Date post: | 21-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Small Business & Entrepreneurship |
Upload: | mitesh-take |
View: | 62 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Working Paper No. 2014/14
Beyond the Critique: How Feminist Perspectives Can Feed Entrepreneurship Promotion in Developing Countries Saskia Vossenberg¹ 7 May 2014
© The author, 2014
¹ Consultant Gender and Women's Political Empowerment, NIMD | Netherlands Institute for Multiparty
Democracy
External Research fellow 'Women and Entrepreneurship in Developing Countries', Maastricht School of
Management
Program manager 'Women's Entrepreneurship Promotion', Maastricht School of Management
The Maastricht School of Management is a leading provider of management
education with worldwide presence. Our mission is to enhance the management
capacity of professionals and organizations in and for emerging economies and
developing countries with the objective to substantially contribute to the
development of these societies.
www.msm.nl
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s). Publication does not imply
endorsement by the School or its sponsors, of any of the views expressed.
1
- Working Paper -
Beyond the Critique: How Feminist Perspectives
Can Feed Entrepreneurship Promotion in
Developing Countries
Saskia Vossenberg, May 2014
Presented at International Research and Policy Seminar
Promoting Women’s Entrepreneurship: Which Policies & Practices Work Best?
8-9 May 2014, Maastricht School of Management
Abstract
How can we move the debate beyond feminist critique and present policy-makers and development practitioners
with premises for entrepreneurship promotion in its attempt to overcome issues of gender inequality in economic
growth and development? Feminist epistemologies can offer a set of conceptual advances and tools of analysis to
define goals, problems and solutions for entrepreneurship promotion. By means of a literature review it is argued
that a critical realist approach, as found in standpoint feminism, provides a strong basis for thinking through
feminist concerns about entrepreneurship promotion. Consequently, four premises for feminist driven
entrepreneurship promotion are presented. Key words: feminist theory, female entrepreneurship, developing
countries, entrepreneurship promotion, policy.
1. Introduction
With the recognition of entrepreneurship as a key driver for economic development, it is no surprise
that many governments, donors and development organizations nowadays promote entrepreneurship
as a potential pathway out of poverty (Szirmai, 2011; Naudé and Szirmai, 2013; Goedhuys and
Sleuwaegen, 2002). Both as drivers and main beneficiaries of this growth, female entrepreneurs
especially have been identified as the „new heroes of the developing economy‟. As a result they have
become an important focus in poverty reduction and private sector development programmes.
Whereas resources are being directed to develop the entrepreneurial potential of women and support
their micro and small enterprises, little evidence is available on how entrepreneurship promotion in
developing countries benefits women, leads to growth and development or helps to reduce gender
inequalities (for an overview see Vossenberg, 2013). Development practitioners and policy-makers
anecdotally admit that such virtuous development rarely happens and only have intuitive answers to
the critical questions: „what works‟ and „what not‟ in entrepreneurship promotion, and how its
outcomes contribute to gender just inclusive economic growth in developing countries? Indeed,
feminist researchers have been raising major concerns with the focus on private sector development as
important instrument to drive development processes (Barrientos and Kabeer 2013, Barrientos and
Evers, 2013; Rai and Waylen, 2013; Razavi, 2013; Duflo, 2011) Knowing that gender blind or
insensitive policies and development programmes lead to poor and ineffective outcomes, they
rightfully point out that the effects or alleged benefits for women remain unclear and that it is
unrealistic to seek for „miracle solutions‟ to overcome gender inequality in policy efforts solely
focused at economic development. This suggests that we need to temper our expectations of
entrepreneurship promotion to establish gender equality and economic development that benefits both
men and women.
2
A Feminist Approach to Entrepreneurship Promotion: Goals, Problems and Solutions
This paper makes the case for a feminist approach to entrepreneurship promotion. Drawing on the
policy analysis framework of Deborah Stone (2002)1 and Mieke Verloo‟s (2007) notion of a „policy
frame‟2 , I here understand „entrepreneurship promotion‟ as the deliberate organisation of a set of
policy goals, problems and solutions enacted by state and non-state actors with a view to influence and
intervene in entrepreneurial behaviour and context that occurs across a range of sectors in both the
formal and informal economy.
In this paper I investigate by means of a literature review how different interpretations of gender and
entrepreneurship, as manifested in different feminist perspectives, can affect the way in which
entrepreneurship promotion is framed and enacted and, as a result, potentially lead to different policy
outcomes. I will argue that in order to move entrepreneurship policy debate forward and beyond
feminist critique, we need to engage with these policies and feed policy-makers and development
practitioners with the necessary information and knowledge that can advance the feminist agenda.
Whereas all feminist perspectives can be valuable for entrepreneurship promotion, some provide the
policy maker and development practitioner with more tangible premises and tools than others. I will
argue that the „critical realist‟ approach as found in feminist standpoint epistemology provides a strong
basis for thinking through feminist concerns about entrepreneurship promotion, and seems the most
useful for putting feminist theory into practice.
Needless to say that for the sake of the purpose of this paper, I had to jump over some important
debates among the multiple stances in feminist epistemologies which might generate the misleading
impression of the existence of neatly defined categories of feminist thinking, oversimplifying the
complex and rich body of feminist philosophy3. I do not attempt to lay down the requirements for what
is „a good entrepreneurship policy from a feminist perspective‟ as that would be not only impossible
but also not do justice to the ongoing debates among feminist perspectives. Moreover, it would be an
idealist attempt, ignoring local contexts, experiences and practices. There is no such thing as „good
feminist policy‟ that can be adopted to any situation, regardless of the actual situation in which one is
trying to intervene (Moi, 1999). However, I would like to argue that feminist epistemologies can offer
a set of conceptual advances and policy tools that potentially can feed entrepreneurship promotion and
evaluation in its attempt to overcome issues of gender inequality in economic development in
developing countries. My attempt here is to formulate a series of building blocks, or premises that
might be useful for policy-makers and development practitioners to shape, evaluate and reframe
entrepreneurship promotion in developing countries, making use of the valuable theorizing and
empirical contributions feminisms have made. Using the overwhelmingly rich body of literature I will
argue that a more feminist driven approach to entrepreneurship promotion would first entail an explicit
commitment to gender justice as a policy goal, second be build „upon situated goals, problems and
solutions‟, third consider a variety of policy outcomes and appropriate solutions besides individually
and economic oriented values and fourth, acknowledges the gendered and complex power relations in
1 Stone defines policy as „means of power that are continuously in a state of change to get people to do what they otherwise might not do‟.
Her social constructionist model helps understand how policies are shaped in their context and is based on three broad concepts: policy goals,
problems and solutions. In this perspective policy problems are constructed, competing interpretations of what is the problem exist, and
policy solutions are built in the representation of the problem (Bacchi, 1999) 2 Conceptual frames that shape the understanding of reality exist in policy process as argues by Verloo. She defines a „policy frame‟ as an
„organising principle that transforms fragmentary information into a structured and meaningful problem, in which a solution is implicitly or
explicitly included‟. This definition refers to the various dimensions in which a given policy problem can be represented. 3 Some of the rich debates and disagreements I had to skate over for example is the plead of Intemann (2010) of merging feminist empiricism
with standpoint theory „feminist standpoint empiricism‟ since both have evolved and absorbed critique over the past twenty-five years.
