Family Comes First: An Investigation on Entrepreneurial Intention among Chinese Indonesian Gen Z

This study discusses the influence of family background and education in entrepreneurship on the entrepreneurial self-efficacy in shaping the entrepreneurial intention among Chinese Indonesian Gen Z. Through the application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), this research employed quantitative method design. This current study uses Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) analysis on 202 individuals. Finding indicates that Family Background and Entrepreneurship Education affect Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy mediates the relationship between Family Background and Entrepreneurship Education in Entrepreneurial Intention. However, Family Background and Entrepreneurship Education do not have direct influences towards Entrepreneurial Intention. Based on the finding, it can be determined that Family Background and Entrepreneurship Education will stimulate a high Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy which leads to Entrepreneurial Intention. Thus, this study suggests the stakeholder in education in Indonesia to create an entrepreneurship-based system in the education curriculum to equip students with knowledge of entrepreneurship and develop the skills not only to discover the business opportunity, but also to create a sustainable one, and at the same time encouraging them to have self-confident in their capability in becoming thriving entrepreneurs. This study provides an insight of the Entrepreneurial Intention among Chinese Indonesian Gen Z which has never been investigated in the past. Additionally, it contributes the empirical evidence of Entrepreneurial SelfEfficacy role in in transforming Family Background and Entrepreneurship Education into Entrepreneurial Intention.


Introduction
Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world (World Population Review, 2019), and with such position, the problem encountered by the country are various. Unemployment is remaining a daunting issue for Indonesia. Although in 2018 the number of unemployment is decreased than the previous five years with 5.34% of the total labour force, the number is still quite high when being compared with neighbouring countries like the Philippines with 5.2%, Malaysia with 3.3%, and even Thailand with only 0.8% (Trading Economics, 2018). The main challenge Indonesian entrepreneurs; namely Robert Hartono, Eka Tjipta Widjaja, Anthoni Salim, and Susilo Wonowidjojo (Globe Asia, 2018). The importance of ethnicity, especially Chinese Indonesian in the entrepreneurship, has been discussed by Koning (2007). She mentioned that both the younger and older generation of Chinese Indonesian entrepreneur's emphasis on the mentality and practice of business the significance of 'being Chinese'. This has been confirmed by numerous entrepreneur associations which based on the Chinese Indonesian ethnicity to build connection, referral, and networks with existing and potential investors or business partners (Setijadi, 2016).
This study has several significances. First of all, this study helps to enhance the knowledge of Entrepreneurial Intention in Indonesia, especially among the generation of digital natives or gen Z. The study of gen Z in the entrepreneurship is rather necessitated, due to the fact that they are ready to become the most entrepreneurial generation in history (Powers, 2018;Wolinsky, 2018). Hence, this study is able to universalise the building of Entrepreneurial Intention model. Second of all, through the variable of entrepreneurship education and the finding that indicates its influence in encouraging intention to be entrepreneurs, this research is able to advise the importance of assimilation of entrepreneurship education to the educational institution's programs. Third of all, through this study, government as the policymakers may gain a critical understanding of feasible supports for Gen Z to develop their entrepreneurial career. Conclusively, this research can be used as a reference for future studies, especially because this research takes a specific empirical approach to family background ethnicity.
This research is organised as follows. First, it portrays the background of the study. Secondly, it describes the theoretical framework and the relations between Entrepreneurship Education, Family Background, Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Intention. Thirdly, methods and hypothesis of the research are presented. Fourthly, the result is discussed. The last is the conclusion and implication of the research.

