Category

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

Introduction

The following chapter is intended towards providing analysis of the data retrieved from the online surveys which have been carried out by the Indonesian students by the researcher. The researcher was able to get 100 responses filled by the respondents as it was circulated on different forms of social media platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Gmail, and WhatsApp. Therefore, the responses have been collected from different locations in Indonesia. In this chapter, the researcher has incorporated the demographic analysis of the respondents along with the descriptive analysis. In order to add value towards the authenticity of the research results, the researcher has also incorporated correlation and regression analysis in order to find the relationship between the role of Indonesian Government and promotion of Social Entrepreneurship in Indonesia. The chapter also highlights safe conclusions along with the implications directed towards the scope and limitation of the research.

Demographic Analysis

Gender of the Respondents

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-74

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-75

From the table and pie-chart presented above, it can be asserted that there were a total of 100 respondents of the study out of which 47 respondents were male and 53 respondents were female respondents. This implies that the majority of the respondents were female which can also be viewed from the green area of the pie-chart.

Age of the Respondents

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-76

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-77

From the table presented above, it can be asserted that out of 100 respondents, 13 respondents were from the age bracket of 18-21 years, 18 were from 22-25 years, 22 respondents were from 26-30 years, 36 respondents were from the age bracket of 31-34 years and 11 respondents were 35 years or above. The majority of the respondents were from the age bracket of 31-34 years.

Descriptive Analysis

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-78

The first question of the online survey was directed towards the understanding of social entrepreneurship concepts on which the respondents have to mark the suggested definitions according to their understanding level of social entrepreneurship. It can be comprehended from the table presented above that around 23% of the respondents marked the first explanation of the social entrepreneurship which stated that the individuals with innovative solution towards the society’s most pressing social problems. Secondly, for the statement that social enterprise is a charity which is used as a social media technique for fundraising for which 27% of the respondents out of 100 were in support of this statement.

The third statement speaks about that the social entrepreneurship is an independent business where the individual’s acts as an agent of change for the environment of the society on which 25% respondents out of 100 marked to this statement. The fourth statement speaks about the social entrepreneurship statement that the social enterprises are about looking for the solutions for the poor people problems to which 25% of the respondents marked the following statement of the social entrepreneurship. However, from the total results for the question, the majority of the respondents were in the support of the explanation that the social enterprises are a charity which uses social media for fundraising.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-79

From the question presented above which was directed towards the assessment whether the respondents were interested in being a social entrepreneur. To this question, a total of 40% of the respondents responded in the favour of being a social entrepreneur that includes the scale of very interested and interested. In addition, there were 29% of the respondents who remained neutral with this question to which it was asserted that either they were not aware of the question or are indecisive about the fact that whether they want to be a social entrepreneur or not. On the other hand, there were 31% of the respondents who refuted from becoming a social entrepreneur.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-80

The table presented above is aimed towards the assessment that the respondents of the study are interested in what sector for becoming a social entrepreneur in Indonesia. For this question, it was asserted that around 10% of the respondents want to be the social entrepreneur in agriculture sector, 6% were interested in reducing poverty by introducing NGOs, 20% were interested in the healthcare sector, 28% of the respondents were interested in the education sector, 12% were interested in the fishery sector and the remaining respondents accounting for 24% were not interested in being a social entrepreneur. No respondent marked the others section which makes apparent here that majority of the respondents wants to become a social entrepreneur in the educational sector of Indonesia.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-81

From the results in the table above, it can be interpreted that around 45% of the respondents of the study were in the favour of the statement that most common challenge faced by a Social entrepreneur is a lack of funds. In addition, 20% of the respondents were in the favour that lack of entrepreneurial education is the common challenge which is faced by the social entrepreneur. Furthermore, 17% of the respondents stated that formulating strategy was the most common challenge faced by the social entrepreneurs whereas 18% marked the option of others. This highlights that majority was in favour that funds are the major hurdle in the social entrepreneurship.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-82

The table presented above highlights that if the respondents were interested in becoming a social entrepreneur in future, then what support they are expecting from the Indonesian government. In response to this question, 23% of the respondents reported that government will be helpful in providing adequate funds to the social entrepreneur. However, 19% of the respondents were in the favour that the government will be supportive in providing education about the social entrepreneurship. In addition, 19% of the respondents were in the opinion that Indonesian government will be helpful in providing ease of obtaining formal legality. Furthermore, approximately 18% of the respondents were in the favour that Indonesian government will be helpful in the continuity of the business. From the total responses, the majority of the reported that funds will be the best support expected from the Indonesian Government.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-83