3
intra-household dynamics as key to addressing the problem. In the following sections I first explicate
the rationale of a feminist approach to entrepreneurship promotion. Secondly, I describe the
advantages and limitations for understanding entrepreneurship from different feminist epistemologies
based on a literature review. Subsequently I discuss the implications of a feminist approach to
entrepreneurship promotion when formulating policy goals, problems and solutions. Finally, I will
present four premises of feminist entrepreneurship promotion in developing countries.
2. What’s at stake? Feminist critique of entrepreneurship research and policy
The global shift towards neo-liberalism, promoting private sector and entrepreneurship as key drivers
of economic development, has been a major concern of feminist for decades. Important contributions
have been made by posing feminist alternative approaches to mainstream economic thinking, which
has resulted in an impressive and sophisticated body of knowledge. Traditional economic models have
been challenged and reframed as gendered structures, making the effects of economic policy, reform
and crises on women and gender relations visible and explicit in the past decades (Elson, 2013;
Kabeer, 2014; Rai and Waylen, 2013). Feminist work also made important contributions to
development policy making, which is demonstrated by the fact that most development organisations
and donors nowadays have adopted aspects of gender analysis in its policy making and program
formulation. Even though research indicates that the terms of this adoption remain oblique and
slantwise, focussing on individual and micro level interventions rather than on transformative change
towards gender justice, important experiences and instruments for „gender-sensitive policy-making‟
are now widespread available (Rai and Waylen, 2013; Verloo and Van der Vleuten, 2009).
In entrepreneurship promotion as part of private sector development, with its growing focus on female
entrepreneurship and the representation of women in the business sector, the adoption of a feminist
lens is relatively new and its experiences, impact and challenges still need be explored and
documented. Feminist theory is most visible when used to deconstruct and critique the assumptions,
foundations and applicability of entrepreneurship theorizing and empiric research (Calas et al, 2009;
Ahl and Nelson, 2010; for an overview see Vossenberg, 2013). It is emphasized that much of
entrepreneurship research and policy formulation share in a discourse of economic growth and
individualism, where the female entrepreneur and her business is seen as „underperforming‟, not living
up to her potential of generating economic growth, and therefore needs to be fixed (Marlow and Mc
Adam, 2010). As a result, in most entrepreneurship development policies it is usually the individual
(woman) entrepreneur that is advised and supported to enhance her business, leadership and
networking skills through training and counseling designed to „repair‟ her under-performance (Ahl,
2006, 2012; Marlow and McAdam, 2010). Women‟s entrepreneurial context is then left unaffected
and other possible solutions and efforts to fix the gender bias in entrepreneurship are not considered.
Also Welter, Brush and de Bruin (2014) argue that it is imperative to understand that entrepreneurship
is „gendered‟ and can only be understood in its (local) spatial and institutional context. Thus, policy
makers need to formulate integrated and holistic approaches, targeting (instead of ignoring) the
underlying gendered structures when fostering women‟s entrepreneurship. Brickell (2011) argues that,
even in programmes that do acknowledge women‟s context and experiences, such as their prime role
in unpaid care work, this recognition is linked almost exclusively to economic goals and the need to
„unleash economic potential‟.
“Indeed, in an array of contemporary policies and programs the sparse or non-existent attention
accorded to changing anything other than women‟s access to material resources simply adds to
4
women‟s burdens, entrenching if not entrapping them (and their male counterparts) in stereotypical
and uneven roles and interrelations”(Chant and Brickell, 2013 P.89).
Here, Chant and Brickell (2013) add to the feminist critique particularly echoed on poverty reduction
programs using instruments such as micro finance and cash transfer. Even though usually „framed‟ as
an instrument for women‟s economic empowerment, in most cases they focus primarily on women‟s
conditions and capacities instead of their embedded and gendered positions (of inferior power). Such
policies do not challenge patriarchy nor change the norms that support it, leaving the gendered context
unaffected. Following that, Bradshaw (2008) argues that by targeting development resources only at
women means that „men‟s socially constructed behavior is implicitly being problematized but not
addressed. This way, „fixing women‟ is presented as the only possible solution to a wider and societal
problem. As a result, such policies contribute very little in terms of advancing women‟s position in
society, let alone in terms of gender just inclusive growth (Sholkamy, 2010). Despite the availability
of feminist driven research, which has long uncovered the importance of unpaid care work and
household work divisions in influencing women‟s lives, Chant and Brickell (2013) point out that its
impact and relevance for policy making and program development has remained limited, under-
researched and documented.
In general there is a lack of reliable, consistent and country-specific data that is able to address the
question in „what works‟ and „what not‟ in entrepreneurship promotion. Also, it seems that the
majority of the literature available heavenly draws on experiences and theories from developed
economies, driven by a positivist epistemology and human capabilities approach (Ahl, 2006).
Substantial efforts for example are being devoted to documenting differences between male and
female entrepreneurs and their businesses (Welter, de Bruin and 2014; Greene, Brush and Gatewood,
2006; James, 2012). Feminists‟ convincingly criticize the inability of such research to unravel the
gendered complex power structures and subtleties of the (developing) economy, indicating a need for
alternative epistemological approaches and contextualized empirical findings. Moreover, feminists
have argued (for over thirty years) that scholars should put an end to the ideological and statistical
underestimation of how the gendered division of unpaid and paid care work affects both for women
and men and women‟s experiences in particular. And more importantly, that society at large needs to
start dealing with the implications of how the gendered context affects processes of change and
development in general (Kabeer, 2013; Pearson, 2007; Razavi, 2011).
No wonder that indeed no large scale paradigm shift can be observed until today that has provided a
path-way out of poverty for larger groups of women and unleash societies‟ potential of gender just
inclusive growth. Feminist scholars have pointed out that we need to be reticent about ostensibly
gender-neutral or gender-insensitive policies that leave the power dynamics that underpin the gender
bias in complex patriarchal societies unquestioned (Rai and Waylen, 2013; Lombardo, Meier and
Verloo, 2009). Here, potentially entrepreneurship promotion may benefit greatly from different
feminist perspectives and present the policy maker and development practitioner with tangible
building blocks and premises which may affect the way in which entrepreneurship promotion is
enacted and as a result, lead to different policy outcomes. Applying an explicit feminist perspective to
entrepreneurship promotion can enhance our understanding of entrepreneurship as a thoroughly
gendered process which may shed light on what is appropriate for entrepreneurship promotion and go
beyond the feminist critique while feeding the policy-maker and development practitioner with
feminist considerations in order to bring the feminist project a step further in the realisation of more
caring and egalitarian politics that benefit women.
