THE FEMALE-ENTREPRENEURSHIP FIELD: 1990-2004 Maika Valencia, ESADE. [email protected]0. Abstract The present literature review is an attempt to trace the actual state of academic research on female entrepreneurship. Reviewing and summarizing the trends emerging from the findings of previous studies on women’s presence in the entrepreneurial activity during the last decade. The studies were classified using Gartner’s (1985) new venture creation framework, involving the individual characteristics of the entrepreneur, the nature ofwomen-owned business, the process by which the new business is started, and the environment surrounding the new venture. It also summarizes emerging trends, future research questions are proposed, and implications are discussed. 1.Introduction The increasing presence of women in the business field as entrepreneurs or business owners 1 in the last decades has changed the demographic characteristics ofentrepreneurs. Women-owned businesses are playing a more active role in society and the economy, inspiring academics to focus on this interesting phenomenon. Could the increase of women in professional activities such as entrepreneurship result from social evolution in regard to gender role perception? Do sociocultural factors have a direct positive influence on the increasing presence of women in the entrepreneurial world? Are changes in institutional factors such as public economic policies conducive to female entrepreneurial activity? These are some of the questions that need to be explored in order to explain the increasing presence of women as business owners. 1 For the purpose of this paper no distinction will be made between the terms ‘women entrepreneurs’ and ‘women business owners’, since the study focuses on v enture creations by women.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
The present literature review is an attempt to trace the actual state of academic research
on female entrepreneurship. Reviewing and summarizing the trends emerging from the
findings of previous studies on women’s presence in the entrepreneurial activity during
the last decade. The studies were classified using Gartner’s (1985) new venture creationframework, involving the individual characteristics of the entrepreneur, the nature of
women-owned business, the process by which the new business is started, and the
environment surrounding the new venture. It also summarizes emerging trends, future
research questions are proposed, and implications are discussed.
1. Introduction
The increasing presence of women in the business field as entrepreneurs or business
owners1 in the last decades has changed the demographic characteristics of
entrepreneurs. Women-owned businesses are playing a more active role in society and
the economy, inspiring academics to focus on this interesting phenomenon. Could the
increase of women in professional activities such as entrepreneurship result from social
evolution in regard to gender role perception? Do sociocultural factors have a direct
positive influence on the increasing presence of women in the entrepreneurial world?
Are changes in institutional factors such as public economic policies conducive to
female entrepreneurial activity? These are some of the questions that need to be
explored in order to explain the increasing presence of women as business owners.
1 For the purpose of this paper no distinction will be made between the terms ‘women entrepreneurs’ and ‘women
business owners’, since the study focuses on venture creations by women.
For the present work we have decided to choose the new venture creation phenomenon
as the criteria to organize and review the literature. There exist differents models to
describe the venture creation (e.g. Timmons, 1977; Gartner, 1985), but due to the
research developed in the female-entrepreneurship area, we considered the model
proposed by Gartner in 1985 more suitabled.
The four dimensional conceptual framework of Gartner (1985) provides a way of
analyzing past research studies, at the same time of being useful drawing researcher’s
attention to considerations inherent in each of the four dimensions. Resulting in a useful
and practical model to organize the research work realized about female-
entrepreneurship. Gartner (1985) provided that framework for describing the creation
of a new venture, taking into consideration four dimensions: the individual (the
entrepreneur), the organization (the venture created), the process (previous activities to
start a venture) and the environment (external factors). This comprehensive model
recognizes the complexity and variation that thrives in the new venture creation
phenomenon. Then, the model allowed us to make a classification of studies according
to the dimensions involved in the venture creation, providing a more accurate analysis
of entrepreneurial activity. Indeed, this model has been used by other authors within the
female-entrepreneurship field because of its adaptation and practicity to it.