From the table presented above, the question statement was directed towards that the Indonesian Government provides adequate management consultancy and legal counselling to the social entrepreneurs in the country. To this question, 25% of the respondents out of 100 were in the favour of the statement that the government provides adequate support in terms of management consultancy and the legal counselling. In addition, around 15% of the respondents remained neutral to the statement which highlights either they were not aware of the question being asked by the researcher or does not want to comment on it. However, a total of 57% of the respondents negatively responded to the question. Therefore, the majority was not in the favour of the statement that the Indonesia government provision of adequate support to the social entrepreneurs.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-84

According to the table presented above, the question statement was focused towards that the Indonesian Government provides adequate marketing support in terms of social entrepreneurship. The result to this question implies that 13% of the respondents out of 100 were in the favour of the statement that the government provides adequate support in terms of marketing of the social business of the social entrepreneur. In addition to the above statement, around 39% of the respondents remained neutral to the statement which reflects that either they were not aware of the question being asked by the researcher or does not want to comment on it. However, a total of 51% of the respondents did not respond positively towards the question statement. Therefore, the majority was not in the favour of the statement that the Indonesia government provision of adequate support business in terms of marketing for the help of the social entrepreneurs.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-85

The results mentioned in the table presented above highlights that around 45% of the respondents were in the favour of the statement that Indonesian Government provides adequate financial support to the social entrepreneurs. On the other hand, there were 32% of the respondents who responded negatively to the question statement reflecting that either they were not aware of the question statement or does not want to comment on this statement. Approximately 23% of the respondents were not in the favour of the statement which is the reason they did not agree with the fact that government provide adequate financial support to the social entrepreneurs.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-86

The results mentioned in the table presented above highlights that around 45% of the respondents were in the favour of the statement that Indonesian Government provides adequate financial support to the social entrepreneurs. On the other hand, there were 32% of the respondents who responded negatively to the question statement reflecting that either they were not aware of the question statement or does not want to comment on this statement. Approximately 23% of the respondents were not in the favour of the statement which is the reason they did not agree with the fact that government provide adequate financial support to the social entrepreneurs.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-87

The results revealed in the table presented above reports that around 67% of the respondents which includes the scales of strongly agree and agree were in the support of the statement that the regulatory environments and the bureaucratic procedures are favourable for the Indonesian social entrepreneurs. On the other hand, there were 21% of the respondents who responded negatively to the question statement reflecting that either they were not aware of the question statement or does not want to comment on this statement. In addition, a total of 12% of the respondents were not in the favour of the statement.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-98

From the table presented above, it can be asserted that majority of the respondents approximately at 57% were in the favour of the statement that social entrepreneurs have adequate capacities to facilitate the governmental procedures. However, there were 28% of the respondents who remained neutral with the question statement implying that they neither agreed not disagree with the statement. On the contrary side, there 15% of the respondents who completely disagree with the statement made by the researcher implying that majority of the Indonesian respondents supported the statement.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-90

In the light of the table presented above, the question statement was focused towards that the government of Indonesia assist in providing new sources of the funding in the favour of social entrepreneurship. The result to this question implies that a total of 55% of the respondents out of 100 were in the favour of the statement that the government assist in funding the social entrepreneurship. Further to add in the analysis, around 30% of the respondents remained neutral to the statement which reflects that either they were not aware of the question being asked by the researcher or does not want to comment on it. Conversely, a total of 15% of the respondents did not respond positively towards the question statement.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-91

According to the findings presented in the table above, the question statement was focused towards that Government assesses the performance of the social entrepreneurs’ business for supporting if the business is deficient in a certain direction. The result to this question implies that a total of 50% of the respondents out of 100 were in the favour of the question which includes the responses from the scale of strongly agree and disagree. In addition to the explanation of the research results for this question, around 21% of the respondents remained neutral to the statement which reflects that either they were not aware of the question being asked by the researcher or does not want to comment on it. Contrariwise, a total of 29% of the respondents were not in the favour of the question states that government take measures to support the deficient social businesses in the Indonesia.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-92