5
3. Feminist epistemologies
It was Sandra Harding (1987; 1991) who more than twenty five years ago, distinguished three views
that are still referred to as the „feminist philosophy of science‟ namely, feminist empiricism,
standpoint feminism and post-structural feminism. These feminist epistemologies4 share a common
pro-women approach whereby they challenge traditional views of science and development by
critiquing its tendency to be centred around male experiences and needs, and, on multiple levels
exclude or subordinate women‟s voices and experiences (Intemann, 2010, Alcoff and Potter, 2013;
Racine, 2011). Instead, feminisms acknowledge the social, political and normative situatedness of „the
knower‟ which shape experiences, knowledges and visions. Feminisms also advocate the inclusion of
underrepresented and marginalized voices and (lived) experiences as valuable knowledge, discourses
and constructs of power. Lastly, they share a commitment to gender justice, suggesting the need for
social change and advancing the feminist agenda for egalitarian and caring politics. However, there are
important epistemological and ontological differences to be accounted for (Potter, 2006; Intemann,
2010; Alcoff and Potter, 2013).
Feminist Empiricism
Feminist empiricism or liberal feminism found its origins in positivism and sets out from a realist
ontology of „men and women‟ and „social structures‟. Men and women are considered equally able but
dissimilar, with different qualities and endowments that can be differently valued by society. Through
empirical research it is assumed, we can describe and understand „what is real‟ and „why people act‟.
Feminist empiricism suggests that knowledge and science is „better‟ and more complete when it
constitutes and is inclusive of women. Through the inclusion of women, the male bias can be
eliminated and female characteristics (of, for example, women entrepreneurs) interpreted as benefits or
underutilized advantages that society needs to exploit and value more. Here the idea is that a more
advanced society emerges when it recognizes that women have different experiences and that they can
make valuable contributions to society. However, women may experience structural discriminating
barriers and disadvantages, embedded in society and the economy that need to be identified, treated
and eliminated. As argued by Intemann (2010) this empiricist or liberal feminism has evolved over the
years into a more contextualist and normative driven approach to science and knowledge by
recognizing that research contexts are not independent from social values and politically charged. Still,
empiricists or liberal feminism is often criticized by other feminist‟s scholars for reducing gender to
sex, thereby reifying the gendered power structures in society that women and men alike are facing
(Ahl, 2006; Calas et al, 2009).
Feminist Standpoint Epistemology
A more critical stance can be found in feminist standpoint epistemology, driven by a critical realist
approach, which posits that knowledge, „knowers‟ and societies are socially constructed and inevitably
gendered (Harraway, 1988). In contrast to empirical feminism, this epistemology is not so much
focused on empirical „men and women‟ but on gender relations – as ongoing dynamic constructs of
power that structure society. Through the reproduction of these relations in ongoing processes of
socialization, “women and men know different things in different ways” (Jackson, 2006 P. 530).
Standpoint feminism rejects the „realist‟ ontology of inter alia empiricist feminism arguing that it
reduces societies into „individual and flat objects‟ which operate only at the level of the empirical
(Intemann, 2005, 2010). People and reality, they argue, cannot be reduced to simply „act and
4 Epistemology is a theory of knowledge and answers the question of „how we know what we know‟. What counts as knowledge? Who can
be a knower?
6
experience‟. In such a critical realist approach the world is layered in the empirical, the actual and the
real whereby the real includes historically determined mechanisms, events and experiences (Bhaskar,
2008). A critical realist or a standpoint feminist for that matter is interested in understanding which
aspects of the real produce the “messy outcomes at the level of direct experiences in the everyday
world of the empirical” (Clegg, 2006, P. 316). It starts from the assumption that people live multiple,
layered identities that spring from the different social relations, history and the operation of structures
of power one can experience (Symington, 2004; Collins, 2003). People are „situated‟ members of
more than one community at the same time, and can simultaneously experience oppression and
privilege. A standpoint feminist aims to reveal these multiple identities and uncovering the different
types of exclusion and disadvantage that can occur as a consequence of the combination of identities.
It entails solving the puzzle as to why and how certain circumstances, structures or power relations are
producing certain outcomes (Clegg, 000).
Standpoint feminism carries three important theses that are worthwhile highlighting (Intemann, 2005,
2010; Alcoff and Potter, 2013). First, the „situated-knowledge thesis‟ that claims how our location
(geographically, historically and socially) systematically influences our experiences and thus limits
and shapes what we (can) know. Location here is understood as a position subjected to power relations
and inequality. Second, the „thesis of epistemic advantage‟ argues that the standpoints of particularly
marginalized groups need be treated with privilege when analysing societies and issues of social
change (Jackson, 2006). Given women‟s historically determined and constructed position in society,
black feminism for example departs from the standpoint that women‟s subordination implies
knowledge of „truer‟ accounts of reality (Racine, 2011). Likewise socialist feminists depart from the
standpoint that women have privileged access to information that informs us on how patriarchy fails to
meet people‟s needs (Harding, 2006). The third thesis that underpins standpoint feminism bears
methodological implications as it suggests that any research affecting marginalized and oppressed
groups needs to start with and be developed from the lives and experiences of these groups. In other
words, researchers always need to examine the power relations, institutional context and policies that
perpetuate subordination from the perspective of the subordinated (Crasnow, 2006).
Post-Structural Feminist Epistemology
Feminist post-structural epistemology distinguishes itself by stressing locality, instability, uncertainty,
ambiguity and contestability in any account of social reality (Alcoff and Potter, 2013). Founded in
post modern thinking, this feminist epistemology rejects any claims of objectivity and universality
found in positivist driven research and knowledge production. Instead, post-structural feminism
emphasizes discourse and, similar to standpoint feminism, the multiplicity of identities. Post
structuralism is concerned with the deconstruction of women as a political „subject‟ and understands
the „world‟ as a discursive practice. In other words, people are not „objects‟ that can be understood
through research but non-knowable „subjects‟ that both produce, and are a product of, discourse which
may be unravelled through deconstruction (Clegg, 2006; Foucault, 2012). Post structural feminism
aims to deconstruct the discourses that produce racism, patriarchy, gender and class oppression and
other systems of discrimination that can create inequalities and affect positioning of women. This is
also referred to as the concept of „intersectionality‟, which may be seen as “an analytical tool for
studying, understanding and responding to the ways in which gender intersects with other identities
and how these intersections contribute to unique experiences of oppression and privilege” (Symington,
2004, P. 2).