The elaboration of the present literature review was based mainly on an exhaustive
identification of academic articles published during the period of 1990-2004 in the
leading entrepreneurship journals, such as Frontiers of Entrepreneurship (journal with
more publications in this field), Journal of Business Venturing, and Entrepreneurship,
and Theory & Practice (formerly American Journal of Small Business). Other sources
were also incorporated, including books, conference proceedings, and the Global
Entrepreneurhsip Monitor (GEM), created in 1999, due to its importance in the
entrepreneurship field3.
3 The GEM is the world’s largest and longest-standing study of entrepreneurial activity, a project whichfocuses on researching in the entrepreneurship field, creating large data set and entrepreneurial
measurements, and running several studies oriented to measure differences in the level of entrepreneurialactivity among countries with the objective that results may contribute to enhance this activity.
In the field of entrepreneurship, the earliest studies had focused on the figure of the
entrepreneur, concentrating on the sociodemographical and psychological
characterization at an individual level. Empirical studies tried to identify the personal
characteristics that could define and differentiate entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs
(Low and MacMillan, 1988; Fagenson, 1993). However, as a result of these studies,
some authors suggest that it would be more fruitful to investigate the different types of
entrepreneurs, instead of differentiating them from non-entrepreneurs, due to the
enormous diversity of entrepreneur profiles (Amit, 1994). It was believed research from
these perspectives could offer significant explanatory and predictive potential about the
entrepreneur. However, research from the traits perspective has not, progressed beyond
the early foundations of McClelland (Shanthakumar, 1992), and has even been labeled
as a “dead end” (Gartner, 1988).
The GEM realized on 2004 a cross-national study on women’s entrepreneurial activity,--the first study launched by the Consortium on female entrepreneurship-. This study
included 34 country members from all over the world4, for each income group of
countries was analysed the behavior of women entrepreneurs’ dimension, wich
considered universal factors such as: age, education, work status, network, perceived
skills, opportunity recognition, and fear of failure. (Minniti et. al; 2005). The results
related to the traits perspective (e.g. women entrepreneurs’ age are in the range of 25-34
years old, except in the high-income countries where it was 35-44 years old) do not
differ from male entrepreneurs. Moreover, other studies concluded the same, not
significant demographic distinctions were found between the characteristics of male and
4 In order to present the results of the study, the GEM grouped the countries in three levels according totheir GDP per capita: low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. Levels were determined asfollows: not exceeding US$10,000, between US$10,000 and US$25,000, and exceeding US$25,000respectively. Low-income countries: Argentina, Brazil, Croatia, Ecuador, Hungary, Jordan, Peru, Poland,South Africa, and Uganda. Midle income countries: Grecia, Hong Kong, Israel, New Zealand, Portugal,
Singapore, Slovenia, and Spain. High-income countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland,France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK, and the USA.Minniti et al., GEM (2005).
female entrepreneurs (Sexton and Bowman-Upton, 1990; Brush and Bird, 1996; Hisrich
et al., 1997).
Nevertheless, among personal characteristics of women entrepreneurs, there were clear
differences in two background variables: education and professional experience. These
variables turned out to play an important role in venture creation success and survival
(Dolinsky et al., 1993; and Fischer et al., 1993). Educational level has been shown to
have a positive impact on initial entry and future business performance, and there is a
strong causal link between experience (industry and managerial), formal education and
successful performance (Hisrich and Brush, 1988; Fischer et al., 1993). Further,
professional experience is considered by many authors to be a key structural factor
having a major impact on the ability of women to start a business and to improve their
business performance (Shabbir and Di Gregorio, 1996; Catley and Hamilton, 1998).
A study carried out in the USA by Boden and Nucci (2000) states that women
entrepreneurs have a lower educational background than their male counterparts, but it
is worth mentioning that the samples considered in this study were from 1982 and 1987,
which clearly implies a different scenario from that of today. Furthermore, Fischer et al.(1993), and Dolinsky et al. (1993) maintain that there are no relevant differences in the
educational levels between men and women entrepreneurs. These studies were carried
out in developed countries, Canada and the USA respectively, and the results cannot be
generalized to fit other contexts, such as those of developing countries. As it was
showed in the GEM study (Minniti et al., 2005), women entrepreneurs that are the most
likely to start a new business in high-income countries have some graduate experience
while that in low-income countries the majority have not completed a secondary degree.