The main theme presented in the table above is intended towards assessing the reviews that the government continue to boost the access of the funding for the social entrepreneurs. For this statement, the 28% of the respondents strongly agree with the statement whereas, 35% of the respondents agree with the statement that government should provide adequate support to boost the access of funding to the social entrepreneurs. In addition, there were 14% responses who remained neutral to this question explaining that either they were not aware of the question statement or does not want to comment on it. On the contrary side, there were 23% respondents in total who negatively responded to the statement.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-93

The last question of the online survey was intended towards assessing whether the government should focus towards promoting the idea of innovation to the social entrepreneurs. In response to this question, 55% of the respondents were in the support of the statement the government should promote the idea of innovation in their social businesses. In addition, there were 32% of the respondents who remained neutral to the question being asked by the researcher in the online survey implying that they neither agreed nor disagree with this idea. On the different side, there were only 13% respondents who were not in the support of the statement that government of Indonesia should promote the idea of innovation in the business plan.

Correlation Analysis

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-94

The table presented above represents the Pearson correlation which defines the strength of the relationship between the dependent and independent variables of the study. In this research, the independent variable is role of government and the dependent variable is the promotion of the social entrepreneurship with a specific focus in Indonesia. From the correlation value, it can be asserted that the correlation value of the variables is estimated at 0.764 or 76.4% which explains that if the role of the government increases then there will be significant promotion of social entrepreneurship in Indonesia. The value reflects the positive correlation between the role of government and the social entrepreneurship promotion in Indonesia. In addition, the Sig. (2-tailed) value is estimated at 0.000 which also implies a statistically significant correlation between the variables.

Regression Analysis

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-55

The first table of the regression analysis represents the model summary along with the overall fit statistics. In this table it can be identifies that the adjusted R2 of the model is 0.579 with the R2= 583 which implies that linear regression explains the 58.3% of the variance between the dependent and independent variable.  The model also reflects the value of R which is also significant and reflects the variation in the variables.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-56

The ANOVA table describes that how the model fits into the data of the research and also examines the goodness of fit statistics. It can be observed from the table that the sig value is at 0.000 which implies that the dependent variable (promotion of social entrepreneurship) can be significantly explained by the predictor (Role of government) of the selected study.

Marketing-Dissertation-Data-Analysis-Sample-Picture-57

The coefficient table explains the outcome of the regression which highlights whether the influence of predictors on the dependent variables exists in the data. The sig values should be lesser than 0.05, however, it can be observed from the table presented that all the values are significant as they are less than 0.05. It can be said that there is a significance of role of government on the promotion of the social enterprise.

Reference

Abereijo, I.O., 2016. Ensuring environmental sustainability through sustainable entrepreneurship. Economic modeling, analysis, and policy for sustainability, pp.234-249.

Acs, Z.J., Autio, E. and Szerb, L., 2014. National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy43(3), pp.476-494.

Almeida, P.I., Ahmetoglu, G. and Chamorro-Premuzic, T., 2014. Who wants to be an entrepreneur? The relationship between vocational interests and individual differences in entrepreneurship. Journal of Career Assessment22(1), pp.102-112.

Anggadwita, G. and Dhewanto, W., 2016. The influence of personal attitude and social perception on women entrepreneurial intentions in micro and small enterprises in Indonesia. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business27(2-3), pp.131-148.

Bacq, S., Hartog, C. and Hoogendoorn, B., 2013. A quantitative comparison of social and commercial entrepreneurship: Toward a more nuanced understanding of social entrepreneurship organizations in context. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship4(1), pp.40-68.

Bae, T.J., Qian, S., Miao, C. and Fiet, J.O., 2014. The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta‐analytic review. Entrepreneurship theory and practice38(2), pp.217-254.

Becker, G.S., 2013. The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago press.

British Council. 2017. UK launches international social investment strategy. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.britishcouncil.org/society/social-enterprise/news-events/news-uk-international-social-investment-strategy. [Accessed 31 July 2017].

Bromley, P. and Meyer, J.W., 2014. “They Are All Organizations” The Cultural Roots of Blurring Between the Nonprofit, Business, and Government Sectors. Administration & Society.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2015. Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.

Bryman, A., 2015. Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Choi, N. and Majumdar, S., 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing29(3), pp.363-376.

Choi, N. and Majumdar, S., 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing29(3), pp.363-376.

Cotterrell, R., 2013. Law, culture and society: Legal ideas in the mirror of social theory. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..

Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W. and Weiss, J.M., 2013. The social construction, challenge and transformation of a budgetary regime: The endogenization of welfare regulation by institutional entrepreneurs. Accounting, Organizations and Society38(5), pp.333-364.

Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Di Zhang, D. and Swanson, L.A., 2013. Social entrepreneurship in nonprofit organizations: An empirical investigation of the synergy between social and business objectives. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing25(1), pp.105-125.

Fowler Jr, F.J., 2013. Survey research methods. Sage publications.

Frynas, J.G. and Stephens, S., 2015. Political corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. International Journal of Management Reviews17(4), pp.483-509.

Fuller, T., Pearson, M., Peters, J. and Anderson, R., 2015. What affects authors’ and editors’ use of reporting guidelines? Findings from an online survey and qualitative interviews. PloS one10(4), p.e0121585.

Giddens, A., 2013. The third way: The renewal of social democracy. John Wiley & Sons.

Hayllar, M.R. and Wettenhall, R., 2013. As public goes private, social emerges: The rise of social enterprise. Public Organization Review13(2), p.207.

Idris, A. and Hijrah Hati, R., 2013. Social entrepreneurship in Indonesia: Lessons from the past. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship4(3), pp.277-301.

Jain, R. and Ali, S.W., 2013. A review of facilitators, barriers and gateways to entrepreneurship: directions for future research. South Asian Journal of Management20(3), p.122.

Kickul, J. and Lyons, T.S., 2016. Understanding social entrepreneurship: The relentless pursuit of mission in an ever changing world. Routledge.

Kostetska, I. and Berezyak, I., 2014. Social entrepreneurship as an innovative solution mechanism of social problems of society. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development36(3), pp.569-577.

Latchem, C.R., 2014. Informal learning and non-formal education for development. Journal of Learning for Development-JL4D1(1).

Lee, I., 2015. A social enterprise business model for social entrepreneurs: theoretical foundations and model development. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation3(4), pp.269-301.

Leitch, C.M., McMullan, C. and Harrison, R.T., 2013. The development of entrepreneurial leadership: The role of human, social and institutional capital. British Journal of Management24(3), pp.347-366.

Leonardi, P.M., Huysman, M. and Steinfield, C., 2013. Enterprise social media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication19(1), pp.1-19.

Lombard, A., 2014. Entrepreneurship In Africa: Social Work Challenges For Human, Social And Economic Development. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk39(3).

Macmillan, R., 2013. ‘Distinction’in the third sector. Voluntary Sector Review4(1), pp.39-54.

Mazzucato, M., 2015. The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths (Vol. 1). Anthem Press.

Mertens, D.M., 2014. Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage publications.

Nandan, M., London, M. and Blum, T.C., 2014. Community practice social entrepreneurship: an interdisciplinary approach to graduate education. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation3(1), pp.51-70.

Osburg, T. and Schmidpeter, R., 2013. Social innovation. Solutions for a sustainable future. Springer.

Packard, M.D., 2017. Where did interpretivism go in the theory of entrepreneurship?. Journal of Business Venturing.

Payumo, J.G., Arasu, P., Fauzi, A.M., Siregar, I.Z. and Noviana, D., 2014. An entrepreneurial, research-based university model focused on intellectual property management for economic development in emerging economies: The case of Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia. World patent information36, pp.22-31.

Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N. and James, P., 2015. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management40(3), pp.428-461.

Razafindrambinina, D. and Sabran, A., 2014. The impact of strategic corporate social responsibility on operating performance: An Investigation Using Data Envelopment Analysis In Indonesia. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly6(1), p.68.

Razafindrambinina, D. and Sabran, A., 2014. The impact of strategic corporate social responsibility on operating performance: An Investigation Using Data Envelopment Analysis In Indonesia. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly6(1), p.68.

Ridley-Duff, R. and Bull, M., 2015. Understanding social enterprise: Theory and practice. Sage.

Roth, S., 2014. The eye-patch of the beholder: introduction to entrepreneurship and piracy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business22(4), pp.399-407.

Roumboutsos, A. and Pantelias, A., 2015. Allocating revenue risk in transport infrastructure public private partnership projects: How it matters. Transport Reviews35(2), pp.183-203.

Salamon, L.M. and Sokolowski, S.W., 2016. Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations27(4), pp.1515-1545.

Sánchez, J.C., 2013. The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management51(3), pp.447-465.

Scaffa, M.E. and Reitz, S.M., 2013. Occupational therapy community-based practice settings. FA Davis.

Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E., 2014. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage publications.

