Marlow and Patton 2005

8/12/2019 Marlow and Patton 2005

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marlow-and-patton-2005 1/20

Availability of, and access to finance is a critical element to the start-up and consequent

performance of any enterprise. Hence, any barriers or impediments to accessing appropri-ate levels or sources of funding will have an enduring and negative impact upon the per-formance of affected firms. Although findings have been somewhat inconsistent, there issupport for the notion that women entrepreneurs entering self-employment are disadvan-taged by their gender. This argument is evaluated through a theoretical analysis of genderusing the example of accessing both formal and informal sources of business funding toillustrate how this concept impacts upon women in self-employment.

Introduction

This article contributes to the debate surrounding the negative effect of gender char-acterization upon female entrepreneurs (Carter, Anderson, & Shaw, 2001) using a spe-cific issue, sources of financial support to new and existing firms, to illustrate thisassociation. When engaging with entrepreneurship within a market economy, the avail-ability of finance and access to that finance is a critical element to the start-up and con-sequent performance of any enterprise. Hence, barriers or impediments to accessingappropriate levels or sources of funding will have an enduring and negative impact uponthe performance of affected firms. Whilst it is evident that locating, accessing, and man-aging finance is a critical and challenging task for most entrepreneurs, although findingshave been somewhat inconsistent, recent research does support the notion that genderedcharacterizations will impact negatively upon women during this process (Aldrich, Elam,& Reese, 1997; Brush, 1997; Carter & Rosa, 1998; Marlow, 2002). This problem is crit-ical as the consequence of undercapitalization during enterprise formation and develop-ment is then underperformance during the life of the business (Carter & Marlow, 2003).It is not suggested that self-employed women are all destined to fail, or that their ven-tures will all fall into the “plodder” category (Storey, 1994), but that gendered charac-terizations will impede the full realization of business potential. This is illustrated to somedegree in a recent analysis of firm performance in Australia where Watson (2002),drawing upon social feminist theory and evidence from a large statistical data set, arguesthat male and female entrepreneurs in fact, have few performance differences in termsof total income to total assets. It was apparent that women had fewer assets in the first

PTE &

All Credit to Men?

Entrepreneurship,Finance, and GenderSusan Marlow

Dean Patton

1042-2587Copyright 2005 byBaylor University

Please send correspondence to: Susan Marlow at smhum@dmu ac uk

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



instance so their businesses remained smaller than those of their male counterparts, butit was argued that the use of these assets suggests that it is not an inherent difference inthe ability to “do business” which distinguishes men and women but rather, the outcomeof a normative male model of entrepreneurial achievement which, by design, disadvan-tages women. Equally, the Diana Project—which focuses upon venture capital allocationin the U.S.—suggests that women are impeded by myths associated with their genderregarding their inability to generate businesses of interest to venture capitalists (Brush,

Carter, Gatewood, Green, & Hart, 2001). So, it is not the mere fact of genetic make upwhich determines an individual’s propensity to achieve as an entrepreneur, but the valuesattached to gendered characterizations of feminine and masculine stereotypes.

As noted above, empirical evidence, which explores the link between gender, enter-prise, and funding constraints, offers somewhat conflicting evidence regarding this asso-ciation. So for example, while the evidence does support the notion that women begintheir firms with poorer levels of funding than their male counterparts (Brush, 1997; Carter& Rosa, 1998), clear associations between gender disadvantage and funding are moredifficult to isolate given the number of extraneous variables which intrude into the processand practice of finance, markets, management, and performance in general. So, to add to

this debate, this article takes a deductive approach to the problem. It is suggested that itis possible to draw upon a theoretical analysis of gender to demonstrate that this conceptmust, by the manner in which it is articulated in the contemporary socioeconomic envi-ronment, intrude into the specific space of entrepreneurship. To undertake this task, thenotion of gender and how it characterizes and stereotypes all of us and, moreover, is artic-ulated in terms of masculine and feminine behaviors, is considered along with the impli-cations of this process. Having established a conceptual framework, the debate appliesfeminist theory specifically to entrepreneurship with a consideration of how liberal andsocial feminist analyses add to the understanding of this issue. Following from thisdebate, the manner in which gender and disadvantage interweave to shape the general

experience of business ownership for women will be analyzed, enabling the generationof a number of propositions regarding this link between women, gender, and enterprise.These propositions will be explored through a more specific consideration using theexample of financial support to illustrate the association between entrepreneurship,gender, and disadvantage.

In discussing the concept of female entrepreneurship this article uses an abridgedversion of a Moore and Buttner (1997) definition used by Heilman and Chen (2003); thissuggests that the notion refers to women who have initiated a business, are activelyinvolved in its management, and own a majority share of the enterprise. Using this def-inition, female entrepreneurs have often been categorized into two distinct types “tradi-

tional and new modern” entrepreneurs (see for example, Moore, 1990). Traditionalentrepreneurs are identified as those women that have limited educational and/or train-ing qualifications who turn to self-employment because it is their best chance of achiev-ing career and social mobility. In these circumstances the type of self-employment isoften governed by an individual’s context and businesses are typically developed in lowmargin trades, with low yields and slow growth. The term new modern entrepreneur isassociated with more educated and professionally trained women that, importantly, havechosen self-employment from a variety of options. This new modern entrepreneur typi-cally has a history of successful employment within a large organization and uses theskills, experience, and networks gained in this employment to develop their own busi-

ness. In both typologies the likely entry point into entrepreneurship is through self-employment. This article investigates the problems associated with gender that enablewomen from both categories to make this step



Finally, it is acknowledged that this article frames the discussion with a specificnational context, that of the U.K., where currently 27% of sole proprietors and between9% and 12% of small firm owners are women (Federation of Small Business, 2002). Thisbroadly reflects European trends; however, it is noted that there is a greater incidence of female entrepreneurship in the U.S., where women’s share of business ownership isapproximately 34% (Carter et al., 2001). Developing a specific national focus in thisinstance is not considered problematic however, as the aim is not primarily to explore or

criticize a particular approach to the funding of self-employment. Rather, this analysisacts as a vehicle to illustrate how gender, as a social construct, will impact upon womenentrepreneurs when they engage with the quest to find appropriate and adequate sourcesof finance to fund their businesses in contemporary market economies.