2.
Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Family Background
Family background plays a vital role for an individual to become a good entrepreneur in a family business (Matthews & Moser, Longitudinal investigation of the impact of family background and gender on interest in small firm ownership., 2016; Kumar & Prameswari, 2018). Family background is the responsibility of parents to influence and make a positive impression on children to start building good traits, positive attitudes, and ethical conduct (Marques, Santos, & Justino, 2018). Furthermore, Shittu, Ayodele, Dosunmu, and Zainab (2014) said that family gives the most education to the children, which is managing and developing a business.
The perception of entrepreneurship is influenced by the attitude of family members, as Drennan, Kennedy, and Renfrow (2005) stated that childhood experience factors of parental ownership of a business, difficult childhood, and frequent relocation influenced the entrepreneurial intention. Meanwhile, ethnicity in the family background has been conducted by Basu (2004) in the U.K., and it found that the interaction between ethnicity, culture, and class in the family background create complexity in the aspiration of entrepreneurship. Basu (2010) also mentioned that ethnic origin and education give influence towards entrepreneurial intention, while the factors of socio-economic and cultural are also important. Ranwala (2016) also has proven that family background and entrepreneurial knowledge influence the creation of venture mediated by entrepreneurship education. Moreover, personal role model, which can be found in a family, can give learning opportunities and lead to a high self-efficacy and choose entrepreneur as a career (BarNir, Watson, & Hutchins, 2011).
Based on the literature explanation stated above, it can be concluded that there is a relationship between family background and self-efficacy, as well as family background and entrepreneurial intention. Thus, the researcher hypothesised that: H1. Family Background influences Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy.

Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship Education (E.E.) is knowledge of skills, attitudes, thinking, and creativity to establish a business plan and to make the business expand (Fayolle, 2014). Besides, entrepreneurship education also combines the mental factors (i.e. knowledge, skill, and experience) and encouraging factors to stimulate and build the entrepreneurial intention (Locke, 2000). Students who are introduced to entrepreneurship education exhibited more personal attraction to entrepreneurship, stated internal locus of control, stronger self-efficacy, and higher perceived subjective norm towards entrepreneurship than students who have not enrolled to entrepreneurship course (Gerba, 2012).
The similar result happened in Africa, which showed that entrepreneurship education positively and significantly influences entrepreneurial intention because it exposes students to the general entrepreneurship knowledge and at the same time also enhance their ability to capture opportunities (Puni, Anlesinya, & Korsorku, 2018). Additionally, Basu (2010) also mentioned that past entrepreneurship education has an impact on perceived behavioural control and self-efficacy, which lead to entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurship education can also influence a person's attitude and the perceived behavioural control which lead to the entrepreneurial intention (Kusumawardani, Widyanto, & Deva, 2020) Based on the literature explanation stated above, it can be concluded that there is a relationship between entrepreneurship education and self-efficacy, as well as entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention. Thus, the researcher hypothesised that:

Entrepreneurial Self Efficacy
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy has been described by many researchers previously, for instance, Bandura (1977) defined it as a person's ability to do something with a good result when they feel confident in their own abilities. Meanwhile, Dempsey and Jennings (2014) argued that self-efficacy is a faith in one's capacity to be able to create a business activity based on personal-assessment of entrepreneurial skills. Moreover, Setiawan (2014) has identified self-efficacy beliefs that can be established more strongly after such tasks have been completed and are expected to achieve high rates of feasibility when entrepreneurial knowledge is revealed. Dempsey and Jennings (2014) discovered that convincing self-confidence to perform such actions requires a variety of factors to endorse the idea, while enactive expertise and physiological anticipation influence self-efficacy. Role models, leadership, work experience and emotional arousal also become the factors affecting self-efficacy, according to Santoso (2016). According to Renko, et al. (2015), Setiawan (2014), and Santoso (2016), creativity, management, and risktaking were conducted to measure the effectiveness towards self-efficacy. Furthermore, Farrukh et al. (2017) also mentioned that a person's belief in his or her capabilities has an impact on the intention to be an entrepreneur and start a new business.
Based on the literature explanation stated above, it can be concluded that there is a relationship between entrepreneurship self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. Thus, the researcher hypothesised that: H5. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Influences Entrepreneurial Intention

