Gender Embeddedness of Women Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Test of the 5M Framework

Gender Embeddedness of Women Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Test of the 5M Framework Candida Brush, Babson College USA I. Elaine Allen, Babson College USA Anne de Bruin, Massey University, New Zealand Friederike Welter, Jönköping International Business School, Sweden ABSTRACT New research argues that women s socialization leads them to perceive opportunities differently, that social roles/place may exclude them from social networks and institutional aspects affect women differently. The 5M framework, rooted in social embeddedness literature, proposes a new lens for examining how market, money, management, macro/meso environment and motherhood influences men and women entrepreneurs. Using data from the 2009 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, we empirically test part of this framework focusing on the effects of motherhood/family embeddedness on perceptions of opportunity and business aspirations of male and female entrepreneurs. Results show significant differences between male and female entrepreneurs. INTRODUCTION The emerging debate about differences between male and female entrepreneurs traditionally focuses on comparisons of characteristics of male and female entrepreneurs, or the business activities and performance of male and female owners (Greene, Brush & Gatewood, 2006). Theory predicting differences by sex is less developed. Instead, most theory is gender neutral presuming entrepreneurial behavior is the result of some individuals having better information (Shane, 2003) which leads some people to discover opportunities while others do not (Kirzner, 1985). In contrast, recent research suggests women are socialized differently and therefore will perceive opportunities in a different way (DeTienne & Chandler, 2007), that social roles/place of women might exclude them from social networks therefore creating information asymmetries (Welter, et al, 2006), and that institutional aspects of entrepreneurship do affect women differentially (Baughn, Chua and Neupert, 2006). New theoretical development in women s entrepreneurship proposes a gender aware framework comprised of 5 Ms (Brush, de Bruin & Welter, 2009). The framework is rooted in the premise that entrepreneurship is socially embedded (Davidsson, 2003) and draws from institutional theory. The model is organized around three Ms, market, money and management that are described as the building blocks of business viability (Bates, et al, 2007). Market encapsulates the opportunity, management refers to the human and organizational capital, and money refers to financial capital. The gender aware frameworks adds motherhood, which is a metaphor representing the household/family context, proposing that this has a larger impact on women than men in the entrepreneurial process (Jennings & McDougald, 2007). The fifth M is the environment, meso, reflecting intermediate structures and institutions, and macro, referring to expectations of society and cultural norms. The authors argue that this framework is intended to be holistic, but at the same time suggests that distinct gender differences would be identified because of the gender embeddedness of women (de Bruin, et al, 2007). This research empirically tests one aspect of this framework, the effects of motherhood/household embeddedness on male and female entrepreneurs. We utilize data from the 2009 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) which includes a representative sample of the adult population over 54 countries. The following sections present a brief literature review, discussion of the methodology, discussion of results and conclusions. LITERATURE REVIEW There is general agreement that venture creation is generally organized around three basic constructs, namely market, money and management ( 3Ms ). An entrepreneur needs to have access to markets (Schumpeter, 1934; Kirzner, 1985; Shane, 2003), money (Penrose, 1964; Bruno & Tyebjee, 1982) and management (in the form of human and organizational capital) (Aldrich, 1999) in order to launch a venture. These encompass what Bates et al. (2007) describe as the three fundamental building blocks of business viability. These building blocks derive from a mainstream economics and management-driven view of entrepreneurship. Bates et al. (2007) argue that these 3Ms

are central to the foundation of any business, yet for minority business enterprises there are barriers when attempting to access these building blocks. Brush, de Bruin and Welter (2009) build on the framework proposed by Bates et al. (2007) and extend this to a 5 M framework. They begin with the premise that all entrepreneurship is socially embedded (Davidsson, 2003, Steyaert & Katz, 2004), and propose that in order to holistically study women s entrepreneurship norms, values and external expectations must also be considered (Elam, 2008). It is argued that the 3M framework be qualified, and then expanded to include motherhood and the meso and macro environment. They argue that the concepts of money, market and management must take into account any uniqueness of women s entrepreneurship, by suggesting a male-bias emerges not necessarily by intention but rather by omission, namely the failure to consider the underpinning reasons why and how female entrepreneurs and their businesses are different. There is no denying that for both men and women entrepreneurs are quite similar in terms of motivations, and face the same challenges in access to markets, financial capital (money) and management (human and organizational capital). However, it is also argued that embeddedness may lead to different access to money, markets, human and organizational capital (Brush, Carter, Gatewood, Greene & Hart, 2007). For example, it is well known that the venture capital industry is geographically concentrated and heavily male dominated with implications for women s access to funding for growth (Brush, Greene, Hart, and Saparito, 2001). The macro environment is typically defined as the national level policies, culture, laws and economy. It impacts gender socialization, which pervades a wide range of