The Effect of Gender on Women-led Small Enterprises: The Case of India

Abstract

The importance of women-led enterprises for any country’s economic growth and competitiveness is well established. According to a 2009 study, in India female-run enterprises in recent years have performed significantly better than other enterprises in terms of productivity and export percentages. However, gender gap in entrepreneurial initiatives in India is among the highest in the world. Although accepted as crucial, the role of public policy towards addressing these barriers is under-researched in the entrepreneurship literature. Further, the current evidence base on state-level predictors of female enterprises is scant. The aim of this study is to highlight these gaps. In doing so, the focus is on interpreting the role of gender correlates—fertility, female educational attainment and female economic activities—in facilitating or hindering women-led enterprises. Indeed, previous studies have identified gender-related factors to have the greatest impact on women’s choice in not taking up entrepreneurial activities. An empirical regression analysis and a qualitative review of the institutional environment are conducted. The findings presented in this study indicate the need for a realignment of policy focus towards addressing gender barriers and developing managerial skills, in addition to technical skills, of women entrepreneurs.

Keywords

Women-led businesses female entrepreneurs small-scale initiatives

Introduction

Multiple reports from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) highlight the importance of women-led enterprises in national economic growth, and competitiveness. Kelley, Brush, Greene & Litovsky (2011, p. 5) argue

When a major part of a population does not engage in entrepreneurship, these economies lose the benefits that would otherwise be provided by new products and services, additional revenues, and new jobs. More specifically, when women do not participate equally in entrepreneurship, society loses out on the value that can be created by half its populace.

In India, where small-scale initiatives serve as major drivers of economic growth, female-owned businesses are concentrated in these small-scale initiatives. Small-scale initiatives are classified into three categories on the basis of their investment on plant and machinery (Government of India, 2006):

Micro enterprises with less than $50,000 in investment.

Small enterprises with investment between $50,000 and $1,000,000.

Medium enterprises with investment between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000.²

In 2006–2007, majority of the small-scale women-run enterprises fell under the micro category with 50 per cent engaged in manufacturing and 40 per cent in services (Government of India, 2006). Similar to other developing economies, in India push or necessity factors are more important than pull or opportunity factors in motivating women to become entrepreneurs (Kelley et al., 2011). A larger share of female entrepreneurs exists in the informal sector in developing countries.³ Compared to their male counterparts, female entrepreneurial and business participation is influenced by unemployment (push factor) and life satisfaction that allows participation in entrepreneurship only after developing social capital through life and work situations (Kobeissi, 2010; Verheul, van Stel & Thurik, 2006).⁴

The potential of female-run small-scale business enterprises to contribute to the Indian economy is profound. Indeed, a 2009 study surveyed women-owned small-sector industrial and service enterprises in India and reported that in recent years these enterprises had performed significantly better than other enterprises in terms of productivity and export percentages (Nagadevara, 2009). In this regard, the role of women enterprises in the formal sector has been particularly highlighted in the literature (Ghani, Kerr & O’Connell, 2011). However, gender gap in business initiatives in the formal sector in India is among the highest in the world (Paul et al., 2002).

A robust number of micro-level studies use primary survey and secondary GEM data and investigate the barriers and challenges associated with female-run initiatives in the small-scale enterprises in India. Limited by scarcity of data, however, only a handful of country-level panel studies that conduct aggregate-level investigation of small-scale women-led ventures in developing countries do not focus on India (Verheul et al., 2006). Moreover, the effect of programmes and policies on women entrepreneurs is an area that has not been studied adequately by the entrepreneurship literature (Carter, Anderson & Shaw, 2001). The aim of this study is to address these gaps in the literature. In doing so, the focus is on interpreting the impacts of gender correlates on women-led enterprises. Previous studies have found that the greatest impact on women’s choice in not taking up entrepreneurial activities is from gender-related factors (Birley, 1989).