Schönbrodt, F.D. and Perugini, M., 2013. At what sample size do correlations stabilize?. Journal of Research in Personality47(5), pp.609-612.

Sekliuckiene, J. and Kisielius, E., 2015. Development of social entrepreneurship initiatives: a theoretical framework. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences213, pp.1015-1019.

Tsang, E.W., 2014. Case studies and generalization in information systems research: A critical realist perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems23(2), pp.174-186.

Turner, S., 2013. Indonesia’s small entrepreneurs: Trading on the margins. Routledge.

Uprichard, E., 2013. Sampling: bridging probability and non-probability designs. International Journal of Social Research Methodology16(1), pp.1-11.

Vanevenhoven, J. and Liguori, E., 2013. The impact of entrepreneurship education: Introducing the entrepreneurship education project. Journal of small business management51(3), pp.315-328.

Vickers, I. and Lyon, F., 2014. Beyond green niches? Growth strategies of environmentally-motivated social enterprises. International Small Business Journal32(4), pp.449-470.

Wiguna, A.B. and Manzilati, A., 2014. Social Entrepreneurship and Socio-entrepreneurship: A Study with Economic and Social Perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences115, pp.12-18.

Wilson, F. and Post, J.E., 2013. Business models for people, planet (& profits): exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small Business Economics, pp.1-23.

Zahra, S.A. and Wright, M., 2016. Understanding the social role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies53(4), pp.610-629.

Zahra, S.A., Newey, L.R. and Li, Y., 2014. On the frontiers: The implications of social entrepreneurship for international entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice38(1), pp.137-158.

Appendix

Questionnaire

Participants Information Sheet

The following questionnaire has been designed in order to assess the role of government in promoting social enterprise among students in Indonesia. 

Gender 

  •  Male
  •  Female

Age 

  •  18 – 21
  •  22 – 25
  •  26 – 30
  •  31 – 34
  •  35 +

Questions

  1. Which one of the following statements best matches your understanding of social entrepreneurship? 

Individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems

Social enterprises are a charity that uses social media for fundraising

Independent business individuals that act as agents of change for the environment

Social enterprises are about looking for solutions to poor people problems

  1. Are you interested in being a Social Entrepreneurship? 
  •  Very Interested
  •  Interested
  •  Neutral
  •  Not Interested
  •  Very Not Interested
  1. Which sectors are you interested if you become a Social Entrepreneur in Indonesia?  
  • Agriculture
  • Poverty
  • Healthcare
  • Education
  • Fishery
  • Not Interesting in Social Entrepreneurship
  • Other

If you selected Other, please specify: 

Your answer should be no more than 100 characters long.

__________________________________________________________________

  1. What do you think is the most common challenge faced by Social Entrepreneurship? 
  • Funds
  • Lack of Entrepreneurship Education
  • Strategy
  • Other

If you selected Other, please specify: 

Your answer should be no more than 100 characters long.

__________________________________________________________________

  1. If you are interested in becoming a Social Entrepreneurship in the future, what kind of support do you expecting from the Indonesian Government? 
  • Funds
  • Education about Social Entrepreneurship
  • Ease in Obtaining Formal Legality
  • Guarantee of Intellectual Property
  • Continuity of Business
  • Other

If you selected other, please specify: 

Your answer should be no more than 100 characters long.

__________________________________________________________________

6. How much do you agree with each following questions

  • Indonesian Government provides adequate management consultancy and legal counseling  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know

7. Indonesian Government provides adequate marketing support in terms of Social Entrepreneurship  

  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. Indonesian Government provides adequate financial support in terms of Social Entrepreneurship  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. Social enterprises play an important role as an economic agent for Indonesia  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. Regulatory environments and bureaucratic procedures are favourable in Indonesia for Social Entrepreneurs  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. Social Entrepreneurs have adequate capacities to facilitate governmental procedures  
  • Strongly Agree
  • Agree
  • Neutral
  • Disagree
  • Strongly Disagree
  • Do Not Know
  1. The government assist in providing new sources of funding for the social entrepreneurship  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. Government assesses the performance of social entrepreneurs’ businesses to support if the business deficient in certain way  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. The government continue to boost the access of funding for the social entrepreneurs  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know
  1. Government also promotes the idea of innovation to the social entrepreneurs  
  •  Strongly Agree
  •  Agree
  •  Neutral
  •  Disagree
  •  Strongly Disagree
  •  Do Not Know