Skip to main content
Log in

Female Entrepreneurship and Economic Activity

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The European Journal of Development Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several studies and aid programs claim the contribution to welfare resulting from female entrepreneurship to be higher than that resulting from the activity of men. Unfortunately, however, the number of women entrepreneurs is significantly lower than that of men. Although quite a bit of attention has been paid to the existence of gender differences in entrepreneurial behavior, the causes of such differences are significantly less understood. No general agreement exists on whether they result from contextual or evolutionary causes and, in particular, no consensus exists on whether such differences are, at least to some extent, linked to the per-capita GDP of a country. Using a large set of data covering individuals from 34 nations, this article makes an initial attempt to address these questions. Although exploratory, the results suggest that per-capita GDP levels are significantly associated with the gender gap in entrepreneurial behavior but that subjective perceptions also play an important role. In contrast, individual demographic and economic conditions are found to be of relatively little importance.

Un certain nombre d’études et de programmes d’assistance affirment que la contribution de l’entreprenariat féminin au bien-être social est plus importante que la contribution résultant des activités des hommes. Cependant, le nombre de femmes entrepreneurs est malheureusement sensiblement moins élevé que celui des hommes. Une attention relativement soutenue est consacrée à l’existence de différences entre les hommes et les femmes dans leur comportement entrepreneurial, mais les causes de telles différences sont nettement moins bien comprises. Il n’existe aucun consensus sur les causes, contextuelles ou évolutives, de ces différences; Plus spécifiquement, il n’y a pas de consensus pour dire que de telles différences sont, au moins en partie, liées au PIB par habitant des pays. En se basant sur une grande base de données concernant les individus de 34 pays, cet article fait une première tentative d’exploration de ces questions. Bien qu’exploratoires, les résultats suggèrent que les niveaux de PIB par habitant ont un rapport significatif avec les différences entre les hommes et les femmes dans leurs comportements entrepreneuriaux, mais que les perceptions individuelles jouent également un rôle important. Par contraste, on constate que les conditions individuelles démographiques et économiques ont une influence relativement peu importante.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Notes

  1. More details about the GEM project can be found at www.gemconsortium.org.

  2. Unfortunately, the data do not allow the distinction between formal and informal sectors. However, what matters here is why the percentage of men starting a business is higher than the percentage of women trying to do so, not their absolute or relative distribution between formal and informal sectors. Thus, although this distinction is an important one in many instances, it does not bear directly on the research question of this article.

  3. GDP per capita is measured in Purchasing Power Parities to correct for differences in standard costs of living. The method used to divide countries into income groups is consistent with GEM methodology. The groupings, however, are not entirely consistent with those used by the World Bank. This is largely because of the relatively small number of countries (34) used in this study and the relatively small variance in their GDP. However, this is not necessarily a problem. If the results hold for a small group of relatively similar countries, they are more likely to hold (and be more pronounced) when a larger and more diverse group of countries is used. In fact, they are consistent with those of Wennekers et al (2005) and Wennekers and Thurik (1999) who were among the first to test and find evidence of a U-shaped relationship between per capita GDP and entrepreneurship using both World Bank and OECD data.

  4. In 2004, Denmark was the only outlier with the entrepreneurial activity rate of women peaking at 45–54 years.

  5. For a detailed description of the mathematics of this approach see Minniti and Nardone (2007).

  6. Although the descriptive statistics in the section ‘Data and Descriptive Statistics’ are based on weighed data aimed at rendering the GEM samples representative of each country's population, the data used in the equalized bootstrapping model are un-weighed row data. Results are consistent.

References

  • Acs, Z., Arenius, P., Hay, M. and Minniti, M. (2005) 2004 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor – Executive Report. London Business School, UK, and Babson College, MA, USA.

  • Acs, Z. and Szerb, L. (2007) Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small Business Economics 28 (2–3): 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajayi-obe, O. and Parker, S.C. (2005) The changing nature of work among the self-employed in the 1990s: Evidence from Britain. Journal of Labor Research 26 (3): 501–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. and Zimmer, C. (1986) Entrepreneurship through social networks. In: D.L Sexton and R.W. Smilor (eds.) The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, pp. 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H.E. (1999) Organizations Evolving. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, E. and Langowitz, N. (forthcoming) Understanding the gender entrepreneurship gap: A multi-country examination. In: M. Minniti (ed.) The Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Activity: Theory and Evidence, in press. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Allen, E., Langowitz, N. and Minniti, M. (2007) The 2006 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Special Topic Report: Women in Entrepreneurship. Center for Women Leadership, Babson College. Babson Park, MA.