The contribution of this study is twofold: first, the application of the ‘resource theory of self-employment’ to empirically model state-level share of women-led initiatives. The resource theory of self-employment identifies characteristics that are salient drivers of entrepreneurial activities among women. It highlights gender variables, in addition to economic and institutional factors, as significant predictors of such initiatives (Casson, 2005; Taniguchi, 2002). Second, the review of national- and state-level institutional support conducted in this study provides the policy context within which gender entrepreneurial trends manifest. The specific objectives of this study are as follows:

To conduct a quantitative empirical analysis to identify aggregate (state-level) factors impacting ownership in female enterprises and add to the micro-level evidence base using data from the recently published Fourth All India Census of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises in the registered sector.

To perform a qualitative review of the evolution of national- and state-level institutional support provided over the years to foster and develop women’s participation in small-scale industries and business enterprises.

The organization in the rest of the case is as follows. In the first section, state-level trends and factors in women-led enterprises in India are presented. In the next section, a synopsis of the various policy efforts to foster and develop women’s participation in small-scale industries and businesses is provided followed by a discussion of the results of the state-level quantitative analysis in the third section. The concluding section wraps up this study with policy implications and stresses the need for a realignment of policy focus towards addressing gender barriers and developing managerial skills, in addition to technical skills of women entrepreneurs.

Women Enterprises: Trends and Factors

The Government of India (2012) defines ‘women entrepreneurs’ as follows:

A Small-Scale Industrial Unit/Industry related service or business enterprise, managed by one or more women entrepreneurs in proprietary concerns, or in which she/they individually or jointly have a share capital of not less than 51% as Partners/ Shareholders/ Directors of Private Limits Company/Members of Cooperative Society.

This definition is an accepted and widely applied benchmark to identify and distinguish women-led enterprises in India. Based on this definition, the most recent national census on micro, small, and medium enterprises in India reports that almost 2 out of every 10 enterprises that were registered and working in 2006–2007, were women-led. The report also found that women’s work participation in men- and women-led working enterprises was about 1.6 million or 20 per cent of the total work participation (Government of India, 2011). Entrepreneurial and work participation of women in India is much lower than that of other countries at similar levels of economic development (Das, 2001).⁵

In countries with factor-driven economies, that includes India, the proportion of female entrepreneurs ranged between no more than one-third of the total number of entrepreneurs in the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region to about half of the total number of entrepreneurs in sub-Saharan Africa. The rate of total early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA) in MENA countries is much lower than that in countries in sub-Saharan Africa.⁶ For example, TEA rates among females in 2008 in Angola, and in 2004 in Uganda, respectively, were 25.2 and 25.5. In Egypt and Iran, TEA rates in 2008, respectively, were 5.9 and 4.5. TEA in India was 7.1 in 2008 which was comparable to that in the MENA region countries (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2008; Kelley et al., 2011). Also, historically the rate of female labour participation in India has been much lower than its neighbours in the Indian sub-continent and only higher than that in Pakistan. For example, rates of female labour participation in 2010 in Bangladesh and Bhutan, respectively, were 57 per cent and 66 per cent, almost double the rate prevailing in India which was 29 per cent (World Bank, 2011).

Moreover, wide gender disparity typifies business ventures across all states of India. In 2006–2007, gender gap—measured in terms of women enterprises as a share of men-owned enterprises—in ownership of micro, small and medium enterprises was highest in Daman and Diu and lowest in Meghalaya (see Table 1). In fact, a north–south divide in the gender gap in entrepreneurial and business initiatives exists, a characteristic that has been widely discussed in the literature as a consequence of, among other things, religio-cultural factors (Ghosh & Cheruvalath, 2007).⁷ This gender gap, however, narrows down for employment generated in the two types of enterprises. While female-run enterprises on average employed about five employees in 2006–2007, male-owned enterprises on average engaged about one additional employee more than their female counterparts.

Table 1.

