What can schools do to increase the entrepreneurial intentions among young women? Analysis of data from Norway and Slovakia. Torbjørn Årethun & others

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335339131
What can schools do to increase the entrepreneurial intentions among young
women? Analysis of data from Norway and Slovakia
Conference Paper · July 2019
CITATIONS
0
READS
143
5 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
APVV SK-BG-2013-0018 Fungovanie lokálnych produkčných systémov v podmienkach ekonomickej krízy v Bulharsku a na Slovensku View project
VEGA no. No.1/0621/17 “Decision-making Process of Slovak Households about Allocation of Time for Paid and Unpaid Work and Household Strategies’ Impact on
Selected Areas of the Economic Practice”. View project
Torbjørn Årethun
Høgskulen på Vestlandet
24 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Jon Gunnar Nesse
Høgskulen på Vestlandet
SEE PROFILE
Stanislav Kološta
Univerzita Mateja Bela v Banskej Bystrici
SEE PROFILE
Jon Ivar Håvold
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Jon Gunnar Nesse on 23 August 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

16th
International Conference on Enterprises, Systems, Accounting, Logistics and Management
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
July 1-3, 2019, Chania, Crete, Greece
11
What can schools do to increase the entrepreneurial
intentions among young women?
Analysis of data from Norway and Slovakia.
Torbjørn Årethun1
, Jon Gunnar Nesse2
, Stanislav Kološta3
, Filip Flaška4
and
Jon Ivar Håvold5
1
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Box 133, N-6851 Sogndal, Norway, + 47 5767 6322
2
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Box 133, N-6851 Sogndal, Norway, + 47 5767 6303
3
Matej Bel University, Tajovského 10, 975 90, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, +42 14844 62729
4
Matej Bel University, Tajovského 10, 975 90, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, +42 14844 62729
5
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Box 1517, N-6025 Ålesund, Norway, +47 7016
1223.
1
torbjorn.arethun@hvl.no, 2
jon.nesse@hvl.no, 3
stanislav.kolosta@umb.sk, 4
filip.flaska@umb.sk,
5
Jon.i.havold@ntnu.no
Abstract
In this paper we document and analyze gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions (EI)
among Norwegian and Slovak youths. We have collected data from high schools in Norway
and Slovakia. In total, we have 1457 respondents from Norway and 537 from Slovakia with
an average age of about 19 years. The results show that EI among Norwegian youths are
significantly lower than among Slovak youths. Further, entrepreneurial intentions among
young males are significantly higher than for young females in both countries, but the gender
gap is significantly higher among Norwegian youths compared to their Slovak counterparts.
For both Slovak and Norwegian women, having leadership ambitions, a proactive personality
and perceived support from family and friends are prominent antecedents for EI. There are,
however, some important differences. For Slovak women, achieving autonomy is an
important factor influencing EI. This is not a significant factor for Norwegian women. On the
other hand, being a daughter of self-employed parents, having role models other than family
and friends, and emphasizing creativity, are important antecedents for EI among Norwegian
women. These factors have no impact on Slovak women’s EI. The wish for a secure future
has a negative impact on Norwegian women’s EI, but no impact on Slovak women.
We have three recommendations for increasing EI among young women, one common for
both countries and one individual recommendation for each country. The common
recommendation is to build and support leadership ambitions and proactive abilities among
young women. For Norwegian women in particular, schools must develop creative talents
and reduce the negative impact of the wish for a secure future. Connecting to positive role
models is also important for Norwegian women. For Slovak women, the wish for autonomy is
crucial for their EI. Therefore, Slovak schools should have programs to support this wish.
Keywords: gender, entrepreneurial intentions, youth, high schools

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
12
1. Introduction
GEM (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor) is an international organization conducting
annual surveys in many countries on entrepreneurial intentions (EI) in different
demographic groups. A significant and persistent result is that, in most countries, EI
among men is higher than among women (GEM, 2017). The TEA-index among adult
women exceeded the TEA-index among adult men in 4 out of 60 countries (GEM,
2016) and three of these countries were located in south-east Asia. TEA-index is the
fraction of population aged 18-64 years that reports to take part in entrepreneurial
activity, either involved in setting up a business or own and manage a new business
for more than three months but not more than 42 months.
Over the decade 2005 - 2014 the share of total entrepreneurial activity in Norway
performed by women was about 25-30% (Alsos et al., 2015). In Slovakia women TEA
in 2014 was 7.4% (Pilková et al., 2015). Overall share of women on total number of
entrepreneurs in Slovakia was in 2017 31% and 15% of them were young women
under 30 years (23.6% in comparison with men in the same age category); total
number of young women entrepreneurs under 24 years was 3827 (SBA, 2018). In a
survey conducted on four high schools in rural-Norway, Nesse (2010) found that
teenager boys’ EI was significantly higher than their female counterparts.
The TEA-index on aggregate and for both genders are about twice as high for
Slovakia as it is for Norway. The 2015 TEA-rate for adult Norwegian women was
3.8% compared to 6.5% among Slovak women (GEM, 2016). Norwegian young
adults below 35 years of age has the lowest entrepreneurial activity among
youngsters in 60, while Slovak youth was close to being the median country (GEM,
2016).
There are gender differences in the propensity to engage in research and
development activities as well. Even though males are the dominant gender in this
area, both in Norway and on global basis (Solberg, 2016), the fraction of Norwegian
females involved in R&D activities in the business sector has increased from 20% in
2005 to 23% by 2013 (Solberg, 2016). The low rate of female entrepreneurship and
engagement in private business R&D, could be caused by small entrepreneurial
intentions. Our research questions are:
1. Are there any differences in EI between Norwegian and Slovak young women?
2. Does the gender gap in EI differ between Norway and Slovakia?
3. What are the antecedents of EI among women in Norway and Slovakia,
respectively, and do they differ?
4. What are the implications for entrepreneurial training and education of the
findings in research questions 1-3?
The paper is divided into five sections. Section 2 presents some theory and prior
research. Section 3 presents the methodology applied in the empirical analysis, while
the results are outlined in section 4. Sections 5 offers a discussion and Section 6
presents some concluding remarks.

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
13
2. Theory and prior research
2.1 Definitions of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intentions
There is no common understanding of how to define entrepreneurship. Some have
restricted it to the founding of private businesses. Cole (1949) defined
entrepreneurship as a purposeful activity to initiate, maintain and aggrandize a profit-
oriented business, while others defined it as a creation of new enterprises (Low and
MacMillan, 1988). Some authors have expanded the definition, to include
organizations alongside private companies. Gartner (1988) defines entrepreneurship
as the creation of new organizations, while entrepreneurship could be defined as new
entries (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Aldrich and Ruef (2006) state that entrepreneurs
are people who create new social entities. A third definition of the concept puts
weight on the resources used when creating a new company or entity. Wiklund
(1998) defines entrepreneurship as taking advantage of opportunities by novel
combinations of resources in ways which have an impact on the market (Wiklund,
1998). Hisrich and Peters (1989) suggest that entrepreneurship could be defined as
the process of creating something different with value by devoting the necessary time
and effort; assuming the accompanying financial, psychological, and social risks; and
receiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction. Stevenson and
Jarillo (1990) define entrepreneurship as the process by which individuals pursue
opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control. Schumpeter
(1934, p. 78) puts it this way: “… everyone is an entrepreneur only when he actually
carries out new combinations and loses that character as soon as he has built up his
business, when he settles down to running it as other people run their businesses”.
In this article, the authors define an entrepreneur as an individual who starts,
manages, and takes the risk for a new enterprise, which is very close to the definition
put forward by Aldrich and Ruef (2006) and Low and MacMillan (1988).
An individual’s entrepreneurial intentions (EI) is his/her purpose to become an
entrepreneur. The background of the EI-concept was described by Fayolle and Liñán
(2014) and research on individuals’ EI belongs to the area of cognitive psychology. EI
in early age is an important antecedent for later career development (Obschonka et
al., 2010). The EI-concept is based on several key contributions (Ajzen, 1991; Bird,
1988; Krueger, 2005; Shapero and Sokol, 1982). EI is defined as the commitment or
the desire to start a new business (Krueger, 1993). Entrepreneurial intentions depend
on attitudinal variables, which in turn are influenced by factors such as being raised
within an entrepreneurial environment, where some relatives, friends or
acquaintances have started their own enterprise (Krueger et al., 2000). Several
scholars emphasize that EI is the first step towards starting a business (Bird, 1988;
Krueger and Carsrud, 1993).
2.2 Factors having impact on entrepreneurial intentions and actions
Entrepreneurship is a process; from the first time an idea for a new product, a new
production process or starting a business crosses one’s mind until a company has
been established (Bygrave, 2004). Researchers have found two main groups of
factors that have an impact on this process: contextual and individual factors
(Mazzarol et al., 1999). In this paper, we look at two main groups of contextual
factors: cultural capital and social capital. Regarding individual factors, we use career