7
Debating its Usefulness for Entrepreneurship Promotion
As the different feminist epistemologies described above carry different approaches to gender and
entrepreneurship, they also offer different perspectives on gender and entrepreneurship as a policy
problem. As indicated by among others Welter, Brush and de Bruin (2014) feminist perspectives tend
to be more implicitly than explicitly part of entrepreneurship research, with liberal feminism more
notably present in research. For liberal feminism however, the gender gap in entrepreneurship is due to
the discrimination of women through structural barriers such as a lack of access to networks, unequal
access to finance for start-up and business growth or unequal access to property rights (Calas et al,
2009; Ahl, 2006). A liberal feminist approach to entrepreneurship and gender thus entails the
positioning of women as disadvantaged „entrepreneurs‟ due to a male dominated and organized
structures in entrepreneurial context. These structures pose limitations to entrepreneurial opportunity
for women, which subsequently can be identified and treated by entrepreneurship promotion policies
aimed at women. In other words, understanding entrepreneurship promotion through a feminist
empiricist epistemology or liberal feminist perspective thus entails the identification of those structural
discriminating barriers in society and the economy that hinder or advance women‟s entrepreneurship,
and either treat or eliminate them so that women can equally perform (and grow their businesses) as
their male counterparts. Policy questions that emerge here are: what are the best policy measures to
eliminate discrimination and disadvantages in the economy towards female entrepreneurs? How can
we unleash and boost women‟s entrepreneurial potential (and capabilities) and facilitate equal access
to resources and participation in market opportunities? The assumption and anticipated policy
outcome is that with more disadvantages and women „treated‟ and their business performance
„repaired‟ and thus included in entrepreneurial activity, the male bias in entrepreneurship can be
corrected.
Liberal feminism and the entrepreneurship research and policy it informs, has been criticised (Calas et
al 2009; Ahl, 2006; Ahl and Nelson, Marlow and Mc Adam, 2013). Calas, Smircich and Bourne
(2009) for example argue that its positivist epistemology reduces entrepreneurship to a set of
„detectable and predictable‟ activities of which the results can be measured and made visible through
research. In this way, entrepreneurship research becomes involved in „discovering‟ the capabilities and
attitudes of entrepreneurs and how they interact with opportunities. Perhaps for a policy maker this is a
very welcome approach as it purports to „prescribe‟ how to act and stimulate or intervene in individual
capacity and behaviour in order to enhance „entrepreneurial opportunity‟. But, from a standpoint
feminist perspective it is not enough to identify the disadvantages and discriminations women
entrepreneurs experience and apply the right measures to turn them into advantages or remove them.
From such a perspective it is unimaginable that the context is left intact and unaffected. Such policies
and programs would be considered ineffective as they do not address „situated problems‟. On the
contrary, entrepreneurship promotion informed by standpoint feminism would set out from delineating
the underlying and institutionalized power structures embedded in society‟s social and economic
fabric that may be reinforcing gender hierarchies and constraining women‟s entrepreneurship. It would
depart from women's gendered activities and experiences, including unpaid care work and aim at
affecting those restraining power relations. Moreover, entrepreneurship promotion informed by
standpoint feminism would be based on, and founded in situated knowledge‟s; explicitly including
those of marginalized groups and advocate for their full participation in the policy-making process.
Here, entrepreneurship is understood as a specific experience for specific people in a specific place,
and with a variety of possible outcomes, including economic value but not exclusively (Hanson, 2009)
In order to achieve certain desired outcomes whether they be economic or social, entrepreneurship
promotion informed by standpoint feminism would first try and understand how entrepreneurs in a
specific context are involved in processes of change, transformation or reproduction, and from there
8
develop a theory on how change is brought about or how stasis is maintained, and what kind of
interventions could contribute to achieving (desirable) different outcomes (Clegg, 2006).
Like standpoint feminism, post-structuralist feminism provides a powerful and useful way to conceive
of entrepreneurship as a specific experience for specific people in specific places. However, its
application for bringing about change and advancing the feminist agenda into political action and
everyday practical analysis and policy-making, has been debated and criticised (Clegg, 2006; Moi,
1999). As argued by Clegg (2006) post structuralism tends to remain at the descriptive level: it
“cannot disentangle the conditions of possibilities for (....) frameworks and the need for carefully
derived, historically specific, forms of generalization” (P. 317). The main issue is that in post-
structuralism, people are understood as merely discursive and social constructs, lacking the resources
“to act creatively in the world, thus creating conditions for transformation and change as well as social
stasis” (Clegg, 2006, P. 319). Due to its descriptive, over-relativistic and theorizing nature, it is a
challenge to derive premises for feminist political action and policy from post structuralism. Still, as
opposed to the more dominant positivist epistemology with its flat interpretation of reality, the post-
structural „tools‟ of deconstruction and intersectional analysis, unravelling the constructs and
discourses that shape societies, unique experiences and practices are applicable in problem
formulation and evaluation (Lombardo and Verloo, 2009). Its emphasis on reflexivity, locality,
intersecting identities and deconstruction of discourse may be adopted as an entrepreneurship
promotion tool.
Epistemological benefits: affecting the gendered power structures in the entrepreneurial context
Evidently, feminist perspectives enhance our understanding of entrepreneurship as a thoroughly
gendered process. As I have indicated, each of the three feminist epistemologies has something to
offer policy-making. However it is the critical realist approach found in feminist standpoint theory
that seems to provide a stronger basis for thinking through feminist concerns in entrepreneurship
promotion and most useful for putting feminist theory into practice (Clegg, 2006; Archer, 2000). If, as
standpoint feminism suggests, we can understand how women entrepreneurs set out to act and create
conditions for transformative change, by means of which strategies and using which resources, then
we can establish whether it is useful, appropriate and fruitful to intervene. Such a policy relevant
theory of change on the basis of standpoint feminism has been empirically substantiated. For example
Ahl (2012) and Muntean (2013) both found evidence of impact of policy solutions addressing
entrepreneurship contexts at multiple levels. Ahl (2012) found that the rate of women‟s
entrepreneurship grew dramatically in the US since 1972, making US entrepreneurship policy an
example for the rest of the world. However, when looking deeper into which policies were pursued, it
turned out that the anti-discrimination acts passed in 1974 and 1988 spurred the dramatic increase
rather than support programs such as entrepreneurship training and counselling that were implemented
in a later stage. In that same study, it was found that in countries where there are no (adequate) family
policies (parental leave, sponsored day care), starting a small business from home is often the only
viable solution. It is evident that such businesses are unable to meet governments and organisations
expectancies of growth, job creation and development. In such contexts, the impact of
entrepreneurship promotion policies is bound to be limited if they do not address inadequate and
poorly functioning welfare systems. Muntean (2013) convincingly suggests that policy makers
interested in improving entrepreneurial opportunities and prosperity for women should focus ensuring
the protection of fundamental freedoms and liberties in an equal manner, and secondly, on ensuring
greater and wider representation of women in higher levels of decision-making so that power is more
equally distributed and directed (including government, finance and business). Thirdly, and similar to
9
Ahl‟s study, she found that the insurance and provision of accessible, affordable and high-quality
parental leave positively affects entrepreneurial choices and experiences.
