Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

What next for Women's Enterprise Policy event presentations master

Full presentation slides from What next for Women's Enterprise Policy event

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

What next for Women's Enterprise Policy event presentations master

  1. 1. What Next for Women’s Enterprise Policy? March 12th 2020 #ERCWomenInEnterprise
  2. 2. Welcome & Introductions  Dr Vicki Belt , ERC  Professor Julia Rouse , Manchester Metropolitan University #ERCWomenInEnterprise
  3. 3. Is time up for the hero male entrepreneur? A review of enterprise discourse and its effects  Dr Sally Jones Manchester Metropolitan University #ERCWomenInEnterprise
  4. 4. Is Time Up for the Hero Male Entrepreneur? • Dr Lorna Treanor, University of Nottingham • Dr Sally Jones, Manchester Metropolitan University • Professor Susan Marlow, University of Birmingham State of the Art Review A Review of Enterprise Discourse and its Effects
  5. 5. The ‘typical’ entrepreneur
  6. 6. Evidence
  7. 7. Implications
  8. 8. Questions?
  9. 9. How does gender shape entrepreneurial resources and practices?  Professor Julia Rouse , Manchester Metropolitan University #ERCWomenInEnterprise
  10. 10. How Does Gender Shape Entrepreneurial Resources and Practice? Prof Julia Rouse – Manchester Metropolitan University
  11. 11. If entrepreneurship is combining resources to create goods and services for profitable trade, what are the gender differences in the ownership and command of resources that creates the startling gender gap in entrepreneurship? How do these stubborn resource differences arise from male privilege (rather than women’s individual failures) and suggest policy failure?
  12. 12. Human Capital: the ‘know how’ needed to run a particular business Girls and women are doing better than boys/men in education, but: • Occupational training is still highly sex segregated and male tradesmen earn more than tradeswomen • Higher education does not necessarily cause entrepreneurship (wrong skills mix, subject/entrepreneurship stereotyping, job competition) • Particular action needed to include girls/women in digital skills
  13. 13. Financial capital • Access to finance: start with less, struggle for 2nd/3rd stage finance • Personal/family investment/borrowing: women more dependent • Bank lending: historically women received less and got worse terms even in equivalent businesses • New evidence: algorithms and lenders’ post-recession risk aversion are more favourable to women • But other gender relations mean many women-led businesses are not in high potential sectors (so women’s ‘risk aversion’ is rational) • Angel investment and venture capital: gender discrimination • Women more dependent on a close relationship to the lender and to being capable in tech to overcome stereotype bias… so on overcoming other gendered barriers before they can impress funders!
  14. 14. Social Capital: a person’s ability to extract resources from people they know or able to get to know • Women have more close networks • Lower access to distant/specialist networks and particularly high-growth networks • BAME women face particular exclusion • Gender differences arise from: • Men’s behaviour; masculine network structures; feminine norms and roles • Women-only networks • Promote bonding • Fail to supply bridging capital & protect mainstream networks from challenge • Enterprise ecosystems exist to enable connections between stakeholders • Widespread failure to support women to form better networks • Including failure to create rich team-based enterprises
  15. 15. Labour Capital: capacity to draw on labour (own and others) to apply resources to trading goods & services Time and space of entrepreneur practice limited by feminised domestic and care responsibilities • Particularly in motherhood but also possibly in relation to elder and disability care • Hopes for ‘work-life balance’ often only realised by working non-stop • Male partners give limited free labour to women-led businesses • Working from home makes women’s entrepreneurial labour constantly up for negotiation Failure in Enterprise Ecosystems • No public support to free women from domestic work • Limited understanding of how child and elder care provision serves women business owners • Low recognition of domestic/care responsibility barriers in enterprise programmes • Poor understanding of how enterprise services should synchronise with women’s time/space restrictions to increase access
  16. 16. What do we know about ethnic & migrant women entrepreneurs?  Professor Haya Al Dajani (MBS College, Saudi Arabia)  Professor Natalia Vershinina (Audencia University, France) #ERCWomenInEnterprise
  17. 17. What Do We Know About Ethnic and Migrant Women Entrepreneurs? A Review of Evidence Haya Al-Dajani (Mohammad Bin Salman College for Business and Entrepreneurship) Natalia Vershinina (Audencia Business School) Maria Villares-Varela (University of Southampton) March 12, 2020
  18. 18. Introduction • BAME enterprises contribute approximately £25-£32 billion per annum to the UK economy • One in seven new start-ups are initiated by BAME and migrants in the UK • BAME and migrant women own and lead approximately 14 per cent of women led ventures in the UK • We assume that BAME and migrant entrepreneurs are a homogenous group of men and women who face similar and gender neutral constraints and enablers for entrepreneurial activity. The reality is different ………….