Several empirical studies reveal that women entrepreneurs have had less experience
than men entrepreneurs in managing employees, less years of industrial experience, less
experience working in similar firms or helping to start new businesses (Brush, 1992;
Fischer et al., 1993; Carter et al., 1997; Lerner et al., 1997; Boden and Nucci, 2000).
Considering this precedent, women appear to be at disadvantage with respect to men inventure creation activity.
them as ‘necessity-push’ and ‘opportunity-pull’ motivations (e.g. The GEM). ‘Push’
motivated entrepreneurs are those whose dissatisfaction with their current position, for
reasons unrelated to their entrepreneurial characteristics, pushes them to start a venture.
‘Pull’ motivated entrepreneurs are those who are attracted by their new venture idea and
initiate venture activity because of the attractiveness of the business idea and its
personal implications (Amit, 1994; GEM, 1999; Bygrave, 2002).
According to various empirical studies (Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998; Kyro, 2001;
DeMartino and Barbato, 2003), some of the main ‘push’ and ‘pull’ motivations for
women to become entrepreneurs are the following: 1) ‘push’ factors are dissatisfactionwith their job, flexibility to manage family obligations, independence and work
aspirations; and 2) ‘pull’ factors are self-fulfillment, family and lifestyle motivators, and
social recognition. In a study run by Amit (1994), ‘pull’ entrepreneurs were found to be
more successful than ‘push’ entrepreneurs.
There are mixed results as to which motivators have a stronger influence on women to
become entrepreneurs. Catley and Hamilton (1998) suggested that women and men
entrepreneurs are similarly motivated, and it is by ‘pull’ factors. And the same result has
been supported in the “GEM. 2004 Report on women and entrepreneurship” (Minniti et
al., 2005), where respondents said they were involved in entrepreneurial activities
mainly because of opportunity. A 71,4% of women choose entrepreneurship in order to
exploit an opportunity, and the number of women who choose entrepreneurship because
of necessity were concentrated in low-income countries. Although, there exists otherempirical studies supporting the view that women are more motivated to become
entrepreneurs because of ‘push’ factors (Fischer et al., 1993; Marlow, 1997; and Glas
and Petrin, 1998). DeMartino and Barbato (2003) suggest that career motivation
differences between men and women entrepreneurs become greater when the
comparison takes into account the status of “married with dependent children”. Caputo
and Dolinsky (1998) found that the presence of children increased the propensity of
women to start their own businesses. This finding results coherent because women deal
with the problematic of balancing family and business.
factors related to internal and stable explanations of intentions to start a business, she
stated that these intentions play an important role in successful business start-up
activities for women, whereas external factors, such as market needs, are more
significant for men.
According to the study by Alsos and Ljunggren (1998), there were differences between
men and women in the variety of entrepreneurial activities carried out during the start-
up process. They state that women entrepreneurs elaborate on business plans to a lesser
extent, have a larger need for external capital, hire employees to a lesser extent and on
the average, and take more time between initiations of activities. These observations arein correspondence to what have been mentioned above in the organization dimension,
regarding to the type of business created by women –e.g. involved in traditional sectors,
small business size, etc.-, because of their business characteristics it is not necessary a
large external capital nor hire employees, etc.
Srinivasan (1994) recognizes that start-up activities play a critical role in both the
survival and growth of a business. In his study he used data from two different periods
of time, taking the first year (start-up) and the third year (survival and growth) as
reference. Alsos and Ljunggren (1998) state there were similar success rates for men
and women in setting up a business even their start-up activities had differences. But
Srinivasan (2004) suggests that maybe these differences are determining factors in why
women-owned businesses present lower rates of survival and growth than men-owned
businesses. Taking into account the kind of women owned-companies, micro and smallbusinesses most of them, we considered that the manner of how venture creation
process is completed results vital for their survival.