decision-making contexts. As Peng and Heath (1996) stress, institutional frameworks signal acceptable choices and determine which norms and behaviors are socialized into individuals and organizations in particular societies. These social, cultural, and institutional arrangements frame not only how many women perceive opportunities and make strategic choices, but also how these women and others view their businesses. Particularly pertinent is how the gatekeepers of resources as well as the power holders, be it in the household and community or at the wider societal levels, have an impact, often subtle or hidden, on the entrepreneurial activity of women. In the venture capital industry, the small numbers of women who control access to equity capital is a case in point (Brush et al., 2004). The meso environment refers to the intermediate structures / institutions between the macro society- and economywide level and the micro level (Pitelis, 2005; Dopfer, Foster & Potts, 2004). 1 This dimension includes work and organized social life (Aldrich, 1989). Meso institutions include occupational networks, business associations and the like and industries. There is increasing recognition that networking activity and social capital play an important role in women business owners access to financial capital (cf. Carter et al., 2003; Shaw et al., 2006). Industries can be gendered in terms of image (Barrett, 1998) and in terms of occupational segregation, which may make it more or less difficult for women to enter certain arenas of business (Blau, Ferber & Winkler, 2002). While the macro and meso environments are intimately linked, they are particularly highlighted when considering a social capital perspective, the societal context in which women are embedded and how this may translate into distinct noneconomic gender differences that pose unique challenges to women s enterprise. Brush et al (2009) define Motherhood as a metaphor that represents the household/family context 2, and highlights the fact that family/household contexts might have a larger impact on women than men (Jennings & McDougald, 2007). Recognizing the household/family rather than the individual as a unit of analysis follows earlier work in entrepreneurship (Brush & Manolova, 2004) and in neoclassical economic analysis which has moved from the individual to inclusion of the family assuming utility maximization of a joint utility function and simple optimality of household division of labor and distribution of income (see e.g. Folbre 1986). This approach draws on current work by Aldrich and Cliff (2003) who examine the roles of family members and relationships in the 20 th century in the US, showing how these changes can influence opportunity emergence and recognition, the decision to set up a new venture and access to resources. Carter and Ram (2003) also show that family and household both influence access to resources. 1 The individual and family in economic analysis are at the micro level. 2 The terms household and family are used interchangeably as is common with economists but acknowledge that the terms are complex and drawing their boundaries difficult. For instance, family might involve kin and extended family that could span across households bringing in an inter-household dimension.

The 5M framework shows overlapping boundaries and interdependencies (See Figure 1). Motherhood is at the center and shows the importance the role and position of a woman in the family, as well as symbolizing the centrality of meaningful gender awareness and analysis to the whole framework as well. The abbreviated lettering M HER to identify this component places the spotlight on gender as a process integral to business ownership (Mirchandani, 1999: 230). The 3 M building blocks - market, money and management - are shown with circles. At the top is Market which is also shown as encapsulating opportunity, while entry and survival in the market, requires money and management, the bottom two circles. These might be regarded as the enablers of opportunity exploitation. Surrounding the circles are the all-encompassing influences that mediate and shape the other components. A central logic of this framework suggests that motherhood/family embeddedness will influence aspects of entrepreneurial behavior. Simultaneously however, overarching forces of society and culture (cultural embeddedness) impact on the family/household context. In the case of women entrepreneurs, most societies mainly define women through roles connected to family and household responsibilities; and these societal values filter through to the household level. Thus, family embeddedness will directly influence how the entrepreneurial process unfolds, as the role of women in families (as prescribed by society) will influence whether and how women identify a market opportunity. Hence women with high commitment to family may be less likely to interact in market/financial/industry networks, possibly affecting the growth prospects or even novelty of the venture. In a similar vein, family embeddedness can influence entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the aspirations for the exploitation and/or value of the opportunity. In this paper, we therefore focus only on the effects of motherhood/family embeddedness to empirically investigate the 5M framework. We examine perceptions of opportunity and growth to propose two exploratory research questions for this study: 1. What is the effect of motherhood/family embeddedness on the perception of opportunity among male and female entrepreneurs? 