Gender as a Social Construct

Gender is a social construction of sex where characteristics are ascribed to men andwomen, which underpin notions of femininity and masculinity (Oakley, 1973). Gender

ascription is historically rooted in that it is evident throughout time, but dialectical in thatit incorporates incremental changes regarding accepted normative behavior (Synnott,1993). Gender is articulated through a binary division which presents a number of stereo-typical behaviors associated with the masculine and feminine where the former is privi-leged over the latter and so supports a hierarchical valuation of traits and characteristics.As Crannie-Francis, Waring, Stavropoulos, and Kirky (2003, p. 2) note, “the male sideof the equation is generally coded as the positive one and so becomes the standard bywhich all others are judged, in effect it becomes the norm. This privileging of the mas-culine is generally the case in Western societies.” In turn, we conform to gendered expec-tations as West and Zimmerman (1987) describe it; we all “do gender” and even those

who adopt gender characterizations of the other sex are still, in effect, doing gender.Given the manner in which, as individuals, we engage with gendered behavior this alsoinfluences how we perceive and experience society. It leads to what Berger (1972) refersto as “ways of seeing” or Bem (1993) as the “lens of gender” in that our gender shapesour perception of the world and particularly our assumptions of how we, and others,should act. It is recognized however, that women do not experience gender subordina-tion in a uniform fashion; gender acts in conjunction with other influences and charac-terizations such that women and men do not experience their masculinity and femininityin a homogeneous manner. So for example, race, age, class, disability, sexual orienta-tion—to name but a few—will impact upon the manner in which gender subordination

is articulated. Hence, unravelling the influence of gender is challenging and complex andrequires care in application but, it undoubtedly molds socioeconomic interaction if indifferent guises and to differing extents.

In their consideration of these concepts in the context of entrepreneurship, Bird andBrush (2002) add to the complexity of this debate with a detailed analysis of the articu-lation of concepts of masculinity and femininity in organizational creation. The dichoto-mous association between male and female and masculine and feminine behaviors isquestioned as it is recognized that the latter are social constructs which can be thenadopted by any individual—regardless of biological sex. In their discussion of the entre-preneurial process, the authors do recognize that analyses of new venture creation and

subsequent development are very much versed in the masculine character so, “useful andexplanatory as these approaches are for men, we cannot be sure they adequately reflectthe organizing process and organizations of women” (Bird & Brush 2002 p 42) It is



also noted that these entrepreneurial characterizations or stereotypes fail to recognize thefeminine form of organizing, planning, and managing, which can be detected in manyventures whether owned by men or women.

So, while this analysis further advances the debate by recognizing that men andwomen adopted differentiated forms and degrees of masculine and feminine behaviors,which are incorporated into the manner in which the business is managed, “it is impor-tant to note that the personal/feminine attributes are also found in organizations initiated

by men. Furthermore, not all women-founded organizations will have feminine charac-teristics” (Bird & Brush, 2002, p. 49). The authors argue that greater consideration shouldbe afforded to the advantages within the “gender balanced” and “gender mature” ven-tures and greater sensitivity afforded to generalizations regarding the associationsbetween biological categorizations and social characterizations. It is acknowledgedhowever, that socialization pressures and stereotypical presumptions around issues of masculinity and femininity combine to make the recognition of any blurring of genderedbehaviors problematic. Indeed, the barriers to recognizing the value of the gender-balanced organization are rather well captured by Shakeshaft and Newell (1984,pp. 187–188). Commenting upon the manner in which androcentrism pervades the social

sciences they state, “the elevation of the masculine to the level of the universal is theideal . . . this perception creates a belief in male superiority and a value system in whichfemale values, experiences, and behaviors are viewed as inferior.” So although morenuanced and sensitive debates are emerging which question rather simplistic assumptionsaround social characterizations, it would appear that gender stereotyping still persists tothe detriment of those who reflect feminine characteristics, be they men or women.

Stereotypical behaviors and presumptions are essential for gender to be articulated;where stereotypes are assumptions which reduce individual behaviors to group normscharacterized by a limited number of key elements. Stereotypes underpin what Hall(1996) describes as “splitting” in that they establish “symbolic boundaries” between

normal and abnormal behaviors where nonconformity meets with social exclusion andgroup disapproval. Whilst it has been recognized that gendered characterizations aredialectical in that they shift over time and location, fundamental stereotypical associa-tions with masculine and feminine are remarkably constant in devaluing the latter. Inancient Greece, Aristotle stated that women were weak, cautious, domesticated, and nur-turing while men occupy the opposite stance thus, making them naturally superior(Tredennick, 1968–1969). These representations still persist today. Lister (2003, p. 71)in her analysis of gender and citizenship, draws attention to the characteristics of thepublic, male citizen who is deemed rational, abstract, impartial, independent, active, andstrong whereas women, linked with the private sphere of the home, are characterized as

noncitizens as they are assumed to be emotional, irrational, dependent, passive, andfocused upon domestic concerns.

The implications of this being that the devaluation of the feminine is transferred intowider socioeconomic activities so individuals are not merely categorized by their sex butalso characterized by their gender; this spills over into all activities in a manner whichis invisible and inevitable (Gutek & Cohen, 1992). Whilst there is now a growing liter-ature which explores how gender spills over into entrepreneurship, this has been, untilrelatively recently, largely cited within the small firm debate with weak theoretical under-pinning (Brush, 1992; Marlow, 2002; Mirchandani, 1999). As Greer and Green (2003,p. 2) note, “there is a lack of integration between the well established field of study on

women in the labor force and the rapidly expanding body of work concerning womenentrepreneurs.” However, there has been some effort to place these specific arguments ina wider context notably with the work of Fisher Reuber and Dyke (1993) who utilized



the concepts of liberal and social feminism to analyze the experiences of women entre-preneurs. Briefly, the liberal perspective argues that discrimination can be effectivelycountered by the removal of structural barriers to female advancement within theeconomy and so, establishing the so called, “level playing field.” It is argued that stateaction to ensure meritocratic education, to enact antidiscrimination legislation and equalpay regulation will undermine the barriers, which prevent women from engaging in thefull range of socioeconomic activity (Cockburn, 1991). As such, the emphasis is upon

the public sphere where the right of all individuals to compete equally is a key issue, asBeasley (1999, p. 52) notes, “there is a presumption of sameness between men andwomen, a conception of a fundamentally sexually undifferentiated human nature, that is,since women are much the same as men, women should be able to do what men do.”

This analysis has been extensively critiqued (see Bryson 2003 for an overview) froma number of perspectives but basically, it does not acknowledge the masculinized nor-mative model of social-economic interaction so the theory is, in effect, suggesting thatwomen should have freedom to act as honorary men. If women however, are still char-acterized in the devalued sphere of the feminine, this is problematic indeed. A recentanalysis of a European Union survey found that in the case of the U.K., 30 years after

antidiscrimination legislation, “the average women’s pay packet is less than two thirdsthat of the average British man” (Doward & Reilly, 2003, p. 17). Moreover, women stillundertake the majority of domestic and caring labor while occupational segregationremains detrimental to female status and achievement in the labor market (Maushart,2001).