4. Premises of Feminist Entrepreneurship Promotion
Without attempting to lay down the requirements for what is „good feminist entrepreneurship
promotion‟, I propose four premises or building blocks derived from feminist epistemologies that can
inform entrepreneurship promotion devised to overcome issues of poverty, inequality and exclusion in
economic development in developing countries. In sum, I propose that a feminist driven
entrepreneurship promotion entails first, a commitment to gender justice; second, builds on situated
goals, problems and solutions; third, considers a variety of policy outcomes and appropriate solutions;
and fourth, acknowledges the gendered power relations and dynamics of the intra-household and the
unpaid care economy.
I. Committed to gender justice: politicizing gendered power relations
Following what is common in all feminist epistemologies, a first premise of feminist driven
entrepreneurship promotion entails an implicit or explicit commitment to gender justice as a goal in
itself. This means that entrepreneurship promotion programs and policies have clear defined goals and
theories of change, indicating how the policy or program designed benefits women in particular and
the advancement of a gender just egalitarian society in general. It would also mean that every policy,
legislation or development program should be evaluated from the perspective of whether or not it
reproduces, reduces or increases gender inequalities. From a standpoint feminist perspective, what is
crucial here is that entrepreneurship promotion should not ignore the gendered power relations
embedded in the underlying structures that define the entrepreneurial context and shape
entrepreneurial behaviour. Instead, these gendered power relations should be „politicized‟ and become
an explicit part of the policy goal and its intentions. Lombardo, Meier and Verloo (2009) argue how
the „bending of gender-equality‟ towards others goals, may have particular consequences for policy
outcomes. In their view the issue of gender equality then becomes „depoliticized‟, not representing it
as society‟s problem and thus a political issue.
“(...) when discourses, such as that of „economic growth‟, are represented as unquestioned and
overarching political goals, this limits the possibilities of actors to contest them and the
chances of unveiling power dynamics that are embedded (but silenced) in the process” (Rönnblom,
2005).
In entrepreneurship promotion, whereby the policy rationale to support female entrepreneurs in
developing countries is nowadays commonly framed in terms of „gender-equality equals smart
economics‟, the risk is that reducing its goal to merely economic goals and benefits, the power
dynamics as part of the problem get neutralized and as a result, solutions to affect or change these are
ignored (Razavi, 2011; Brickell, 2011). Drawing on post-structural feminism, feminist driven
entrepreneurship would not only use a feminist analysis when defining „what is the problem‟ but also
be concerned about „what does not get problematized‟ (Bacchi, 1999). What is key here for policy
makers and development practitioners is to continuously deconstruct and reflect upon „who or what is
seen to be holding the problem of the gender bias in entrepreneurship‟? Applying the reasoning of
Lombardo, Meier and Verloo (2009), feminist driven entrepreneurship thus entails an approach in
which gender justice is a goal in itself, because it has consequences for entrepreneurial context and
behaviour, and addressing patriarchy, treating the gender bias in society is explicitly mentioned as part
of the solution. This way, unequal power relations between women and men can be questioned and
10
affected, opening up new pathways and opportunities for change5. As a result, policy makers can
consider a variety of „solutions‟, targeting underlying gendered structures.
II. Build on situated policy goals, problems and solutions
From a standpoint feminist perspective entrepreneurship promotion is to have specific solutions,
addressing the specific goals and problems specific people pursue and experience in specific places.
Entrepreneurship promotion from a feminist perspective would this entail defining its goals, problems
and solutions through „situated knowledge‟s‟. Meaning, in processes of policy design, implementation
and evaluation the gender-specific and often diverse interests and values of differently situated women
and men are explicitly taken into account (Harraway, 1988; True, 2010). Key here are the everyday
experiences, perspectives and activities of women and men within and outside their families,
businesses, communities and the marketplace. Policy-making process should thus entail a thorough
analysis (using situated knowledge) of those gendered structures in society and the economy that
maintain and reproduce gender inequalities that affect and shape the entrepreneurial context and
behaviour. Such deep analysis allows broad understanding of „where‟ the problem and solution are
located or situated, whether in the organization of the economy, the social, the legal or in the
household. These different ways of understanding the problem can subsequently generate completely
different solutions. Here, the thesis of „epistemic advantage‟ presents an important „tool‟ for policy-
makers and development practitioners. While agreeing with Jackson (2006) that essentializing
women‟s knowledge is problematic, for the purpose of policy-making and defining „situated goals,
problems and solutions is precisely the inclusion of women‟s unique experiences, which makes
knowledge „truer‟ and thus of the uttermost importance. The explicit inclusion of women‟s
experiences as a policy building block would not only make entrepreneurship promotion „better‟ in
terms of representation. One could also hypothesize that entrepreneurship promotion, which is built
upon situated knowledge will produce solutions that are better equipped to support women‟s efforts to
interact with structural constraints and conditions and their attempts to reform, transform and
overcome their disadvantaged positions. In addition, the post-structural concept of intersectionality
can be a powerful tool of analysis to think through, deconstruct and address how multiple identities
shape oppression and privilege. For those policies and programs that include the intention to overcome
poverty and generate gender just inclusive development, as is the case in many entrepreneurship
programs, it would be appropriate that marginalized and subordinated groups, acknowledging their
multiple identities are represented throughout the policy-making process. Thus the critical questions
for a policy-maker and development practitioner to be asked are: who has or should have a voice in the
policy-making process and say how the problem of gender inequality or exclusive development can be
solved through entrepreneurship promotion? How can underlying gendered power structures that
constrain inclusive economic growth be addressed through entrepreneurship promotion? As pointed
out by Ferree (2009) it is important to constantly reflect on how local context creates a „web of
meanings‟ which can help the policy-maker understand why in different contexts one finds a particular
approach to overcoming inequalities rather than another (Ferree, 2009). This calls for locally
embedded and participatory approaches to policy-making and the key importance of including and
building upon the lived experiences in daily life of women and men.
5 Just as policy analysts and development practitioners regularly carry out cost–benefit analyses or program impact studies, they can benefit
from the use of „situated knowledge and data‟ as the basis for conducting „gender-audits‟, „gender-risk assessments‟, gender-impact studies‟
or „gender-proofing‟, when designing and evaluating their policies, proposals and programs and make use of the wide-spread experience that
is available on „doing gender‟ in policy and program development and adapt or develop specific and appropriate tools for doing gender in
entrepreneurship promotion.
11
III. Considers a variety of policy outcomes: changing places
In contrast to the common perception that entrepreneurship is a positive activity, contributing to
growth and development or even reducing poverty, in a more feminist approach other outcomes would
also be considered. Following a critical realist stance as seen in feminist standpoint epistemology,
entrepreneurship may be seen as a process of social change, and part of everyday life, which does not
per se deliver positive outcomes defined in terms of growth and development. Feminist driven
entrepreneurship promotion would consider a variety of outcomes, including negative ones such as the
reproduction of gender stereotypes and inequalities, further exploitation of women‟s labour and the
overstretching of women‟s double burden. Outcomes then get a more transformative character,
thinking beyond the impact of entrepreneurship on economic opportunities. Feminist driven
entrepreneurship promotion in that sense potentially may change the life of a household, a
neighborhood, or a larger place through job creation for women, introducing gender-friendly support
structures in the work-place, gendered innovations, empowerment or re-negotiating the gendered work
division. This is in line with growing body of feminist driven research, which convincingly
demonstrates that in complex realities there is not one single trajectory that leads to positive change.