Entrepreneurial Intention
According to Fietze and Boyd (2017), the Theory of Planned Behaviour by Ajzen (2002) is one of the most significant models to explain the behaviour of human. The theory is supported by empirical evidence and forecasted the intention to perform behaviour through perceived behavioural control, attitudes, and subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991). Although the original founding of the theory is based on the approach of psychology, currently the model has been used in various field of research, including entrepreneurship to predict the Entrepreneurial Intention (Liñán and Chen, 2009;Carr and Sequeira, 2007;Heuer and Kolvereid, 2014). Wang, Lu, and Millington (2011) stated that beliefs, motives, and perceptions of the person could impact the intention to start a business and to form the intention, teachers, advisors, and consultants can help to trigger the intention. Entrepreneurial intention is defined as human behavioural activity that encourages them to pursue information, to develop an idea and to carry out a business plan in order to be an entrepreneur (Tiwari, Bhat, & Tikoria, 2017). Similar from other research, Elali and Al-Yacoub (2016) have claimed that entrepreneurial intention is a person's motivation to start and drive for the introduction of a new commercial venture from the understanding of opportunities and self-confidence towards ability will improve entrepreneurial intention in the future. Thus, from all of the researches have been conducted, it can be concluded that entrepreneurial intention is a condition where someone is equipped with motivation to establish new business and become an entrepreneur.
The entrepreneurial intention has been conducted in numerous studies to measure the attractiveness of being entrepreneurs as a career choice among students. Laviolette, Lefebvre and Brunel (2012), and Wang et al. (2011) have discovered that the potential for participation in business can be assessed by the entrepreneurial goal of the students. Moreover, it has also proven that entrepreneurial intention can be influenced or increased through entrepreneurial education (Pedrini, 2017), family background (Marques, Santos, & Justino, 2018), and self-efficacy with its three dimensions, namely support on financial support, risk-taking and marketing (Fini, Grimaldi, Marzocchi, & Sobrero, 2009).

Research Method
The researcher used the questionnaire as an instrument of the research. The researcher used 7-Likert scales because 7-Likert scales have a criterion of validity, reliability, the strength of discrimination, and the stability are quite good (Budiaji, 2013). Sauro (2010) stated that 7-point Likert scales are slightly better than the 5point due to the excellent balance of including enough points of discrimination, but at the same time do not have to maintain many response options. Seven level-Likert scales are used as the answer to the questionnaire, one means strongly disagree, and seven means strongly agree (William, 2014). The questionnaire divided into five parts. The first part is questions to filter the sample per this research limitation.
Questions are including Indonesia Chinese ethnicity and who studied business or entrepreneurship and having a parent as entrepreneurs and in the age of 17-22 years old. The second is demographic questions which are gender, age, education, and domicile as the fundamental question. The third parts are independent variable; there are two independent variables; entrepreneurship education and family background. The fourth part is the mediating variable, which is entrepreneurial selfefficacy, and the last part is the dependent variable, which is entrepreneurial intention.
According to Hanlon and Larget (2011), Population is all the individuals in an area, and sampling is a subset of the individuals in a population. The population in this research is Indonesian Chinese. According to , the sample size is some population chosen for a questionnaire survey. Therefore, the researcher sample is Indonesia Chinese who studied in business or entrepreneur, and the parents is an entrepreneur and with the age range of 17 -22 years old. Recommended sample size based on Adekiya and Ibrahim (2016) minimum sample size is 200 respondents. There are two types of sampling technique which are probability and non-probability (Mohamad, Lim, & Yusof, 2015). In this research, the researcher used non-probability test or non-random sampling. The researcher used purposive sampling as the type of non-probability techniques to get specific respondents (Crossman, 2018).
In this study, the method that is used to collect the data needed from respondents is through an online survey via Google Form in Google Drive. The data collected with the total number of 315. The screening result and data check reveal that only 202 data were valid because 80 responses are stopped in the screening question, and 33 data were invalid. The respondents' answer is saved in Microsoft Excel in the format of raw data and then analysed in the statistical program to test the validity and reliability. Finally, to test the hypothesis and framework model, this study used Structural Equation Model through AMOS. The questionnaire distributed via online applications such as Line, WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram. The theoretical framework of this study can be seen in Figure 3.1, while the respondent profile can be seen in