If this theory is used to analyze women’s experiences of entrepreneurship it is evidentthat women are disadvantaged by unequal access to the necessary resources to establishsustainable new ventures. In her analysis of this issue Marlow (2002) draws attention tothe manner in which a combination of occupational segregation and domestic/caringresponsibilities act as impediments to women entrepreneurs in accumulating both credi-

bility and the variety of capital assets necessary to engage fully with this process. Assuch, engaging with entrepreneurship does not protect women from the affect of gendercharacterization and consequent discrimination. Hence, the liberal feminist solution tofemale subordination is limited in effect and flawed in application.

In contrast to this liberal perspective, Fisher et al. (1993) outlined a social feministperspective where, “women and men have different experiential backgrounds and dif-ferent ways of thinking . . . and neither form is a less valid representation of human expe-rience” (Carter & Williams, 2003, p. 30). This perspective shares some of its basic tenetswith those of radical feminism in that it recognizes that men and women are essentiallydifferent. Radical feminists argue that only separate spheres can enable women to artic-

ulate and value their true selves (Firestone, 1981) whereas social feminists argue forrecognition of difference but in a context of equality. This difference rises essentiallyfrom socialization processes which shape gendered forms of behavior. Therefore, suchdifferences underpin women’s motivations and approaches for beginning and developingtheir ventures and these will differ from their male counterparts but each will have dif-fering strengths upon which to draw during this process. Developing this argument, Carterand Williams (2003, p. 31) suggest that, “consequently, performance of their (women-owned) firms should not differ from that of men-owned firms, even though the strategiesof the two subpopulations may vary.” In testing this proposition through empiricalresearch, Carter and Williams were not able to support this notion as within the contem-

porary market economy; business performance is not assessed by process but by out-comes which reflect male norms. So, while feminine characteristics may be increasinglyrecognized and indeed valued in the managerial literature for as long as performance



achievement arises from, and is supported by, male dominated norms, women will largelyfail to meet these standards (Bradley, 1999). So, the liberal feminist thesis appears some-what simplistic in the contention that the removal of barriers to enable women to achievenormative equality (honorable man status) is the solution to disadvantage. Rather, thisresearch is invaluable in revealing the need for more sophisticated challenges to exposethe persistence of patriarchal values and standards which impede the recognition of dif-ferent avenues and standards of achievement.

From this conceptual assessment, it would appear that women experience entrepre-neurship in a context which is largely shaped by male norms and values and this is con-firmed by the general literature. In a comprehensive overview of international academic,popular, and Internet literature pertaining to female entrepreneurs, Carter et al. (2001)were able to draw upon the extant evidence to conclude upon a number of key issues. Itwas found that, in general, women tended to be younger than men when they began theirventures and were more likely to be motivated to enter self-employment by “glassceiling” career problems. In terms of sectoral concentration, women-owned firms tendedto be found in the service and retail sector and overall, suffered from undercapitalizationat all stages of their existence leading to general underperformance in comparison to their

male counterparts. Reviewing some of these generalizations in greater detail there isfurther evidence which supports such findings so for example, Marlow (1997) andVinnicombe (1987) found that women were much more likely than men to turn to self-employment to accommodate domestic and caring duties. The U.K. Government SmallBusiness Service (SBS) also found that more than 50% of self-employed women ran theirventures on a part-time basis and 35%, compared to 12% of men, use their homes asbusiness premises. Again, labor market research supports the notion that credible work is activity which is undertaken on a full-time basis and within the public sphere, removedfrom the devalued and feminized domestic environment (Gardiner, 1994). Hence, eco-nomic activity which wavers from the full-time norm or which is found within the home

struggles to gain recognition as work thus, given that women-owned ventures are morelikely to reflect this pattern, they are again perceived as being outside of the normativebusiness model confirming negative perceptions of female entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship, Finance, and Gender

From this very brief overview it would appear that, to differing degrees, women faceobstacles to gaining the credibility and resources required to engage fully and fairly withentrepreneurship in the current market economy. This situation does not occur becauseof a lack of ability or industry but because of the more invidious, complex, and multi-faceted constraints arising from gendered characterizations which impose a further set of hurdles for many women entrepreneurs to negotiate. There is now an established debatein the social sciences surrounding the notion of female subordination and the manner inwhich it is articulated; there is also a growing body of evidence which investigates howgendered disadvantage spills over into entrepreneurship but as Carter et al. (2001) noteregarding the latter issue, “there is however, a clear lack of cumulative knowledge and afailure, to date, to adequately conceptualize and build explanatory theories.” This articlecontributes to theory construction with its analysis of association between gender disad-vantage and female entrepreneurship. To explore this link more fully we now use thevehicle of funding provision to discuss a number of propositions:

1. Women entrepreneurs will experience barriers related to their gender characterizationswhen seeking appropriate and adequate source of funding for their ventures



2. Barriers of this nature will impede a female entrepreneur’s ability to realize the fullpotential of the business.

3. Liberal feminist policy implementation can only ever provide a partial solution to thealleviation of such barriers.

4. Future critical debates around the notion of female entrepreneurship must establish aconceptual foundation from which to establish viable analyses in order to contributeto explanatory theory.

To draw together these issues, this article will explore various approaches to fundingentrepreneurial ventures then link these approaches with issues relating to gender. It isgenerally agreed that such finance originates from four main sources; first, personalsavings (including contributions from family and friends); second, debt financing (includ-ing hire purchase and leasing), normally through a commercial bank; third, soft loanssupported by central government; and finally, equity funding via venture capital and infor-mal investment (Jarvis, 2000).

It is recognized that beginning any new enterprise represents a number of costs tothe individuals concerned. In the case of financial investment, Barclays Bank estimated

that in the late 1990s, the mean cost of establishing a new, small firm in the U.K. was£17,680—an increase in real terms of 27% since 1990 (Barclays, 1999). Regarding thesources of such finance, Barclays found two clear areas of preference for those enteringself-employment—personal savings (which also included contributions from family andfriends) and bank lending. The data indicated that most new, small firm owners drawupon their own resources to begin their firms with only 17% using bank lending, but thisoption did represent the most important source of external funding. The dependence uponpersonal resources has been supported by Cosh and Hughes (2000) who identified a recentdecline in the use of external funding in preference to savings and family support. Hence,the evidence would support the anecdotal belief that smaller firm owners use internal

sources of finance in preference to, and prior to, seeking external funding.Regarding the experience of female entrepreneurs, there are a number of gender

related issues associated with the use of personal and bank finance to fund their enter-prises (Carter & Rosa, 1998). From a study of North American and Norwegian womenentering self-employment, Carter and Kolvereid (1997) found that women had greaterlimitations upon access to personal savings when compared to their male counterparts.This situation arose because women were more likely to have been working part-time orin lower remunerated work, or came from lower income households in general than didmen. Overall, this reflects the wider literature (Deakins, 1996; Storey, 1994) that employ-ment experiences prior to self-employment are crucial in determining levels of available

financial, business, and personal capital available to the potential entrepreneur. When thisthesis is applied to women, it becomes apparent that their disadvantaged position regard-ing waged work will fundamentally influence their experience of self-employment(Marlow, 2002).