  19. 19. Key Issues • Enterprise as an Unsafe Safety • Discrimination and Resource Constraints • The Ethnic and Migrant Family Business Shield
  20. 20. Recommendations • Tailored Business Support • Mentoring
  21. 21. Question & Comments
  22. 22. Is expanding women’s self-employment a good thing?  Dr Angela Martinez-Dy (Loughborough University) #ERCWomenInEnterprise
  24. 24. PRESENTATION SUMMARY Academic, policy and popular discourse on the topic adopt the generic presumption that entrepreneurship is a desirable career choice for women and that society will benefit if more women become entrepreneurs Self-employment (SE) can create new time pressures and generate poorer returns than employment, without the protection of welfare benefits such as paid ante-natal support, extended paid maternity leave, and subsidised childcare The constrained performance of many women-owned firms is not necessarily due to women’s entrepreneurial propensity or competency, but broad based socio-economic structural inequality While women should be encouraged and enabled to enact their entrepreneurial propensity, and many do create successful and sustainable ventures, the evidence indicates that the ‘more is better’ thesis is the wrong approach.
  25. 25. SELF-EMPLOYMENT SINCE THE CRISIS 2008 2015 2019 Since 2010, self-employment has accounted for around a third of employment growth (Tatomir, 2015) – part-time in particular (Wales and Agyiri, 2016) From 2008-2015, women represented 58% (377,000) of 650,000 new entrants to part time self employment (Watson and Pearson, 2016) Self-employment by women of colour is disproportionally increasing (Jayawarna et al., 2019). Black and Asian women were particularly affected by austerity policies reducing employment opportunities, especially public sector (Neitzert and Stephenson, 2016; Emejulu and Bassel, 2015)
  26. 26. STRUCTURAL TRENDS PROMPT INCREASE IN WOMEN’S SE  Despite extensive policy and support directives to expand women’s share of self employment in the UK (Ahl and Marlow, 2019), it was relatively stable from the 1990s until 2010  Structural trends have prompted this expansion (McAdam, 2013)  job losses caused by austerity  increase in women’s retirement age (Watson and Pearson, 2016)  Universal Credit Welfare reforms (Rabindrakumar, 2014)  More female single parents entering precarious necessity SE (Rabindrakumar, 2014)  Single mothers 25% more likely to become self-employed than single fathers (Jayawarna et al., 2019)  Zero-hours and gig economy SE increasing in traditionally female dominated sectors and those that prior to austerity were under the remit of the public sector, including caring and cleaning (Citizens Advice, 2015; Watson and Pearson, 2016).