2. What is the effect of motherhood/family embeddedness on business goals and aspirations for growth of ventures founded by male and female entrepreneurs? RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This study uses data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) for 2009 (Bosma, Autio, Coduras & Levie, 2010). GEM takes a broad view of entrepreneurship and focuses on the role played by individuals in the entrepreneurial process and therefore, studies the behavior of individuals starting and managing businesses. In 2009, GEM surveyed a representative sample of the adult population in 54 countries; over 150,000 individuals were interviewed by telephone or in person. The data were harmonized to produce uniform categories for educational level, income level, and work status. To examine levels of economic development, the countries are divided into factor driven, efficiency driven, and innovation driven based on a country s GDP and in terms of their imports and exports (Bosma, et al, 2009). Entrepreneurship is divided into three categories: Nascent businesses are those firms that were started in the last three months or are planned for start-up in the next three months; Baby businesses are those firms between three and forty-two months of age; and Established businesses are firms older than forty-two months. Following previous work, our measures of motherhood/household embeddedness include household size, advice from spouse, parents and other relatives (Brush & Manolova, 2004). Similar to other studies of women s entrepreneurship, opportunity is measured by perceptions of the opportunity and perceived fear of failure (DeTienne & Chandler, 2007). Aspirations for growth are measured by expected size of the firm in the next five years (Carter et al, 2003). Analyses include descriptive statistics using means for continuous data and frequencies, cross-tabulations, and percents for categorical and ordinal data. For categorical data, chi-squared statistics were calculated to examine significant differences by gender. Analyses of variance with multiple comparisons were used to compare means for gender and other categorical variables.

To examine the effect of motherhood/family embeddedness on perceptions of entrepreneurship opportunity and on expectations for growth, generalized linear models were fit to the data. Perceptions of entrepreneurial opportunity are an ordinal variable ranging from 0 to 3 where increasing values indicate higher perceived opportunity for entrepreneurship. Growth of the business in the next five years is an integer indicating the size of the firm in five years. RESULTS Table #1 shows the rates of entrepreneurship categorized by level of country development. The 2009 GEM report grouped countries into three stages of economic development as defined by the World Economic Forum s Global Competitiveness Report: factor-driven, efficiency-driven and innovation-driven. The classification by phases of economic development was based on the level of GDP per capita and the extent to which countries are factor-driven in terms of the shares of exports of primary goods in total exports. Factor-driven economies are primarily extractive in nature, while efficiency-driven economies exhibit scale-intensity as a major driver of development. At the innovation-driven stage of development, economies are characterized by their production of new and unique goods and services that are created via sophisticated, and often pioneering, methods. As countries develop economically, they may move to a different category. Factor-driven economies exhibit the highest rates of entrepreneurship generally, followed by efficiency-driven and then innovation-driven economies. As Table#1 indicates, in the 2009 GEM report there were 12 factor-driven economies, 22 efficiency-driven economies, and 20 innovation-driven economies included in the analyses. The 2009 GEM report shows that the rates of entrepreneurship for males are generally higher across all 54 countries, consistent with the past eleven years of the study (See Table #2). Only in Tonga and Brazil do women have a slightly higher rate of entrepreneurship, while some countries reflect male entrepreneurship almost twice the rate of women (Lebanon, Uruguay, Iran, Hungary). For most countries, women are only a few percentage points less than their male counterparts, a consistent but not statistically significant difference. This research empirically tests elements of the 5M framework to understand systematic differences in male and female entrepreneurship. We examine the effects of motherhood/family embeddedness on perceptions of opportunity and aspirations for growth. For research question #1, we run a generalized linear model to examine the effects of family advice, household size and education, as surrogates for motherhood/family embeddedness. We control for level of country development (factor, efficiency or innovation driven). The results of this analysis show that reliance on family advice and household size differentially affect men and women. If you are male, you are more likely to rely less on family advice, come from a smaller household and to perceive greater opportunities. In factor and efficiency driven economies, these results are more significant than in innovation driven economies, where advice and household size are not significant (See Table #3). For the second research question, we examine the effects of motherhood/family embeddedness on expected growth job growth for the business. Once again, the effects of advice from family and household size are significant by sex (See Table #4). If you are male, you have higher expectations for growth, are less likely to use family advice and come from a smaller household size. Similar to the first analysis, the results are more pronounced for factor and efficiency driven economies rather than innovation driven economies. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS This study is a preliminary investigation into the effects of gender embeddedness on perceptions of opportunities and expectations for firm growth. The empirical evidence that the study has provided, highlights the importance of framing research questions that take into account the embedded nature of entrepreneurship. Although wide variations exist across level of country development, our results suggest that gender embeddedness, as reflected in motherhood/family embeddedness, has a distinct impact on perceived opportunity and growth possibilities. Moreover, our results, in particular the differences between factor- and efficiency-driven countries and innovationdriven ones, also indicate the close relation between motherhood as micro influence and more macro influences such as the societal role of women and the level of economic development. This in part also explains gender variations in entrepreneurship across countries.