From the evidence of both large-scale studies (Equal Opportunities Commission,2001) and fine grained investigations (Bradley, 1999; Crompton, 1996; Westwood, 1986)the following characteristics regarding women’s waged work can be cautiously applied:

• It is both vertically and horizontally segregated within and between occupationswhere women are likely to be concentrated in lower paid, lower skilled jobs and are

afforded lower status from their employment• It is more likely to be undertaken on a fragmented basis (for example, part-time)with the disadvantages associated with this type of work organization



• It is more likely to be characterized by breaks for childbirth and care which dis-rupts the unbroken career progression associated with promotion, status, and affiliationto the organization.

So, in a society where access to economic and social independence is achieved pri-marily through waged work, women face a range of barriers associated with their genderto gaining such independence. The particular importance of workplace subordination for

this debate is the manner in which it will constrain the opportunities that women have todevelop an adequate reserve of financial, personal, and business resources to invest intheir own businesses. Undercapitalization is of particular concern since at start-up, andthroughout the life of the business, it has been identified as a major source of disadvan-tage to women in self-employment (Carter & Rosa, 1998). Drawing from existing liter-ature and empirical data, Carter (2000, p. 174) argues that:

Female business owners use substantially less capital at start-up than do male busi-ness owners. In total, men used three times more start-up capital than women, (andthis) was related positively and significantly to current value of capital assets, salesturnover, and total number of employees.

Carter elaborates upon this argument to suggest that female-owned firms underper-form in almost every respect in comparison to those owned by men and this can be linkeddirectly to the issue of undercapitalization.

Personal resources are not the only source of start-up funding however, and as hasbeen identified, traditional bank finance (overdrafts and term loans) remain the mostimportant source of external finance for small businesses. As has been noted above,gaining access to bank finance for many new starters is problematic in terms of accessand cost but again, it can be argued that women will have to overcome greater hurdlesthan their male counterparts if they chose this particular route. It is recognized that the

extant literature regarding positive associations between the issues of gender and bankingpreferences is by no means clear (McKechnie, Ennew, & Read, 1998). However, in acomprehensive review of recent, relevant literature, Carter et al. (2001) argue that thereis support for the gender discrimination thesis. This conclusion is tempered with theawareness that it is difficult to isolate gender as a determining variable given the rangeof other factors, which impact, upon bank lending decisions.

Yet, a deductive approach would support the notion that women would experiencemore problems when seeking bank finance. It has already been argued that women areless likely to amass significant or appropriate stocks of financial and human capital whichthey might use as collateral to strengthen loan applications. Added to this, Shaw, Carter,

and Brierton (2001) argue that women are less likely to have generated a credit track record to indicate formal credit worthiness than their male counterparts. If these elementsare then combined with the fact that women tend to start new small firms in crowdedsectors—particularly personal services—then banking officers may in fact be acting in ahighly responsible fashion, as noted by Fay and Williams (1993, p. 365), “Commercialbanks are risk averse . . . confronted by applications from individuals . . . with limitededucation and experience and low proposed equity (as in female proprietors) loan offi-cers not surprisingly refuse requests for finance.”

Such reluctance to invest in self-employed women is also clearly related to sectoralcrowding. The recent expansion of the service sector, in general, has been influential in

encouraging the growth of new small firms as, apart from the issue of market expansion,service sector firms are usually cheaper and easier to establish in the first instance due tolower initial capitalization costs (Carter et al 2001) This would obviously facilitate the



entry of women into this sector, given their restricted access to funding. Preference forservice sector start-ups is also female related given that most people enter self-employ-ment on the basis of experience and knowledge drawn from employment, so their pre-ferred area of enterprise will be related to previous waged work. Given the concentrationof women in relatively low paid, low status, low skill service work it is evident that thiswill predispose them to enter associated areas of business; the consequences being sec-toral crowding and high levels of churning with negative outcomes—as Meager, Court,

and Moralee (1994, p. 15) comment this is largely because “they (female self-employed)had less financial capital than male counterparts. Or because they tended to enter sectorswith poorer business prospects.” Overall, it would appear that many women are suffer-ing a multiple burden of disadvantage in that subordination in waged work prevents themfrom amassing sufficient personal funds to adequately finance their enterprises person-ally but, this same influence also prevents them from attaining credit histories attractiveto bank lenders. Moreover, the tendency to reproduce self-employment which reflects thepoor prospects of traditional female employment further impacts upon opportunities forwomen to break free from this particular cycle of disadvantage.

So, as noted above, the caution expressed by banks regarding their responses to

self-employed women may have some rationality in terms of market signals. As Fayand Williams (1993, p. 365) noted, “Bank staff are not guilty of discrimination insuch situations. Rather applicants’ socialization and work related experiences havedisadvantaged them compared to male applicants.” Further to the general effects of gender subordination which shape women’s economic and social experience of enter-prise, is the issue of overt discrimination by bank lenders. Whilst there are a number of reported anecdotal examples of overt discrimination within the literature (see for exampleMarlow, 1997; Moore & Buttner, 1997) such discrimination is difficult to demonstrateempirically due to the intrusion of extraneous factors which make the isolation of genderchallenging. From the studies which have attempted this, there are conflicting findings;

Fay and Williams (1993) found some evidence for overt gender discrimination, Koper(1993) found that women were asked questions relating to family formation, andCarter and Kolvereid (1997) found some evidence for patronizing and discriminatorytreatment. However, in a matched sample of self-employed men and women, and on thebasis of quantitative analysis McKechnie et al. (1998) did not find evidence of overtdiscrimination.

Assessing such findings, it is useful to inform these arguments with wider debates—so for example a matched sample approach undertaken by Marlow (1997) found thatwomen reported fewer problems with bank finance than men. This was however, becausethey were less inclined to apply for such funding in the first instance as they presupposed

failure. Hence, there is a need for further research which explores the reasons and moti-vations which underpin the funding decisions and strategies utilized by smaller firmowners. This would usefully complement the existing literature which tends to focus uponthe outcomes rather than processes.

The arguments presented above are somewhat in contention with what might be seenas current government policy, which aims to encourage more women into self-employment (SBS, 2003) and has been reflected by banks, who claim to look favorablyupon applications from self-employed women (Barclays, 2000). The outcomes of suchpolicies are still to be evaluated regarding banking outcomes but, reflecting the argumentsoutlined above, the problem is not banking decisions alone but the aspects of sector and

employment which represent challenges beyond the scope of the banking community. Onthe whole, it would appear that women are less likely to apply for bank finance and if they do have lower levels of collateral and poorer credit histories to support that request



and therefore, have restricted access to such funding. The outcome of this process beinga further contribution to the undercapitalization of new start-ups with the longer-termimplications for business growth and performance, noted above.

It must be emphasised again however, that although banks are the most importantsource of external finance to smaller firms, regardless of the gender of the owner, therelationship between the smaller firm sector and commercial banks has been turbulent.New small businesses are perceived by banks as risky ventures; consequently they are

more cautious when offering debt finance and charge higher rates of interest to those thatare granted loans. Governments can attempt to close this gap by attempting to positivelyinfluence the supply of funds; the Small Business Loan guarantee Scheme (SBLGS) isan example of one such initiative.

Established in 1981, the SBLGS has been operated by the SBS since April 2000. Theaim of the scheme is to improve access to finance for ventures that have been hamperedby either a lack of security or the lack of a track record (characteristics frequently asso-ciated with women entrepreneurs). Since 1993, the scheme has differentiated betweenthe treatment of established and start-up businesses. In the case of start-up firms, loansfrom £5,000 and £100,000 are available for periods between 2 and 10 years for which

SBS guarantees 70% of the principal sum. In order to take advantage of the scheme, bor-rowers must pay a premium on top of normal interest rates of 1.5% on variable loans and1% on fixed loans. In April, 2003 new changes were introduced that set a single guar-antee ratio of 75% for all new loans and a new premium of 2% per year on the out-standing balance of all new loans. The SBLGS is seen as of particular utility to those forwhom accessing mainstream funding or generating personal resources is challenging; itcan be argued that women in particular would benefit from such schemes.

Therefore, it is somewhat ironic that it is not possible to ascertain whether this typeof initiative may either make funding more accessible to women, or prove particularlyattractive to them, as disaggregated data are not currently available regarding the gender

of applicants. The SBS suggested that this has occurred because although they overseethe scheme, banks actually administer it and this type of disaggregated data had not beencollected. For a government agency claiming to actively encourage and support thegrowth of female entrepreneurship, insistence upon data which would facilitate policyevaluation in terms of gender distribution might be expected as an indication of intent totreat the problem seriously. The current approach however, does not support this intentalthough there are some indications this issue may be addressed in the future.

Although the SBS can be criticized for a failure to attain data regarding any rela-tionship between the SBLGS and gender, they have created and managed schemes whichhave positively supported women entrepreneurs. The Phoenix Initiative was announced

in 1999 with the aim of encouraging enterprise in disadvantaged areas and has activelysupported a number of discrete initiatives, which focus specifically upon assisting womento overcome barriers to starting their own ventures. So, for example, local initiatives havebeen funded by Phoenix (and other providers such as the EU) to offer information, advice,training, and childcare facilities for women who are, or who are aiming to be self-employed. Many of the projects also provide small loans, administered through Com-munity Development Finance Initiatives, at preferential rates of interest and repaymentterms. Indeed, there are numerous examples of seed corn funding to encourage the growthof female-owned microenterprises which offer innovative and supportive routes tofinance—the lending circle scheme operated by the Women’s Employment and Enter-

prise Training Unit facilitates small loans managed by a group of peers enabling womento benefit from advice, support, and funding. These are invaluable schemes; however, thelevel of the loans available combined with local market constraints would imply that



many of the new businesses supported will still face chronic, gender-related undercapi-talization barriers which constrain firm growth and performance.

A further venture to encourage new enterprise is the Community DevelopmentVenture Fund. This will be a £40 million capital pilot fund in which the Government’scontribution will be up to £20 million in matched funding. It aims to stimulate the pro-vision (and benefits) of venture capital to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),which are viable and capable of expansion and will be managed by a commercial venture

capital partnership. Initial investment deal sizes may be up to £500,000 with a possible£250,000 top up; the fund was launched in April 2002 and as part of its remit, aims tosupport excluded groups, which currently include women (SBS, 2003). It will be inter-esting to observe and assess the success of this type of venture as the evidence availablewould indicate that Venture Capital support for women-owned firms is extremely small(Greene, Brush, Hart, & Saparito, 2000). The role of venture capital within the smallerfirm sector is focused upon a very small group of enterprises drawn from high perform-ing/high risk sectors (Seegull, 1998). Research suggests that the majority of smaller firmsnever access either private or public equity finance and the Bank of England report (Bank of England, 2001) indicated that “only 1.3% of small firms obtain finance from venture

capital” (p. 1).Equity finance is provided through two major channels; first, on a formal basis where

funding is provided by banks, special investment schemes, and dedicated venture capitalcompanies in exchange for a significant share of the firm’s equity. The majority of formalequity capital funding is directed at Management Buy Outs or Buy Ins where businessand managerial track records are already established, rather than new businesses (Bank of England, 2001). Second, the informal market which is based on personal investmentthrough “business angels” who have a certain amount of disposable income which theychoose to invest in firms with the anticipation of an agreed level of return should the firmattain anticipated performance targets.

The extent to which this source of funding may assist female-owned business is dif-ficult to ascertain given the paucity of information on the subject. However, from one of the few studies of this area, Greene et al. (2000; p. 1) commented that:

Since the early 1980s, new ventures with high growth potential and large capitalneeds have found an ever increasing pool of venture capital . . . In spite of this appar-ent abundance, the flow of venture capital investment to women-owned businesseshas been much more meager than their numbers and force in the economy wouldsuggest appropriate.

In support of this argument and again like Greene et al., drawing from U.S. evidence,

Stout (1997) found that only 2% of the $33 billion invested by venture capitalists between1991 and 1996 was available to self-employed women. Although there are few sourcesof quantitative evidence which offer a disaggregated analysis of equity investment bygender, those which do, confirm this scenario—women are almost entirely excluded fromthis source of funding (Seegull, 1998). In their consideration of why this occurs, Greeneet al. (2000) suggest that there are three specific barriers women face when accessingsuch funds:

• Structural constraints: it is noted that the overwhelming majority of venture cap-italists are male; they construct tightly woven networks where the knowledge of how to

enter and successfully negotiate through such networks is critical, “women are enteringan environment constructed by men, one that reflects male beliefs and practices . . .women may be perceived as less legitimate in the eyes of prospective funders” (p 4)



• Human capital constraints: it has already been argued that, on the whole, womenwill have constrained opportunities to develop sophisticated management competenciesin waged work (Halford & Leonard, 2001). Hence, they are not as likely as men to beable to demonstrate professional management histories, or prior visibility in senior posi-tions—both of which act as positive signals to venture capitalists regarding an individ-ual’s ability to successfully manage business growth. Combined with this tendency, it isalso well documented that many women owned firms are still concentrated in the crowded

segments of the service sector with fewer opportunities for the growth profiles/potentialssought by equity funders (Carter, 2000; Marlow, 1997)

• Strategic Choice: Clearly, the aim of venture capitalists is to realize a high rate of return from their investment and in an effort to protect this investment, will require astake in the ownership of the firm. Bygrave (1992) suggests that any where between a15–30% return with a 20–75% ownership stake is typical. For many entrepreneurs, thisrapid growth and loss of control is not acceptable; it is suggested that this may be evenmore evident where women are concerned. Cliff (1998) argues that women may be moreorientated towards greater social fulfilment from their firms which may lead them to valuethe retention of control above growth, whilst she found that women were not adverse to

growth per se, it was evident they were more risk averse regarding pace and investmentrisks.

Regarding the area of venture capital, a number of North American academics haveconsidered this issue in more detail initiating the Diana Project which aims to analyzewhy women are so often excluded from this form of finance. It is suggested that thereare a number of myths which surround women’s enterprise regarding their desire to growtheir firms, their skills to undertake this task managerially and their ability to locate insectors attractive to venture capitalists. If indeed, as is suggested, that women do ownbusinesses which would be appropriate investment opportunities for venture capitalists,

the Project authors raise the issue why so few women still benefit from this type of support. In many ways, the myths which this project wishes to expose serve to illustratesome arguments made earlier in the article as they reflect stereotypical characterizations.So, while female entrepreneurs are not homogeneous, there are indications that more arebreaking out from traditional sectors and developing growth businesses. However, thepersistence of the myths (stereotypical characterizations), arising from universalist pre-sumptions, suggest that all women are “tarred with the brush” of femininity and so per-ceived as sharing devalued characteristics. When such generalized presumptions arelinked with real disadvantages regarding issues around human, social, financial and cul-tural capital these combine to form gendered barriers to progress. So while the Diana

Project supporters are right to note women’s abilities to develop growth firms deservingof greater support, the manner in which even these women are embedded in widerprocesses of disadvantage needs to be recognized. Moreover, given that this evidence isdrawn almost exclusively from the U.S. (where the incidence of female self-employmentrepresents nearly half the current population of business owners, SBS, 2003), it might bepresumed that the situation in Europe will be even poorer, given the lower incidence of female entrepreneurship and until recently, relative lack of public support policy in thisarea.

It would appear that women do have a range of problems in accessing formal sourcesof Venture Capital but equity funding is also available more informally through private

investors—so called “Business Angels.” The role of private equity investors has beenwell documented in the work of Mason and Harrison (1999) with the Government intro-ducing a number of initiatives to attempt to bring investment levels from such investors



closer to those achieved in the U.S. (see Enterprise Investment Scheme, Venture CapitalTrusts and National Business Angels Network). Such Business Angels are willing to risk their own capital in small unquoted companies, frequently these individuals have attainedsuccess in business and so, are also able to offer expertise and advice to the firm in whichthey have chosen to invest. Mason and Harrison (1999, p. 26) have estimated that thereare approximately 18,000 Business Angels that annually invest sums in the region of £500million. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the degree to which women

might benefit from such schemes. It might be supposed that exclusion from networks andcharacteristics which attract formal Venture Funding would also constrain access to moreinformal support. The Diana Project does draw attention to the growing number of womenin the States who are investing in other women with the intention of supporting growthbusinesses and importantly, demonstrating the potential this sector has for return. In theU.K. however, disaggregated data exploring the issue of gender and informal equityfinance is scarce and further research is urgently required.

Discussion and Conclusions

This article has argued that gaining access to appropriate levels of finance is a chal-lenge to many business owners. However, the evidence would indicate that women willexperience additional disadvantages associated with gender ascription (Carter, 2000;Marlow, 2002). Such disadvantage is articulated in a differentiated fashion within thesphere of women’s socioeconomic activity; in respect of entrepreneurship it is arguedsuch subordination limits the accrual of social, cultural, human, and financial capital andso places limitations upon women’s abilities to amass personal savings, generate credithistories attractive to formal lenders, or engage the interest of venture capitalists (Carter& Kolvereid, 1997; Carter & Rosa, 1998; Greene et al., 2000). The combination of these

factors then contributes to a propensity to establish firms in poorly performing segmentsof the service sector which struggle to survive and/or grow which then reinforces the neg-ative image of women in self-employment (Carter, Williams, & Reynolds, 1997). Carteret al. (2001) summarizes this as a chronic under capitalization problem which in turn,leads to long term under performance.

In relation to the key area of this debate, gender, self-employment, and finance, it isargued that constrained access to appropriate funding is part of a wider system of disad-vantage where women cannot escape from their negative stereotypes which portray thefeminine as inferior to the masculine. This ascription is then seamlessly transferred to theactivities individuals undertake. So, when the conceptual analysis of gender characteri-

zation, disadvantage, and entrepreneurship is explored through the medium of variousfunding avenues and opportunities, it can be seen that proposition one, that women entre-preneurs experience barriers related to their gender when seeking finance, is supported.

From this assertion, combined with the evidence (Carter & Rosa, 1998) linkingundercapitalization and underperformance, it is evident that financial constraints willimpede the full realization of business potential thus, supporting proposition two. This isnot to suggest that all women owned ventures are destined to “plod” or remain static asthis is patently untrue. Women have proved able, when using their own agency, tochallenge barriers and lobby for change; they should not be perceived as “victims” in arigid system with little or no control over their lives (Lister, 2003; Titterton, 1992).

However, these shifts are incremental and time lagged and some caution must beexpressed regarding the honorary man thesis which suggests that much of the contem-porary equality policy agenda ensures that women are merely getting more opportunities



to comply with the normative male model of economic activity. This brings us to pro-position three, regarding the efficacy of liberal feminist based policy intervention asinitiatives which reflect this stance require the removal of structural barriers to enablewomen to fully engage with prevailing business norms. These, it has been argued, drawupon a masculine perspective regarding behaviors, achievements, and rewards. Thus,women are free to engage with entrepreneurship but in fact, not upon equal terms as thisliberal approach fails to address socialization issues, persistent stereotypes which devalue

women, and the continuing inequality in the distribution of domestic and caring labor.The outcome is equal access from a position of disadvantage; proposition three is there-fore, supported.

It might be supposed that the pessimistic analysis of the inevitability of gender sub-ordination outlined above suggests that policy initiatives per se have little worth as theydo not challenge institutional, structural sexism. The reality for many women in con-temporary society is that they do wish to engage with enterprise. Consequently, as notedabove, dedicated policies and support initiatives which recognize specific forms of gen-dered disadvantage and assist women in negotiating this challenge as far as possible, areabsolutely vital and do make a difference—the case of tailored federal programmes which

have impacted upon the expansion of female enterprise in the U.S. being a clear exampleof this. In the U.K. currently, organizations such as PROWESS (Promoting Women’sEnterprise Support) recognize gender related challenges which are faced by women andhave initiated a wide range of support measures sensitive to these needs. So facilitatingwomen’s enterprise on their own terms through formal and informal initiatives can createsustainable enterprises which contribute to the economy but also meet individual needs.Hence, the evidence indicates that focused policy support is successful in growing femaleself-employment but these policies are limited when addressing wider issues, such asunder capitalization, under performance, sectoral concentration, and negative stereotypes(Shaw et al., 2001). So, these differentiated support initiatives might, to a greater degree,

reflect the social feminist stance regarding the recognition of difference within a contextof equality, and will enable more women to achieve on their own terms. However, asCarter and Williams (2003) noted, such ventures are unlikely to perform to the samelevels as those of their male counterparts whose businesses lay down the standards forcriteria such as success.

Before finally concluding this analysis, it is noted that this short discussion refers towomen and men as generalized groups so it might be argued, generates a false univer-salism whereas in reality gender “is a space whose occupation we negotiate and experi-ence in differing ways” (Lister, 2003, citing Jones, 1994, p. 75). It is recognized that thisterminology sweeps over the myriad of differences which separate us all as individuals

but the purpose here is to lay a foundation for debate from which other analyses, whichfocus more directly upon the complex inter-weavings between enterprise, race, age, class,etc., might emerge. So, it is suggested that there are fundamental influences, such asgender, explored here in the guise of masculinity and femininity which affect our actionsand experiences. The point here is to draw attention to a generalized notion of influencewhile recognizing that considerable scope exists to develop this basic argument in moredetail to isolate how, for instance, gender might interact with other characterizationsto impact upon access to life chances and opportunities. This argument reflects a socialconstructivist theory where it is accepted that as social actors, human beings activelyconstruct their social worlds (Garfinkel, 1967; Mannheim, 1976). However, it is not

suggested that the social environment is a product of pure agency but, reflecting the work of Giddens (1979) it is argued that there is a complex, reflexive relationship between



action and structure. People are not “cultural dopes” (Giddens, 1979, p. 69) completelyconstrained by social structures but are active participants who manage, shape, and re-produce their societies. As such, the social construction of the world of action is one of reciprocity between structure and actor so women do shape their experience of entre-preneurship according to their context such that there will be different outcomes to thisprocess, but this remains however, subject to the structural constraints of genderdiscrimination.

So for example, in her analysis of entrepreneurial success, Kantor (2002, p. 131)notes how “researchers tend to use gender simply as a variable to explain success withoutunderstanding gender as a social construct.” In drawing upon the experience of microenterprise owners in South Asia, Kantor argues that empowerment is a key aspect of success for these women and this can only be assessed through greater cultural sensitiv-ity hence, it is demonstrated that location and context will shape the experience of entre-preneurship. From a different perspective, Carter and Marlow (2003) analyzed theentrepreneurial experiences of female accountants in the U.K.—a group of well educated,middle class women who, while operating sustainable and, indeed, by contemporarynorms successful firms still experienced gender related disadvantages.

Finally, the point of this article has been to use the example of finance to draw atten-tion to the need to recognize that the consideration of discrete areas must be analyzed inwider conceptual terms—only by recognizing and incorporating inter-disciplinary argu-ments can the manner in which issues such as the effect of gender upon funding entre-preneurship be understood more clearly. In drawing these arguments together and movingbeyond the particular example of finance, proposition four is supported. Future researchand comment upon the issue of women, gender, and entrepreneurship must contribute tostrengthening the conceptual basis of this debate. Carter et al. (2001) noted the theoret-ical paucity of much of the prevailing literature that leaves it as a rather disparate set of commentaries upon female entrepreneurship, which, in essence, focus upon the outcomes

of the negative impact of gender characterizations rather than engaging with the con-ceptual issues which underpin these outcomes. The theoretical analysis of gender is muchresearched in the wider social sciences and key debates regarding female disadvantageand subordination are well established (Bradley, 1999); so it is time to move away fromthe debate about whether gender shapes entrepreneurship, (why should this field of studybe somehow separate from the rest of the economic sphere?) to how, why, and in whatmanner it does this. This would then enable the debate to move forward to encompassheterogeneity by analyzing the differentiated, complex, and varied affects gender char-acterization has upon women in differing environments. The argument should no longerbe about if gender is an issue but how it shapes the experiences of entrepreneurship within

particular contexts.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, H., Elam, A., & Reese, P. (1997). Strong ties, weak ties and strangers; do women differ from menin their use of networking to obtain assistance? In S. Birley & I. MacMillan (Eds), Entrepreneurship in aglobal context . London: Routledge.

Bank of England (2001). Finance for small firms: An eighth report . March.

Barclays (1999). Setting up in business. Barclays Bank, Research Review, February, London: Barclays Bank PLC.



Barclays (2000). Women in business—the barriers start to fall. December, London: Barclays Bank PLC.

Beasley, C. (1999). What is feminism? London: Sage.

Bem, S. (1993). The lens of gender . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: BBC and Penguin.

Bird, B. & Brush, C. (2002). A gendered perspective on organization creation. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 26 (3), 41–65.

Bradley, H. (1999). Gender and power in the workplace. Houndmills: Macmillan.

Brush, C. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16 (4), 5–30.

Brush, C. (1997). Women owned businesses: Obstacles and opportunities. Journal of Developmental Entre- preneurship, 2(1), 1–25.

Brush, C., Carter, N., Gatewood, E., Green, P., & Hart, M. (2001). “The Diana Project,” women business

owners and equity capital: The myths dispelled . Insight Report. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center forEntrepreneurial Leadership.

Bryson, V. (2003). Feminist political theory. Houndmills: Palgrave.

Bygrave, W. (1992). Venture capital returns in the 1980s. In D. Sexton & J. Kasarda (Eds), The state of theart of entrepreneurship. Boston: Kent.

Carter, S. (2000). Gender and enterprise. In S. Carter & D. Jones-Evans (Eds), Enterprise and small busi-ness: Principles, practice and policy. London: Prentice Hall.

Carter, S., Anderson, S., & Shaw, E. (2001). Women’s business ownership: A review of the academic, popular

and internet literature. Report to the Small Business Service, RR002/01.

Carter, N. & Kolvereid, L. (1997). Women starting new businesses: The experience in Norway and the US .OECD Conference on Women Entrepreneurs in SMEs, Paris, April.

Carter, S. & Marlow, S. (2003). Professional attainment as a challenge to gender disadvantage in entrepre-neurship. Paper presented at the 48th International Small Business Conference, June, Belfast.

Carter, S. & Rosa, P. (1998). The financing of male and female owned businesses. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , 10(3), 225–241.

Carter, N. & Williams, M. (2003). Comparing social feminism and liberal feminism. In J. Butler (Ed.), New

perspectives on women entrepreneurs. Greenwich, CT: IAP.

Carter, N., Williams M., & Reynolds, P. (1997). Discrimination among new firms in retail: The influencesof initial resources, strategy and gender. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(2), 125–146.

Cliff, J. (1998). Does one size fit all? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(6), 523–542.

Cockburn, C. (1991). In the way of women. London: Methuen.

Cosh, A. & Hughes, A. (2000). British enterprise in transition: Growth innovation and public policy in thesmall and medium sized enterprise sector 1994–1999. Cambridge, UK: ESRC Centre for Business ResearchUniversity of Cambridge.

Crannie-Francis, A., Waring, W., Stavropoulos, P., & Kirky, J. (2003). Gender studies: Terms and debates.Basingstoke: Palgrave



Crompton, R. (1996). Women and work in modern Britain. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Deakins, D. (1996). Entrepreneurship and small firms. London: McGraw Hill.

Doward, J. & Reilly, T. (2003, October 12). Shameful pay makes British women worst off in Europe. TheObserver .

Fay, M. & Williams, L. (1993). Gender bias and the availability of business loans. Journal of Business

Venturing, 8(4), 363–376.

Equal Opportunities Commission (2001). Understanding men and women at work . Retrieved March 26, 2003,from http://www.eoc.org.uk.

Federation of Small Business (2002). Lifting the barriers to growth in UK small businesses. Retrieved January14, 2004, from http://www.fsb.org.uk.

Fisher, E., Reuber, R., & Dyke, L. (1993). A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, genderand entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 151–168.

Firestone, S. (1981). The dialectic of sex: The case for feminist revolution. New York: Bantam Books.

Gardiner, J. (1994). Female employment and unemployment. In P. Arestis & M. Sawyer (Eds), Radical polit-ical economy. London: Edward Elgar.

Garfinkel, E. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analy-sis. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Greene, P., Brush, C., Hart, M., & Saparito, P. (2000). Exploration of the venture capital industry: Is genderan issue? In Frontiers of entrepreneurship research series. Wellesley, MA: Babson College (Retrieved, fromhttp://www.babson.edu/entrep/fer).

Greer, M. & Green, P. (2003). Feminist theory and the study of entprepreneurship. In J. Butler (Ed.), New perspectives on women entrepreneurs. Greenwich, CT: IAP.

Gutek, B. & Cohen, A. (1992). Sex ratios, sex spill over and sex at work. In A. Mills & P. Tancred (Eds),Gendering organisational analysis. London: Sage.

Halford, S. & Leonard, P. (2001). Gender, power and organisations. Houndmills: Palgrave.

Hall, S. (Ed.) (1996). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage.

Heilman, M. & Chen, J. (2003). Entrepreneurship as a solution: The allure of self-employment for women

and minorities. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 347–364.

Jarvis, R. (2000). Finance and the small firm. In S. Carter & D. Jones-Evans (Eds), Enterprise and smallbusiness: Principles, practice and policy. London: Prentice Hall.

Jones, K. (1994). Identity, action and locale: Thinking about citizenship, civic action and feminism. SocialPolitics, 1(3), 256–270.

Kantor, P. (2002). Gender, microenterprise success and cultural context: The case of South Asia. Entrepre-neurship Theory and Practice, 26 (3), 131–143.

Koper, G. (1993). Women entrepreneurs and the granting of business credit. In S. Allen & C. Truman (Eds),

Women in business: Perspectives on women entrepreneurs. London: Routledge.

Lister R (2003) Citizenship feminist perspectives Houndmills: Palgrave

http://www.eoc.org.uk/

http://www.fsb.org.uk/

http://www.babson.edu/entrep/fer

http://www.babson.edu/entrep/fer

http://www.fsb.org.uk/

http://www.eoc.org.uk/



McKechnie, S., Ennew, C., & Read, L. (1998). The nature of the banking relationship: A comparison ofthe experience of male and female small business owners. International Small Business Journal, 16 (3),39–55.

Mannheim, K. (1976). Ideology and utopia. London: RKP.

Marlow, S. (1997). Self-employed women—new opportunities, old challenges? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , 9, 199–210.

Marlow, S. (2002). Self employed women: Apart of, or apart from, feminist theory? Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2(2), 83–91.

Mason, C. & Harrison, R. (1999). Public policy and the development of the informal venture capital market:UK experience and lessons for Europe. In K. Cowling (Ed.), Industrial Policy in Europe (pp. 199–223).London: Routledge.

Maushart, S. (2001). Wife work: What marriage really means for women. London: Bloomsbury.

Meager, N., Court, G., & Moralee, J. (1994). Self employment and the distribution of income. Brighton: IMS,Report 270.

Mirchandani, M. (1999). Feminist insight into gendered work: New directions in research on women andentrepreneurship. Gender, Work and Organisations, 6 (4), 224–235.

Moore, D. (1990). An examination of present research on the female entrepreneur. Journal of Business Ethics,9(4/5), 275–281.

Moore, D. & Buttner, E. (1997). Women entrepreneurs: Moving beyond the glass ceiling. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Morrison, A. (2000). Initiating entrepreneurship. In S. Carter & D. Jones-Evans (Eds), Enterprise and smallbusiness: Principles, practice and policy. London: Prentice Hall.

Oakley, A. (1973). Sex, gender and society. London: Temple Smith.

Seegull, F. (1998). Female entrepreneurs’ access to equity capital. Harvard Business School WorkingPaper.

Shakeshaft, C. & Newell, I. (1984). Research on themes, concepts and models of organisation behaviour:The influence of gender. Issues in Education, 2(3), 186–203.

Shaw, E., Carter, S., & Brierton, J. (2001). Unequal entrepreneurs: Why female enterprise is an uphill busi-ness. London: The Industrial Society.

Small Business Service (SBS) (2003). A strategic framework for women’s enterprise. London:DTI/5000k/04/03.

Storey, D.J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector . London: Routledge.

Stout, H. (1997, November 28). Venture capital finance. Wall Street Journal.

Synnott, A. (1993). The body social: Symbolism, self and society. London: Routledge.

Titterton, M. (1992). Managing threats to welfare: The search for a new paradigm of welfare. Journal of Social Policy, 21(1), 1–23.

Tredennick, H. (1968–1969) Aristotle: The metaphysics. London: Heinemann.

Vinnicombe, S. (1987). Drawing out the differences between male and female working styles. Women inManagement Review 7(2) 5 16



Watson, J. (2002). Comparing the performance of male and female controlled businesses: Relating outputsto inputs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26 (3), 91–100.

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–152.

Westwood, S. (1986). All day, every day, London: Pluto Press.

Marlow and Patton 2005

Documents

Transcript of Marlow and Patton 2005