Barrientos and Evers (2013) for example have argued that the rise of female employment in global
production networks has contributed both to the advancement as well as to the further subordination of
women in developing countries. Also Kabeer (2014) found contradicting evidence on how changes in
the global market have both „pushed‟ women into the formal economy on one hand, and expanding
women‟s presence in the informal economy on the other. Hanson (2009) on the other hand found that
“although entrepreneurship is marked by deep stereotypical gender divisions, it is also one through
which people can change the meaning of gender and the way in which gender is lived” (P. 1).
Entrepreneurship potentially can change places, according to Hanson most notably through its social
relations and should be seen as a process that is both the cause and consequence of gender bias and
hierarchies in a number of ways. Feminist driven entrepreneurship promotion would thus be engaged
with asking questions such as what are the effects of private sector development on men and women
and how do they adjust to these changes? How might we use entrepreneurship as an instrument to
advance the feminist agenda?
IV. Beyond the doorstep: Acknowledge the link between entrepreneurship and the family
As pointed out in standpoint feminism, understanding and addressing how the gendered hierarchy of
patriarchy shapes everyday gendered relations of productive and unpaid care work is key in changing
any society. Feminist driven entrepreneurship promotion would thus entail an explicit recognition of
the deeply gendered structures of the usually left for granted or invisible unpaid care economy and
intra-household relationships in which most women operate and how these shape entrepreneurial
context and define outcomes of entrepreneurial behaviour (Razavi, 2013). According to Chant and
Brickell (2013) one of the main factors that perpetuate (and potentially intensify) gender disparities in
society is the fact that household and family are usually not addressed in policy interventions. A
growing body of knowledge demonstrates empirical evidence of how entrepreneurship cannot be
viewed in isolation of the family and society‟s gendered work division of unpaid care and reproductive
work (Ahl, 2012; for an overview see Vossenberg, 2013). Feminist driven entrepreneurship promotion
would entail the recognition of the fact that entrepreneurial behaviour and context is clearly shaped
and defined through these processes, given the fact that worldwide women‟s position in society to a
large extend depends on how care and the family is organized (elderly care, parental leave, day care,
etc.) and whether family policies or care services are provided by the market or state (Ahl, 2012).
Feminist driven entrepreneurship promotion might benefit from this recognition by building upon
locally situated data and knowledge on gendered hierarchies in households and related issues, such as
the distribution of labour and care responsibilities, headship, time investment and intra-household
12
power relationships and structures. It is worrisome that such knowledge and experiences remain
absent from policy analysis and contemporary databases that are widely used to shape and formulate
economic policy and private sector development6. By ignoring the family and the inseparable link
between entrepreneurship and care work, entrepreneurship promotion potentially risks losing out on
important opportunities for social change and gender inclusive development and instead adds up to the
work burden women already experience (Kabeer, 2014; Elson 1989; 1991; 2013).
The household and its family relationships are often considered as „off limits‟, especially in economic
development policy-making (Chant and Brickell, 2013). How family and domestic circumstances and
conditions might affect the business and access to resources are seldom addressed or analyzed.
Consequently, this (crucial) part of people‟s everyday lives remains beyond the span of influence. In
turn, no attention is paid to which household arrangements might be more „enabling‟ spaces for
entrepreneurship then others, resulting in growth, social change or empowerment (Kabeer, 2013).
Reasons Chant and Brickell (2013) argue may be that intervening in gendered family and household
dynamics are long term processes that might not be directly traceable (and measureable) by policy
interventions, leaving policy-makers unable to demonstrate (short term) impact (see also Pearson,
2007; Abeysekera 2004). They find that especially Northern donors demonstrate a reluctance and lack
of commitment to not only address and transform underlying intra-household gender inequalities but
moreover, acknowledge this in policy problem analysis. The home and family are seen as „private
domains‟ and undesirable objects of policy interference. Indeed, the recognition and examination of
the patriarchal power relations within a family or household Chant and Brickell (2013) argue, raises an
obvious dilemma: „how to treat the gender bias without shaking the foundations of the (idealized)
family unit?‟. Here lies an important task for those engaged with entrepreneurship promotion and
interested in change towards gender just inclusive economic development to move the debate beyond
feminist critique and into feminist engagement. We need to open up the domestic context for debate
and start asking the policy question: how can entrepreneurship promotion support men and women
when daily challenging and bending gendered power structures in their household and domestic
contexts that potentially constrain or advance entrepreneurial behavior?
5. Concluding remarks
Feminist critique echoes that most entrepreneurship research and policy formulation shares in a
discourse of economic growth and individualism while applying a liberal perspective of gender,
leaving patriarchal society unquestioned, ignoring women‟s role in unpaid care work and the gendered
powers in the domestic context. As a result such policy formulation does not aim to overcome the
underlying power structures that set structural barriers to the advancement of women‟s
entrepreneurship. In this paper it is argued that feminist perspectives can enhance our understanding
of entrepreneurship as a thoroughly gendered process which may shed light on how and why
businesses (don‟t) grow or graduate, if and how it leads to women‟s economic empowerment and how
it contributes to gender just inclusive growth? When we approach entrepreneurship promotion through
feminist epistemologies, fruitful and powerful premises for policy-making and program development
emerge. The differences lie in the conceptualization of entrepreneurship, women and gender which
may affect the design and formulation of the policy goal, problem analysis and strategies selected as
solutions to be implemented. As a result, policy intentions and outcomes potentially differ in terms of
effectiveness on advancing the poverty, development and gender justice agenda. I have argued that the
6 For example the Gender Inequality Index (UNDP), the Global Gender Gap Index (WEF) and the Global Entrepreneurship Women‟s Report
(GEM).
13
„critical realist‟ approach as found in feminist standpoint epistemology provides a strong basis for
thinking through feminist concerns about entrepreneurship promotion, and seems the most useful for
putting feminist theory into practice.
Table 1
Premises Feminist Driven Entrepreneurship Promotion Policy questions
I. Committed to gender justice
Commitment to gender justice is a goal in itself and entrepreneurship promotion need to have clear defined goals and theories of change, indicating how it aims to benefit women in particular and the advancement of gender just inclusive development in general.
How does entrepreneurship promotion reproduce, reduce or increase gender inequalities? Who or what is seen to be holding the problem of the gender bias in entrepreneurship?
II. Build on situated goals, problems and solutions
Entrepreneurship is a specific experience of specific people in specific places. Entrepreneurship promotion needs to define its goals, problems and solutions through „situated knowledge‟s‟.
