sociologists such as Karl Marx, Max Weber,
Schumpeter and McClelland but also because it has been found out in recent times that
entrepreneurship and development (a core sociological course) are increasingly becoming an
inseparable bedfellows.
References:
Abimbola, O.H, (2007) “Socio-Cultural Factors in Entrepreneurial Event Formation: A study
of Nigerian entrepreneurs”. (A Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Department of
Sociology Covenant University)
Adler, P. and Kwom, S.W. (2002) Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept, Academy of
Management Review 27(1) 17-40
Agu, R.O. (2010) Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Concepts, Theories and Concepts (Vol. 1)
Onisha: Kawuris and Manilas Publishers Ltd. Anambra Nigeria

19
Aldrich, H., and Zimmer, C. (1986) “Entrepreneurship Through Social Networks”. In D. Sexton
& R. Smilor (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, New York: Ballinger.
Alwis, W.P.G. and Senathiraja, R (2003) “The Impact of Socio – Cultural Background of the
Entrepreneur on Management and Business Practices of selected Small and Medium
Scale Businesses in Sri Lanka”. A paper presented at 9th International Conference on
Sri Lanka Studies. Held at Matara, Sri Lanka from 28th to 30th November 2003
Ariyo, O.O. (2001). “Small Scale Business and Entrepreneurship” In Obikoya, J.O. and Ashiru,
A.T. (eds) Introduction to Business Ago Iwoye: CESAP Publication
Bamiduro, J. A. (1999) “Small-Scale Industries under the Structural Adjustment Programme
“In Saliu, H. A. (ed.) Issues in Contemporary Political Economy of Nigeria. Ilorin:
Haytee Books.
Barth, F. (1969) “The Roles of the Entrepreneur in Social Change in Northern Norway”
American Journal of Small Business (Winter): 25-30

Baskerville, R. F. (2003) "Hofstede Never Studied Culture." Accounting, Organizations and

Society 28(1):1-14
Blau, P. M. (1977) “A Macro-sociological Theory of Social Structure” American Journal of
Sociology, 83(1): 26-54
Bloodgood, J. M., Sapienza, H. J (1995) The Dynamics of New Business Start-Ups:
Person, Context, and Process Greenwich: JAI Press INC
Bridge, S., K. O' Neil, and Cromie, S. (1998) Understanding Enterprise: Entrepreneurship
and Small Business London: Macmillan Business
Brown, S., W. Doyle, H. Lewis, D. Mallette, and P. Young (2002) Women Entrepreneurs in
Canada in the 90s Montreal: Business Development Bank of Canada
Brush, C., N. Carter, E. Gatewood, and M. Hart (2004) Clearing the Hurdles: Women-
Building High-Growth Business New Jersey: Pearson Education
Brush, C., N. Carter, E. Gatewood, and M. Hart (2005) The Diana International Report:
Research on Growth Oriented Women Entrepreneurs and their Business.
Stockholm Sweden: ESBRI
Brush, C., N. Carter, E. Gatewood, and M. Hart (2006) Growth Oriented Women Entrepreneurs
and their Business. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Burt, R. S. (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press

Bygrave, W. D. and Hofer, C.W. (1991) “Theorizing about Entrepreneurship”

Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice 16(2) 13 - 22
Carson, M. (2003) The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory Oxford: Martin Robertson

20
Carter, S., S. Anderson, S. and Shaw, E. (2001) “Women's Business Ownership: A Review
of the Popular Academic and Internet Literature” Report to the Small Business Service
Small Business Service: London
Chell, E., Haworth, J. and Brearley, S. (1991) The Entrepreneurial Personality: Concepts,
Cases and Categories. London and New York: Routledge
Cuff, E.E, Sharock, W.W, Francis D.W. (2005) Perspectives in Sociology (4th Edition) London
and New York: Routhledge Publishers
Drucker, P. (1985) Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. London:
Heinemann Publication
Edna B. J. M: (1980) The Economic Basis of Ethnic Solidarity in Small Business in Japanese
American Society London: University of California Press.
Elizabeth, U.A. (2006) Entrepreneurship, Education and Wealth Creation Strategies: Practical
Tips for Economic Empowerment and Survival Nsuka: Grey AP Publishers Ltd.
Gabbay, S. M., and Leenders, R.(1999). “CSC: The Structure of Advantage and Disadvantage”.
In R. Th.A.J. Leenders and S. M. Gabbay, (eds.), Corporate Social Capital and Liability:
1-14. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press
Gamage, H. Cameron, D. & Woods, E. (2003) “Developing a Research Framework for
Understanding the Social Realities, with Special Reference To Sri Lankan
Entrepreneurs”. A paper presented at the 16th International Farm Management
Congress, Perth, Western Australia, 10th – 15th August 2003
Harris, M. (1995) Culture People and Nature: An introduction to Anthropology New York:
Harcourt Base Publishers
Hofstede, G. (1993) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill

Hofstede. G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and

Organizations across Nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Islam N. M. (2000) "Theories on Entrepreneurship", in Rahman A.H.M.(ed.)

Entrepreneurship. Bangladesh: University Grand Commission
Johansson, B. (1988) “Business Formation: A Network Approach”. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 4(3-4): 83- 99
Katz. J.A. (1991) "The Institution and Infrastructure of Entrepreneurship" Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 15(3)
Kent, C. & Sexton, D. & Vesper, K. (1982) Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship Prentice- Hall
Inc Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
Kilby, P. (1971) “Hunting the Heffalump” In P. Kilby, (ed.) Entrepreneurship and Economic
Development New York: Free Press
21
Knight, F. [1921) Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Lin, N. (1999) Building a Network Theory of Social Capital In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R.S. Burt,
(Eds.), Social Capital: Theory and Research, (pp.3-29). New York: Aldine de Gruyter
Longenecker, J.G., Moore, W.C and J. Petty, W. (2003) Small Business Management: An
Entrepreneurial Emphasis, Ohio: Thomson South-Western
Loucks, K. E. (1981) “A Survey of Research on Small Business Management and
Entrepreneurship in Canada” In Vesper, K. (ed). Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research
Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 111-129
Maxwell, J. and Westerfield, D. (2002) "Technological Entrepreneurism Characteristics
Related to the Adoption of Innovative Technology", S.A.M. Advanced Management ‘
Journal, Vol. 67(1), 9-21
McClelland, D. (1961), The Achieving Society New Jersey: Van Nostrand
Milner, A. (1994) "Cultural Materialism, Culturalism and Post-Culturalism: The Legacy of
Raymond Williams" Theory, Culture and Society: 43-73
Morris, M. H. and Lewis, P. S. (1991) “Entrepreneurship as a Significant Factor in Social
Quality of Life” Journal of Business Research, 23(1):21-36
Mueller, S. and Thomas, A. (2001) "Culture and Entrepreneurial Potential: A Nine Country
Study of Locus of Control and Innovativeness", Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (1),
2001,51-75
Nanayakkara, G. (1999) “Culture and Management in Sri Lanka” Sri Lanka, Postgraduate
Institute of Management University of Sri Jayawardenepura
Newton, K. (1997) “Social Capital and Democracy in Modern Europe” In: Jan-Van D; Marco
M., Kenneth, N. & Paul W. (eds.) Social Capital and European Democracy. London and
New York: Routledge 1999 (p. 3-24)
Nwagwu, A. (2007) Higher Education for Self-Reliance: An Imperative for the Nigeria
Economy. NEAP publications Accessed on 26th May, 2013 from www.google.com

Oke, E.A. (2003) An Introduction to Social Anthropology London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Okpara, F. (2005) The Practice of Entrepreneurship. Enugu: Precision Publishers Limited,
Nigeria.
Olatunji, A. (2009) “Socio-Cultural Factors and Work-Related Attitudes of Employees in the
Banking Sector: The Case of Bank Workers in Ilorin, Kwara state”. Lapai
Sociological Review1 (2) pp 212-231
Olatunji, A. (2010) “The Roles of Religion in Combating Crime” in Dopamu, A.P and
Umejesi, I.O (eds.) Science in the Perspective of African Traditional Religion, Islam and
Christianity Ilorin: Local Societies Initiative (LSI)

22
Olatunji, A. (2012) “The Relevance of Guidance and Counseling in Entrepreneurial
Empowerment” Sokoto Journal of Social Sciences 2(2) pp 65-78
Olatunji, A. (2013) “The Practice of Human Capital Management among Small Scale
Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Overview” Centre Point Journal (Humanities edition) 16(1)
pp 19-40
Olatunji, A and Ejalonibu, L.E. (2013) “Cultural Research and Documentation as Catalyst for
Sustainable Development in Nigeria” A paper presented at NICO National Annual
Conference and Training. Held at Harmony Inter-continental Hotel on January 14th 2013
Olatunji, A. and Ejalonibu, L.E (2014) “Considering Cultural Entrepreneurship for Economic
Development in Nigeria” Being A Paper Presented At The 2014 Annual World Cultural
Day Organized By The National Institute Of Cultural Orientation (NICO) North
Central Zone. Held at Kwara State and Cultural Centre Ilorin-Geri Alimi
Osalor, P. (2013) “Entrepreneurial Education Revolution: An Imperative for Sustainable
Development in Nigeria 1” The Vanguard November 04, 2013   See more at:
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2013/11
Paul, E.O. (2005) “Entrepreneurship Education” In Ezema P.N., Paul E.O.; Beatrice O., Godwin
A.G. Okwuolise, C., A Eheli, H.U. Anih (eds.) Entrepreneurship in Vocational
Education. Enugu: OZYBEL Publishers.
Portes A. (1999) “Social Capital its Origins and Application in Contemporary Sociology”
Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1-24
Redding, S. G. (1996) The spirit of Chinese Capitalism New York:
Reynolds, P. D. (1991) “Sociology and Entrepreneurship: Concepts and Contributions”.
Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 16(2), 47-67
Ritzer, G. (2008) Sociological Theory 8th Edition USA: Mac-Graw Hill

Roomi, M. A (2009) Entrepreneurial Capital, Social Values and Islamic Traditions: Growth
of Women-Owned Enterprises in Pakistan. Retrieved from www.google.com on
28/10/2010
Roomi, M. A (2010) Entrepreneurial Capital, Social Values and Islamic Traditions: Growth
of Women-Owned Enterprises in Pakistan. Retrieved from www.google.com on
28/10/2010
Salihu, M.E. (2009) “Creativity and Entrepreneurship” In Abdulkadir, D.S. (ed.) Contemporary
Approach to Entrepreneurial Development Published by the Department of Business
Administration, Ibrahim Babangida University, Lapai. Niger State

Sarkin-Daji, B.D. (2009) “Foundations and Framework of Entrepreneurship” In D.S Abdulkadir,

(ed.) Contemporary Approach to Entrepreneurial Development Published by the
Department of Business Administration. Lapai: Niger State

23
Schaefer, R.T. (2006) Sociology (9th edition) N.Y; Mc-Graw Hill Company

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.
Scott, J. (1991) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. London: Sage Publications
Selznick, P. and Broom, L (1968) Sociology: A Text with Adapted Studies New York:
McGraw-Hill

Shane S (1993) “Cultural Influences on National Rates of innovation” Journal of Business

Venturing 8:59–73

Shane. S. (2003) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: the Individual-Opportunity Nexus

Nothampton, MA: Edward Elgar . ISBN 1-84376-996-4
Shapero, A. C. (1975) “The Displaced, Uncomfortable Entrepreneur” Psychology Today, 83-88

Shapero, A. C. and Sokol, L., (1982) “The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship”, in C. Kent,
D. Sexton, and K. H. Vesper (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 72-90
Smallbone, D., R. Leigh, and Worth, D. (1995) “The Characteristics and Strategies of High
Growth SMEs,” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research,
1(3), 44-62
Thomas, A. and Davies, M. (1992) What’s Wrong with Microfinance? Practical Action London:
Edinburgh Press
Wale-Awe, O. (2010) Entrepreneurship Development 5th Edition, Lagos: UBT Print-serve
Ventures.
Weber, M., (1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, New York, NY:
Scribner's
Yonkers, V. (2003) “A Psychological Model of Entrepreneurial Behaviour” International
Academy of Business and Economics, Gale Group: New York

Yusuf, N (1995) “Child-Rearing Role and Work Experience of Female Employees in a

Nigerian Environment” Ilorin Journal of Sociology. 1(2) pp115

24