The fact that women tend to rely more on family advice and less on professionals such as their accountants, than their male counterparts suggests a couple of different explanations and avenues for future research. Family embeddedness can influence the time spent in creating and maintaining networks, as well as the formal and informal interactions among the entrepreneur and network members. Networks with more structural holes produce better information (Burt, 1992). Therefore future research can explore personal and professional networks and how the types of people one interacts with can be an asset or a liability in entrepreneurship. For example, networks of women and ethnic minorities have different characteristics which may produce different constraints (Ibarra, 1993). The network structure for a woman entrepreneur who has caring responsibilities of young children could change to include other mothers, and this homophily (similarity) of personal contacts might turn out to be disadvantageous because this network may not have the information, or access to financial resources needed for a particular venture. The effects of women s family roles in managing in non-standard work (part time, home based) and as well as career interruptions are also possibilities for study as these affect their ability to maintain, diversify and intensify business networks. Similarly, future research also could look at men s family responsibilities and their family embeddedness as influences on entrepreneurship, and at the effects of women s entrepreneurship on the role distribution at home (Nikina, 2010). Alternatively, the size of the household may indicate more family responsibilities and greater emphasis on roles/place of women. With a larger household, and given the fact that around the world women have primary responsibility for child care and family, they may be excluded from or are positionally disadvantaged in social networks, as found, for example, in a post-soviet context (e.g. Welter et al., 2006). They may, therefore, suffer from information asymmetries which would make them less likely to identify (be alert to) opportunities. Moreover, larger family size also might force women to put up more of their business income for the economic well-being of the families, thus leaving them with fewer financial resources which could be used in exploiting opportunities and growing the business. As with any research, our study has limitations. For example, the surrogates for motherhood/family embeddedness (household size and family advice) might be improved. More finely tuned measures of family embeddedness such as number of children and hours spent on caring, including elder-care, would more fully capture motherhood/family embeddedness. These must also be set within the cultural embeddedness context (embodied in the macro M of the 5M framework) with consideration of factors accounting for social expectations of women s roles and occupations. Future research might delve more deeply into aspects of motherhood/family embeddedness, which influence access to markets, money and management. Entrepreneurs can also shape industry and societal norms through bottom-up processes which are rarely theorized and researched empirically, but are an important area for future research. In this regard, improved understanding of ways in which entrepreneurs impact higher level embeddedness through organized social groups, through the use of the media or involvement in political issues is of interest. For instance, the US Springboard Venture Capital Forums, launched in 1999, brought together venture capitalists, corporate sponsors, service providers, academics and growth oriented women entrepreneurs. Forums were held in multiple cities in the US over five years. The catalyst for these forums was recognition of the fact that women entrepreneurs lacked access to networks of funders and the public-private organizing group made use of the media to draw attention to events and rally support (Brush et al., 2001). The 5M framework predicts that institutionalized social structures at the micro, meso and macro levels will have a significant impact on women s entrepreneurship. This is partly reflected in our results showing differences between groups of countries, depending on their level of economic development and consequently, their societal role for women and women s participation in the labor markets. Therefore, when it comes to understanding women s entrepreneurship and processes, as Zahra (207:445) observes greater care needs to be taken in contextualizing our research in order to enrich our scholarship. If heightened awareness of the interconnected aspects of the framework shed light on the factors influencing processes of women s and men s entrepreneurship, research will be advanced because gender will be accepted as a social construct rather than a variable (sex) which has historically been a limitation of empirical studies (Brush, Greene & Gatewood, 2006). While this is a preliminary study, we believe the results will have implications for policy-makers interested in fostering women s entrepreneurship 3, and for 3 An interesting micro finding of our study was that females make slightly less use (11% of females as against 13% of males, not statistically significant) of public advisory services than males, both groups have very low resort to these services, suggesting a need for evaluation of the provision of these services.