What specific people, in specific places have or should have a voice in entrepreneurship promotion? How can specific underlying gendered power structures that constrain inclusive
economic growth be specifically addressed through appropriate entrepreneurship promotion?
III. Considers
different outcomes, besides economic values
Entrepreneurship is a phenomenon that can
reproduce, increase or decrease gendered local practices in a number of negative and positive ways. In entrepreneurship promotion such different outcomes need to be considered and evaluated.
How does entrepreneurship promotion
affect daily lives and experiences of individuals and communities? How can we use entrepreneurship as an instrument to advance the feminist agenda and change places?
IV. Acknowledges women‟s unpaid care work and intra-household power dynamics
Women play a predominant role in unpaid care work and households are sites of gendered power that affect entrepreneurial context and behaviour which need to be acknowledged and included in the policy-making process of defining goals, problems and solutions.
How can entrepreneurship promotion support men and women when daily challenging and bending gendered power structures in their household and domestic contexts that potentially constrain or advance entrepreneurial behavior?
Using a feminist approach to entrepreneurship promotion means to see value in, and explicitly include
what is usually ignored and under-valued in the policy-making process of problem definition and
evaluation. It also means that the phenomenon of entrepreneurship needs to be understood as a local
practice, in a specific context and in which gendered power structures are key to shape specific
entrepreneurial experiences and behaviours. In practice this would mean for example that „women
entrepreneurs‟ are not considered a homogenous group with unified problems that can be addresses
through gender-neutral programs nor „special women‟s programs‟. Instead, entrepreneurship
promotion is to have specific goals and solutions, addressing the specific problems that specific people
experience in specific places. It is assumed here that gender inequalities and gendered outcomes of
entrepreneurship can be addressed, transformed and eradicated by applying a feminist lens and gender-
sensitive approach in entrepreneurship promotion. My next step however, is to further explore whether
such feminist driven entrepreneurship promotion in the developing context has been either designed or
assessed and what can be said about its practices, instruments, effects and challenges? Needless to say,
further modifying and developing these premises in entrepreneurship promotion practice would bear a
rich exercise as it may sharpen and improve the design of future entrepreneurship promotion. This
may move the debate beyond critiquing the neo-liberal economic discourses dominant in
entrepreneurship promotion, towards deepening our understanding of how to engage with these
discourses and transform policy and program outcomes in such a way that they can address feminist
concerns.
14
References
Abeysekera, S. (2004). Social Movements, Feminist Movements and the State: A Regional Perspective. ISIS: Women in
Action. Examining feminist and social movements, Manila, 34-50.
Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5),
595-621.
Ahl, H. (2012). Comparing entrepreneurship policy in different welfare state regimes: lessons from a feminist perspective.
In: The joint ACERE-DIANA International Entrepreneurship Conference (pp. 11-11).
Ahl, H., and Nelson, T. (2010). Moving forward: institutional perspectives on gender and entrepreneurship. International
Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 5-9.
Alcoff, L., M., and Potter, E. (Eds.). (2013). Feminist epistemologies. Routledge.
Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge University Press.
Bacchi, C. L. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. Sage.
Bacchi, C. (2005). Discourse, Discourse Everywhere: Subject “Agency” in Feminist Discourse Methodology. Nordic Journal
of Women‟s Studies 13(3): 198–209.
Bacchi, C. (2009). The Issue of Intentionality in Frame Theory: The Need for Reflexive Framing. Pp. 19–35 in E. Lombardo,
P. Meier and M. Verloo (2009) The Discursive Politics of Gender Equality: Stretching, Bending and Policymaking. London:
Routledge.
Baughn, C. C., Chua, B. L., and Neupert, K. E. (2006). The normative context for women's participation in entrepreneurship:
a multicountry study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 687-708.
Barrientos, S., and Kabeer, N. (2013). Enhancing female employment in global production: policy implications. Global
Social Policy, 4(2), 153-169.
Barrientos, S., and Evers, B. (2013). Gendered Production Networks. In: Rai and Waylen (2013) New Frontiers in Feminist
Political Economy. London: Routledge.
Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. Taylor and Francis.
Brickell, K. (2011). The „Stubborn Stain‟ on Development: Gendered Meanings of Housework (Non-) Participation in
Cambodia. Journal of Development Studies, 47(9), 1353-1370.
De Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., and Welter, F. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: towards building cumulative knowledge
on women's entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and practice, 30(5), 585-593.
Bradshaw, S. (2008). From Structural Adjustment to Social Adjustment A Gendered Analysis of Conditional Cash Transfer
Programmes in Mexico and Nicaragua. Global Social Policy, 8(2), 188-207.
Bruin, de, Brush and Welter (2007). Advancing a Framework for Coherent Research on Women‟s Entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Volume 31, Issue 3: 323–339.
Brush, de Bruin and Welter (2009) A gender-aware Framework for women‟s entrepreneurship. International Journal of
Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol.1, No. 1, 2009, p. 8-24.
Butler (1990) Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London, New York: Routledge.
Calás, M. B., Smircich, L., & Bourne, K. A. (2009). Extending the boundaries: Reframing “entrepreneurship as social
change” through feminist perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 552-569.
15
Carter, S and Marlow, S. (2003) Accounting for change: Professionalism as a challenge to gender disadvantage in
entrepreneurship. In J. Butler (Ed.), New perspectives on women entrepreneurs, p. 181–202, Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Chant, S. H. (2007). Gender, generation and poverty: exploring the feminisation of poverty in Africa, Asia and Latin
America. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Chant, S., and Brickell, K. (2013). Domesticating and de-patriarchalizing the development agenda. In: Rai and Waylen
(2013) New Frontiers in Feminist Political Economy, London: Routledge.
Clegg, S. (2006). The problem of agency in feminism: A critical realist approach. Gender and Education, 18(3), 309-324.
Cornwall, A., Harrison, E., and Whitehead, A. (Eds.). (2007). Feminisms in development: contradictions, contestations and
challenges. Zed Books
Collins, P. H. (2000). Gender, black feminism, and black political economy. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 568(1), 41-53.
Collins, P. H. (2003). Some group matters: Intersectionality, situated standpoints, and black feminist thought. In Tommy Lee
Lott & John P. Pittman (eds.), A Companion to African-American Philosophy. Blackwell Pub. (2003)
Crasnow, S. (2006). Feminist anthropology and sociology: Issues for social science. Handbook of the philosophy of
science, 15.
Duflo, E (2011). Women‟s Empowerment and Economic Development. Journal of Economic Literature 2012, 50(4), 1051–
1079.
Elson, D. (2013). Economic Crisis from the 1980s to the 2010s. In: Rai and Waylen (2013) New Frontiers in Feminist
Political Economy, 189. Routledge: London.
Elson, D. (Ed.). (1991). Male bias in the development process. Manchester University Press.
Elson, D. (1993). Gender‐aware analysis and development economics. Journal of International Development, 5(2), 237-247.
