Gender and Entrepreneurship: A Multilevel Theory and Analysis

Citation

Scott, J.M. (2009), "Gender and Entrepreneurship: A Multilevel Theory and Analysis", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 386-388. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550910967958

Since the seminal and groundbreaking research by Hisrich and Brush (1985), the gender literature on new venture creation and business ownership has developed significantly. It has been argued convincingly, for example, that much previous research on gender is based mistakenly on the assumption that the “male” benchmark or norm is somehow superior to the “female” (Ahl, 2004). While the gender and entrepreneurship field recently developed its own distinct journal, the International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, there is still much to be done. Why women start businesses, and how, varies across different countries and is an important research question. The field's theoretical foundations needs to be developed (Carter and Shaw, 2006; de Bruin et al., 2007). Furthermore, there is a need to understand how the new venture creation process – and the motivations behind individuals undertaking such a course of action – is highly influenced by institutions, which are themselves inevitably gendered. Finally, it is clear that there are significant differences across different countries and cultures, but our knowledge of this remains insufficiently grounded conceptually.

In this regard, Amanda Elam's masterly cross‐national study from which she develops her multi‐level theory of gender and entrepreneurship is an important contribution. Elam's key objective of the book is to raise our understanding of national differences in new venture creation with a specific remit to explore gender. To do so, the author draws on some sophisticated concepts and theories from the social sciences, (such as Bourdieu's (1986) theories of social action and forms of capital, and Lenski's (1966) theory of how society develops), as well as key theories from the entrepreneurship literature (for example, Harper's (2003) theory of entrepreneurial discovery). Borrowing from the fields of sociology and anthropology and welding these together coherently by testing the theory is the ultimate aim of the book.

To achieve this rather ambitious aim, the author has developed a cross‐national, practice theory view of gender and entrepreneurship (RQ: what are the national and individual‐level factors that are influential on individuals creating new ventures?). Her theory largely draws on previous work (as discussed above, such as Bourdieu, 1986; Harper, 2003; Lenski, 1966), and essentially focuses on society and social action, with a specific emphasis on institutional economic theory and social structure. Such theories go a long way, Elam argues, to explain why people of different genders are located in particular “social positions” and, indeed, her perspective deepens our understanding of the role of social networks. These theories she uses to support, for example, the argument that women, “approach business start‐up from very different social positions, characterized by different sets of resources and different rates of returns” (Elam, 2008, p. 4). Hence, when one is trying to understand cross‐national comparisons, in which previous researchers have, “found similar patterns of gender difference”, these are inevitably confused by “an ever‐increasing degree of complexity” (Elam, 2008, p. 4). The first three chapters – an introductory section, an exposition of the “practice theory view of social difference”, and then Elam's theory of gender and entrepreneurship – act as a strong basis on which she approaches the analysis within the fourth chapter. It is here that she tests her theory using Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2001 adult level data.

Pierre Bourdieu's work (e.g. Bourdieu, 1986), therefore, is a strong foundation for Elam's theorisation – in particular, the notion of education as institutionalised cultural capital, and that the habitus is gendered because “men and women hold very different worldviews which lead to different social actions or practices” (Elam, 2008, p. 35). Furthermore, one of her most powerful Bourdieuian arguments is in highlighting business ownership as a form of symbolic capital, which is tied to “legitimacy”, “status”, and “power” and that entrepreneurship is conceptualised, therefore, for women, as, “a practice, or habituated strategy of action that is legitimised and chosen according to social definitions of status appropriate behaviours and competencies” (Elam, 2008, p. 47). Conversely, when men start a business it is considered to be a “means of maximizing economic capital” (Elam, 2008, p. 57).

While these conceptual and theoretical insights are certainly profound and enlightening, where the book becomes even more interesting is in the robust empirical analysis of the GEM 2001 dataset. Dr Elam has presented six models, essentially:

1. 1.

   Comparing gender and country differences;

2. 2.

   The “fixed effect” of gender;

3. 3.

   The effect of the various forms of capital;

4. 4.

   Gender interactions;

5. 5.

   “macro‐level factors”, such as culture; and

6. 6.

   “macro‐micro interactions” (Elam, 2008, pp. 63‐82).

She provides some fascinating findings about the macro‐ and micro‐level factors that cause cross‐national (and hence cross‐cultural) differences – and specific variations by gender – in business start up rates. Therefore, factors such as age and experience and education, as well as the “social positions, worldviews and dispositions”, predict whether someone becomes an entrepreneur. Similarly, she finds that, while fearing failure reduces the prospect of start up, actually having confidence or self‐belief (i.e. in one's own ability to create a new venture successfully) enhances the likelihood of being an entrepreneur fivefold (Elam, 2008, p. 65). The findings also provide further evidence of the importance of social capital; yet she reports that economic capital actually has “no significant effect” on the likelihood of new venture creation, but that, “being female significantly reduced the odds of starting a business by 22 percent, net of all the other factors” (Elam, 2008, p. 68). The gender interaction model actually reduced women's prospects of starting a business by 53 per cent, and the final two models reveal, for example, the importance of “national gender culture” (i.e. the role of women and men) and how the habitus or worldview then influences entrepreneurship for women (Elam, 2008, pp. 68‐70). She then provides some illustrative charts of the results and provides a fairly detailed discussion, followed by the conclusions and implications, which illustrate some thought‐provoking issues for the reader to ponder and, hopefully, on which to act.

The book is aimed at both an academic and policy audience, although I would go further than the publishers and advocate its use with students – and not just research active staff at universities – because it shows not only the relationship between entrepreneurship and gender, but also the cross‐national differences and the sorts of macro‐ and micro‐level factors that influence these variations. Since I write in this research area, I have certainly learnt much from this concise little gem of a book.

The main strength about this book is that, despite its ambitious and far‐reaching theme, Dr Elam has managed to articulate, support, methodise, and test her theory in such a short volume (136 pp.) and this is achieved without losing any of the key messages or elements. In fact, she has précised the book exceptionally well in the preface, too, and the supreme organisation of the book means that it is coherent and flows well. Similarly, the quantitative analysis is complex, but is presented in clear language that does not confuse the reader. However, in terms of the major limitation of the work, well that is quite simple: given the need to focus on empirically testing the GEM 2001 dataset, the results only go so far, in that they tell us the what. Clearly, much further in‐depth qualitative research is needed across a number of countries to explore further the how and why elements of these important cross‐national differences, although the anthropolo‐sociological theories on which the practice theory view are built do contribute to building understanding and explanation to a considerable extent.

In conclusion, this is a timely and important book. While bearing in mind the limitations of a large‐scale empirical study, it is nonetheless one that is grounded in an exemplary manner on a vast body of literature from sociological, anthropological, management and other fields. At 136pp., and in hardback, and at £49.95, it is certainly value for money given the quality of its findings and the relevance of this work for the gendered entrepreneurship field, but also more generally for those academics and other stakeholders who are interested in this particular issue.