entrepreneurship research, drawing attention to the fact that we need to take into account the embeddedness of entrepreneurial phenomena in our theories. REFERENCES Aldrich, H.E. & Cliff, J. (2003). The Pervasive Effects of Family on Entrepreneurship: Toward a Family Embeddedness Perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 573-596. Aldrich, H.E. (1999) Organizations Evolving. London et al.: Sage Publications. Aldrich, H.E. (1989) Networking among women entrepreneurs. In O. Hagan, C. Rivchun and D. Sexton (eds) Women-owned businesses. New York: Praeger, 103-132. Barrett, M. (1998) Women Training for Transitions: Enhancing VET for Women s Business Involvement. Queensland, Australia: Sunshine Coast University. Bates, T., Jackson, W.E. III and Johnson, J.H. Jr. (2007) Introduction to the Special Issue on Advancing Research on Minority Entrepreneurship, Annals of the American Academy of Political Science and Social Science; 613 (September), 10-17. Bates, T. (2002) Restricted Access to Markets Characterizes Women-Owned Businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 313-324. Baughn, C.C., Chua, B.L. & Neupert, K.E. (2006) The Normative Context for Women s Participation in Entrepreneurship: A Multicountry Study. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 30(5), 686-708 Blau, F., Ferber, M. & Winkler, A. (2002) The Economics of Women, Men and Work. 4 th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bosma, N. & Levie, J. (2010), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2009 Executive Report, available at www.gemconsortium.org. Bruno, A. & Tyebjee, T. (1982) The environment for entrepreneurship. In Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L. & Vesper, K. (eds) The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood, Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 288-307. Brush, C., Greene, P., & Gatewood, E. (2006). Perspectives on Women Entrepreneurs: Past Findings and new Directions, in M. Minnitti (Ed.), Praeger Perspectives on Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 Brush, C., Carter, N., Gatewood, E., Greene, P., & Hart, M. (2004) Clearing the Hurdles: Women Building Growth Businesses, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brush, C., & Manolova, T. (2004) The Household Structure Variables in the PSED Questionnaire. In W. B. Gartner, K.G. Shaver, N.M. Carter & P.D. Reynolds (Eds.) The Handbook of Entrepreneurial Dynamics: The Process of Organization Creation, Newbury Park, Brush, C. (1992) Research on Women Business Owners: Past Trends, a New Perspective and Future Directions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16, 5-26. Brush, C., Carter, N., Gatewood, E., Greene, P. & Hart, M. (2006a) Growth Oriented Women Entrepreneurs and their Businesses: A Global Research Perspective. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Brush, C., Carter, N., Gatewood, E., Greene, P. & Hart, M. (2006b) Women and Entrepreneurship: Contemporary Classics, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Brush, C.G., de Bruin, A.M. & Welter, F. (2009) A Gender Aware Framework for Women s Entrepreneurship, International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1:1, 8-24 Brush, C., Greene, P., Hart, M. and Saparito, P. (2001). Patterns of venture capital funding: Is gender a factor? Venture Capital 3, 63 83. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Carter, N., Brush, C., Gatewood, E., Greene, P. & Hart, M. (2003) Women entrepreneurs who break through to equity financing: the influence of human, social and financial capital Venture Capital, 5(1), 1-28. Carter, S. & Ram, M. (2003) Reassessing Portfolio Entrepreneurship: Towards a Multidisciplinary Approach. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 371-380.

Davidsson, P. (2003) The Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: Some Suggestions. In Katz, J. & Shepherd, D. (eds), Cognitive Approaches. Advances in Entrepreneurship. Firm Emergence and Growth, vol. 6. Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press, 315-372. de Bruin, A. Brush, C. & Welter, F. (2007) Advancing a Framework for Coherent Research on Women s Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 31(3), 323-339. DeTienne, D. & Chandler, G. (2007) The Role of Human Capital and Gender in Opportunity Identification. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 31(3), 365-386 Dopfer, K., Foster, J. & Potts, J. (2004) Micro-meso-macro. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 14, 263-279. Elam, A. (2008) Gender and Entrepreneurship: A Multi-Level Theory and Analysis. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Elgar. Folbre, N. (1986) Hearts and Spades: Paradigms of Household Economics. World Development 14(2), 245-255. Greene, P.G., Brush, C.G. & Gatewood, E.J. (2006) Perspectives on Women Entrepreneurs: Past Findings and New Directions, in Minitti, M. (ed) Entrepreneurship: the Engine of Growth, Vol. 1, New York: Praeger Publishing. Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18, 56-87. Jennings, J.E. & McDougald, M.S. (2007) Work-Family Interface Experiences and Coping Strategies: Implications for Entrepreneurship Research and Practice. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 747-760. Kirzner, I. (1985) Discovery and the Capitalist Process. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Mirchandani, K. (1999) Feminist insight on gendered work: new directions in research on women and entrepreneurship. Gender, Work and Organization, 6(4), 224-235. Nikina, A. (2010), The Impact of the Wife s Role as an Entrepreneur on the Husband s Roles as Leader and Provider. DBA Thesis, Grenoble Ecole de Management, France and Tongji University School of Economics and Management of Shanghai, China. Peng, M.W. & Heath, P.S. (1996) The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 492-528. Penrose, E. (1959) The Theory of Growth of the Firm. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Pitelis, C. (2005) On Globalisation and Governance: Some Issues. Contributions to Political Economy, 24, 1-12. Shane, S. (2003) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Shaw, E, Lam, W., Carter, S., & Wilson, F. (2006) Theory, Practice and Policy: An Integrated View on Gender, Networks and Social Capital, International Council for Small Business, 51 st World Conference, June. Steyaert, C. & Katz, J. (2004) Reclaiming the Space of Entrepreneurship in Society: Geographical, Discursive and Social Dimensions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16, 179 196. Welter, F. (2004) The Environment for Female Entrepreneurship in Germany. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11, 212-221. Welter, F., Smallbone, D., Mirzakhalikova, D., Schakirova, N. & Maksudova, C. (2006) Women Entrepreneurs between Tradition and Modernity- the Case of Uzbekistan, in F. Welter, D. Smallbone & N. Isakova (Eds.) Enterprising Women in Transition Economies. Aldershot: Ashgate, 45-66. Zahra, S. (2007) Contextualizing Theory Building in Entrepreneurship Research. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 443-452.

Table #1 Descriptive Statistics- Prevalence Rate of Entrepreneurship Nascent Baby Early-Stage Business Business Business Factor driven economies (12 countries) 10.2 % 8.9% 17.9% Efficiency driven economies (22 countries) 6.1 % 5.3 % 11.2% Innovation driven economies 4 (20 countries) 3.4 % 3.1 % 6.3% Factor-Driven Economies Algeria*, Guatemala*, Jamaica*, Lebanon*, Morocco, Saudi Arabia*, Syria*, Kingdom of Tonga, Uganda, Venezuela*, West Bank and Gaza Strip, Yemen Efficiency-Driven Economies Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile*, China, Colombia, Croatia*, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Hungary*, Iran, Jordan, Latvia*, Malaysia, Panama, Peru, Romania*, Russia*, Serbia, South Africa, Tunisia, Uruguay* Innovation-Driven Economies Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, United States * Country in transition to next stage 4 Bosma, et al, GEM Global Report 2009

Table #2 Rate of Entrepreneurship by Sex 5 TEA TEA TEA 2009 Overall Male Female Uganda 1 33.7% 37.8% 30.0% Guatemala 1 26.8% 27.2% 26.3% Jamaica 1 22.7% 26.2% 19.4% Colombia 2 22.4% 25.7% 19.1% Yemen 1 24.0% 29.0% 18.8% Tonga 1 17.4% 16.2% 18.6% Peru 2 20.9% 23.6% 18.4% Venezuela 1 18.6% 19.6% 17.8% China 2 18.8% 21.1% 16.5% Brazil 2 15.3% 14.7% 15.8% Ecuador 2 15.8% 16.1% 15.6% Dominican Republic 2 17.5% 20.1% 14.9% Algeria 1 16.7% 19.9% 13.4% Chile 2 14.9% 16.9% 12.9% Morocco 1 15.7% 19.9% 11.7% Argentina 2 14.7% 18.0% 11.4% Lebanon 2 15.0% 20.2% 10.2% Panama 2 9.6% 10.9% 8.3% Iceland 3 11.5% 14.8% 7.9% Latvia 2 10.5% 13.7% 7.5% Uruguay 2 12.1% 16.9% 7.5% Switzerland 3 7.7% 8.8% 6.6% Iran 2 12.0% 16.1% 6.4% Hungary 2 9.1% 12.0% 6.4% United Arab Emirates 3 13.2% 15.7% 6.2% Greece 3 8.8% 11.6% 6.0% Netherlands 3 7.2% 8.4% 5.9% United States 3 8.0% 10.1% 5.8% Tunisia 2 9.4% 13.8% 5.0% South Africa 2 5.9% 7.1% 4.7% Jordan 2 10.3% 15.8% 4.6% Norway 3 8.5% 12.5% 4.5% Israel 3 6.1% 8.0% 4.2% Finland 3 5.2% 6.1% 4.1% Spain 3 5.1% 6.3% 3.9% Malaysia 2 4.4% 5.1% 3.7% UK 3 5.7% 7.8% 3.7% Germany 3 4.1% 4.5% 3.6% Korea 3 7.0% 10.4% 3.5% West Bank & Gaza Strip 1 8.6% 13.6% 3.3% Russia 2 3.9% 4.6% 3.2% Romania 2 5.0% 6.9% 3.2% Syria 1 8.4% 13.7% 3.1% China 2 18.8% 23.7% 18.2% Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 4.5% 5.9% 2.9% Croatia 2 5.6% 8.4% 2.9% Serbia 2 4.9% 7.0% 2.8% Slovenia 3 5.3% 8.0% 2.6% Belgium 3 3.5% 4.5% 2.5% Denmark 3 3.6% 4.8% 2.5% Hong Kong 3 3.7% 5.2% 2.2% France 3 4.4% 6.7% 2.0% Italy 3 3.7% 5.6% 1.8% Japan 3 3.3% 5.0% 1.5% Saudi Arabia 1 4.7% 8.0%.7% 1 Factor-driven economies 2 Efficiency-driven economies 3 Innovation-driven economies 5 Bosma, et al, GEM Global Report 2009

Table #3 Generalized Linear Model Parameter B p - value Stage 1: factor driven Fear of Failure -.075.240 Advice from Family -.221.002 Household Size.009.000 Education.001.012 Gender 2.466.000 Stage 2: efficiency driven Fear of Failure -.176.023 Advice from Family -.260.012 Household Size.034.008 Education.002.000 Gender 2.220.000 Stage 3: innovation driven Fear of Failure -.242.003 Advice from Family -.395.341 Household Size.000.993 Education.000.419 Gender 2.452.000 Stage 2 Adjusted R Stage 3 Adjusted R Stage 1 Adjusted R Square Square Square.843.898.873 Dependent Variable: Individual perception to entrepreneurship opportunity A higher value = greater perceived opportunity

Table #4 Generalized Linear Model Parameter B p - value Stage 1: factor driven Advice from Family -.221.002 Household Size.009.000 Education.001.012 Gender -4.001.168 Stage 2: efficiency driven Advice from Family -.260.012 Household Size.065.877 Education.002.000 Gender -7.711.035 Stage 3: innovation driven Advice from Family -.395.341 Household Size 12.459.000 Education.000.419 Gender -18.465.005 Stage 1 Adjusted R Square Stage 2 Adjusted R Square Stage 3 Adjusted R Square.141.146.249 Dependent Variable: Expected Job Growth in 5 years (#)

Figure 1: Women s Entrepreneurship 5M Framework From: Brush, de Bruin & Welter, 2009