  27. 27. CHARACTERISTICS OF SE WOMEN AND THEIR FIRMS Women are more likely to:  enter SE with higher levels of human capital, at a later age than men  utilise entrepreneurial activity as a stop-gap between employment disrupted by caring demands or discrimination (Jayawarna et al., 2019)  have younger firms with a shorter tenure Firms owned by women tend to be:  concentrated in crowded, lower-margin ‘feminised’ sectors (health, caring, community and social activities)  micro and home based ventures (FSB, 2016)  representing less than 25% of business in the five most productive sectors  81% have fewer than five employees (Rose, 2019) Need to challenge ‘deficit model’ (Ahl and Marlow, 2012)
  28. 28. PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY BENEFITS Financial Returns  When weighted with hours of work invested, financial returns to SE are lower than those to employment  Gender exacerbates this differential, with self-employed women experiencing notable income penalties  particularly for those working part-time from home (Yuen et al., 2018) Flexibility and ‘Greedy Institutions’  Families and business ventures are ‘greedy institutions’ (Lin and Burgard, 2018).  The pursuit of flexibility, often presented as key non-pecuniary benefit of SE, demands a notable trade off in terms of income and time.  Also evident for part-time employment – but this offers more stability and access to benefits (Du Rivage, 2018)  Prioritising domestic demands compromises returns from enterprise, whilst constraining growth intentions and capability (Jayawarna et al., 2014; 2019)  Prioritising the firm generates work-life conflict and undermines the flexibility rationale for SE (McGowan et al., 2012).
  29. 29. WELFARE BENEFIT PROVISION  Statutory employment rights not available to self-employed: national minimum wage, sick pay, holiday pay, enhanced maternity benefits and supported flexible working options (Klyver et al, 2013).  The self-employed do not have the same access to welfare benefits, and few invest in adequate insurance to cover issues such as loss of earnings (Hughes, 2017)  In France, recent welfare policy changes aligning funded maternity leave, unemployment allocations and pension contributions to self-employed with those of employed workers (Hart, et al., 2018) have led to a doubling of total entrepreneurship rates between 2017-2018  Women are over-represented in the poorest groups in society whether as single parents or in older age so, have a higher dependency on welfare benefits; their lack is more detrimental to them.  Inflexibility of benefit system may encourage informal enterprise (MacInnes et al., 2014)
  30. 30. IMPLICATIONS AND KEY MESSAGES The policy effort to encourage more women to enter self employment assuming that such expansion is good for women and the economy should be the subject of critical reflection. Evidence presented here contests the fundamental assumption that encouraging more women into SE is universally positive for them and the economy. Structural constraints mean that fewer women owned firms realise sustainable returns through growth, whilst claims of flexibility are compromised by balancing time against performance (Yousafzai, 2018). The marketing of SE to women as a flexible option which enables greater self- actualisation should be balanced with a ‘reality check’ regarding the poor prospects for those entering crowded volatile sectors, operating part-time, or who are sole household earners Policies allocating funding to the welfare of the self-employed have been seen to increase total SE rates.
  31. 31. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION – QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS? Ahl, H., & Marlow, S. (2019). Exploring the false promise of entrepreneurship through a postfeminist critique, Human Relations, Anyadike-Danes, M., Hart, M., & Du, J. (2015), Firm dynamics and job creation in the United Kingdom: 1998–2013.International Small Business Journal,33(1), 12-27. Citizens Advice (2015) Neither one thing nor the other: how reducing bogus self-employment could benefit workers, business and the Exchequer. Available at: Publications/Neither one thing nor the other.pdf. DuRivage, V. L. (2018). New policies for the part-time and contingent workforce. London, Routledge Emejulu, A. and Bassel, L. (2015) ‘Minority women, austerity and activism’, Race and Class, 57(2), 86–95. Federation of Small Businesses (2016) Women in Enterprise: The Untapped Potential. Available at: untapped-potentialfebc2bbb4fa86562a286ff0000dc48fe.pdf?sfvrsn=0. Hart, M., Bonner, K. and Heery, L. (2018) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2018 Monitoring Report. Available at: Report_final.pdf. Hughes, C. (2017), The Hidden Cost of Insurance for the Self-Employed: a8019171.html Jayawarna, D., Martinez Dy, A. and Marlow, S. (2019) ‘Women’s Entrepreneurship – Self Actualisation or Self Harm?’, in 39th Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference. Wellesley, MA, USA. Joona, P.A. (2018) How does motherhood affect self-employment performance? Small Business Economics. 50, 29-54 Klyver, K., Nielsen, S. L., & Evald, M. R. (2013). Women's self-employment: An act of institutional (dis) integration? A multilevel, cross-country study. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 474- 488. Lin, K. Y., & Burgard, S. A. (2018). Working, parenting and work-home spillover: Gender differences in the work-home interface across the life course. Advances in life course research, 35, 24- 36 MacInnes, T., Bushe, S., Tinson, A., Born, T. B., & Aldridge, H. (2014). Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2014. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. McGowan, P., Redeker, C. L., Cooper, S. Y. et al. (2012). Female entrepreneurship and the management of business and domestic roles:. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(1-2), 53-72. Neitzert, E. and Stephenson, M.-A. (2016) New research shows that poverty, ethnicity and gender magnify the impact of austerity on BME women, Womens Budget Group. Available at: impact-austerity-bme-women.html. Rabindrakumar, S. (2014) Paying the price: The long road to recovery. Available at: Rose, A. (2019) The Alison Rose Review of Female Entrepreneurship. Available at: Stumbitz, B., Lewis, S., & Rouse, J. (2018). Maternity management in SMEs: a transdisciplinary review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 500-522. Tatomir, S. (2015) Self-employment: what can we learn from recent developments? Available at: what-can-we-learn-from-recent-developments.pdf?la=en&hash=96C1AEA6273E02BB85B671DF95519E17BE87A3E9. Wales, P. and Agyiri, A. (2016) Trends in self-employment in the UK: 2001 to 2015, Office for National Statistics. Available at: Watson, E. and Pearson, R. (2016) Here to Stay: Women’s self-employment in a (post) austerity era, Women’s Budget Group. Available at: content/uploads/2015/02/Here_to_stay_selfemployment_Briefing_Mar16.pdf. Yousafzai, S., Fayolle, A., Lindgreen, A., Henry, C., Saeed, S., & Sheikh, S. (Eds.). (2018). Women Entrepreneurs and the Myth of ‘Underperformance’: A New Look at Women’s Entrepreneurship Research. Edward Elgar Publishing. Yuen,W., Sidhu, S., Vassilev,G., et al. (2018). Trends in self-employment in the UK. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/Trends%20in%20self- employment%20in%20the%20UK.pdf
  32. 32. Coffee Break #ERCWomenInEnterprise
  33. 33. A review of assumptions underpinning women’s enterprise policy initiatives  Professor Julia Rouse (Manchester Metropolitan University)  Professor Kiran Trehan (University of York) #ERCWomenInEnterprise
  34. 34. A Review of Assumptions Underlying Women’s Enterprise Policy Prof Julia Rouse – Manchester Metropolitan University Prof Kiran Trehan – University of York
  35. 35. Makeover Approaches: Unleashing Women’s Entrepreneurial Action? • Confidence building • Mentoring • Role models • Specialist: • Networks • Business support • Financial advice
  36. 36. Critique of the Makeover Approach 1. Camouflages, and fails to address, the social conditions that create barriers to new venture creation and development for many women 2. Situates women as ‘in detriment’ compared to men and devalues feminine trading
  37. 37. Where are BAME and migrant women in women’s enterprise policy? • Little proper investment to make mainstream enterprise ecosystems fit for purpose in supporting BAME or migrant women with multiple barriers to enterprise or for specialist support • Unrealistic ideas in enterprise programmes and welfare system about how migrant women can become economically active / independent via enterprise
  38. 38. Makeover Approach: A Global Policy Error
  39. 39. What is the Real Policy Problem? (Growth in) Low Quality Self- Employment Rapid growth since recession may reflect a downturn in good work under austerity Hopes for work-life balance are often unrealised (and are a short-term tactic for coping with exclusion from employment) FT employed women earn 76% more than FT self-employed women Social Barriers Occupational segregation: barriers to doing ‘men’s work’ and undervaluing of ‘women’s work’ Unfair investment and networks Unfair domestic labour and inadequate access to child/elder care Intersecting injustices for BAME women
  40. 40. Recommendation: Invest in Diverse Enterprise Ecosystems If… Ecosystems are not contexts that already exist but multilateral interdependencies intentionally created to bring about a value proposition (Adner, 2018) Then… 1. Curate much broader enterprise ecosystems whose value proposition is to tackle social barriers, giving women (i) better resources, and fairer roles, from which to create businesses, and (ii) markets that value their goods and services fairly. 2. Generate ‘Good Work’ for all women to create an opportunity cost to enterprise that will regulate the quality of self-employment.
