Women’s Entrepreneurship: closing the gender gap in access to financial and other services and in social entrepreneurship

This study explores differences between men and women entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. It explores the barriers and discriminatory effects that hinder women’s entrepreneurship, including access to finance in the European Union. The study includes four case studies covering the situation in the Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

Does move to market have an impact on earnings gap across gender? Some evidence from India

We use Indian National Sample Survey employment–unemployment data for the urban sector for the years 1987 and 1999. Our results indicate that the gender wage gap had narrowed considerably between these two years, for all earnings deciles and for all education cohorts. The narrowing of the earnings gap can be attributed largely to a sharp increase in the returns to the labour market experience of women.

Do women earn less even as social entrepreneurs? The gender pay gap among UK social enterprise directors

Based upon unique survey data collected using respondent driven sampling methods, we investigate whether there is a gender pay gap among social entrepreneurs in the UK. We find that women as social entrepreneurs earn 29% less than their male colleagues, above the average UK gender pay gap of 19%. We estimate the adjusted pay gap to be about 23% after controlling for a range of demographic, human capital and job characteristics, as well as personal preferences and values. These differences are hard to explain by discrimination since these CEOs set their own pay. Income may not be the only aim in an entrepreneurial career, so we also look at job satisfaction to proxy for non-monetary returns. We find female social entrepreneurs to be more satisfied with their job as a CEO of a social enterprise than their male counterparts. This result holds even when we control for the salary generated through the social enterprise. Our results extend research in labour economics on the gender pay gap as well as entrepreneurship research on women’s entrepreneurship to the novel context of social enterprise. It provides the first evidence for a “contented female social entrepreneur” paradox.

Workplace gender discrimination and the implicit association test

Women are under-represented at senior levels within organisations. They also fareless well than their male counterparts in reward and career opportunities. Attitudestoward women in the workplace are thought to underpin these disparities and moreand more organisations are introducing attitude measures into diversity and inclusioninitiatives to: 1) raise awareness amongst employees of implicit attitudes, 2) educateemployees on how these attitudes can influence behaviour and 3) re-measure theattitude after an intervention to assess whether the attitude has changed. TheImplicit Association Test (IAT: Greenwald, et al., 1998) is the most popular tool usedto assess attitudes. However, questions over the predictive validity of the measurehave been raised and the evidence for the real world impact of the implicit attitudes islimited (Blanton et al., 2009; Landy, 2008; Tetlock & Mitchell, 2009; Wax, 2010).Whilst there is growing research in the area of race, little research has explored theability of the IAT to predict gender discrimination. This thesis addresses thisimportant gap in the literature. Three empirical studies were conducted. The firststudy explored whether gender IATs were predictive of personnel decisions thatfavour men and whether affect- and cognition-based gender IATs were equallypredictive of behaviour. The second two studies explored the predictive validity ofthe IAT in comparison to an explicit measure of one type of gender attitude,benevolent sexism. The results revealed implicit gender attitudes were stronglyheld. However, they did not consistently predict behaviour across the studies.Overall, the results suggest that the IAT may only predict workplace genderdiscrimination in a very select set of circumstances. The attitude component that anIAT assesses, the personnel decision and participant demographics all impact thepredictive validity of the tool. The interplay between the IAT and behaviour thereforeappears to be more complex than is assumed.