Validity and Reliability Test
According to Surbhi (2017), validity is the degree to which the score of measurement represents the intended variable concerned by the researcher. The validity used in this study is a construct validity, which consists of convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity is measuring the same construct correspond while discriminant validity does not measure what it should not (Shuttleworth, 2009). This method measures a scale or tests the construct competently in SPSS, which is why this method is chosen.
According to Field (2013), There are five factors in order to analyse is valid or not. The criteria, according to Field: KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) should be above or equal to 0.5 (KMO  0.5); Bartlett's test should less than or equal to 0.05 (Sig. ≤ 0.05); Communalities should be greater than or equal to 0.5 (Communalities ≥ 0.5); Total Variance Explained should be higher or equal to 60%; Component Matrix should be above 0.5.
Reliability is an instrument that can be interpreted consistently. To make sure the variable is reliable or not, the researcher used Cronbach's Alpha equation. The value of Cronbach's Alpha should above than 0.6 (George & Mallery, 2000). The details of the validity and reliability tests can be seen in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3. In summary, from the entire criterion of validity and reliability, the result passed the requirement, which implies that all the variables reported being valid and reliable.

Inferential Analysis
The inferential analysis is carried out using AMOS software, with a graph following the theoretical structure model, namely Entrepreneurship Education, and Family Background as Exogenous variables. Also, Entrepreneurial Intention and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy as Endogenous variables.
The researcher examined the error in each item to analyse unobserved variables and set the correlation arrow depending on the modification indices suggested by AMOS (intra-variable

Result and Discussion
The first hypothesis "H1: Family background influences entrepreneurial selfefficacy" is accepted. This result indicated the same result as the study from Shittu, Ayodele, Dosunmu and Zainab (2014). They proved that family background is one of the important things for entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Besides, the journal is written by Shittu, Ayodele, Dosunmu and Zainab (2014) also stated that not only family background influences entrepreneurial self-efficacy, but experience and intention, venture feasibility and venture desirability can also influence entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
The second hypothesis "H2: Family background influences entrepreneurial intention" is rejected. This result was different from the previous study by Marques, Santos, Galvao, Mascarenhas, and Justino (2018). They proved family background influences entrepreneurial intention. Based on Foster (2018), gen-Z is so familiar with the internet, smartphone and social media, so that they use their technology skills to build the business. In other words, gen Z does not really need a family who is having entrepreneurship background to choose a career in entrepreneurship. They are now exposed by many role models outside of their inner circle, or in this case, is family, through the Internet.
The third hypothesis "H3: Entrepreneurship education influences entrepreneurial self-efficacy" is accepted, and the previous study from Chen (1998) also stated the same result. Besides, Chen (1998) also stated that not only entrepreneurship education influences entrepreneurial self-efficacy, but also risk-taker trait, management, finance control, and marketing could also influence entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
The fourth hypothesis "H4: Entrepreneurship education influences entrepreneurial intention" is rejected. This result was different from the previous study by Pedrini (2017) that proved entrepreneurship education influences entrepreneurial intention. Moreover, according to Vina (2015), entrepreneurship education not always influences entrepreneurial intention, gen-Z is choosing to skip college or university, and directly open a business. Gen-Z prefers to study in a workplace than study at school (Powers, 2018)it can be seen from the most successful company. For example, Mark Zuckerberg as the co-founding Facebook, he did not study entrepreneurship education, but he studied information and technology (Schawbel, 2017) The last hypothesis "H5: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy influences entrepreneurial intention" is supported in this research. The previous study from Fini (2014) also stated the same result; she proved that entrepreneurial self-efficacy influences entrepreneurial intention. Besides, Fini (2014) also stated that not only entrepreneurial self-efficacy influences entrepreneurial intention but financial support, risk-taking and marketing could also influence entrepreneurial intention.

Limitation
This study has several limitations and gaps which need to be considered and addressed in future research. This study does not provide a number of elements such as work experience like in Sanchez et al. (2017), entrepreneurial behaviour like in Ajzen I. (1991), also not include cultural factors like in Sanchez et al. (2017) and gender like in Feder and Niţu-Antonie (2017) as variables but only as additional analysis.

Recommendation
The researcher recommends future research to add other variables, such as perceived behaviour control and attitude towards entrepreneurship. This previous study by Farooq and Salam (2018), stated that behaviour control and attitude towards entrepreneurship would impact entrepreneurial intention because to build a business people need have good behaviour and the right attitude to become a successful person. Furthermore, future research needs to add gender in demography respondent. This previous study by Miranda (2017), stated that gender would impact entrepreneurial intention because the characteristic of the people such as risk-taking, achievement orientation and dominance, which are more strongly linked to men than women.