State-wise Entrepreneurship Profile, 2006–2007

State/UT Name	Number of Enterprises Owned by (in thousands)
	Female	Male	Total	Gender Gap
				(female-owned as a share of male-owned)
Jammu & Kashmir	3.09	11.90	14.99	2.60
Himachal Pradesh	1.31	10.62	11.93	1.23
Punjab	3.01	45.10	48.11	0.67
Chandigarh	0.10	0.90	1.00	1.11
Uttrakhand	2.43	21.34	23.77	1.14
Haryana	1.46	31.69	33.15	0.46
Delhi	0.38	3.38	3.76	1.12
Rajasthan	5.99	48.90	54.89	1.22
Uttar Pradesh	8.39	179.36	187.75	0.47
Bihar	2.57	47.47	50.04	0.54
Sikkim	0.02	0.10	0.12	2.00
Arunachal Pradesh	0.10	0.32	0.42	3.13
Nagaland	0.22	1.12	1.34	1.96
Manipur	1.15	3.35	4.50	3.43
Mizoram	1.29	2.42	3.71	5.33
Tripura	0.16	1.18	1.34	1.36
Meghalaya	1.19	1.83	3.02	6.50
Assam	4.07	15.80	19.87	2.58
West Bengal	4.42	38.84	43.26	1.14
Jharkhand	0.75	17.44	18.19	0.43
Orissa	2.16	17.44	19.60	1.24
Chattisgarh	2.09	20.68	22.77	1.01
Madhya Pradesh	10.18	96.82	107.00	1.05
Gujarat	23.40	206.43	229.83	1.13
Daman & Diu	0.01	0.58	0.59	0.17
Dadra & Nagar Haveli	0.04	1.68	1.72	0.24
Maharashtra	8.98	77.61	86.59	1.16
Andhra Pradesh	5.23	40.47	45.70	1.29
Karnataka	26.68	109.51	136.19	2.44
Goa	0.33	2.30	2.63	1.43
Lakshadweep	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Kerala	38.30	111.89	150.19	3.42
Tamil Nadu	54.65	179.23	233.88	3.05
Pondicherry	0.33	1.12	1.45	2.95
Andaman & Nicobar Islands	0.20	0.55	0.75	3.64
All India	214.68	1,349.37	1,564.05	1.59

Source: Fourth All India Census (2006–2007).

At the state-level, the number of women-led enterprises varied widely and was concentrated in the five states of Tamil Nadu (25.46), Kerala (17.84), Karnataka (12.43), Gujarat (10.90) and Madhya Pradesh (4.74) accounting for about 70 per cent of all such enterprises. Ghosh and Cheruvalath (2007) find that in states, such as Gujarat, Karnataka and Maharashtra, that record a greater proportion of women entrepreneurs show that these women (a) are from business families, or (b) have a background in services, or (c) have a highly educated male member (father or husband) in the family. However, even in these states the gender gap in small-scale initiatives is high and women-run enterprises in 2006–2007 ranged between 1.1 and 3.4 ventures for every 10 male-led enterprises (Government of India, 2011).⁸

A sizeable number of micro-level studies use primary data and investigate the barriers and challenges associated with female-run business initiatives in the small-scale enterprises in India.⁹ Limited by scarcity of data, a handful of country-level studies that examine small-scale women-led ventures in developing countries including India, add to the micro-level studies and identify aggregate-level factors impacting female enterprises.¹⁰ However, the effect of programmes and policies on women entrepreneurs is an area that has not been studied adequately by the entrepreneurship literature (Carter et al., 2001).

Factors identified by prior studies as barriers for female-run businesses fall into three broad groups: (a) personal characteristics, motivations and experiences; (b) sociocultural gender contexts; and (c) gender differences regarding business management, particularly business and personal networks, access to finance and market opportunities.

Women perceive the need for growth of business differently than men and non-profit motivations are more common among women (Ghosh & Cheruvalath, 2007). Mitra (2002) examines the growth trajectory of women-run businesses in India and report that women-run businesses are motivated by a need for self-fulfilment instead of profits (economic vs non-economic goals) and often adopt non-organic growth strategies keeping their ventures small despite growth in profit and sales.¹¹ Moreover, family demands limit their ability to grow and also dictate their choice of activity and/or desire to remain small. Next, with regard to sociocultural gender contexts, familial responsibilities, traditional restriction on mobility and social interaction add to the low status of women in India to severely constrict the number of female-run businesses.