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
14
anchors and proactive personality as the main antecedents of EI. In the following, we
will discuss the theoretical and empirical foundation for using these factors.
2.2.1 Contextual factors: cultural and social capital
Bourdieu (1986) made a distinction between three types of capital: economic, cultural
and social. Economic capital is money or property that could be converted into
money, which of course entrepreneurs need in order to buy tangible or intangible
input factors. According to Bourdieu (1986), there are three types of cultural capital:
incorporated, objectified and institutionalized. In our study, the first type is the most
relevant.
Bourdieu (1986) argues that incorporated cultural capital can be acquired
unconsciously through a socialization process – a process where knowledge and
attitudes develop over a long period of time through formal education, informal
training, personal experience, expert advice, and imitation of “best practice” in a field.
Aldrich (1999) sees the last three as especially important for entrepreneurs. Bourdieu
(1986) thought that the ability to learn, and other special talents that most people
think are inborn, is, among other factors, a product of earlier investment by one’s
family in education and in different kinds of skills, such as entrepreneurial skills and
experience. This is a kind of accumulated cultural capital within the family.
Having parents, other relatives, friends or acquaintances as role models seems to be
a very important factor in motivating individuals to start a new enterprise. Individuals
who feel that they have support from their relatives and social contacts are more
likely to start and run their own enterprise (Zanakis et al., 2012). Family businesses
may help facilitate a successful venture and provide access to essential business
resources (Zellweger et al., 2011) as well as providing insight into entrepreneurial
activities and decision-making processes (Mueller, 2006). This makes it easier to shift
from intention to action because individuals bearing such knowledge will be less
afraid of failure (Shirokova et al., 2016). In a study conducted on Norwegian
entrepreneurs, Spilling (1998, p. 98) found that the rate having self-employed parents
was four times higher than the rate of self-employed people in the adult population in
Norway at that time. Later, Mazzarol et al. (1999) and Greve and Salaff (2003)
presented similar results. In their study among Indian and Chinese youths, Goel et al.
(2007) found that the family business background had a positive impact on attitudes
towards entrepreneurship, while (Wang and Wong, 2004) found similar results in an
investigation among Singaporean students. On the other hand, Kim et al. (2006) did
not find any correlation between individuals’ EI and entrepreneurial activity among
their parents. With nearly identical results from very different cultures, it appears that
parents with experience in running their own businesses transfer some sort of
competence regarding entrepreneurship to their children. This can be interpreted as
incorporated cultural capital for entrepreneurship in these families. Laspita et al.
(2012) found that the impact of entrepreneurial parents and grandparents on their
offspring’s EI is not the same across families and nations; the influences are
particularly strong in cultures with high in-group collectivism.
Individuals achieve most of their social capital by being engaged in social networks,
which may be used to access information, knowledge, financial capital and other
resources. Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988) presented independently of each
other, quite similar definitions of social capital. Bourdieu’s (1986, p. 248) definition is:

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
15
“Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked
to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of
mutual acquaintance and recognition ...”. This definition underlines the advantages
of being able to mobilize resources through a durable network. For entrepreneurs,
the main issue is to use social networks to mobilize resources that facilitate the
founding and running of a new business (Greve, 2000).
It is obvious that people with close connections to central actors have more influence
than others (Freeman et al., 1991). However, indirect contacts through professionals
or more serendipitous channels can play an important role as well. Granovetter
(1973; 1974) studied how the unemployed obtained new jobs through “weak ties”,
where an unemployed individual has an acquaintance who knows about a vacancy.
He/she acts as a mediator between the job seeker and the employer. This double set
of weak ties, both between the unemployed individual and his acquaintance and the
(supposedly) weak link between the acquaintance and the employer with the vacant
position, may result in a job. Aldrich (1999) made a theoretical generalization of the
concept of weak ties, from the labor market to entrepreneurship (Aldrich and
Whetten, 1981; Aldrich and Zimmer, 1986) in the sense that knowing entrepreneurs
will give you access to information and resources and increase your ability to start-
up.
Burt (1992) introduced the concept of “structural holes”, defined as gaps between
actors with complementary resources (Burt 1992; 2000). An entrepreneur is a
mediator, building bridges over structural holes, and thereby connecting actors that
were not aware of each other beforehand (Burt, 1992). Each structural hole
represents an opportunity. Having a heterogeneous network, with many structural
holes, therefore becomes an advantage for entrepreneurs. Renzulli et al. (2000)
found that heterogeneous networks increased the chances of becoming a successful
entrepreneur.
By analyzing data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) studies,
Langowitz and Minniti (2007) showed that knowing other entrepreneurs had a
significant impact on entrepreneurship. In a study among undergraduate students,
Liñán and Santos (2007) found that this kind of social capital, i.e. knowing other
entrepreneurs, influenced EI indirectly, through the intermediate variables perceived
desirability and perceived feasibility of becoming an entrepreneur. They used five
indicators for social capital: approval for start-up in the closer environment, knowing
family entrepreneurs, knowing non-family entrepreneurs, valuation of the
entrepreneurial option in the closer environment, and contact with an entrepreneurial
environment.
2.2.2 Individual factors: Career anchors and proactive personality
Schein (1990, p. 1) defines a person’s career anchor as “a combination of perceived
areas of competence, motives, and values that you would not give up; it represents
your real self”. Career anchors mirror our perception of ourselves, and will affect how
we evaluate different career alternatives. The origin of the career anchor concept
dates back to a study where 44 candidates from the Sloan School of Management
were followed over a period of 10–12 years (Schein, 1990). When the candidates
were interviewed about their career choices, Schein (1975; 1978) found a pattern in
the answers, and this pattern he called anchors – something that holds you in the

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
16
right place even in a storm. Schein (1975) originally found five such career anchors:
managerial competence, technical-functional competence, need for security, need for
creativity, and need for autonomy or independence.
According to Schein (1990), all eight types of career anchors are found among
people in most professions. Even if people base their career decisions on many
different career anchors, Schein (1990) argues that each person has one career
anchor that is more important than the others, and that this anchor is stable over
time. Suutari and Taka (2004), however, found that leaders had two or three
important career anchors, and not just a dominant one.
In this study, we test correlations between different career anchors and young
women’s EI in Norway and Slovakia. Timmons and Spinelli (2003, p. 249) referred to
a meta-analysis of 50 studies of entrepreneurs’ attitudes and values and isolated six
characteristics that seemed to be valid in general: commitment and determination;
leadership; opportunity obsession; tolerance of risk, ambiguity and uncertainty;
creativity; self-reliance; adaptability and motivation to excel. Accordingly, career
anchors such as autonomy (commitment, motivation to excel), creativity and general
managerial competence (leadership) should have a positive impact on
entrepreneurship, while security (the opposite of risk tolerance) should have a
negative impact. Leadership is of particular interest here, since this is the only one of
Timmons’ six points that involves a social activity (Byers et al., 1999). Based on
theoretical reasoning, it is more difficult to, a priori, state whether technical-functional
competence as a career anchor will have a positive or negative impact on EI. On one
hand, technical-functional competence will enhance the ability to undertake financial
analyses and conduct marketing and corporate planning (Schein, 1975), thereby
increasing a person’s EI. Theoretical competence could be a good basis for a new
enterprise. Spilling (1998) found that 40 percent of the entrepreneurs in his sample
had higher education, compared to 20 percent of the adult Norwegian population. On
the other hand, technical-functional skills may lead to a career within academia, and
this career path will probably reduce a person’s EI.
Bateman and Crant (1993) elaborated the concept of proactive personality (PAP),
defining this as “the relatively stable tendency to effect environmental change” (p.
103). Proactive people are those who do not blame circumstances, conditions, or
conditioning for their behavior (Covey, 2004). Their behavior is a product of their own
conscious choice, based on values, rather than a product of their conditions.
Proactive behavior is intended to identify differences among people in the extent to
which they take action to influence their environments. Proactive people are
characterized as seeking out opportunities, showing initiative, and being persistent in
bringing about meaningful changes. At the other end of the line we find individuals
who typically fail to show initiative and are less likely to change their environment
(Covey, 2004). Assuming this is true, proactive people can play a significant role not
only in improving their lives, but also in improving the society to which they belong. If
an individual assesses his/her entrepreneurial potential to be above average
compared to others at the same age, he/she is more likely to turn EI into subsequent
behavior (Kautonen et al., 2015). Therefore, they suggested that enhancing an
individual’s self-image of being an entrepreneur could help motivate both youngsters
and seniors to realize their EI (p. 42).

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
17
There is a line of research linking proactive personality to entrepreneurial activities.
Bateman and Crant (1993) indicate that proactive personalities influence their
environment by selecting the situations in which they participate and through
cognitive restructuring, evocation and manipulation. Crant (1996) investigated PAP
and entrepreneurial intentions in a sample of 181 students. He found that when
compared to other variables such as gender, education and entrepreneurial parents,
PAP explained a significantly greater share of the variance in entrepreneurial
intentions. Through a meta-analysis, Frank et al. (2007) found that up to 20 percent
of the variance in the origins of entrepreneurial intentions can be explained by
personality traits. Luthje and Franke (2003) used a covariance structure model to test
the causes of entrepreneurial intention among engineering students. The study
showed that the student’s personality had an indirect effect on entrepreneurial
intentions through entrepreneurial attitude. In a study of 215 leaders of small or
medium sized enterprises (SME), Becherer and Maurer (1999) found that proactive
SME leaders were more entrepreneurial than other SME leaders. Kickul and Gundry
(2002) performed a study among 107 small business owners and concluded that an
exploratory strategic orientation mediated the relationship between proactive
personality and innovative activities.
Brandstätter (2011) analyzed five meta-studies on the personality aspects of
entrepreneurship and found that three personality traits were more prevalent among
entrepreneurs than leaders: openness to experience, conscientiousness and
extroversion. The same three traits could predict entrepreneurial intentions and
business success. Since proactive personality is positively correlated with
conscientiousness and extroversion (Bateman and Crant, 1993), these results also
suggest a positive link between proactive personality and entrepreneurial intentions.
2.3 The existence of a gender gap in entrepreneurship
Worldwide, men are more entrepreneurial than women. There is extensive research
on this topic, for example, on differences in business start-ups by gender (Alsos and
Ljunggren, 1998), self-employment (Blanchflower, 2004; Caliendo et al., 2015),
international comparisons of entrepreneurship among students (Fueglistaller et al.,
2009), entrepreneurship in Norway (Spilling, 1998; Bullvåg et al., 2009, 2010; Alsos
et al., 2012; 2013), international comparisons of entrepreneurship in the adult
population (Minniti et al., 2005; Bosma et al., 2009; Kelly et al., 2011; Roland Xavier
et al., 2013), gender differences among youths’ motivation in entrepreneurship
(Nesse, 2010; Bhatta and Nesse 2013), the role of gender and culture in
entrepreneurial perceptions and intentions (Shinnar et al., 2012), peer effects
(Markussen & Røed, 2017), and extending women’s entrepreneurship research in
new directions (Hughes et al., 2012). Most of the studies have attempted to
investigate the reasons underlying the gap between male and female
entrepreneurship, and some studies (Parker, 2009; Lindberg et al, 2014) try to
identify key measures to overcome the barriers and/or to augment favorable
conditions for promoting female entrepreneurship. Below we present results from
some selected studies on the gender gap in entrepreneurship.
2.3.1 Examples of studies on the gender gap in entrepreneurship
Kolvereid et al. (1993) found that the gap in perceptions about the complexity of
starting your own business is significantly larger across countries than between men