  • Amoros, E. and Cristi, O. (forthcoming) Poverty and entrepreneurship. In: M. Minniti, (ed.) The Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Activity: Theory and Evidence, in press. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Arenius, P. and Minniti, M. (2005) Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics 24: 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. (2007) Entrepreneurship capital and economic growth. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 23 (1): 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., Keilbach, M. and Lehmann, E. (2006) Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchflower, D.G. (2004) Self-Employment: More May Not Be Better. NBER Working Paper No. 10286.

  • Blanchflower, D.G. and Oswald, A.J. (1998) What makes an entrepreneur? Journal of Labor Economics 16 (1): 26–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boserup, E. (1970) Woman's Role in Economic Development. London. Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, N.G. and Vozikis, G.S. (1994) The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18 (4): 63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budig, M.J. (2006) Gender, self-employment, and earnings: The interlocking structures of family and professional status. Gender & Society 20 (6): 72553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L.W. and Barney, J.B. (1997) Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing 12: 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carree, M.A. and Thurik, A.R. (2006) Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, N.M. and Rosa, P. (1998) The financing of male and female owned-business. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 10 (3): 225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamlee-Wright, E. (1997) The Cultural Foundations of Economic Development. London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cowling, M. and Taylor, M. (2001) Entrepreneurial women and men: Two different species? Small Business Economics 16 (3): 167–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, A.C. and Hinkley, D.V. (1997) Bootstrap Methods and Their Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Devine, T.J. (1994a) Changes in wage-and-salary returns to skill and the recent rise in female self-employment. The American Economic Review 84 (2): 108–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine, T.J. (1994b) Characteristics of self-employed women in the United States. Monthly Labor Review 117 (3): 20–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efron, B. (1979) Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. Annals of Statistics 7: 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efron, B. (1982) The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. and Jovanovic, B. (1989) An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy 97: 808–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgellis, Y. and Wall, H. (2005) Gender differences in self-employment. International Review of Applied Economics 19: 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gohmann, S.F., Hobbs, B.K. and McCrickard, M. (2008) Economic freedom and service industry growth in the United States. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35 (2): 855–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, D. (1996) Enterpreneurship and the Market Process: An Inquiry into the Growth of Knowledge. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jianakoplos, N.A. and Bernasek, A. (1998) Are women more risk averse? Economic Inquiry 36 (4): 620–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J.E.V. and Powell, P.B. (1994) Decision making, risk and gender: Are managers different? British Journal of Management 5 (2): 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kantor, P. (2002) Gender, microenterprise success and cultural context: The case of South Asia. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26 (4): 131–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kihlstrom, R.E. and Laffont, J.J. (1979) A general equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of firm formation based on risk aversion. Journal of Political Economy 87: 719–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, G. (2007) The analysis of self-employment levels over the life-cycle. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 47 (3): 397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koellinger, P., Minniti, M. and Schade, C. (2007) I think I can, I think I can …: A study of entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology 28: 502–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langowitz, N. and Minniti, M. (2007) The entrepreneurial propensity of women. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31 (3): 341–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, M. and Minniti, M. (2006) The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business Venturing 21 (2): 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I.P., Snyder, M.A. and Chapman, D.P. (1988) The interaction of experiential and situational factors and gender in a simulated risky decision making task. Journal of Psychology 122 (2): 173–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallon, M. and Cohen, L. (2001) Time for a change? Women's accounts of the move from organizational careers to self-employment. British Journal of Management 12 (3): 217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, H. (2008) Segmentation and segregation patterns of women-owned high-tech firms in four metropolitan regions in the United States. Regional Studies 42 (10): 1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, I.C., Yang, E.A. and Tsai, W. (1992) Does culture endure, or is it malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development. Journal of Business Venturing 1: 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMullen, J., Bagby, R. and Palich, L. (2008) Economic freedom and the motivation to engage in entrepreneurial action. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35 (2): 875–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minniti, M. (2005) Entrepreneurship and network externalities. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 57 (1): 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minniti, M. (2010) Entrepreneurship, poverty and institutions. Manuscript.

  • Minniti, M., Allen, E. and Langowitz, N. (2006) The 2005 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Special Topic Report: Women in Entrepreneurship. Center for Women Leadership, Babson College. Babson Park, MA.

  • Minniti, M. and Nardone, C. (2007) Being in someone else's shoes: Gender and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics 28 (2–3): 223–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naude', W.A. (2009) Entrepreneurship is not a binding constraint on growth and development in the poorest countries. Manuscript.

  • Neumark, D. and McLennan, M. (1995) Sex discrimination and women's labor market outcomes. The Journal of Human Resources 30: 713–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P.D., Bygrave, B. and Hay, M. (2003) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Report. Kansas City, MO: E. M. Kauffmann Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P., Storey, D.J. and Westhead, P. (1994) Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates. Regional Studies 28 (4): 443–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P.D. et al. (2005) Global entrepreneurship monitor: Data collection design and implementation 1998–2003. Small Business Economics 24: 205–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S.A. and Venkataraman, S. (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The Academy of Management Review 25 (1): 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M.P. (1996) Earnings, independence or unemployment; why become self-employed? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 58 (2): 253–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Stel, A., Thurik, R., Wennekers, S. and Reynolds, P. (2004) Explaining Variation in Nascent Entrepreneurship Zoetermeer, The Netherlands. Research Report H200401.

  • Verheul, I. and Thurik, R. (2001) Start-up capital: Does gender matter? Small Business Economics 16: 329–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennekers, S. and Thurik, R. (1999) Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics Journal 13 (1): 27–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennekers, S., Van Stel, A., Thurik, A.R. and Reynolds, P. (2005) Nascent entrepreneurship and the level of economic development. Small Business Economics 24 (3): 293–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yunus, M. (2007) The Nobel Peace Prize 2006 Nobel Lecture. Law and Business Review of the Americas 13 (2): 267–275.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Wim Naudé and two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. Many thanks go also to the GEM Consortium for granting use of the data. All errors are mine.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Appendix

Appendix

Data Description

Started in 1999 with 10 participating countries, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) project has expanded to include 34 countries in 2004. GEM is an ongoing research project aimed at collecting data describing various aspects of the entrepreneurial processes within a wide range of countries. Data are collected via phone or face-to-face surveys of the adult populations using highly standardized questionnaires in each participating country.

Included in the survey are:

  • Those older than the normal school leaving age

  • All geographic regions of the country

  • Those considered in and out of the labor force (housewives, retirees, students were included)

All respondents are asked three basic questions:

1a. Are you, alone or with others, currently trying to start a new business, including any type of self-employment? (yes, no, don’t know, refuse)

1b. Are you, alone or with others, trying to start a new business or a new venture with your employer – an effort that is part of your normal work? (yes, no, don’t know, refuse)

1c. Are you, alone or with others, the owner of a company you help manage? (yes, no, don’t know, refuse)

Respondents who answer ‘yes’ to items 1a or 1b, are then asked:

2a. You mentioned that you are trying to start a new business. Over the past 12 months have you done anything to help start this new business, such as looking for equipment or a location, organizing a start-up team, working on a business plan, beginning to save money or any other activity that would help launch a business? (yes, no, don’t know, refuse)

2b. Will you personally own all, part or none of this business? (all, part, none, don’t know, refuse)

2c. Has the new business paid any salaries, wages or payments in kind, including your own, for more than 3 months? (yes, no, don’t know, refused)

Respondents are coded as ‘nascent entrepreneur’ if, in addition to 1a and 1b, they answer ‘yes’ to 2a and 2b, and ‘no’ to 2c.

In addition, respondents who answer ‘yes’ to question 1c are asked:

3a. You said you were the owner or manager of a company. Do you personally own all, part or none of this business? (all, part, none, don’t know, refuse)

3c. What was the first year the owners received wages, profits or payments in kind? (four-digit year, or no profits yet, don’t know, refuse)

Respondents who classify as full or part owners of the business and have received wages or salaries paid up to 42 months are coded as ‘new business owners.’

For each country, the sum of nascent entrepreneurs and new business owners yields an estimate of total early-stage entrepreneurial activity. The variable is calculated by adding up nascent entrepreneurs and new business owners. Individuals who qualify as both are counted only once.

All independent variables used in the analysis are described in Table A1. All items are part of the GEM adult population survey questionnaire and are asked to all respondents, independently regardless of whether they are involved in entrepreneurial activities. This allows for the creation of samples that are representative of the entire population and access to a large control group.

Table a1 Variables’ definitions – GEM 2004

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Minniti, M. Female Entrepreneurship and Economic Activity. Eur J Dev Res 22, 294–312 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2010.18

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2010.18

Keywords

Navigation