Finally, the literature on women entrepreneur considers the effect of gender on the management and performance of small-scale enterprises.¹² Compared to men, women business owners have smaller personal networks and limited geographic mobility. These factors combined with the persistence of the ‘old-boys network’ limit their access to information and opportunities.¹³ In addition, women entrepreneurs, more often than not, view the resources—that among other things, include relational networks, financial and technical resources, contracts in government and other agencies—required to grow quite differently. Gender discrimination introduces market imperfections resulting in women pursuing relational contracts within families, ethnic and gender groups. In other words, women pursue different networking strategies than men and most often seek support from female networks (Mitra, 2002). These characteristics impact women’s ability to raise capital at start-up and generate finances to keep their businesses running. In this regard, most studies highlight limited supply of credit as a barrier impeding women’s access to financial resources. However, Field et al. (2010) instead argue that limited demand instead of supply of credit is the factor qualifying access of women to financial resources. Gender gap in education, training and business network limits women’s knowledge on investment opportunities or ability to conduct cost–benefit analysis. These limitations constrain their ability to seek out credits and loans.

In addition to the above factors, existing studies find certain aggregate-level factors as important determinants of women enterprises in a region. These factors are (a) sociocultural (female educational attainment, gender norms, etc.); (b) economic (female economic activities such as employment undertaken by women, female earnings, economic development and population base representing market demand); (c) institutional (property rights and rule of law, business licensing, availability of capital, child care and parental leave in wage employment, etc.); and (d) demographic (fertility, importance of family, marriage, etc.). Estrin and Mickiewicz (2009) questioned if institutions impact women enterprises more than men-run businesses and found that women are less likely than men to undertake entrepreneurial activity in countries where (a) the rule of law is weaker; (b) the state sector is larger; and (c) the informal financial sector is weaker.

Institutional Support to Women Enterprises

Historically, the policy environment in India has been especially favourable to its small-scale industrial and business initiatives. Policy tools and institutional support were established since the decade of the 1970s at both the central as well as state levels to develop women enterprises and their economic contribution to the country (Coad & Tamvada, 2011). Central and state governments work in consort with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to foster and facilitate women entrepreneurs. In so doing, the central aim has been the empowerment of women of India through a two-pronged strategy. First, an employment-centred policy strategy has prioritized women enterprises to address their low status and limited bargaining power in society. Second, in order to develop self-reliance and autonomy, women entrepreneurs has been treated as a special target group in India’s five-year plans as well as other development programmes and policies (Deshpande and Sethi, 2009).

A majority of these landmark acts and institutions target economically backward and rural women. However, it is beyond the scope of the present study to provide an in-depth chronology of national- and state-level efforts. Instead, the most important of these endeavours are as given below.

In 1971, the Government of India established a committee that reviewed the status of women to recommend gainful employment to women in recognition of their services. About a decade and a half later in 1986, another standing committee comprising of women entrepreneurs and representatives was created to provide fiscal and financial incentives such as marketing, training and publicity. This committee focused on curriculum development particularly to nurture women in rural areas, in addition to providing incentives to small-scale initiatives employing more than 50 per cent of women. Later, in the Seventh Five-year Plan that was implemented between the years 1987 and 1992, the empowerment and equality of women through self-employment and enterprises were highlighted. The next Five-year Plan further built on the same goals in recognition of the fact that women constituted about half of the Indian populace. The National Perspective Plan (NPP) was adopted and the National Commission for Women Entrepreneurs (NCWE) was established in 1992. Much of the focus through these plans and commissions were (a) the support and development of women entrepreneurs in the informal sector; and (b) the organization and coordination of research and training through a network of national- and state-level resource centres. Some of the important national- and state-level programmes, schemes and initiatives that came out of these efforts are listed in the following paragraphs.

National-level Programmes and Schemes and Initiatives

Support to Training-cum-Employment Programme (STEP) was established in 1987 and aimed to develop skills of women particularly economically weaker ones depending upon local and sectoral needs.