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
18
and women in the same country. A large, international survey including respondents
from 25 countries across continents revealed some gender stereotyping across
countries and cultures (Williams and Best, 1982). However, this kind of stereotyping
tended to be greater in less developed countries.
Internal locus of control was a more dominating personality trait in medium-income
countries, such as Romania and Mexico, than in rich countries, such as Sweden and
the Netherlands. However, the modernity variable did not moderate the gender effect
on entrepreneurial activity, as was expected (Smith et al., 1997).
The literature provides a mixed picture of the gender gap in risk-taking propensity.
Schubert et al. (1999) did not find that women in general made less risky financial
choices than men. Meyll and Pauls (2018) found women to be less likely to become
over-indebted even after controlling for risk attitude, financial literacy and socio-
demographic characteristics. However, Hudgens and Fatkin (1985) found that men’s
propensity for risk-taking in a variety of situations was significantly higher than among
women. In a cross-country survey comparing risk-taking behavior of Spanish and
American MBA-students, Powell and Ansic (1997) found that women are more risk-
averse than men. The gender differences in risk-aversion was identical in the two
countries. In a seventeen-country study, Mueller (2004) found that gender gaps in
entrepreneurial traits were greatest among advanced economies and least among
less-developed countries.
In an investigation of 720 business start-ups in Norway, Spilling (1998) found that
about 20% of the entrepreneurs were women. According to Brun’s (1998) further
analysis of the data, the proportion was 40% in the age group under 30 although only
about 20% of entrepreneurs as a whole were women. Brun, therefore, pointed out a
possible tendency that younger women were more entrepreneurship-oriented than
older ones. Brun (1998) saw this as a cohort effect, indicating that female
entrepreneurship would increase due to the more favorable effects of special policy
measures for supporting female entrepreneurship among the younger cohorts. Brun
also argued that women face many more barriers than men in establishing and
running a business. Similarly, Alsos and Ljunggren (1998) investigated gender
differences in business start-up processes trying to convey factors that influenced the
success of new businesses. They found that quite similar factors affected both male
and female nascent entrepreneurs. Female entrepreneurs, however, write fewer
initial business plans, use less external capital in the start-up process, and tend to
hire fewer employees compared to their male counterparts.
Mazzarol et al. (1999) studied gender differences using an Australian sample of
actual and potential entrepreneurs. The gender gap in entrepreneurship was
explained by women's traditional career choices and gender roles. They called for
more female role models to increase female entrepreneurship. In a survey on self-
assessment among South African students, Louw et al. (2003) found significant
differences between the genders in four out of fourteen entrepreneurial traits. The
boys scored higher on the following traits: taking initiative, making use of assistance
from external human resources and technical and business knowledge.
Based on data from GEM’s special report regarding women and entrepreneurship,
Minniti et al. (2005) found that men were more involved in entrepreneurial activity
than women in all of the 34 participating countries. Minniti et al. (2005) mention two

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
19
main reasons for this: lack of self-confidence and lack of role models. Because of
this, they argue that in addition to traditional measures to support female
entrepreneurs, there is a need for mentors and network building. Other researchers
have also pointed out the importance of networks or social capital. Aldrich (1999)
argues that women being excluded from men’s business networks is the most
important factor behind the gender gap in entrepreneurship. Renzulli et al. (2000)
claimed that the gender gap would disappear gradually as women go beyond family
and establish more heterogeneous networks.
In a later analysis of the same dataset, Minniti (2010) found an additional,
explanatory factor: women’s higher fear of failure compared to men. She also found
that the gender gap was bigger in middle-income countries than in low-income
countries, probably because a high share of the entrepreneurial activity in low-income
countries are necessity-driven. Worldwide, women are more likely to start a business
out of necessity than are men, because women in general have lower incomes, more
part time jobs, lower employment and higher unemployment rates than men. These
kinds of start-ups are more common in low-income countries, while the vast majority
of female entrepreneurs in high-income countries are opportunity-driven (Minniti,
2009). Minniti’s analysis indicates that the gender gap could be narrowed as the
economic growth in less developed countries increases and a larger fraction of
female entrepreneurs becomes more opportunity-driven.
In an investigation among 265 business master students in the USA, Zhao et al.
(2005) found that female students had significantly lower EI than their male
counterparts. But they did not find any gender differences in entrepreneurial self-
efficacy. Neither Shinnar et al. (2009) nor Ali et al. (2010) found any gender
differences in their investigation of entrepreneurial attitudes among 317 US university
students and 520 Pakistani students. Parker (2009, p. 197), on the other hand, states
that the most important explanatory factor behind the gender gap in entrepreneurial
activity and the lower average returns on women’s entrepreneurship stems from the
tendency of women to spend more time in household production and child-caring
activities than men. According to the analysis by Verheul et al. (2012) based on data
obtained from the USA and EEA (EU-countries and EFTA-countries, apart from
Switzerland), women were less motivated for self-employment than men. Women
worried about the state of the business cycle and the risk of facing bankruptcy when
starting a new company.
Maes et al. (2014) conducted a survey on business students and found that the effect
of gender on EI is mediated via personal attitudes and perceived behavioral control
but not social norms. In an investigation conducted on 265 business master students
in the USA, Zhao et al. (2005) found that female students had significantly lower EI
than male students and a similar result was also found by Espíritu-Olmos and Sastre-
Castillo (2015). However, they found no gender differences in entrepreneurial self-
efficacy.
Camelo-Ordaz et al. (2016) found that perceptual factors fully mediate the
relationship between gender and the EI of non-entrepreneurs, whereas such
mediating impact disappears when people become entrepreneurs. Gender
differences in work values explained a substantial share of the gender gap in
entrepreneurial and leadership aspirations/intentions. Analysis of a sample of young
adults from Finland found that men's higher endorsement of extrinsic rewards and

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
20
lower endorsement of security proved most critical (Lechner et al., 2018). These
findings suggest that work values are implicated in shaping young people's
aspirations to business leadership and contribute strongly to the gender gap therein.
In a study of 24 countries, Thébaud (2015) concluded that women in countries with
supportive work-family institutions and policy have a larger gender gap in early-stage
business ownership, but a significantly smaller gender gap among business owners
regarding growth aspirations, propensity to innovate and making use of new
technology. This result indicates that the transformation from necessity-driven to
opportunity-driven for female entrepreneurs is influenced by family-arrangements,
such as paid leave, subsidized childcare and flexible workhours.
2.3.2 Norway and Slovakia: The GEM studies
The GEM studies measure entrepreneurial activity in the participating countries,
defined as the sum of those who are trying to start a business (nascent
entrepreneurs) and those who started a new business not more than 42 months ago
(new entrepreneurs). Further, the entrepreneurial activity is calculated as a
percentage of the adult population in each country. This gives us a measure that
makes it possible to compare entrepreneurial activity in different countries. This
measure is called TEA (Total Early Entrepreneurial Activity).
Norway participated in the GEM studies for many years, from 1999 to 2015. The
results have shown significantly higher entrepreneurial activity among men than
among women. Female entrepreneurial activity was between 25 % and 30 % of the
total entrepreneurial activity in the years 2000-2012 (Alsos et al., 2013, pp. 18-19).
This gender difference has been explained by the fact that women to a lesser degree
than men believe they have the necessary competence for entrepreneurship. This
could be caused by traditional gender division in the labor market, where women are
more likely than men to work in the public sector (Kolvereid et al., 2005; 2006). It is
also possible that women are more critical of their own competence than men
(Kolvereid et al., 2005). Furthermore, the welfare system, though at high level in
Norway, is not yet good enough to enable women to combine an entrepreneurial
career and having children (Kolvereid et al., 2006).
In the years 2011-2015, both Norway and Slovakia participated, and some interesting
comparisons can be made. The results showed that the TEA-index was lower in
Norway than in Slovakia for both genders, and while the gender gap seems to be
about the same in both countries, men had twice as high TEA as women in both
countries. In Norway, the female TEA was steady around 4% from 2011 to 2015, and
in Slovakia it was around 7% (Kelly et al., 2012; Roland Xavier et al., 2013; Amorós
and Bosma, 2014; Singer at al., 2015; GEM, 2016). These results mean that four
percent of Norwegian women, and seven percent of Slovak women, were involved in
entrepreneurial activity each year. The TEA-index for men was on average 8.6% in
Norway and 14.6% in Slovakia.
Another topic in the GEM investigations is how high a share of the TEA is necessity
driven, as a contrast to innovation driven entrepreneurship. Necessity driven
entrepreneurship is much higher in Slovakia than in Norway. In the years 2011-2015,
between 4-11% of the TEA was necessity driven in Norway, compared to 30-40% in
Slovakia. Accordingly, innovation driven entrepreneurship has been higher in Norway