  41. 41. The Real Policy Challenges: Good Work & Enterprise Ecosystems With Broader Conceptions of What Forms ‘Productivity’
  42. 42.  Maria Wishart, ERC, Warwick Business School Supporting disadvantaged entrepreneurs to build better business resilience #ERCWomenInEnterprise
  43. 43. Background • SMEs account for 99% of businesses, 68% of jobs and 58% of value- added in the European Union (EU, 2017) • Some groups including females, ethnic minority groups, migrants, the disabled, and those with low educational attainment are under- represented in entrepreneurship: more precarious businesses, lower turnover and survival rates and higher dependent self-employment & false self-employment (OECD, 2017) • Entrepreneurship often characterised as an enabler for disadvantaged individuals in accessing employment, or as a tool to tackle discrimination and increase social inclusion (e.g., Alvord et al, 2004; De Clercq and Honig, 2011; Fairlie, 2005)
  44. 44. Under-represented groups: barriers to entrepreneurship Common barriers • Inability to access to finance (Bruder et al, 2011; Manolova et al, 2010) • Lack of human capital (Drakopoulou Dodd, 2015; Huarng et al, 2012) • Lack of social capital (Martin et al, 2015; Mendy and Hack-Polay, 2015) • Discrimination/bias (Ram & Jones, 2008; Shinnar et al, 2018) Specific barriers • Unfamiliarity with culture & institutional set-up (OECD, 2017) • Benefits trap (Boylan and Burchardt, 2002) • Family circumstances (Manolova et al, 2012; Thompson et al, 2009) • Low educational attainment (Fairlie, 2005)
  45. 45. Under-represented groups: resilience challenges • Ethnic-led firms and female-led firms run their businesses differently from male and non ethnic led firms: – Tend to have different goals – Less likely to seek external advice for their businesses – Tend to consult different kinds of external advice than their counterparts – Anticipate and experience crises differently: worry more about future crises but struggle to identify the most potent threats to their businesses (ERC, 2019)
  46. 46. Anticipating & planning for adversity Ambition and business objectives. Female vs male 43% 70% 63% 65% 47% 63% 44% 51% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Build a national business Keep my business the same Contribute to local community Increase environmental benefits Male Female London data, ERC (2019)
  47. 47. Anticipating & planning for adversity Ambition and business objectives. Ethnic vs non-ethnic 39% 68% 65% 64% 48% 66% 48% 55% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Build a national business Keep my business the same Contribute to local community Increase environmental benefits Non ethnic Ethnic London data, ERC (2019)
  48. 48. Anticipating & planning for adversity Perceived threats 45% 43% 57% 54% 35% 27% 48% 41% 45% 39% 56% 49% 31% 26% 46% 41% Inc comp New Comp Costs Regulations Male Female Non ethnic Ethnic London data, ERC (2019)
  49. 49. Anticipating & planning for adversity Sources of advice. Female vs male 76% 39% 54% 25% 45% 57% 48% 83% 43% 51% 21% 45% 67% 44% Accountant Network Friend LA Govt Legal Mentor Male Female London data, ERC (2019)
  50. 50. Anticipating & planning for adversity Sources of advice. Ethnic vs non-ethnic 71% 38% 55% 28% 41% 55% 51% 83% 42% 52% 21% 47% 65% 44% Accountant Network Friend LA Govt Legal Mentor Non ethnic Ethnic London data, ERC (2019)
  51. 51. Implications • Focus on sources and effects of multiple disadvantage to elucidate the challenges underrepresented groups face. • Explore how the same barrier may be experienced by different groups to help with the design of interventions. • Develop interventions to help underrepresented entrepreneurs to anticipate threats and plan for future crisis to help them to improve their resilience.
  52. 52.  Christine Atkinson (University of South Wales) in conversation with Professor Kiran Trehan (University of York) A hopeful direction? New women’s enterprise policy in Wales #ERCWomenInEnterprise
  53. 53. “A hopeful direction? New women’s enterprise policy in Wales” Christine Atkinson, Head of Centre for Enterprise and Women’s Entrepreneurship Hub and Celia Netana, Research Assistant, University of South Wales ‘What Next for Women’s Enterprise Policy?’ 12 March 2020, WBS London, The Shard, London
  54. 54. Background – Continued under representation of women in entrepreneurship and Policy Background Welsh Government, 2019: 7-8 Youth Entrepreneurship Strategy (YES) 2015-2020 (originally launched 2004)
  55. 55. Underpinning research – Barriers reported via Poll of female entrepreneurs Barriers/challengesexperienced by female entrepreneurs– 88 respondents n=88 % 1 Work/life balance issues 66 75 2 Lack of relevant contacts 61 69 3 Lack of self confidence [joint 3rd place] 60 68 3 Fear of failure [joint 3rd place] 60 68 4 Difficulty in accessing finance 57 64 5 Lack of belief in own business skills 55 62 6 Lack of knowledge/experience 53 60 7 Difficulty in establishing credibility/being taken seriously 50 56 8 Difficulty in accessing growth funding 41 46 9 Child or elder care 39 44 10 Gender stereotyping [joint 10th place] 34 38 10 Lack of access to business angels [joint 10th place] 34 38 11 Fear of success 33 37 12 Gender discrimination 29 32 13 Lack of access to venture capital funding 27 30 From most commonly to least commonly reported; some indicated more than one barrier
  56. 56. Summary of key findings 1. Both female entrepreneurs and business support organisations identified similar practical, social and internal challenges (egs care of children, worklife balance, lack of confidence, difficulty (or fear) of not being able to establish credibility/be taken seriously) 2. There were divergent views regarding gender, cultural and institutional barriers (egs difficulty in accessing finance, gender stereotyping and gender discrimination). 3. Some challenges increase over time/at different stages of business eg paradox of search for ‘flexibility’ as a motivation but the reality of ‘worklife balance’ issues 4. There was a consensus among female entrepreneurs that future business support needed to be person-centred, gender aware, underpinned by an appreciation or understanding of intersectionality and a call for greater use of experienced entrepreneurs within business support/as business mentors
  57. 57. ‘So what?’ Publication of “Supporting Entrepreneurial Women in Wales: An Approach for Wales” (Welsh Government, 2019) 10 recommendations to help tackle inequality and ensure the needs of entrepreneurial women in Wales are met 1 - Improve engagement with potential women entrepreneurs to better understand their individual barriers that prevents participation in business start-up activity 2 - Further tailor business support services to ensure they are gender aware and focussed to meet the specific needs of women entrepreneurs, recognising their different characteristics, culture and circumstances 3 - Increase the availability of women business advisors and mentors and make women aware of the choice of service they have 4 - Improve information on the availability of finance for women entrepreneurs, and ensure there are no unnecessary restrictions to the awarding of finance 5 - Recognise and promote the success of women entrepreneurs as role models to others
  58. 58. 6 - Improve access to business support information sources and encourage networking between women entrepreneurs and the business community 7 - Develop a good practice guide and encourage business support organisations to adopt this 8 - Provide tailored, practical pre-start business support that encourages and supports women to build their self-confidence 9 - Continue to engage with young women to promote and develop entrepreneurial attitudes, with particular emphasis on the education system 10 - Ensure that business awards in Wales actively encourage both recognition of women entrepreneurs and ensure that there is a gender balanced panel and judging criteria Thank you!
  59. 59. Final Comments and Q & A #ERCWomenInEnterprise
  60. 60. Thank you & Networking Lunch #ERCWomenInEnterprise For further details please visit : @ERC_Uk ERC Funded by