A number of poverty alleviation and rural development initiatives were launched as subcomponents of the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP), such as the Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas (DWCRA), Council for Advancement of People’s Action and Rural Technology (CAPART), Training of Rural Youth for Self-employment (TRYSEM), etc.

Rashtriya Mahila Kosh (RMK) was instituted as a dedicated fund in 1993 to fulfil the credit needs of poor women.

A number of employment generation schemes, such as Nehru Rozgar Yojna, Prime Minister’s Rozgar Yojna, etc., were set up to generate employment through micro enterprises giving preference to women and backward sections of the society.

Assistance to Women’s Cooperatives was launched as a vehicle of financial assistance in terms of capital and managerial subsidy to cooperatives run by women.

Trade Related Entrepreneurship Assistance and Development for Women (TREAD) was launched in 1995 to improve institutional capacities and other market development activities.

A host of central government institutions, such as Small Industries Development Organization and banks such as Industrial Development Bank of India, Small Industries Development Bank of India, etc., were set up to provide financial assistance that included informal lending at concessional rates and training and extension services to develop and support women entrepreneurs.

In addition, national-level training institutions, such as the National Institute for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development or NIESBUD, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India or EDII, etc., was founded to develop women’s entrepreneurial activities in small businesses and small industries through education, training and research.

Finally, several national-level women entrepreneurs association and organizations, such as Women Entrepreneur’s Wing of National Alliance of Young Entrepreneurs or NAYE, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Ladies Organization, etc., undertake lobbying activity to represent the interests of women entrepreneurs at various levels of government.

State-level Programmes, Schemes and Initiatives

To foster women enterprises, state-level financial packages and schemes were set up through State Financial Corporations that extended financial assistance at special rates and terms to help women entrepreneurs start their business in the small-scale sector.

Specialized training institutions, such as Technical Consultancy Organizations or TCOs, Institute of Entrepreneurship Development or IEDs, etc., have been set up in a number of states that impart training, intervention programmes, research and publications to help existing and potential women enterprises.

State-level women’s organizations, such as the Association of Women Entrepreneurs of Small-Scale Industries in South India, etc., conduct lobbying activities and impart training.

Non-governmental Initiatives (NGOs)

A bevy of voluntary organizations and non-governmental organizations operate in India that offer financial, technical and training assistance to women enterprises. In addition to training, education and financial assistance, these organizations also provide networking opportunities to women entrepreneurs. Many of these non-governmental organizations, such as Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), target women enterprises in the informal sector and provide them with grants and loans to start and operate their businesses.

State-level Empirical Analysis

Theoretical Model

The resource theory of self-employment focuses on the availability of certain resources, such as human and financial resources, social and ethnic resources that are likely to serve as drivers of entrepreneurial and business activities. It highlights the importance of human resources, particularly competencies and capabilities, for the performance of the firm. Casson (2005) and Kobeissi (2010), however, argue that the theory also relates entrepreneurial capabilities to the overall nature of the ‘environment’ prevailing in a region. Three different environments—economic, business and gender—are identified that correspond to a set of different factors and combine to determine the level of female entrepreneurship in a region. Figure 1 below is derived from Kobeissi (2010) and consists of a subset of the variables therein.¹⁴

Figure 1.

Source: Kobeissi (2010).

The relation between the share of female-run enterprises and each of the gender variables can be theoretically explained as below.

Fertility can affect the level of women’s entrepreneurial activity in two ways. Demand of childcare ties up and diverts resources away from productive activities and results in a constriction of women’s participation in entrepreneurial ventures. Conversely, greater flexibility of work through self-employment, particularly home-based work, may render these types of opportunities more attractive to women with children. Depending upon which of these factors prevail, the resultant net effect of fertility on the share of women in small-scale entrepreneurial activities will either be positive or negative.

The entrepreneurship literature is less than clear in explaining the relation between female labour participation and women’s level of entrepreneurial activities. Female labour force participation may be negatively associated due to substitution effects when opportunities for participation in the labour force reduce the number of women entering self-employment. In contrast, female labour force participation may be positively associated if supply side effect—the population dynamic of greater supply of women translate to greater participation of women in both the labour force and entrepreneurial activities—dominates over the substitution effect.