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
21
than Slovakia. But the difference was much smaller in 2014 and 2015 than the three
preceding years (Kelly et al., 2012; Roland Xavier et al., 2013; Amorós and Bosma,
2014; Singer at al., 2015; GEM, 2016).
There are several other interesting topics investigated by GEM. Here, we discuss
three more: perceived opportunities, perceived capabilities and fear of failure. The
results for each of the two countries are quite stable over the years 2011-2015. About
2/3 of the Norwegians, compared to only 20% of the Slovaks, saw good opportunities
for starting their own business. On the other hand, the Slovaks were to a higher
degree confident that they had the right capabilities to exploit the opportunities (50%
vs. 33%). The fear of failing was nearly equal in the two countries; about 1/3
expressed this kind of fear (Kelly et al., 2012; Roland Xavier et al., 2013; Amorós and
Bosma, 2014; Singer at al., 2015; GEM, 2016).
2.3.3 Norway and Slovakia: Cultural differences
There is a vast amount of evidence to suggest that there are cultural and regional
differences in entrepreneurial activity (GEM, 2016; 2017; 2018), and many studies
concluded that these differences are caused by economic and/or cultural factors
(Reynolds et al., 1994). McGrath et al. (1992) concluded that culture is the most
important factor shaping entrepreneurial values and attitudes. They found that the
attitudes and values of both American and Chinese entrepreneurs were more in line
with American than with Chinese culture and values. Thomas and Mueller (2001)
found that the prevalence of entrepreneurial orientation is higher in some cultures
than in others and that some entrepreneurial traits, such as risk-taking behavior,
being an individual with high energy and having an internal locus of control
decreased with increasing cultural distance to the United States.
Cultural values, beliefs and norms have a strong influence on many things amongst
others, human behavior, including entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intentions.
(Mueller, 2002; Diaz-Casero et al., 2012; Hechavarria and Reynolds, 2009). Among
several cultural theories, Hofstede’s is the one which is most referred to. The authors
of this paper decided to use his theory in the discussion even though it is criticized by
some scholars on the grounds that culture is very complex and not as simple as
Hofstede describes it in his study. The criticisms stem from Hofstede’s assumption
that the domestic population of a country is homogenous, that his original data came
from one company (IBM), and that this study is outdated (originally published in
1980). Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) defines culture as “the collective programming
of the mind which distinguish the members from one human group from another….
(and) includes systems and values” (p. 4). However, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
might help us to explain why some cultures foster more entrepreneurial activities than
others as several authors have used his dimensions in discussions of entrepreneurial
intentions and entrepreneurial practice (amongst other Hayton et al. 2002; Busenitz
and Lau, 1995; Parbothea et al., 2008; McGrath et al., 1992; Quevo et al., 2010).
Hofstede’s classification started with four dimensions; later Long Term Orientation
and Indulgence were added. The six dimensions/measures are briefly described
below:

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
22
 Power Distance (PDI), is the extent to which the less powerful members of
society accept that power is distributed unequally. (High = Inequality
accepted).
 Individualism (IND), is when people look after themselves and their immediate
family only. Collectivism is when people belong to a group that looks after
each other in exchange for loyalty. (High = Individualistic society).
 Masculinity (MAS), is where the dominant values in society are achievement
and success. Femininity is where the dominant values in society are caring for
others and quality of life. (High = Masculine values).
 Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI), is the extent to which people feel threatened by
uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid such situations. (High = Anxiety,
greater stress).
 Long Term Orientation (LTO), explain the extent to which individuals think
more about their future than about current actions. (High = Long Term
orientation).
 Indulgence (IVR), is essentially a measure of happiness, defined as a society
that allows free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to
enjoying life and having fun. The opposite is restraint, which is defined as a
society that controls gratification of needs and regulates it by means of strict
social norms. (High = more indulgent societies).
Our literature research indicates that in addition to UAI, three of Hofstede’s cultural
factors are reported to influence gender and entrepreneurial intentions, namely PDI,
INV and MAS. Gathungu and Mvangi (2014) established in their research a positive
relationship between entrepreneurial intention, culture and gender. Their conceptual
model demonstrates a link between entrepreneurial intention and culture, and
between entrepreneurial intention and new venture creation. In addition, it shows
how cultural variables moderate the relationship between firm creation and the
entrepreneurial intention. Hofstede’s cultural factors for Norway and Slovakia are
shown in Table 1 below (https://Hofstede-insights.com).
Table 1. Hofstede’s cultural factors for Norway and Slovakia
Power
Distance
(PDI)
Individua-
lism (IDV)
Masculinity
(MAS)
Uncertainty
Avoidance
(UAI)
Long Term
Orientation
(LTO)
Indulgence
(IVR)
Norway 31 69 8 50 35 55
Slovakia 100 52 100 51 77 28
Bogatyreva et al. (2019) found that high power distance weakens the link between
entrepreneurial intention and action. According to them, low power distance societies
are much more in line with an entrepreneurial mind-set, in that they support the high
independence and autonomy associated with entrepreneurial action (Rusu, 2014).

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
23
Mueller and Thomas (2001) and Pinillos and Reyes (2011) found that a stronger
emphasis on individualistic values was linked to higher entrepreneurial activity and
Parbothea et al. (2008) found that collectivism and short term orientation was also
found to have negative effects on entrepreneurial intentions. Beliaeva et al. (2015)
tested the relationship between Hofstede’s dimensions and the entrepreneurial
intentions of students showing that the entrepreneurial intentions of the students are
stronger in more individualistic societies and weaker in societies characterized by
high uncertainty avoidance. However, according to Liñán et al. (2016) the
relationship between individualist values and EI is not univocal, but changes with the
characteristics of the environment. It is the congruence/divergence with the local
culture that matters. Identical personal values may have a positive or negative
relationship with EI, depending on the social context in which the person is placed.
According to Hofstede, a masculine society reflects masculine values such as
assertiveness, ambition, power and materialism, and a feminine society values such
as human relationships. Studies by Cardozo (2010) and Shane (1992, 1993) report
that countries with a high masculinity index expect to have higher gender differences
and a higher rate of entrepreneurial intentions as well as more entrepreneurial
activities. However, other studies have shown that in the more masculine societies,
women decrease their entrepreneurial activity and create fewer companies
(Quevedo, Izar and Romo, 2010).
A comprehensive review by Hayton et al. (2002) of 21 empirical studies, most based
on Hofstede’s concepts of national culture, indicates that UAI seems to be one of the
most prominent cultural indicators used to investigate the relationship between
culture and entrepreneurship, mainly suggesting that the greater the UAI, the less
entrepreneurial a society tends to be. Hofstede and a number of Dutch colleagues
found to their surprise that self-employment rates were consistently positively
correlated with UAI when comparing UAI scores from 23 countries with the level of
self-employment. They expected that in strong uncertainty avoidance cultures fewer
people would risk self-employment. Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) explained the
result as self-employment being more often chosen in countries where people were
more dissatisfied with their lives and not in countries with a high tolerance for the
unknown. In contrast to the findings presented above, Mueller and Thomas (2000)
found a positive relationship between UAI and business ownership, suggesting that
the restrictive environment of large businesses in high uncertainty avoidance
countries tends to push individuals to seek autonomy, and towards self-employment.
Studies about the gender gap are mostly conducted and analyzed within a national
framework. International studies on gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions
or start up rates are dominated by comparisons between developed and less
developed countries. In this paper, we make a comparison between the gender gap
in entrepreneurial intentions and its causes in a western country, Norway, which has
been dominated by traditional family values that have been gradually changing over
past decades, with a post-communist country, Slovakia that had a policy of promoting
gender equality during the first post war decades, then returning to a more traditional
gender policy.
3. Research methodology
3.1 Data

