1) The document summarizes and critiques an article that studied differences between women entrepreneurs who founded non-profit versus for-profit organizations in India. 2) It found that women who founded non-profits tended to be from higher castes, more educated, and had prior experience in the non-profit sector, whereas women in for-profits were more likely to be first-time entrepreneurs from necessity. 3) The reviewer criticizes the original article for being overly descriptive without deeper analysis, and argues it adds little that had not already been documented elsewhere on women's entrepreneurship in India.

1. Cynthia Lewis
ANTH 410
Article Review
29 March 2013
Handy, Femida; Ranade, Bhagyashree ; and MeenazKassam. "To Profit or Not to Profit: Women
Entrepreneurs in India." Nonprofit Management and Leadership. Vol. 17, No. 4 (2007): pp 383-
401.
______________________________________________________________________________
To Read or Not to Read: The Unfortunate Question
One would expect the topic of financially savvy, independent women entrepreneurs to be
especially scintillating to a female anthropologist focusing in finance and development.
However, one may be surprised by the amount of droll data collection that must necessarily
occur in such realms. This article featured a study done to compare and contrast the
demographics of women entrepreneurs in both non-profit and for-profit business ventures in
India, and was not exactly the shining gem that my high standards led me to expect.
The study was very narrow in scope, which was most likely a practical measure to avoid the
confusion of which kinds of organizations, exactly, were being identified in the country most
popularly known for it's NGO's and small start-up businesses. The research was narrowed to the
city of Pune, Maharashtra, population 3.75 million. 40 organizations were used, of which 19
were NGOs and 21 were small, for-profit businesses, all number less than 50 employees. All
organizations used catered solely to the needs of women and children and were founded by
female entrepreneurs.
The authors profess there to be a dearth of literature on the differences in types of women
who attain entrepreneurship, especially in India, which this study aims to fortify. Yet from the
surging amounts of recent case studies performed on small-scale women entrepreneurs, this
seemed a large statement based on limited research. The promotion of small-scale business

2. ventures upheld by women founders has been a surging theme in southern Asia over the last few
decades, but the authors say this area needs a higher level of academic documentation with direct
statistical quantification (which was provided in ample amounts). In fact, much of the article is a
regurgitation of dry figures with little analysis or complex reflection.
However, there are other reasons why the data might be relevant to the realm of women's
finance. It serves to show that the idea of "entrepreneurship" is mistakenly attributed solely to
for-profit organizations. The article allocates that both for-profit and non-profit organizations are
the result of an entrepreneur's motivation, ambition, innovation, leadership, imagination, effort,
and ability. The authors argue that the variances in demographics of the types of female
entrepreneurs is "important to policymakers who wish to promote either type of organization in
order to advance general economic activity"(384). The findings are mostly helpful as a blanket
background into the characteristics, motivations, and abilities of female entrepreneurs. They give
an insight into the driving factors needed for women to create successful organizations in this
region of the world.
Unfortunately, the article is not very helpful to audiences seeking a specific guide to
understanding the business processes crucial to for-profit and non-governmental organizations.
While the founders of the various organizations came to entrepreneurship from differing
backgrounds, "all shared a basic feminist conviction that attention to women’s issues is
paramount for social justice" (389). The study helped to reveal the vast extent of these
differences. For example, 84% of the women from the non-profits were from upper caste
families and 63% were married. 79% of the total non-profit women had postgraduate-level
education with some professional training in a career such as social work, health care, banking,
or teaching.

3. On the other hand, only 52% of the for-profit women were from the upper caste, 86%
were married, and 62% had post-graduate education. The differences continued, but were still
rather predictable: "Non-profit entrepreneurs tended to be professionals and highly involved in
the sector prior to starting their businesses, whereas many of the for-profit entrepreneurs were
nonprofessional and came to their businesses through pursuing their hobbies, diversifying their
interests, and seeking professional status and independence" (389). The nonprofit women started
training early for a certain specialization, having the capabilities to pursue an organization much
sooner than the for-profit women, who tended to find their way into entrepreneurship after
several decades of labor, marriage, and raising children.
Personal background and living environment at time of foundation played a crucial role
in the types of organizations these women could create. 47% of the women for-profit were
housewives before beginning their business plans, whereas only 5% of the NGO women were
married with children at the time of foundation. This work-home conflict was a major factor in
the ability of women to devote time to the successful upbringing of a business. Necessarily,
many of the for-profit entrepreneurs started their own businesses without much (if any) prior
experience in the business realm, while the non-profit women founders were 90% likely to have
had some prior work experience in the non-profit sector before building their own organizations.
A visible aid to success was the presence of financial support from family members in
founding the start-up costs of the organizations. While the for-profit women had less education
and training, they typically "acquired skills through learning by doing [and] exhibited the desire
for economic independence and a need for achievement. Although they saw themselves as self-
reliant, family support was essential"(386). Again, it comes down to this starting potential that
women without financially-stable families necessarily lacked. It proved difficult for many single

4. women to access funding institutions and therefore relied heavily on income from siblings and
parents.
This prevalent theme in development anthropology of southern Asian women fighting
against outside circumstances to establish a business has been commented heavily upon since the
turn of the century, making the authors' central claim irrelevant. Businessline magazine
published several articles on Indian women entrepreneurs in 2000 and 2001. On the very first
page of the January 2000 edition, the editors exclaimed that "the economic force that women
entrepreneurs have become in promoting innovation and job-led growth has been attracting a lot
of attention" according to extensive data gathered by member countries of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development. Perhaps the best-documented and well-known
research on women entrepreneurs in this area of the world has been the micro-finance case
studies by Lamia Karim. Those studies carry the richness of detail and analysis of which this
article is woefully inadequate, having limited direct contact with the actual subjects of the study.
There is no need to thoroughly read the article as the major findings are stated above and
are repeated multiple times throughout the seventeen pages of the study. One would not find
much else of interest or assistance by pursuing the study oneself. The authors plainly state in
their paper that their collection of data reflects the findings that have already been documented
by other authors from the late 20th century such as Blanchflower, Oswald, Pilz, and Hisrich, to
name but a few. Surely any of those studies would be much more enjoyable and informative.
While the authors' claim that these statistics serve to underscore the importance of
women's financial security, their persuasive argument is distinctly lacking in any persuasive
factor apart from the raw numbers. There are three mentions throughout the paper that many
Indian women lack access to funds from monetary institutions, but the matter is not pursued any

5. further and no appeals are made to policy makers to address this oversight. All in all, this article
is a weak excuse for "analysis" and the few arguments that are made are free-floating with little
conviction. A child with a notepad of numbers could configure more pertinent information from
their data than the half-caste remarks strewn repetitively throughout this paper. It is sad that in
the anthropological world, it takes three authors working together to show that nothing really
ever gets done.