Lower level of education is a formidable challenge that limits access to information and communication networks and in turn women’s entrepreneurial participation and performance.

Data and Variables

The list of variables is presented in Table 2. On the basis of the above theoretical framework, a regression model with a parsimonious set of lagged exogenous gender variables is estimated.¹⁵ Additional variables considered as controls are (a) economic: state gross domestic product (SDP), and population base (logged); and (b) business/institutional: state-level ‘perception of corruption’ index (CPI) as a proxy for the business environment available to entrepreneurs. The dependent variable is the percentage of small-scale initiatives in the formal sector that are women-owned. The data for SDP, CPI and small-scale industries are, respectively, from the Central Statistical Organization of India, GOI, the Transparency International and the Census of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, GOI. The rest of the data is from the Census of India, GOI.

Table 2.

List of Variables

Variable	Description	Source
Fertility (TFR)	Average number of children/woman	Guilmoto and Ranjan (2002)
Female work participation rate	Percent of female population that is working	Census of India 2001 (Government of India, 2001)
Female literacy rate	Percent of female population that is literate	Census of India 2001 (Government of India, 2001)
Population base	Log of total population	Census of India 2001 (Government of India, 2001)
GSP per capita	Gross state product per capita	Central Statistical Organization of India, 2001–2002 (Central Statistical Organization of India, Governenment of India, 2008)
Corruption perception index (CPI)	Level of experienced and perceived corruption	Transparency International (2005)
Share of women-led enterprises	Percent of enterprises that are women-led	All-India Census of MSMEs (Government of India, 2011)

Discussion of Results

Table 3 presents the empirical results and lists the standardized beta coefficient and t-statistics estimated in the model. Together the variables in the model explain 66 per cent of the variance in the share of women-led enterprises in the organized sector in a state. The empirical findings establish the significance of the role of the gender variables, except female labour participation rate. While female literacy rate has the largest, fertility has the third-largest coefficient in the model. States with lower levels of fertility and higher rates of literacy rate had higher percentage of female ownership in small-scale enterprises in the organized sector. Conversely, larger states with a larger population and economic base had a lower share of women-led enterprises in the organized sector. However, the result for the relation between corruption and female entrepreneurship is counter-intuitive: It shows that higher the level of experienced and perceived corruption in a state, the higher is the share of women-led small-scale enterprises. This result is contrary to findings in prior studies that indicate a lower level of female entrepreneurial activity in regions where the rule of law is weaker (Estrin & Mickiewicz, 2009).

Limitations

The above empirical model is limited by a number of factors. First, it is run with a small sample of Indian states that impose restriction on the number of explanatory and control variables that can be included in the model to avoid degrees of freedom problem. A possible solution to this issue would be to run an analysis at the sub-state district level. Second, the dependent variable in the model, the share of women-led enterprises, relate to the organized sector of the economy as a whole, and not sector-wise, for example, manufacturing or the service industry. Third, the data used in the analysis is somewhat dated and the results obtained relate to the state-level conditions in the earlier years of 2006–2007. Finally, CPI is probably not the most suitable indicator to capture the prevailing business environment. Despite these limitations, the findings of this empirical analysis are important in that it provides an aggregate-level evaluation of female-owned enterprises that is lacking from the entrepreneurship literature. It also lays down important groundwork for future research, particularly for suitable district-level indicators of female entrepreneurship and business environment.

Table 3.

Summary of Results

Variable	Standardized Beta Coefficient	t-Statistic
Fertility (TFR)	–0.66**	–2.92
Female work participation rate (%)	0.06	0.39
Female literacy rate (%)	1.05***	3.33
GSP per capita	–0.98***	–4.52
Population (log)	–0.24*	–1.62
CPI	0.64***	3.31
Adjusted R-square	0.66
Log likelihood	–50.12
Observations	20

Notes: *p< 0.10, **p< 0.05, ***p< 0.01.