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
24
We have obtained Norwegian data from final-year students from 12 high schools in
Sogn og Fjordane and two in Møre og Romsdal. The survey for Sogn og Fjordane
was conducted in 2011 and for Møre og Romsdal in 2013. The questionnaire was
handed out in class and collected by teachers, implying that each student present on
this particular day answered the questionnaire. A corresponding survey was
conducted among final-year students from high schools in the central and eastern
parts of Slovakia in 2017. A link to a Google questionnaire was distributed to the
students through their e-mail account at school. Identical questionnaires were applied
in both countries, where the Norwegian questionnaire was translated into Slovak by
use of English as the intermediate platform. We had 1,457 respondents from Norway
and 537 from Slovakia. The response rate for Slovakia was 20 percent. In both
countries, the respondents’ were, on average, 19 years old.
Despite the high number of respondents in both countries, there were only 112
Slovak boys who answered the questionnaire. This will extend the confidence
intervals for parameters involving Slovak males.
3.2 Model
The analysis will be based on four different OLS-models (van Gelderen & Masurel,
2011; Årethun et al., 2017). In two of the models entrepreneurial intentions among
females in Slovakia and Norway, respectively, will be the dependent variable and in
the remaining two models, entrepreneurial intentions among males will be the y-
variable. The four models, will constitute the same set of contextual and individual
explanatory variables.
3.3 Contextual explanations
Contextual variables include important framing factors, that is, external factors
connected to one’s family or social network, influencing an individual’s
entrepreneurial intentions. One of these factors is cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986).
Individuals who are born and raised in self-employed families will see this as a
normal way of earning a living: they will visit the self-employed family members on
the job, learn how to run their own business and be motivated and encouraged to
start their own business. There are several studies showing that children of self-
employed parents have a higher probability of being self-employed (Mazzarol et al.,
1999, Greve and Salaff, 2003). In our analysis, we have applied self-employed
parents as an indicator for cultural capital. This is in line with Kim et al. (2006).
Social capital is the other group of contextual variables assumed to affect
entrepreneurial intentions. This could be persons or institutions within the social
network, with the exception of parents, that act as role models and who have an
impact on an individual’s plans to start their own business (Bourdieu, 1986). An
individual can get access to financial resources, such as loans and support schemes
from local financial institutions or from distant family members or friends and some
advisory support, even from acquaintances. Living in an entrepreneurial environment,
gives an individual some kind of acceptance for having very ambitious plans and for
running into entrepreneurial failure. In our analysis, we have selected three variables
that capture different dimensions of a person’s social capital: whether he/she has
entrepreneurial relatives (other than parents), whether he/she has entrepreneurial

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
25
friends or acquaintances and whether the individual perceives that they have support
from family and/or friends if he/she wants to start an enterprise.
3.4 Individual explanations
People are different regarding mental, physical and intellectual traits and they differ
when it comes to life-experience as well. This differences give rise to different
attitudes, preferences or potentials (Parker, 2009; Lucas, 1978). Individuals may also
differ on personal traits, such as degree of self-confidence, risk-taking and their
interest in becoming an entrepreneur. Individual factors include gender, age, factors
related to proactive personality (PAP) and career preferences as well. Based on the
respondents’ self-assessment on a five point ordinal scale, we measured their career
preferences and PAP. The measure of PAP is related to an internationally validated
scale to determine an individual’s degree of proactive personality based on 17
questions (Bateman and Crant, 1993), later reduced to five questions (Kickul and
Gundry, 2002). We used the latter scale in Norwegian and Slovak.
During recent decades, cognitive psychology has evolved as an important theory to
explain entrepreneurial careers at the individual level (Baron 1997; 1998; 1999; Keh
et al., 2002; Mitchell et al., 2002; Simon and Houghton, 2002). This theory
emphasizes that individuals’ thinking or mind, elaborated through self-assessment,
will affect behavior more than their personality traits. Self-assessment means that a
respondent classifies herself as having various attitudes or characteristics. Such self-
assessments may be related to motivation for entrepreneurship. Segal et al. (2005)
found that self-assessments of entrepreneurial skills, tolerance for risk and the desire
to be independent were significantly related to entrepreneurial intentions. Schein’s
(1975; 1978) five original career anchors are included in the analysis through
questions about the degree of importance on a five point ordinal scale of the
following factors in the respondents’ career decisions: autonomy, desire to become a
manager, security, creativity and academic aspirations.

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
26
Table 2. Contextual and individual factors as independent variables: definitions
and types
Variable Definition Type of Variable
Contextual variables:
Self-employed parents 1 = having at least one
parent as self-employed or
owning a business, 0 =
otherwise
Binary
Relatives as role models 1 = respondent having
relatives owning a business,
0 = otherwise
Binary
Friends as role models 1 = respondent having
friends owning a business,
0 = otherwise
Binary
Other role models 1 = respondent knowing
others owning a business, 0
= otherwise
Binary
Perceived support from
family and friends
Perceived support from
friends/relatives in case of
starting an enterprise
5-point ordinal scale,
ranging from 1 = “very
much” to 5 = “very little”
Individual factors:
Gender 1 = female, 0 = otherwise Binary
Leadership Wish to become a leader 4-point ordinal scale,
important” to 4 = “very
unimportant”
Autonomy Favoring independence 4-point ordinal scale,
unimportant”
Creativity Motivated to create
something new
unimportant”
Security Favoring a secure life
situation
unimportant”
Technical-functional
competence
Having a scientific or
academic interest
unimportant”
Proactive personality (PAP)
I enjoy facing and
overcoming obstacles to my
ideas 5-point ordinal scale,
ranging from 1 = “agree
completely” to 5 = “disagree
completely”
PAP = Sum of the 5 items,
ranging from 5 – 25
Nothing is more exciting
than seeing my ideas turn
into reality
I excel at identifying
opportunities
I love to challenge the status
quo

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
27
I can spot a good
opportunity long before
others can
3.5 Entrepreneurial Intentions
Entrepreneurial Intentions among the respondents are measured by four questions
on a five-point ordinal scale. The questions are intended to unveil the respondents’
intentions of becoming a manager, of running their own business and to what extent
they are willing to put future income and well-being at stake to start their own
business. These are different dimensions of entrepreneurial intentions and the
questions are in line with Aldrich and Ruef (2006) and Low and MacMillan (1988).
Table 3. The EI Construct
Items Scale Items values
It is better to have your
own company than to
work for others
5-point ordinal scale 5-point ordinal scale,
ranging from 1 = ”strongly
agree” to 5 = ”strongly
disagree”
I would start my own
company even if the
chances of economic
losses were considerable
disagree”
Having your own
company involves a
lifestyle that suits me well
disagree”
Wish to operate your own
company
disagree”
Entrepreneurial Intentions
(EI)
Sum of the 4 items above,
ranging from 4–19
For use in regression
analysis
4. Results
Table 4 shows that entrepreneurial intentions among young males are significantly
higher than for young females in both countries. This result implies that EI among
Norwegian youths are significantly lower than among Slovak youths.

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
28
Table 4. Gender differences in EI. Norway and Slovakia.
Average EI
Males
Average EI
Females
Difference in
EI
95% CI for
differences
Norway 11,5 13,3 -1,8*** (-2,1;-1,4)
Slovakia 8,7 9,6 -0,9** (-1,6;-0,2)
Norway- Slovakia -0,9*** (-1,2;-0,5)
Female EI
Norway –
Female EI
Slovakia
3,7*** (2,8;4,6)
Note:
1. We conducted a T-test for two independent samples for the difference between average EI in
Norway and Slovakia, respectively. This test assumes unequal population variances. ***: p<0.001,
**: p<0.01, *: p<0.05.
2. Norway: N=689 (males) and N=616 (females). Slovakia: N=112 (males) and N=330 (females).
The second to last line shows that the gender gap is significantly higher among
Norwegian youths compared to their Slovak counterparts, while the last line in the
table indicates that the female EI are significantly higher in Slovakia than in Norway.
Table 5. Regression results. Dependent variable is EI for males and females,
respectively.
Norway Slovakia
Females Males Females Males
Est. ß
a
p-value Est. ß
a
p-value Est. ß
a
p-value Est. ß
a
p-value
(Constant) 5,757 0,000 5,631 0,000 3,362 0,001 7,481 0,000
Est. ß
b
Est. ß
b
Est. ß
b
Est. ß
b
Self-employed parents ,130 ,003 ,022 ,577 ,065 ,237 ,014 ,893
Other relatives owning enterprise ,030 ,492 ,055 ,178 ,073 ,192 ,197 ,067
Friends owning enterprise ,065 ,139 ,073 ,068 ,092 ,113 ,038 ,727
Others owning enterprise ,105 ,017 ,094 ,020 ,066 ,245 ,264 ,008
Perceived support from family
and friends
,156 ,000 ,233 ,000 ,340 ,000 ,215 ,029
Autonomy ,076 ,094 -,006 ,882 ,177 ,002 -,022 ,858
Leadership ,296 ,000 ,380 ,000 ,246 ,000 ,197 ,051
Security -,135 ,002 -,077 ,050 -,051 ,355 -,005 ,965
Creativity ,134 ,005 ,048 ,285 ,050 ,429 ,007 ,952
Technical-functional competence -,029 ,519 -,107 ,013 -,027 ,645 -,223 ,043
Proactive personality ,246 ,000 ,208 ,000 ,148 ,027 ,350 ,008
Adjusted R
2
0,402 0,410 0,421 0,429
N 349 407 226 76
a
Unstandardized;
b
Standardized

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
29
Table 5 presents the results from the OLS model. The model is statistically significant
(significance of F-values p<0.001).
For both Slovak and Norwegian women, having leadership ambitions, a proactive
personality and perceiving that they have support from family and friends are
prominent antecedents for EI. For Slovak women, achieving autonomy is an
important factor as well. Being a daughter of self-employed parents, having role
models other than family and friends, emphasizing creativity and disregarding a
secure future are important antecedents for EI among Norwegian women.
When it comes to the Slovak gender gap, men’s EI were positively affected by the
presence of role models other than family or friends, while academic ambitions had a
negative impact on EI. For Norwegian and Slovak men alike, academic ambitions
have a negative impact on their EI. Being a son of a self-employed parent or
emphasizing creativity had no significant impact on Norwegian men’s EI.
5. Discussion
This study finds that young men have higher EI than young women, both in Slovakia
and Norway. This finding is in line with multiple other studies conducted on samples
from different countries (Nesse, (2010); Bhatta and Nesse, 2013, Shinnar et al.,
2012, Mazzarol et al., 1999, Renzulli et al., 2000, Kolvereid et al. 2005, Årethun et al.
2017). Gender differences in EI could eventually result in gender differences in start-
up rates later in life (Alsos and Ljunggren, 1998, Blanchflower, 2004; Caliendo et al.,
2015, Fueglistaller et al., 2009, Spilling, 1998; Bullvåg et al., 2009, 2010; Alsos et al.,
2012; Minniti et al., 2005; Bosma et al., 2009; Kelly et al., 2011; Roland Xavier et al.,
2013).
The gender gap in EI is significantly bigger in Norway than in Slovakia. This could
partly be explained by the high share of young Norwegian women working in the
public sector, either as a civil servant, in education or in the health and care sector.
The share of females employed in the public sector is above EU-average in Slovakia
as well, but not quite as high as in Norway (Hanzelová, Kešelová, 2014). In 2015, the
share of public sector employment filled by women was 68.2 % in Norway and 59.7
% in Slovakia. (OECD, 2017).
Norwegian women are to a large extent born and raised by a mother working in the
public sector and they lack access to entrepreneurial resources and role models.
Norwegian women with high EI are probably more dependent on role models than
their Slovak counterparts, who take access to entrepreneurial resources for granted.
Access to role models is a significant antecedent for both EI (Bourdieu, 1986) and the
start-up rate (Mazzarol et al., 1999; Greve and Salaff, 2003).
The big gender gap in EI among Norwegian youths compared to Slovak youths is in
line with Thébaud (2015). He concluded that women in countries with a supportive
work-family policy have larger EI gender gaps. The fraction of female opportunity-
driven entrepreneurship to necessity-driven is also higher in countries highly

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
30
influenced by family-arrangements that facilitate women’s participation in the work
force.
Mueller (2004) found that the more individualistic the national culture, the larger the
gender gap in entrepreneurial character attributes. In other words, the gender gap in
entrepreneurship is actually lower in countries whose culture exhibits more
collectivism than individualism (CGO, 2005).
Proportionally, more women than men who start a business out of necessity, become
entrepreneurs because they do not see other options for entering the labor market.
The relatively high rates of women entrepreneurship in countries like Bulgaria,
Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovenia are primarily due to high levels of
“necessity entrepreneurship” (OECD, 2012).
Table 4 shows that EI among young men are significantly higher than for young
women both in Slovakia and Norway. The results also show that EI among
Norwegian youths are significantly lower than among Slovak youths. A question is
whether some of this difference can be explained by different national cultures
(Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Slovakia and Norway have almost identical Hofstede
factors on IDV and UAI, however for PDI and MAS the differences between the
countries are substantial (see Table 1). Slovakia has a PDI and a MAS factor index
that are among the highest in the world while Norway’s PDI is low and MAS
extremely low. Research reported by Busenitz and Lau (1996) indicates that cultures
with high PDI and MAS like Slovakia make a favorable environment for
entrepreneurial activity; they mentioned however that males and females might
experience this differently. Parbothea et al. (2008) found that high power distance in
Pakistan have significant effects on EI. They identified a positive relationship
between PDI and gender inequality (more traditional gender roles) and argued that
nations with a high PDI are less gender equal.
Young women have more significant antecedents for EI than young men; this is more
profound in the Slovak than in the Norwegian sample. A large number of antecedents
could indicate that young women have a multiple reasons for having high EI, but still;
EI among young women is significantly lower than for young men in both countries.
Young women’s intentions to become self-employed are partly caused by restricted
job opportunities, low-paid jobs, their wish to avoid being a subordinate and
employee in hierarchical structures and social and cultural barriers to promote their
own career. This is known as necessity-driven causes and our findings are in
accordance with Minniti et al. (2009), who found that women are more likely to start a
business out of necessity. The perception of entrepreneurs among Slovak youth is
mainly based on fulfilling dreams in combination with hard work as their main tool to
be successful in their chosen market (SBA, 2019). The main obstacles Slovak
women face in starting their own businesses are the high level of tax for the self-
employed, insufficiently clear legislation, the large number of changes in business
law and a lack of access to financial capital (SBA, 2018).
A proactive personality is an important indicator for a person’s opportunity-driven EI
(Covey, 2004; Årethun et al., 2017; Kautonen et al, 2015) and it has turned out to be
an important antecedent in our study as well. Slovak women’s proactive personality is
about half as important for their EI compared to Slovak men, indicating that a

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
31
significant higher fraction of Slovak women with a modest to low score on proactive
personality have intentions to engage in entrepreneurial activities.
Autonomy is a highly significant antecedent for Slovak women’s EI. Gaining self-
governance and independence as self-employed is favorable compared to the status
of an unskilled, low-paid, salaried worker in a subordinate position. Financial
motivation and career opportunities are highly significant antecedents (SBA, 2019)
for young Slovakians. This is in line with Segal et al. (2005) and Schein (1975; 1978).
Norwegian youths in general, and young Norwegian women in particular, are risk-
averse compared to Slovak youths. The negative, significant correlation between the
career anchor called security and EI among young Norwegian women is an indication
of risk-averse behavior. An alternative to self-employment for young Norwegian
women could be a well-paid, salaried, skilled-job. Opting for a labor market position
as self-employed with a lower expected annual income, no, or a very low,
unemployment benefit in the case of bankruptcy and a volatile income may seem a
bad alternative.
Our findings that risk-averse behavior regarding young women’s EI, represented by
the correlation with the career anchor, security, is more prominent in a very rich
country such as Norway, compared to Slovakia, a median income country in the EU.
Powell and Ansic (1997) did not find any differences in entrepreneurial traits between
countries. On the other hand, Mueller (2004) found that such differences were
greater in rich countries.
6. Conclusions
This study has shown that EI is higher in Slovakia than in Norway for both genders,
and the gender gap is significantly higher in Norway. EI among Slovak women is
influenced by a wider range of antecedents compared to their Norwegian
counterparts. Due to these differences between antecedents of EI between
Norwegian and Slovak women, the authors have three recommendations for
increasing EI among young women, one common for both countries and one
individual recommendation for each country.
1. The common recommendation is to build and support leadership
ambitions and proactive abilities among young women.
2. For Norwegian women in particular, schools must develop creative
talents and reduce the negative impact of the wish for a secure future.
Connecting to positive role models is also important for Norwegian
women.
3. For Slovak women, the wish for autonomy is crucial for their EI.
Therefore, Slovak schools should have programs to support this wish.
The major limitation of intention-based research is that validity and stability of the link
between intentions and behavior can only be directly observed by longitudinal
research (Davidsson, Honig, 2003). However, entrepreneurship research would
greatly profit from studies investigating the link between intentions and behavior in an
entrepreneurial context (Fayolle, Liñán, 2014). A common limitation in this type of

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
32
study stems from the self-selection bias (Miranda, Chamorro-Mera, Rubio, 2017),
when those with a prior interest in the subject are more likely to be attracted to
respond to such a survey. Despite those limitations, we think that this study offers
valuable insight into factors influencing young women’s EI in Scandinavian and in
Post-Communist countries.
References
Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Aldrich H. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: Sage Publications.
Aldrich H.E. and Ruef M. (2006). Organizations evolving. Second Edition. London: Sage
Publications.
Aldrich H.E. and Whetten D.A. (1981). Organization-sets, action-sets, and networks: Making
the most of simplicity. In P.C. Nystrom and W.H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational design (pp. 385-408). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Aldrich H.E. and Zimmer C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through Social Networks. In D. Sexton
and R. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship (pp. 3-23). Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
Ali A., Topping K.J. and Tariq R.H. (2010). Entrepreneurial attributes among postgraduate
students of a Pakistani university, US-China Education Review, 7(5), 66-77.
Alsos G.A., Bullvåg E., Kolvereid L. and Åmo B.W. (2012). Entreprenørskap i Norge 2011.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Bodø: Handelshøgskolen.
Alsos G.A., Bullvåg E., Clausen T.H, Kolvereid L. and Åmo B.W. (2013). Entreprenørskap i
Norge 2012. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Bodø: Handelshøgskolen.
Alsos G.A., Clausen T.H., Isaksen E.J. and Åmo B.W. (2015). Global entrepreneurship
monitor. Entreprenørskap i Norge 2014. Bodø: Handelshøgskolen.
Alsos G.A. and Ljunggren E. (1998). Does the business start-up process differ by gender? A
longitudinal study of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 6(4), 347-
367.
Amorós J.E. and Bosma N. (2014). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2013 Global Report.
http://gemconsortium.org/report (Accessed 29.08.2018)
Baron R.A. (1997). Cognitive mechanisms in the decision to become an entrepreneur: The
role of counterfactual thinking and the experience of regret. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research.
Baron R.A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: Why and when
entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(3),
275-294.
Baron R.A. (1999). Counterfactual thinking and venture formation: The potential effects of
thinking about ‘what might have been’. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(1), 79-91.
Bateman T.S. and Crant J.M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational-behavior: A
measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118.
Beliaeva T., Laskovaia A. and Shirokova G. (2015). Entrepreneurial learning and students’
entrepreneurial intentions: a cross-cultural approach. Working Paper #8(E)–2015.
Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg University.
Bhatta B.P. and Nesse J.G. (2013). Measures of motivating females to establish an
enterprise in peripheral and marginal regions: An ordered logit analysis. Proceedings of
the 10th
International Conference on Enterprise Systems, Accounting and Logistics,
ICESAL, 121-145.
Bird B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of
Management Review, 13(3), 442–453.

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
33
Becherer R.C. and Maurer J.G. (1999). The proactive personality disposition and
entrepreneurial behaviour among small company presidents. Journal of Small Business
Management, 37(1), 28-36.
Blanchflower D.G. (2004). Self-employment: More may not be better. Swedish Economic
Policy Review, 11(2), 15-74.
Bogatyreva K., Edelman L.F., Manolova T.S., Osiyevskyy O and Shirokova G. (2019). When
do entrepreneurial intentions lead to actions? The role of national culture. Journal of
Business Research, 96, 309–321.
Bosma N., Acs Z.J., Autio E., Coduras A. and Levie J. (2009). Global entrepreneurship
monitor. 2008 executive report. http://gemconsortium.org/report (Accessed 29.08.2018)
Bourdieu P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-58). New York: Greenwood Press.
Brandstätter H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-
analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 222-230.
Brun C. (1998). Kjønn og entreprenørskap. In O.R. Spilling (Ed.), Entreprenørskap på norsk.
(pp. 147-170). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Bullvåg E., Jenssen S.A., Kolvereid L. and Åmo B.W. (2009), Global entrepreneurship
monitor. Entreprenørskap i Norge 2008. Bodø: Handelshøgskolen.
Bullvåg E., Kolvereid L., Mathiesen T. and Åmo B.W. (2010). Entreprenørskap i Norge 2009.
Global entrepreneurship monitor. Bodø: Handelshøgskolen.
Burt R.S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Burt R.S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. In B.M. Staw and R.I. Sutton (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (pp. 345-423). Amsterdam: JAI, 22.
Busenitz L.W. and Lau C. (1996). A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture creation,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(4), 25-39.
Byers T., Kist H. and Sutton R.I. (1999). Characteristics of the entrepreneur: Social
creatures, not solo heros. In R.C. Dorf (Ed.), The Technology Management Handbook
(Chapter 1, Section 1.1). Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC.
Bygrave W.D. (2004). The entrepreneurial process. In W.D. Bygrave and A. Zacharakis
(Eds.), The portable MBA in entrepreneurship (pp. 1-27). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
Caliendo M., Fossen F.M., Kritikos A. and Wetter M. (2015). The gender gap in
entrepreneurship: Not just a matter of personality. CESifo Economic Studies, vol. 61 (1),
202-238.
Camelo-Ordaz C., Diánez-González J.P. and Ruiz-Navarro J. (2016). The influence of
gender on entrepreneurial intention: The mediating role of perceptual factors. BRQ
Business Research Quarterly, 19, 261-277.
Cardozo Crowe A.P.C. (2010). La motivación para emprender:Evolución del modelo de rol
en emprendedores argentinos (Doctoral thesis). Universidad Nacional de Educación a
Distancia.
CGO. (2005). The entrepreneurship gender gap in global perspective: Implications for
effective policymaking to support female entrepreneurship. CGO Insights. Center for
Gender in Organizations, Simmons University, Briefing Note Number 22.
Cole A.H. (1949). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial history. In change and the
entrepreneur (pp. 88-107), reprinted in H.C. Livesay (Ed.) 1995, Entrepreneurship and
the growth of firms (pp. 100-122), vol.1, Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.
Coleman J.C. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Crant J.M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3), 42-49.
Covey S.R. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
34
Davidsson P. and Honig B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.
Diaz-Casero J.C., Hernandez-Mogollon R. and Roldan J.L. (2012). A structural model of the
antecedents to entrepreneurial capacity. International Small Business Journal 30(8),
850–872.
Espíritu-Olmos R. and Sastre-Castillo M.A. (2015). Personality traits versus work values:
Comparing psychological theories on entrepreneurial Intention. Journal of Business
Research, 68, 1595–1598.
Fayolle A. and Liñán F. (2014). The future of research on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal
of Business Research, 67, 663–666.
Frank H., Lueger M. and Korunka C. (2007). The significance of personality in business start-
up intentions, start-up realization and business success. Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, 19 (3), 227–251.
Freeman L.C., Borgatti S.P. and White D.R. (1991). Centrality in valued graphs: A measure
of betweenness based on network flow. Social Networks, 13, 141-154.
Fueglistaller U., Klandt H., Halter F. and Müller C. (2009). An international comparison of
entrepreneurship among students. International report of the Global University
Entrepreneurial Spirit Students' Survey (GUESSS 2008).University of St. Gallen.
Gartner W.B. (1988). “Who is an entrepreneur?” Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 12 (4), 11-32. DOI:10.1177/104225878801200401
GEM (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor) (2016). Global report 2015/16.
Greve A. (2000). Sosial kapital: Hvor står vi i dag? En kommentar til Colemans artikkel.
Magma, 3(1), 80-90.
Greve A. and Salaff J.W. (2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice, 28(1), 1-22.
Goel A., Vohra N., Zhang L. and Arora B. (2007). Attitudes of the youth towards
entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship: A cross-cultural comparison of India and China.
W.P. No. 2007-01-06, January 2007. Ahmedabad, India: Indian Institute of Management.
Granovetter M.S. (1973). Strength of weak ties. American Sociological Review, 78, 1360-
1380.
Granovetter M.S. (1974). Getting a job. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press.
Hanzelová E. and Kešelová D. (2014). Zdroje a prekážky rastu zamestnanosti žien s
dôrazom na stratégiu zosúladenia rodinného, pracovného a osobného života / Sources
and barriers to female employment growth with an emphasis on a strategy for reconciling
family, work and personal life. Inštitút pre výskum práce a rodiny.
Hechavarria D.M. and Reynolds P.D. (2009). Cultural norms & business start-ups: The
impact of national values on opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(4), 417–437.
Hisrich R.D. and Peters M.P. (1989). Entrepreneurship: Starting, developing, and managing
a new enterprise. Homewood, IKL: BPI, Irwin.
Hudgens G.A. and Fatkin L.T. (1985). Sex differences in risk taking: Repeated sessions on a
computer simulated task. Journal of Psychology, 119(3), 197-206.
Hughes K.D., Jennings J.E., Brush C., Carter S. and Welter F. (2012). Extending women’s
entrepreneurship research in new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36(3),
429-442.
Imran A., Yilmaz A.K. and Ahmed S. (2011). Effects of national culture on development of
entrepreneurial intentions. Elixir Mgmt. Arts, 39, 4622-4626.

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
35
Kautonen T. et al. (2015). Emergence of entrepreneurial behaviour: The role of age-based
self-image. Journal of Economic Psychology, 50, 41–51.
Kelley D.J., Brush C.G., Greene P.G. and Litovsky V. (2011). Global entrepreneurship
monitor, 2010 Women's report. Wellesley, MA, USA: Babson College.
Keh H.T., Foo M.D. and Lim B.C. (2002). Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: The
cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 27(2), 125-
148.
Kickul J. and Gundry L. (2002). Prospecting for strategic advantage: The proactive
entrepreneurial personality and small firm innovation. Journal of Small Business
Kim P.H., Aldrich H.E. and Keister L. (2006). Access (not) denied: The impact of financial,
human, and cultural capital on entrepreneurial entry in the United States. Small Business
Economics, 27(1), 5-22.
Kolvereid L., Åmo B.W. and Alsos G.A. (2005). Global entrepreneurship monitor.
Entreprenørskap i Norge 2004. Bodø: Handelshøgskolen.
Kolvereid L., Åmo B.W. and Alsos G.A. (2006). Global entrepreneurship monitor.
Entreprenørskap i Norge 2005. Bodø: Handelshøgskolen.
Kolvereid L., Shane S. and Westhead, P. (1993). Is it equally difficult for female
entrepreneurs to start businesses in all countries? Journal of Small Business
Krueger N.F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new
venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 18(1), 5-21.
Krueger N.F. (2005). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Broadening the definition of
“opportunity”. SSRN Accepted Paper Series, 7: Entrepreneurship in a Diverse World.
Krueger N.F. and Carsrud A.L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the Theory of
Planned Behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 5(4), 315–330.
Krueger N.F., Reilly M.D. and Carsrud A.L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 411–432.
Langowitz N. and Minniti M. (2007). The entrepreneurial propensity of women.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 31 (3), 341-364
Laspita S., Breugst N., Heblich S. and Patzelt H. (2012). Intergenerational trans-mission of
entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 27, 414–435.
Lechner C.M., Sortheix F.M., Obschonka M. and Salmela-Aro K. (2018). What drives future
business leaders? How work values and gender shape young adults' entrepreneurial and
leadership aspirations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 57–70.
Liñán F. and Santos J. (2007). Does social capital affect entrepreneurial intentions?
International Advances in Economic Research, 13(4), 443-453.
Liñán F., Moriano J.A. and Jaén I. (2016). Individualism and entrepreneurship:.Does the
pattern depend on the social context? International Small Business Journal, 34(6), 760–
776.
Lindberg M., Lindgren M. and Packendorff J. (2014). Quadruple helix as a way to bridge the
gender gap in entrepreneurship: The case of an innovation system project in the Baltic
Sea region. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5 (1), 94-113.
Low M.B. and MacMillan I.C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges.
Journal of Management, 14, 139–161.
Louw L., Eeden S.M. van, Bosch J.K. and Venter D.J.L. (2003). Entrepreneurial traits of
undergraduate students at selected South African tertiary institutions. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 9(1), 5–26.
Lucas R.E. (1978). On the size distribution of business firms. Bell Journal of Economics, 8,
508-523.
Lumpkin G.T. and Dess G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance. The Acadamy of Management Review, 21 (1), 135-172. DOI:
10.2307/258632.

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
36
Luthje C. and Franke N. (2003). The making of an entrepreneur: Testing a model of
entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&D Management, 33(2),
135-147.
Maes J., Leroy H. and Sels L. (2014). Gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions: A
TPB multi-group analysis at factor and indicator level. European Management Journal,
32, 784–794.
Mazzarol T., Volery T., Doss N. and Thein V. (1999). Factors influencing small business
start-ups. A comparison with previous research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research, (5)2, 48-63.
Markussen S. and Røed K. (2017). The gender gap in entrepreneurship – The role of peer
effects. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 134, 356-373.
McGrath R.G., MacMillan I.C, Yang E.A. and Tsai W. (1992). Does culture endure, or is it
malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development. Journal of Business
Venturing, 1, 441-458.
Meyll T. and Pauls T. (2018). The gender gap in over-indebtedness. Finance Research
Letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.12.007
Minniti M. (2009). Gender issues in entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends in
Entrepreneurship, 5(7-8), 497-621.
Minniti M. (2010). Female entrepreneurship and economic activity. The European Journal of
Development Research, 22 (3), 294-312.
Minniti M., Arenius P. and Langowitz N. (2005). Global entrepreneurship monitor. 2004 report
on women and entrepreneurship. London: Babson College and London Business School.
Miranda F.J., Chamorro-Mera A. and Rubio S. (2017). Academic entrepreneurship in
Spanish universities: An analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurial intention.
European Research on Management and Business Economics, 23, 113–122.
Mitchell R.K., Busenitz L., Lant T., McDougall P.P., Morse E.A. and Smith J.B. (2002).
Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of
entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 27(2), 93-104.
Mueller M.L. (2004). Gender gaps in potential for entrepreneurship across countries and
cultures. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 9(3), 199-220.
Mueller P. (2006). Entrepreneurship in the region: Breeding ground for nascent
entrepreneurs? Small Business Economics, 27(1), 41-58.
Mueller S.L. and Thomas A.S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country
study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 51–
75.
Nesse J.G. (2010). Kjønnsskilnader i ungdommars motivasjon for entreprenørskap. Beta.
Scandinavian Journal of Business Research, 24 (1), 2-24.
Obschonka M., Silbereisen R.K. and Schmitt-Rodermund E. (2010). Entrepreneurial intention
as developmental outcome. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 63–72.
OECD. (2012). Gender equality in entrepreneurship. In: Closing the Gender Gap: Act Now.
OECD Publishing, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264179370-6-en
OECD. (2017). Women in public sector employment. In Government at a Glance 2017,
OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2017-27-en
Parboteeah K.P, Hoegl M. and Cullen J.B. (2008). Managers' gender role attitudes: A country
institutional profile approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 795-813.
Parker S.C. (2009). The economics of entrepreneurship. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Pilková A., Holienka M., Rehák J. and Kovačičová Z. (2015). Podnikateľská aktivita a
prostredie na Slovensku / GEM Slovakia 2014 Report. Univerzita Komenského
v Bratislave.
Pinillos M.J. and Reyes L. (2011). Relationship between individualist–collectivist culture and
entrepreneurial activity: Evidence from global entrepreneurship monitor data. Small
Business Economics, 37(1), 23–37.

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
37
Powell M. and Ansic D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behavior in financial decision-
making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6), 605-628.
Quevedo L.M., Izar J.M. and Romo R.L. (2010). Factores endógenosy exógenos de mujeres
y hombres emprendedores de Espa˜na,Estados Unidos y México. Investigación y
Ciencia, 18(46), 57–63.
Renzulli L.A., Aldrich H.E. and Moody J. (2000). Family matters: Gender, networks, and
entrepreneurial outcomes. Social Forces, 79 (2), 523-546.
Reynolds P., Storey D.J. and Westhead P. (1994). Cross-national comparisons of the
variation in new firm formation rates. Regional Studies, 28(4), 443-456.
Roland Xavier S., Kelley D., Kew J., Herrington M. and Vorderwülbecke A. (2013). GEM
2012 Global Report. http://gemconsortium.org/report (Accessed 29.08.2018)
Rusu, C. (2014). Culture – Moderator of the relationship between contextual factors and
entrepreneurial outcomes. Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society, 7(1),
63–67.
SBA. (2019). Podnikateľský potenciál mladých v regiónoch SR / Enterpreneurship potential
of youth in Slovak regions. Slovak Business Agency.
SBA. (2018). Analýza rodového a vekového zloženia fyzických osôb –podnikateľov vroku
2017 / Analyzes of gender and age structure of (Slovak) entrepreneurs in 2017. Slovak
Business Agency.
Schein E.H. (1975). How ‘career anchors’ hold executives to their career paths. Personnel,
52(3), 11-24.
Schein E.H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs.
Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Schein E.H. (1990). Career anchors: Discovering your real values. Revised edn., San
Francisco: Pfeiffer & Company.
Schubert R., Brown M., Gysler M. and Brachinger H.W. (1999). Financial decision-making:
Are women really more risk-averse? American Economic Review, 89(2), 381-391.
Schumpeter J.A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital,
credit, interest and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard Economic Studies, Vol.
46, Harvard College.
Segal G., Borgia D. and Schoenfeld J. (2005). The motivation to become an entrepreneur.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 11(1), 42-57.
Shane S. (1993). Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business
Venturing, 8(1), 59–73.
Shane S., Kolvereid L. and Westhead P. (1991). An exploratory examination of the reasons
leading to new firm formation across country gender. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(6),
431–446.
Shapero A. and Sokol L. (1982). Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. In C.A. Kent, D.L.
Sexton and K.H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90).
Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall.
Shinnar R.S., Giacomin O. and Janssen F. (2012). Entrepreneurial perceptions and
intentions: The role of gender and culture. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 36(3),
465–493.
Shinnar R., Pruett M. and Toney B. (2009). Entrepreneurship education: Attitudes across
campus. Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 151-158.
Shirokova G., Osiyevskyy O. and Bogatyreva K. (2016). Exploring the intention-behavior link
in student entrepreneurship: Moderating Effects of individual and environmental
characteristics. European Management Journal, 34(4), 386-399.
Simon M. and Houghton S. (2002). The relationship among biases, misperceptions, and the
introduction of pioneering products: Examining differences in venture decision contexts.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 27(2), 105-124.
Singer S., Amorós J.E. and Arreola D.M. (2015). Global entrepreneurship monitor. 2014
global report. http://gemconsortium.org/report (Accessed 17.1.2017).

16th
(16th
ICESALM 2019)
38
Smith P.B., Dugan S. and Trompenaars F. (1997). Locus of control and affectivity by gender
and occupational status: A 14 nation study. Sex Roles, 36(1/2), 51-77.
Solberg E. (2016). Det norske forsknings- og innovasjonssystemet – statistikk og indikatorer
2016. Oslo: Norges forskningsråd.
Spilling O.R. (1998). Entreprenørskap, etablerere og nye foretak. In O.R. Spilling (Ed.),
Entreprenørskap på norsk (pp. 95-119). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Stevenson H.H and Jarillo J.C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial
management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17-27.
Suutari V. and Taka M. (2004). Career anchors of managers with global careers. The Journal
of Management Development, 23(9), 833-847.
Thébaud S. (2015). Business as plan B: Institutional foundations of gender inequality in
entrepreneurship across 24 industrialized countries. Administrative Science Quarterly,
60(4), 671-711.
Thomas A.S. and Mueller S.L. (2001). A case for comparative entrepreneurship: Assessing
the relevance of culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2), 287-301.
Timmons J.A. and Spinelli S. (2003). New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st
Century. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
van Gelderen M. and Masurel E. (2011). Entrepreneurship in context. New York: Routledge
Studies in Entrepreneurship, Routledge.
Verheul I., Thurik R., Grilo I. and van der Zwan P. (2012). Explaining preferences and actual
involvement in self-employment: Gender and the entrepreneurial personality. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 33(2), 325-341.
Wang C.K. and Wong P. (2004). Entrepreneurial interest of university students in Singapore.
Technovation, 24, 163-172.
Wiklund J. (1998). Small firm growth and performance: Entrepreneurship and beyond.
Doctoral dissertation. Jönköping: Jönköping International Business School.
Williams J.E. and Best D.L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Zanakis S.H., Renko M. and Bullough A. (2012). Nascent entrepreneurs and the transition to
entrepreneurship: Why do people start new businesses? Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 1-25.
Zellweger T., Sieger P. and Halter F. (2011). Should I stay or should I go? Career choices of
students with family business background. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 521–536.
Zhao H., Seibert S.E. and Hills G.E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the
development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265-
1272.
Årethun T., Nesse J.G., Kološta S. and Flaška F. (2017). Common and different factors
influencing entrepreneurial intentions among youth in rural Norway and Slovakia.
Proceedings to the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Systems, Accounting and
Logistics (ICESAL), 107 – 131.
View publication statsView publication stats

What can schools do to increase the entrepreneurial intentions among young women? Analysis of data from Norway and Slovakia. Torbjørn Årethun & others

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to What can schools do to increase the entrepreneurial intentions among young women? Analysis of data from Norway and Slovakia. Torbjørn Årethun & others

Similar to What can schools do to increase the entrepreneurial intentions among young women? Analysis of data from Norway and Slovakia. Torbjørn Årethun & others (20)

More from eraser Juan José Calderón

More from eraser Juan José Calderón (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

What can schools do to increase the entrepreneurial intentions among young women? Analysis of data from Norway and Slovakia. Torbjørn Årethun & others