The process of how men and women entrepreneurs organize their businesses seems
similar. Both prefer to start a business with someone they know well or have had ties
with on a social level, and both prefer same-sex teams. Social networking and social
capital play an important role for women entrepreneurs (Aldrich et al., 2002). Lerner et
al. (1999) recognize the fact that a single strong affiliation with a women’s organization
can improve business performance.
As we have observed thorugh the literature revision, new venture creation process is the
least explored within the female entrepreneurship literature. Therefore, several topics
under this field need to be explored in order to indentify the critical variables presented
in the venture creation process.
2.5 The Environment Dimension
Entrepreneurship is generally accepted to be a contextual phenomenon, affected by the
economic, political, social, and cultural environment in which it occurs (Steams and
Hills, 1996; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996 in Solymossy, 1998). In the female
entrepreneurship field, literature reviewed under this dimension has focused mostly in
issues referring to accessibility and availability of capital through debt financing, from a
perspective of gender discrimination. Hardly any studies focus on other variables
influencing venture creation by women entrepreneurs.
The economic theory formulated by North, D. (1990), institutional economy, utilized in
studies in the entrepreneurship field, e.g. Veciana, 1999; Urbano, 2003; results useful togive an order to empirical studies, classifying them into ‘formal institutions’ and
‘informal institutions’, former term referring to all legal frames, and the latter refering
to sociocultural values within the society. Taking this into account it could be said that
most of the empirical studies reviewed are focused on the ‘formal institutions’, e.g.
capital access, regulations, etc., and very few others focused on the ‘informal
institutions’, e.g. attitudes and perceptions of society, family support, etc.
high-growing sectors which are the ones characterized in this kind of lending market.
They explain that the institutional environment of the venture capital industry is a close
and tightly interconnected network. Women, by extension of the social network theory,
are left out of this formal venture capital network.
The rest of the articles reviewed within the environment dimension, not related to
capital, cover different topics, among them, company government regulations. Hisrich
et al. (1997) mention that women perceive this aspect more unfavorably than men. In
relation to the industry environment, interaction with industry forces was perceived as
similar by gender (Rosa and Hamilton, 1994). In reference to the possible problems
presented, they are related to business learning experience derived from the nature of
the industry, and are also perceived as similar by gender (Barrett, 1995; and Hisrich et
al., 1997).
As mentioned before, fewer studies have been developed in the field of ‘soft’ or
‘informal’ aspects. In this area, social networking has played a very important role in
the field of entrepreneurship and venture creation. As the GEM (2005) explored in theirstudy on women entrepreneurs, mentoring and network support are crucial in boosting
women’s attitudes with respect to leadership and new venture creation. Aldrich (1989),
and Moore and Buttner (1997) mention that men and women create different types of
networks, and that women’s networks are characterized by having more informal
associations and by having same-gender members.
Other variables explored within cultural aspects, referes to perception of
entrepreneurship, family environment, and formal employment barriers. A study by
Holmquist (2001) is one of the few studies analyzing the role of the sociocultural
variables. A cross-country comparative analysis between the USA and Sweden was
carried out, analyzing cultural aspects related to the presence of women in
entrepreneurship. Holmquist sustains that there are culturally based differences in
perceptions of entrepreneurship and gender roles. Her research proves that the distance
between being an entrepreneur and an employee, and between male and female roles
resulted different for each context analysed.
Other studies confirm the view that social attitudes towards women in business have an
impact on women’s aspirations towards business creation (Huq and Richardson, 1997).
Family support is crucial in the business set-up, especially in developing countries, as
was observed in several empirical research: Huq and Richardson (1997) run an
empirical study to explore the issues surrounding the aspiration of a woman to set-up
her own business in a developing country –Bangladesh-, findings showed family
support is a critical factor. Glas and Petrin (1998) found family support was animportant variable involved in entrepreneurial career choices of women entrepreneurs in
Slovenia. Shabbir and Di Gregorio (1996) realized a study in Pakistan exploring how
women interpret structural factors that influence the process of business start-up; and
women expressed that for them was essential to have internal resources e.g.
qualifications, experience; and family support in order to start a business.
It is well stated in all these studies mentioned above that social attitude to female
entrepreneurship play a critical role. As much as other formal structures, such as the
formal employment market and corporative world, affecting women’s decisions to start
their own businesses, due to the ‘glass ceiling’ issue (Alvarez and Meyer, 1998). These
two areas identified influence women’s decision to become entrepreneurs; we consider
that a cross-country study would be helpful to contrast how these factors affect women
in developing and developed countries.
2.6 Conclusion
The female-entrepreneurship is having a greater importance within economies,
according to the GEM (2005) estimates that about 73 million people are active
entrepreneurs in the 34 nations, of those 40,54% are women. It is important to note that
in the present literature review most of the empirical research reviewed did not clearly
Aldrich, H., Carter, N., & Ruef, M. (2002). With very little help from their friends: Gender andrelational composition of nascent entrepreneurs' startup teams. Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Aldrich, H. (1989). Networking among women entrepreneurs. In Hagan, O., Rivchun, C. & Sexton,D. (Eds), Women-owned Business, 103-132. NY: Praeger.
Allen, K., & Carter, N. (1996). Women entrepreneurs: Profile differences across high and lowperforming adolescent firms. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Alsos, G., & Ljunggren, E. (1998). Does the business start-up process differ by gender? Alongitudinal study of nascent entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Alvarez, S., & Meyer, D. (1998). Why do women become entrepreneurs? Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Amit, R., & Muller, E. (1994). "Push" and "Pull" entrepreneurship. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship,Babson College.
Anna, A. L., Chandler, G. N., Jansen, E., & Mero, N. P. (1999). Women business owners intraditional and non-traditional industries. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(3), 279-303.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference: Men, women and the extreme male brain. UK:Penguin Press.
Baron, R., & Markman, G. (2003). Beyond social capital: the role of entrepreneurs' social
competence in their financial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 41-60.
Barrett, M. (1995). Feminist perspectives on learning for entrepreneurship: The view from smallbusiness. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Bird, B., & Brush, C. (2002). A gendered perspective on organizational creation. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 41-62.
Boden, R. J. Jr., & Nucci, A. R. (2000). On the survival prospects of men's and women's newbusiness venture. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(4), 347-362.
Brush, C. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective and future
directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 5-30.
Brush, C., & Bird, B. (1996). Leadership vision of successful women entrepreneurs: Dimensionsand characteristics. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Brush, C., Carter, N., Greene, P., & Hart, M. (2000). Women and equity capital: An exploration of factors affecting capital access. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Bull, I., & Willard Gary E. (1993). Towards a Theory of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 8(2), 183-195.
Caputo, R. & Dolinsky, A. (1998). Women's choice to pursue self-employment: The Role of
financial and human capital of household members. Journal of Small Business Management , 36(3), 8-18.
Carter, N. (2002). The role of risk orientation on financing expectations in new venture creation:Does sex matter? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Carter, N. M., Williams, M., & Reynolds, P. D. (1997). Discontinuance among new firms in retail:The influence of initial resources, strategy, and gender. Journal of Business Venturing,
12(2), 125-145.
Catley, S., & Hamilton, R. (1998). Small business development and gender of owner. Journal of
Management Development, 17(1).
Chaganti, R., & Parasuraman, S. (1996). A study of the impacts of gender on business performanceand management patterns in small businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 73-75.
Cliff, J. E. (1998). Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towardsgrowth, gender, and business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(6), 523-542.
Coleman, S. (1998). Access to capital: A comparison of men and women-owned small business.Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
DeMartino, R., & Barbato, R. (2003). Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs:Exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators. Journal of Business
Venturing, 18(6), 815-832.
Dolinsky, A. L., Caputo, R. K., Pasumarty, K., & Quazi, H. (1993). The effects of education onbusiness ownership: A longitudinal study of women. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice.
Fabowale, L., Orser, B., & Riding, A. (1995). Gender, structural factors, and credit terms betweenCanadian small businesses and financial institutions. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 41-65.
Fagenson, E., & Marcus, E. (1991). Perceptions of the sex-role stereotypic characteristics of entrepreneurs: Women's evaluations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33-47.
Fagenson, E. A. (1993). Personal value systems of men and women entrepreneurs versus managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(5), 409-430.
Fay, M., & Williams, L. (1993). Gender bias and the availability of business loans. Journal of
Business Venturing, 8(4), 363-376.
Fischer, E. M., Reuber, R. A., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 151-168.
Gartner, W. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venturecreation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696-706.
___________ (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small
Business, 12(4), pp. 15-28.
Gatewood, E. J., Shaver, K. G., & Gartner, W. B. (1995). A longitudinal study on cognitive factorsinfluencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation. Journal of Business
Venturing, 10(5), 371-391.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, The. (1999). http://www.gemconsortium.org
Glas, M., & Petrin, T. (1998). Entrepreneurship: New challenge for Slovene women. Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Good, D., & Mielnicki, L. (1996). Toward equal access: The fiscal strength and creditworthiness of women-owned enterprises. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Greene, P., Brush, C., Hart, M., & Saparito, P. (1999). Exploration of the venture capital industry: Isgender an issue? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Gundry, L. K., & Welsch, H. P. (2001). The ambitious entrepreneur: High growth strategies of women-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 453-470.
Hisrich, R., Brush, C., Good, D., & DeSouza, G. (1997). Performance in entrepreneurial ventures:Does gender matter? Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Hisrich, R. & Brush, C. (1986). Characteristics of the minority entrepreneur. Journal of Small
Business Management. 24(4), 1-8.
Hisrich, R., Koiranen, M., & Hyrsky, K. (1996). A comparison of men and women entrepreneurs: Across-national exploratory study. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Hokkanen, P., Lumme, A., & Autio, E. (1998). Gender-based non-differences in bank shopping andcredit terms. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Holmquist, C. (2001). Does culture matter for the formation of views on entrepreneurship andgender roles? Case studies of women as high-tech (IT) entrepreneurs in Boston andStockholm. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Huq, A., & Richardson, P. (1997). Business ownership as an economic option for middle-incomeeducated urban women in Bangladesh. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Kamau, D., McLean, G., & Ardishvili, A. (1999). Perceptions of business growth by womenentrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Kourilsky, M. L., & Walstad, W. B. (1998). Entrepreneurship and female youth: Knowledge,attitudes, gender differences, and educational practices. Journal of Business Venturing,
13(1), 77-88.
Kyro, P. (2001). Women entrepreneurs question men's criteria for success. Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Lamolla, L. (2005). Emprender en femenino: la evolución de las políticas económicas locales paraemprendedoras en Cataluña. Tesis Doctoral. Universitad Autonoma de Barcelona.
Leahy, K., & Eggers, J. (1998). Is gender still a factor in entrepreneurial leader behavior? Frontiers
of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Lerner, M., Brush, C., & Hisrich, R. (1997). Israeli women entrepreneurs: An examination of factors affecting performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 315-339.
Low, M., & MacMillan, I. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of
Management, 139-161.
Marlow, S. (1997). Self-employed women - New opportunities, old challenges? Entrepreneurship
Minniti, M., Arenius, P. & Langowitz, N. (2005). 2004 Report on Women and Entrepreneurship.
GEM.
Moore, D. P. & Buttner, E. H. (1997). Women entrepreneurs: Moving beyond the glass ceiling.Thousands Oaks. CA: Sage publications.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Read, L. (1994). Raising finance from banks: A comparative study of the experiences of male andfemale business owners. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Rosa, P., & Hamilton, D. (1994). Gender and ownership in UK small firms. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 11-27.
Sexton, E. A. & Robinson, P. B. (1989). The Economic and Demographic Determinants of Self-Employment. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Sexton, D., & Bowman-Upton, N. (1990). Female and male entrepreneurs: Psychologicalcharacteristics and their role in gender related discrimination. Journal of Business
Venturing, 5, 29-36.
Shabbir, A., & Di Gregorio, S. (1996). An examination of the relationship between women'spersonal goals and structural factors influencing their decision to start a business: The caseof Pakistan. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(6), 507-529.
Shanthakumar, D.K. (1992). Attitudinal characteristics of male and female entrepreneurs in Indiaand a comparison with American entrepreneurs. Doctoral dissertation. Brigham YoungUniversity, UT.
Solymossy, E. (1998). Entrepreneurial dimensions: the relationship of individual, venture, andenvironmental factors to success. Doctoral dissertation. Case Western Reserve University.
Srinivasan, R., Woo, C., & Cooper, A. (1994). Performance determinants for male and femaleentrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Babson College.
Swedberg, R. (2000). Entrepreneurship. The Social Science View (First ed.). Great Britain.
Urbano, D. (2003). Factores condicionantes de la creación de empresas en Catalunya: un enfoqueinstitucional. Tesis doctoral. Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona.
Veciana, J. (1999). Creación de empresas como programa de investigación científica. Revista
Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 8(3), 11-36.
Watson, J. (2002). Comparing the performance of male- and female-controlled businesses: Relatingoutputs to inputs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 91-100.
Watson, J., & Robinson, S. (2003). Adjusting for risk in comparing the performances of male- andfemale-controlled SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(6), 773-788.
Annex 1. Summary of empirical research by authors, classified according to
Gartner’s model.
Dimension Empirical support
Individual Amit, 1994Anna et al., 1999
Baron and Markman, 2003Baron-Cohen, 2003Boden and Nucci, 2000Brush and Bird, 1996Brush, 1992Caputo and Dolinsky, 1998Carter et al., 1997Catley and Hamilton, 1998Chaganti and Parasuraman, 1996Cliff, 1998DeMartino and Barbato, 2003Dolinsky, et al., 1993Fagenson and Marcus, 1991Fagenson, 1993Fischer et al., 1993Gatewood et al., 1995Glas and Petrin, 1998Greene et al., 1999
Hisrich et al., 1996Hisrich et al., 1997Kamau, 1999Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998Kyro, 2001Leahy and Eggers, 1998Lerner et al., 1997Marlow, 1997Sexton and Bowman-Upton, 1990Shabbir and Di Gregorio, 1996
Organization Allen and Carter, 1996Barrett, 1995Boden and Nucci, 2000Brush and Bird, 1996Brush et al., 2000Carter et al., 1997Chaganti and Parasuraman, 1996
Gundry and Welsch, 2001Hokkanen et al., 1998Rosa and Hamilton, 1994Sexton and Robinson, 1989Srinivasan et al., 1994Watson and Robinson, 2003Watson, 2002
Process Aldrich, et al., 2002Alsos and Ljunggren, 1998Carter et al., 1997Gatewood, 1995Lerner et al., 1997Srinivasan, 1994
Environment Allen and Carter, 1996
Alvarez and Meyer, 1998Barrett, 1995Carter, 2002Coleman, 1998Fabowale, et al., 1995Fay and Williams, 1993Greene, et al., 1999Hisrich et al., 1997Hokkanen, 1998Holmquist, 2001Huq and Richardson, 1997Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998Lerner et al., 1997Moore and Buttner, 1997Read, 1994Rosa and Hamilton, 1994Shabbir and Di Gregorio, 1996