Conclusions

Given the importance of women entrepreneurs in developing countries, this study presented state-level trends and factors related to women entrepreneurs and the barriers and challenges faced by these enterprises. Stressing the crucial role of policy, it also reviewed policies and programmes, and institutions and organizations geared towards the development of women entrepreneurs. Finally, it presented empirical findings that estimated the relation between aggregate (state-level) factors and ownership in female enterprises. The review of existing policy tools and findings from the empirical analysis indicate the need for a realignment of policy focus towards addressing gender barriers and developing managerial skills in addition to technical skills of women entrepreneurs in both formal and informal sectors of the economy (Jerinabi & Santhiyavalli, 2001).

Policy-makers in Ministries and Offices at various levels of government as well as NGO groups are, therefore, urged to consider the following additional factors in developing policy options to address managerial, networking and marketing opportunities for women entrepreneurs.

Business decisions of each group of women entrepreneurs are not only gender-specific but are also influenced by their perception and need to do business (Mitra, 2002).

Lack of infrastructure, more often than not, limits access to training and opportunities (Kobeissi, 2010).

Skill development and training programmes (in business management, marketing and networking) should address contexts defining a women entrepreneur in a region such that programmes and schemes are (a) region-specific; (b) opportunity versus necessity female entrepreneurship– specific; and (c) entrepreneurial motivation–specific.

Better education does not necessarily translate into better business management and performance or vice versa. For example, in contrast to the rest of the country, women entrepreneurs in Kerala enter into self-employment with better levels of education. Conversely, women-run micro enterprises with lower levels of education in Andhra Pradesh perform at par with their more educated counterparts in Kerala (Ghosh & Cheruvalath, 2007).

The sociocultural context that limits women’s ability to steer their enterprises adequately should be addressed in conjunction with policy efforts to develop women-led initiatives. Effects of programmes designed to develop managerial skills of women entrepreneurs may be limited in the absence of policies to counter social norms and mores in conservative male-dominated states such as Gujarat.

Finally, to be proactive and not only reactionary, policy-makers should advocate for (a) motivational training, particularly early in school; (b) vocational training geared towards practical application of academic education; and (c) curricular training to develop social interaction and networking skills among girls and women (Field et al., 2010).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the participants of the International Conference on Management Cases, 2012, held on 29–30 November at the Birla Institute of Management Technology, Greater Noida, India, for their constructive comments on the previous version of this case.

Notes

References

Birley

(1989). Female entrepreneurs: Are they really different? Journal of Small Business Management, 27(1), 7–31.

Brush

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

Brush

(1997). Women-owned businesses: Obstacles and opportunities. Journal ofDevelopmental Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 1–25.

Carter

Anderson

Shaw

(2001, August). Women business ownership: A review of the academic, popular and Internet literature. A Report to the Small Business Service. Department of Marketing, University of Strathclyde.

Casson

M.C.

(2005). Entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58(2), 327–348.

Central Statistical Organization of India, Government of India (2008). Gross state domestic product at current prices (as on 28.02.08). Retrieved 9 March 2013, from http://mospi.nic.in/6_gsdp_cur_9394ser.htm

Chaganti

(1986). Management in women-owned enterprises. Journal of SmallBusiness Management, 24(4), 18–29.

Chakraborti

(2009). Gender dimensions of the informal sector and informal employment in India. Paper presented at the Global Forum on Gender Statistics, 26–28 January 2009, Accra, Ghana.

Coad

Tamvada

J.P.

(2011). Firm growth and barriers to growth among small firms in India. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 383–400.

10.

Das

(2001). Women entrepreneurs from India: Problems, motivations and success factors. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 15(4), 67–81.

11.

Deshpande

Sethi

(2009). Women entrepreneurship in India. International Research Journal, 2(9–10), 13–17.

12.

Estrin

Saul

Mickiewicz

Tomasz

(2009). Do institutions have a greater effect on female entrepreneurs? Institute of Labor Studies, IZA Discussion Paper No. 4577, November 2009.