Ferree, M. M. (2009). Inequality, intersectionality and the politics of discourse. The discursive politics of gender equality.
London: Routledge, 86-104.
Foucault, M. (2012). The archaeology of knowledge. Random House LLC.
Greene, P. G., Brush, C. G., and Gatewood, E. J. (2006). Perspectives on women entrepreneurs: past findings and new
directions. Entrepreneurship: The Engine of Growth, 1, 181-204.
Goedhuys, M., and L. Sleuwaegen (2002). Growth of Firms in Developing Countries, Evidence from Cote d‟Ivoire, Journal
of Development Economics, 68: 117-35.
Goedhuys, M. and L. Sleuwaegen (2010). High-Growth Entrepreneurial Firms in Africa: a Quantile Regression Approach,
Small Business Economics, 34: 31–51.
Hanson, S. (2009). Changing places through women's entrepreneurship. Economic Geography, 85(3), 245-267.
Harding, S. (1987) Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology: p. 1–14.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Harding, S. (1987) Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology: p. 1–14.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Harding, S. (1991) Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women‟s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
16
Harding, S. (2006). Science and social inequality: Feminist and postcolonial issues. University of Illinois Press.
Harraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial
perspective. Feminist studies, 575-599.
Hughes, K. D., Jennings, J. E., Brush, C., Carter, S., and Welter, F. (2012). Extending women's entrepreneurship research in
new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 429-442.
Intemann, K. (2005). Feminism, underdetermination, and values in science. Philosophy of science, 72(5), 1001-1012.
Intemann, K. (2010). 25 Years of Feminist Empiricism and Standpoint Theory: Where Are We Now? Hypatia, 25(4), 778-
796.
Jackson, C. (2006). Feminism spoken here: Epistemologies for interdisciplinary development research. Development and
Change, 37(3), 525-547.
Jamali, D. (2009). Constraints and opportunities facing women entrepreneurs in developing countries: a relational
perspective. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 24(4), 232-251.
James, A. (2012). Conceptualizing “woman” as an entrepreneurial advantage: A reflexive approach. In: K.D. Hughes andJ.E.
Jennings(Eds.), Global women's entrepreneurship research: Diverse settings, questions and approaches (pp. 226–240).
Cheltenham/Northampton, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
Kabeer, N. (1994). Reversed realities: Gender hierarchies in development thought. Verso.
Kabeer, N. (2013). Paid work, women‟s empowerment and inclusive growth. UN Women Policy Paper, UN Women.
Kabeer, N. (2014). Gender and Social Protection Strategies in the Informal Economy. London: Routledge.
Kelley, J. D., Brush, G. C., Greene, G. P., and Y. Litovsky (2013). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2012 Women's
Report. Center for Women‟s Leadership, Babson College.
Lombardo, E., Meier, P., andVerloo, M. (2010). Discursive Dynamics in Gender Equality Politics What about „Feminist
Taboos‟? European Journal of Women's Studies, 17(2), 105-123.
Lombardo, E., Meier, P., and Verloo, M. (Eds.). (2009). The discursive politics of gender equality: stretching, bending and
policy-making. Routledge: London.
Lombardo, E., & Verloo, M. (2009). Institutionalizing intersectionality in the European Union? Policy developments and
contestations. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 11(4), 478-495.
Moi, T. (1999). What Is a Woman? Sex, Gender, and the Body in Feminist Theory. What is a woman? And other essays, 3-
120.
Marlow, S., and M. McAdam (2013). Gender and entrepreneurship: advancing debate and challenging myths; exploring the
mystery of the under-performing female entrepreneur. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
Research, 19(1), 114-124.
Minniti, M., and W. Naudé (2010). What Do We Know About The Patterns and Determinants of Female Entrepreneurship
Across Countries? European Journal of Development Research, 22(3), 277-293.
Muntean, S. C. (2013). Wind beneath my wings: policies promoting high-growth oriented women
entrepreneurs. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 36-59.
Naudé, W. and A. Szirmai (2013), Industrial Policy for Development, UNU-WIDER Policy Brief, Number 2, 2013.
17
Pearson, R. (2007). Reassessing paid work and women's empowerment: lessons from the global economy. In: Cornwall, A.,
Harrison, E., & Whitehead, A. (Eds.). (2007). Feminisms in development: contradictions, contestations and challenges. Zed
Books.
Potter, E. (2006). Feminism and philosophy of science. Routledge: London
Racine, L. (2011). The Impact of Race, Gender, and Class in Postcolonial Feminist Fieldwork: A Retrospective Critique of
Methodological Dilemmas.Aporia, 3(1).
Rai, S. M., and G. Waylen (2013). New Frontiers in Feminist Political Economy. Routledge: London.
Razavi, S. (2011). World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development: An Opportunity Both Welcome and
Missed (An Extended Commentary). United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).
Razavi, S., and Staab, S. (Eds.). (2012). Global Variations in the Political and Social Economy of Care: Worlds Apart (Vol.
8). Routledge: London.
Rönnblom, M. (2005). Letting women in? Gender mainstreaming in regional policies. Nordic Journal of Women's
Studies, 13(03), 164-174.
Sholkamy, H. (2010). Power, Politics and Development in the Arab Context: Or how can rearing chicks change patriarchy &
quest. Development, 53(2), 254-258.
Szirmai, A., W. Naudé and M. Goedhuys (2011). Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and EconomicDevelopment, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: WW Norton.
Symington, A. (2004). Intersectionality: A Tool for Gender and Economic Justice. Women‟s Rights and Economic
Change. Association for Women‟s Rights in Development (AWID) No, 9, 4.
True, J. (2010). Mainstreaming gender in international institutions. Gender Matters in Global Politics: A feminist
introduction to international relations, 189-203.
Verloo, M., and Lombardo, E. (2007). Contested gender equality and policy variety in Europe: Introducing a critical frame
analysis approach. Multiple Meanings of Gender Equality. A Critical Frame Analysis of Gender Policies in Europe, 21-49.
Verloo, M. M. T., and van der Vleuten, J. M. (2009). The discursive logic of ranking and benchmarking: Understanding
gender equality measures in the European Union. In: Lombardo, E., Meier, P., & Verloo, M. (Eds.). (2009). The discursive
politics of gender equality: stretching, bending and policy-making. Routledge.
Vossenberg, S. (2013). Women Entrepreneurship Promotion in Developing Countries: What explains the gender gap in
entrepreneurship and how to close it? Maastricht School of Management Working Paper Series, No. 2013/08.
Walby, S (2005). Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Tensions in Theory and Practice. Social Politics 12(3): 321–43.
Woodward, K. (Ed.). (2004). Questioning identity: gender, class, nation. Routledge: London.
Welter, F., Brush, C., and de Bruin, A. (2014). The gendering of entrepreneurship context (No. 01/14). Working Paper,
Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (IfM) Bonn.
Win, E. J. (2004). Not very poor, powerless or pregnant: The African woman forgotten by development. IDS Bulletin, 35(4),
61-64.