13.

Field

Jayachandran

Pande

(2010). Do traditional institutions constrain female entrepreneurship? A field experiment on business training in India. American Economic Review, 100(2), 125–129.

14.

Gardiner

Tiggemann

(1999). Gender differences in leadership style, job stress and mental health in male- and female-dominated industries. Journal ofOccupational and Organisational Psychology, 72(3), 301–315.

15.

Ghani

Kerr

W.R.

O’Connell

(2011). Local industrial structures and female entrepreneurship in India. Working Paper 12-036, Harvard Business School, 8 November 2011.

16.

Ghosh

Piyali

Cheruvalath

Reena

(2007). Indian female entrepreneurs as catalysts for economic growth and development, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 8(2), 139–148.

17.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (Egypt, Iran, India) (2008). Adult population survey (APS). Retrieved 12 March 2013, from www.gemconsortium.org

18.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (n.d.). List of key indicators and definitions. Retrieved 12 March 2013, from http://www.gemconsortium.org/key-indicators

19.

Government of India (2001). Primary census abstract. New Delhi, India: Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner (ORGI).

20.

Government of India (2006). The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, No. 27 of 2006. The Gazette of India, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi. Retrieved 12 March 2013, from http://www.msme.gov.in/MSME_Development_Gazette.htm

21.

Government of India (2011). Final report—Fourth all India census of micro, small and medium enterprises, 2006–2007 registered sector. New Delhi, India: Development Commissioner, MSME, pp. 1–303.

22.

Government of India (2012). SSI in India: Definitions. Development Commissioner (MSME), Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises. Retrieved 10 March 2012, from http://dcmsme.gov.in/ssiindia/definition.htm

23.

Guilmoto

C.Z.

Rajan

S.I.

(2002, 16 February). District level estimates of fertility from India’s 2001 Census. Economic and Political Weekly, pp. 665–672.

24.

Holmquist

Sundin

(1988). Women as entrepreneurs in Sweden—Conclusions from a survey. In Kirchoff

Long

McMullan

Vesper

Wetzel, Jr

(Eds), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 643–653). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

25.

Jerinabi

Santhiyavalli

(2001). Empowerment of women through convergence technology. Delhi Business Review, 2(2).

26.

Kelley

D.J.

Brush

C.G.

Greene

P.G.

Litovsky

(2011). Global entrepreneurship monitor, 2010 report: Women entrepreneurs worldwide. Massachusetts & London: Babson College, and the Global Entrepreneurship Research Association (GERA).

27.

Kobeissi

(2010). Gender factors and female entrepreneurship: International evidence and policy implications. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 1–35.

28.

Mitra

(2002). The growth pattern of women-run enterprises: An empirical study in India. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 217–237.

29.

Mitra

Pingali

(1999). Analysis of growth stages in small firms: A case study of auto ancillaries in India. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(3), 62–75.

30.

Nagadevara

(2009). Impact of gender in small-scale enterprises: A study of women enterprises in India. International Journal of Business and Economics, 9(1), 111–117.

31.

Paul

D.R.

Bygrave

W.D.

Autio

Cox

L.W.

Hay

(2002). Global entrepreneurship monitor: 2002 executive report. Massachusetts, Montana & London: Babson College, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, and London Business School.

32.

Pillania

R.K.

Lall

Saha

(2010). Motives for starting business: Indian women entrepreneurs’ perspectives, International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 3(1), 48–67.

33.

Schwab

(2011). The global competitiveness report 2011–2012. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

34.

Stanford

Oates

Flores

(1995). Women’s leadership styles: A heuristic analysis. Women in Management Review, 10(2), 9–16.

35.

Taniguchi

(2002). Determinants of women’s entry into self-employment. Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 875.

36.

Transparency International (2005). India corruption study 2005. India Lajpat Bhawan, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi: Transparency International.

37.

Verheul

van Stel

Thurik

(2006). Explaining female and male entrepreneurship at the country level. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18(2), 151–183.

38.

World Bank (2011). World development indicators. Retrieved 9 March 2012, from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS