A PERSPECTIVE ON WOMEN GENDER EQUALITY IN NIGERIA BY ELIZABETH I. OLINMAH
A PERSPECTIVE ON WOMEN GENDER EQUALITY IN NIGERIA
BY
ELIZABETH
I. OLINMAH
Abstract:-The major aim of this paper is to ascertain the level, differential, and prediction of gender equality in Nigeria. Knowledge accumulation and application, especially for women, have become major factors in economic development and are increasingly at the core of a country’s competitive advantage in the global economy. Secondary data from Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS), Nigeria Demographic and Education Survey (NDES), Sentinel survey and National Population Commission (NPC) data were used. The result showed that over 71 percent of women had no education while 43 percent of men had no education. Furthermore, there is disparity between women and men education according to household economic status as in the poorest households, 40 percent of men are literate compared to 13 percent of women. Also, the population projection from 2009 to 2015 with 2008 as the base year was carried out. The result showed that Nigerian’s population by sex is growing exponentially at the rate of 3.04%. This increase will further hamper the realization of the third millennium development goal which is gender equality by 2015.
Gender equality in terms of
participation in, and attainment of, education has been achieved in most
countries: girls have on average better grades and often outcome of number than
boys among new college graduates. However, in many developing countries, girls
still have poorer educational attainments, especially at the secondary and
tertiary levels. Achieving a perspective on women gender equality in education
in these countries will not only promote greater equality in employment
outcomes but also help postpone early-marriages, reduce infant mortality rates
and improve health and education of future generations. Gaps in cognitive skills of boys and girls
around age 15 are similar across countries: boys perform better than girls in
mathematics in most countries, and girls perform more than boys in reading in
all countries. In terms of science literacy, there are no significant gender
differences. But young women are much less likely than young men to choose Science, Technology, Engineering, or
Mathematics (STEM) as field of study at graduate level; the share of women
in these fields further declines at the post-graduate level. Gender differences in educational choices
appear to be related to student attitudes (motivation, interest) in studying a
particular subject rather than their ability and school performance. Gender
gaps in performance are smaller than gender gaps in fields of tertiary study,
indicating that young women often do not translate their good school
performance into field of studies for higher education that offer better
employment prospects, such as STEM studies. Furthermore, even when women
complete STEM studies they are less likely than men to work in these sectors.
While it is difficult to separate innate and learned behaviours and to assess the
influence of stereotypes, the effect of this gender imbalance is very clear. It
hinders women’s careers; it lowers their future earnings levels and deprives the
economies of a source of talent and innovation. It is also an inefficient use
of investment in education. Women
entrepreneurship represents a vast untapped source of innovation, job creation
and economic growth in the developing world. The barriers to women’s
entrepreneurship are various: Women face greater obstacles in accessing credit,
training, networks and information, as well as legal and policy constraints. The World Economic Forum shows little progress
in narrowing the economic gap between women and men. Yet not all is lost!
Innovative initiatives to promote women’s entrepreneurship—driven by both the private
and public sectors—are on the rise. This
brief provides an overview of the global landscape of women’s entrepreneurship.
It aims to demystify the challenges that women face in accessing finance, and it
highlights some of the typical challenges regarding capacity-building programs
targeted at women entrepreneurs. Above all, this brief focuses on potential
solutions and enablers by drawing on practical experiences from the public and
private sectors in both emerging and developed markets. It concludes that
innovative partnerships, particularly when private and public sector entities
are involved, are beginning to make a dent, with the potential for large-scale
impact. Those who embrace women’s entrepreneurship as an opportunity are likely
to reap the rewards in new market opportunities and higher development impact.
KEYWORDS: Population, Demography, Survey, Education, Gender
Equality, and Empowerment
INTRODUCTION:-Despite the fact that education is a basic human right and has been recognized as such since the 1948 adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, obtaining equal educational opportunities for women in Nigeria has been challenging. Education bestows on women a disposition for a lifelong acquisition of knowledge, values, attitudes, competence and skills. The question of gender disparity in education in the African continent has long historical antecedents. Even in the 1960s, when most African states began to gain their political independence, there was considerable gender disparity in education. That is when women enrollment figures were very low throughout the continent. Issues of gender equality in education have been the subject of much debate during the past decades and have become a prominent topic of debate in all countries. In Nigeria, there are large disparities between the education that men and women receive. The interest for this study flows from the fact that many women do not have access to adequate education and this leads to the investigation and prediction of gender equality in Nigeria by 2015.
A common characteristic of labour
markets across countries and cultures is a large gender gap in entrepreneurship
activity. According to OECD (2004) this represents a substantial untapped
productive potential in the female part of the population that, if accessed,
could make a significant additional contribution to new business formation, job
creation and overall economic growth. Among its recommendations for policies to
strengthen entrepreneurship among women, OECD has stressed the importance of
women’s ability to participate in the labour market by providing affordable
childcare and equal treatment in the work place, and generally improving the
position of women in society. One would therefore expect a country like Norway,
with an almost equal male and female employment rate and a high general gender
equality, to have comparatively high ratios of female to male entrepreneurship.
Yet, women constituted only about 25 per cent of early-stage entrepreneurs in
Norway in 2010, which is lower than in most other industrialized countries
(Kelly et al. 2011).
The literature mentions many reasons
for women’s lower propensity to engage in entrepreneurial activities.
Psychological and motivational factors have received a lot of attention since
the very earliest research on female entrepreneurship, but their importance is
still being debated. There is more of a consensus that dissimilar educational
backgrounds and experience, and also differential access to capital may explain
part of the gender gap. In Norway, however, even after controlling for these
factors, most of the gender gap remains (Berglann, Golombek and Røed 2013;
Rønsen 2012).
More recently, social and cultural
factors embedded in the family and household situation have been identified as
needing further research (DAMVAD 2011). In spite of a high degree of gender
equality in the society, the household division of labour in Norway has been
nicknamed “gender equality light” (Skrede 2004). This characterizes a situation
where almost half of mothers with children below age 16 still work part-time
(Bø et al. 2008) and mothers with small children spend 1.5 hours more per day
on housework than fathers (Vaage 2012). Since establishing and running a
business typically requires attention and effort beyond standard hours of work,
many women may find it difficult to combine entrepreneurial activity with
family and children.
According to DAMVAD (2011) there are
indications that the family and household situation influences male and female
entrepreneurs differently, but they also emphasize that in order to shed
further light on this issue robust studies based on large, representative
datasets that control for other relevant variables are needed. The present
study is a contribution in this respect. Using registry data on the whole
employed population of Norway we address gender differences in the propensity
to become an entrepreneur, i.e. We carry
out a longitudinal analysis of transitions from ordinary wage employment into
entrepreneurship defined as either self-employment (sole proprietorship) or
owner-managed incorporated entrepreneurship. We analyze the propensity to
become an entrepreneur separately for men and women in order to determine
gender differences. Furthermore, we do separate analyses of men and women in
couples. This opens up for a more detailed investigation of the partial effect
of the family and household situation such as the partner’s characteristics
(employment status, earnings, wealth and education) plus the number and age of
children in the family . The present
analysis adds to the insights from a recent study of gender differences in the
propensity to be an entrepreneur in Norway (Rønsen 2012; Rønsen 2014). Since
this study was based on cross-sectional data it could not establish causal
relationships, only associations between various characteristics and
self-employment participation.
The focus of the study was on the
family and household situation, but being based on a survey data set (EU-SILC
2003-2009), entrepreneurship was defined as self-employment as is common in
most of the entrepreneurship literature. However, the definition of an
entrepreneur as a self-employed individual seems
to be contrary to important
characteristics of the entrepreneurship concept in the classical
(Schumpeterian) sense. First, the highest self-employment rates are found in
the primary industries, which are generally not considered to be particularly
entrepreneurial. Second, self-employment is a close substitute for wage
employment in professions where setting up a business requires little capital.
Finally, self-employment may be an
alternative to unemployment or social benefits, rather than to employment (see
Skogstrøm and Røed 2014).
To address the limitations of the
self-employment based definition of entrepreneurship, we will in this study
distinguish between two types of entrepreneurship: self-employment and
incorporated entrepreneurship, and analyze the propensity to become an
entrepreneur separately for these two types of entrepreneurs. Our results
confirm previous findings from survey data (Rønsen 2014) that children are no
barrier to female entrepreneurship. This result holds also when we look at the
establishment of an incorporated business. Moreover, we find that gender
differences with regard to the impact of family and household characteristics
are smaller for incorporated entrepreneurship than for self-employment. For
example, while we find a clear positive effect on women’s –but not men’s
–propensity to become self-employed if the partner is highly educated, the
impact of the partner’s education is ambiguous both for men and women in the
case of incorporated entrepreneurship. The
strongest predictor of entrepreneurship among the partner characteristics–both
for men and women–is whether or not the partner is an entrepreneur. In spite of mounting empirical evidence, the
reasons for gender differences in entrepreneurship are still not well
understood. Studies generally find that female entrepreneurs attract less
capital and start businesses with fewer financial resources than their male
counterparts, and that high-growth companies more often are run by male than by
female entrepreneurs. Early entrepreneurship research suggested that
female-owned firms underperform relative to firms owned by men (Boden and Nucci
2000; Gundry et al. 2002), but recent evidence on the relative performance of
female entrepreneurs is more ambiguous. Large-scale studies from both the U.S.
and Sweden have, for example, found no support for the so-called
underperformance hypothesis (Hisrich et al. 1997; Du Rietz and Henrekson 2000).
In Norway, entrepreneurial ventures have been shown to have equal chances of
surviving the early growth phase, regardless of whether they are started by men
or by women, but high-growth companies are primarily started, owned and run by
men (Ljunggren 2008). Since its
beginning, researchers have sought to explain the underrepresentation of women
in entrepreneurship by differences in psychological and motivational factors.
For example, it has been suggested that women may be more risk averse than men
(Masters and Meier 1988). The empirical evidence for this is mixed. Some
studies conclude that there are more similarities than differences in male and
female entrepreneurs’ psychological and demographic characteristics (e.g.
Birley 1989; Zapalska 1997), and others suggest that there may be greater
differences among subgroups of female entrepreneurs than between the sexes
(DAMVAD 2011). However, many of these analyses only study differences among
self-employed and an increasing number of studies of women and men in general
conclude that women are both more risk averse and less competitive than men
(Bönte and Piegeler 2012; Croson and Gneezy 2009; Verheul et al. 2012, Wagner
2007). Others list lack of self-esteem and low self-perception as reasons for
less entrepreneurship among women (e.g. Eastwood 2004). In Norway, for example,
the fraction of women who believe they have the necessary capabilities to
become an entrepreneur is consistently lower than the fraction of men with the
same belief (Bullvåg et al. 2011). Moreover, a study of New Zealand, Great
Britain and Norway found that men were more motivated by status of oneself and
family in society, while women were more motivated by the idea of
LITERATURE REVIEW
According to
(Akubue 2001) and Acha (2009) women form about half the world population and
any society which neglect such a large number of human resource potential
cannot achieve any meaningful development. At the local and international
level, population problems especially of women constitute the cornerstone of
discussions about the gap between the actual numbers of women to employ,
educate, equip, etc. In Nigeria, the underestimation of the female population
growth has been blamed for the marginalization of women because the actual
number is far higher than the number accounted for see Aderant, (2002),
Annekova (2001), Iheduru (2002), Lewis (2006) and Mansor (2005). Nigeria census
reveals no change as figures released from Nigeria's census indicates that the
country's mainly Muslim northern states accounted for just over half of the
country's 140m population in 1991. This is roughly the same result as shown in
the last census 15 years ago. The combined gross enrollment for primary,
secondary and tertiary schools for female was 57% compared to 71% for males in
2002, Ojo (2002). This translates into fewer women in certain economic fields
as well. The percentages of female workers in some selected professions were as
follow: architects-2.4%, quantity surveyors- 3.5%, lawyers- 25.4%, lecturers-
11.8%, obstetricians and gynecologists- 8.4%, pediatricians- 33.3% and
journalist- 15.2%, Ojo (2002).
Peters (2010)
said “there is no doubt that in any contemporary society, population either in
terms of size or composition has far reaching implications for change,
development and the quality of life. For instance, high population exerts
pressure on the ecosystem leading to issues around food security, land tenure,
water supply and environmental degradation; Peters (2011). And on the economy,
rapid population growth will demand that government spend more on provision of
education, health, shelter, employment and other social facilities. This gives
rise to need that actual number of women should be used to achieve and
ascertain millennium development goal three (3), that is, to promote gender
equality and empower women, instead of using small fraction of the women
population. To correct these anomalies, Ayu (1987, 1992), Wushish (1993), Arene
(1993), Mazrui (1991) rightly suggests that gender analysis be made a standard
tool of economic analysis, and of project design and monitoring.
WOMEN’S RIGHT:-The
term women’s right refers to entitlements of women and girls of all ages. Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment
of an individual based on their membership of a certain group or
category. Women's rights are the rights and
entitlements claimed for women and girls of many societies worldwide. In some places, these rights are
institutionalized or supported by law, local custom, and behavior, whereas in
others they may be ignored or suppressed.
Usually, "women's rights" refers to whether women have
equality with the rights of men where women and men's capacities are the same. Sometimes, "women's rights"
includes protection of women where women are subject to special circumstances
(such as maternity leave for child-bearing) or more susceptible to mistreatment
(traffic in women, rape). Women's
rights are classified into "political, economic, social, cultural,
civil" and other spheres and it is defined to mean:
Any distinction, exclusion or
restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of
impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women,
irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women,
of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social,
cultural, civil or any other field.
The Declaration specifically
addresses, eliminating prejudice in public education, full political rights to vote
and to run for and to serve in public office, rights to change nationality
equal to men's rights, marriage and divorce rights to be equal to men's, and
elimination of child marriage, equality in criminal punishment, traffic in
women, including exploiting prostitutes, employment rights, including
non-discrimination in access to jobs, equal pay, and paid maternity
leaves. The statement of purpose, summarizes
women rights
based on the idea of equality as an
opportunity for women to "develop their fullest human potentials" and
to put women into the "main stream of political, economic and social
life."
In 1848, the first known women’s right
convention in the world declared "We hold these truths to be self
-evident: that all men and women are
created equal." and in closing, "we insist that they have immediate
admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens.
GENDER DISCRIMINATION:-Gender
discrimination is explained to include “any distinction, exclusion or restriction
made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or
nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of
their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, human rights and
fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other
aspects of life. In the context of
workforce, it can be defined as the giving of an unfair advantage (or
disadvantage) to the members of the particular group in comparison to the
members of the other group. The
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW) defined as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis
of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the
recognition enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status,
on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental
freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”
LEGAL FRAME WORK ON GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT
Gender equality is essential for the
achievement of human rights. However, there are still discriminatory
laws against women persisting in
every part of the world and new discriminatory laws are enacted.
There are two major sources of
women’s right in Nigeria, the international and domestic sources.
International sources include
international declarations, treaties, and conventions and protocols signed and
ratified by Nigeria while at the domestic level it is the constitution and
other promulgated laws to prohibits
gender-based discrimination.
There exist nexus between human
rights and employment opportunities; such as right to life, movement, peaceful
assembly and association; privacy, and human dignity, liberty, property and
other classes of human rights which will only be functional per excellence when
a person’s source of livelihood is unhindered.
Chapter of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, (as amended) provides for equality of sexes
and the prohibition of discrimination of all forms. The Constitution provided that a citizen of
Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, and place of origin, sex religion,
or political union shall not, by reason only that he is such a person, be subjected
either expressly by or in practical application of any law
In force in Nigeria or any executive
or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which
citizens of Nigeria of other ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religion or
political opinions, are not made subject; or privilege or advantage that is not
accorded to citizens of Nigeria or other communities, ethnic groups, places of
origin, sex, religion or political opinion.
The Section Constitution provides
that, the economic system will not be operated in such a manner as to permit
the concentration of wealth or means of production and exchange in the hands of
few individuals or of a group. The Constitution further provides that, the
state social order is founded on ideals of freedom, equality and justice.
Subsection (3) of the same section
provides that the state shall direct its policy towards, ensuring that all
citizens without discrimination on
any group whatever, have the opportunity for securing adequate means
of livelihood as well as adequate
opportunity for securing suitable employment very vital to these provisions are
Section 17 (3) (e), which provides that there is equal pay for equal work
without
discrimination on account of sex or
no any other ground whatsoever.
It is trite law that when a
provisions under fundamental objectives and directive principles of state
policy have correlative or incidental provisions in chapter four (Fundamental
Human Rights) of the Nigerian
Constitution, the question of
justifiability (legal term meaning whether a person can approach court for
redress) is settled.
The Constitution also provides that of
the Nigerian Constitution 1999, provides that any person who alleges that any
of the provisions of chapter IV has being or is likely to be contravened in any
state in relation to him may apply to a High court or the Federal High Court
depending on the nature of the claim in that state for redress.
It is clear that sections 15, 16 and
17 cited fall under chapter II of the Nigerian Constitution which is classified
by virtue of section 6(6)(c) of the same constitution as non-justiciable
rights. Thus, the provision
of section 42 under chapter IV is
enough to cover all these anti discriminatory provisions.
The question of infraction of a
fundamental right can be canvassed at any stage of the proceedings before a
court of law, even where previously not pleaded by the party seeking to raise
it.
The instrument for enforcement of
one’s fundamental rights in Nigeria is the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights
Rule 1979. The preamble to this enforcement instruments cover international
instruments or treaties that have been ratified and domesticated.
Many countries have subscribed to
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Article 15, 71 explicitly provides that
states that have ratified the Convention shall accord to women equality with men
and article 2 commits States who have ratified the Convention to take all
appropriate measures including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws,
regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against
women. In 2011 almost all countries had
ratified the CEDAW Agreement-187; out of the 193 countries that have ratified
Nigeria is included.
Despite CEDAW requiring some state
that have ratified the Convention to eliminate discrimination against women by
all appropriate means and without delay, too many States still pervasively
retain their discriminatory laws which indicate that the pace of reform is too
slow for women.
Consequently, at the 12th
session of the Human Rights Council, a resolution titled Elimination of
discrimination against women was adopted requesting the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a thematic study on discrimination
against women in law and practice on how the issue is addressed through the UN,
in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, in particular, the Commission
on the status of Women.
EQUAL ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES IN GENDER EQUALITY IN NIGERIA
Gender relations impact on the
effective functioning of both society and the economy. As such, gender
inequalities present ongoing obstacles to the sustainability and effectiveness
of EBRD investments and inclusive, resilient transition in particular. Gender-informed economic analysis is important
for reasons of efficiency and equality. It can be argued that the failure to
share the costs and opportunities of the transition process more evenly is
costly for several reasons:
·
The legitimacy of the market and
political system as reflected in laws, institutions and outcomes can be
questioned on the grounds of inequality;
·
A major part of the skilled and
well-educated human resources will be untapped; and
·
Unequal economic opportunities may
have strong spill-over effects on social cohesion and stability.
Gender unequal laws and policies
further hinder economic growth by limiting women’s ability to access assets and
services, credit or employment opportunities.
In addition, where gaps exist between the law and its implementation: Women
have limited economic rights (including to land and property);
·Women’s
decision making ability and their ability to speak up and be heard in the
household, at the workplace, and in public spaces are constrained; and
·Women
are more likely to be inhibited from making strategic choices and pursuing
those things that they value. In response, this Strategy has been designed to
take into account key factors for long-term economic growth. These factors –
competitive markets, physical capital/financial development, human capital,
rule of law, and openness to trade – are some of the conditions considered most
likely to ensure that a strong sustainable economic performance will be
established.
Summarizes both key growth factors
and the ways in which the promotion of gender equality can augment and expand
their impact, drawing on peer- reviewed evidence.
It is a principal assumption of this
Strategy that addressing gender inequality in each of these growth factors will
support and extend the durability of economic performance, particularly by
supporting women’s access to employment and skills, finance and services.
GENDER EQUALITY & EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITIES in the EBRD’s Countries of Operation A 2015 8 study
commissioned by the EBRD on the ‘Status of Gender Equality in the EBRD’s
Countries of Operation’ revealed that several key variables contribute to
persisting unequal economic opportunities between women and men in EBRD. These
variables include:
·
Access to employment and skills;
·
Entrepreneurship and financial
inclusion;
·
Access to, and usage of,
infrastructure and utilities;
·
Decision-making;
·
Women’s leadership and public
participation; and
·
Social norms and legal regulations. As of 2015, women’s labour force participation
rate is still lower than that of men in every EBRD Co. Women are significantly
more likely than men to be unemployed, (particularly when younger), to face
difficulty obtaining a loan or opening a bank account, to be underrepresented
in corporate and public decision-making positions and face greater
discrimination in economic and social life because of their gender. Table 2
below summarizes specific findings from the study:
The area of specific relevance to
the EBRD relates to encouraging, and where possible, supporting, its clients to
contribute to the achievement of Goal Five (“Achieve gender equality and
empower all women and girls”), in particular with regards to:
·“Ensuring
women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership
at all levels of
decision-making in political,
economic and public life” (Target 5.5): assessing where the Bank can contribute
to further exploring and developing approaches which promote women’s voice,
participation and leadership within the private sector;
·Promoting
“reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, including land and
financial services” (Target 5.a): assessing where the Bank can contribute to
the development and implementation of projects and products which promote the
economic empowerment of women in particular with regards to access to assets;
and
·“Adopt
and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of
gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls at all levels” (Target
5c):
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:-Graphs, mean, median and percentages of the Nigeria population will be employed to enable the ascertainment of the level and differential of women in Nigeria. Also, the exponential growth model will be used to project of women population. It assumes that the increments in one interval contributes to growth in subsequent intervals and population grows continuously and not at the end of an interval. The woman population of Nigeria up to 2015 was used with the population of 2006 as the base year population. Sample selection and descriptive statistics. We analyze the choice to become entrepreneur among people who are already participating in the labour market. That is, we exclude persons who live on social benefits, disability- or retirement pensions, or are long-term unemployed (i.e., not included in the Register of employers and employees).
The motivation for this is that we
wish to concentrate on “offensive” entrepreneurship choices, rather than
“necessity” or “defensive” entrepreneurship,
as defined by Berglann et al. (2011).
The first two pairs of columns of
Table 1 show the total number of employed individuals in 2001 who established
unincorporated (ENK) or incorporated (AS) firms, respectively, in the
subsequent period 2002-2011. The last pair of columns of the table displays
total number of individuals (men vs women) with a registered employment
relationship in 2001 according to the Register of employers and employees
(including self-employed individuals). Hence the last pair of columns includes
the first two: The individuals in the last pair of columns are those who
potentially could make the transition from (initial) wage employment in 2001 to
entrepreneurship during 2002-2011.
Since we analyze transitions from
(initial) wage employment to entrepreneurship, we exclude individuals who are
already entrepreneurs in 2001. That is, we exclude sole proprietors or personal
owners of firms established in 2001 or earlier.
To avoid the complicating issues
related to retirement decisions, we also exclude individuals older than 62
years in 2001, or who obtained social security or retirement income. Finally,
we exclude individuals with unknown labour market status in 2001. That is,
individuals who are formally registered in the Register of employers and
employees, but with no registered work-hours and wage income.
The last pair of columns shows that
the population of individuals who potentially could make the transition from
wage-employment (in 2001) to entrepreneurship during (2002-2011) consists of
703,651 women and
748,961 men. This is the “Population”
in Table 1. Our final sample consists of 24,324 incorporated entrepreneurs and 65,435
self-employed ones, i.e., the ones who make the transition from initial wage
employment to entrepreneurship.
There is a huge gender imbalance in
the data. Only 20 percent of the incorporated entrepreneurs and 26 percent of
the self-employed ones are women (compared to 48 per-centin the population).
The distribution of individuals according to education level is, however, quite
similar for men vs women, and those who become entrepreneurs during 2002-2011
vs the population, as seen from Table 2.A noticeable exception is the larger
share of entrepreneurs with higher tertiary education or PhD (18 years of
education, or more). For incorporated entrepreneurs these shares are
12percentvs 7 percent for men and women, respectively, compared to 10percent vs
13percent for self-employed entrepreneurs. In the population, the share of
individuals with the highest education level is 8percent for men and 5percent for
women. In Table 2 we see that self-employed women are generally more highly
educated than self-employed men. On the other hand, among the incorporated
entrepreneurs there are no noticeable gender differences with regard to
education levels.
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
The
Age-Specific Distribution of Men and Women Educational Attainment by Sex
• Educational
attainment by background characteristics
Figure 1,
depicts educational attainment for men and women from the Nigerian 1991
population census showing the age specific distribution by highest level of men
and women educational attainment from Table 1.
Over 71 percent of women had no education while 43 percent of men had no
education in Table 1.
These figures indicate that in spite of the universal primary education (UPE)
and universal basic education (UBE) schemes in the country many girls are still
not enrolled in school.
The
Age-Specific Distribution of Men and Women Educational Attainment by Sex
Educational attainment by background
characteristics
Figure 1,
depicts educational attainment for men and women from the Nigerian 1991
population census showing the age specific distribution by highest level of men
and women educational attainment from Table 1.
Over 71 percent of women had no education while 43 percent of men had no
education in Table 1.
These figures indicate that in spite of the universal primary education (UPE)
and universal basic education (UBE) schemes in the country many girls are still
not enrolled in school.
Figure 1. Educational
attainment of women and men
Table 1. Age Specific Distribution by Highest Level of Men and Women Educational Attainment
The mean years
of schooling attained also reflects the gender parity in educational
attainment: the mean number of years of schooling is 5.2 years among men and
5.1 years among women. The men respondents in the rural areas having completed
4.6 years of schooling compare with 3.8 years of women in rural areas. In
addition, North West, which shows the lowest result in both cases also have an
average of 3.5 years of schooling for men compared with 1.7 years for women. Depicts
mean number of years of schooling and educational attainment according to
background characteristics in.
Figure
2. Educational
Attainment according to Background Characteristics in NDES 2004
Table 2. Mean Number of Years of Schooling and Educational Attainment according to Background Characteristics in NDES 2004
THE
POPULATION FOR MEN AND WOMEN AT SPECIFIC AGE GROUP FOR EDUCATION AND NIGERIA
PROJECTED POPULATION BY SEX
• Population
Projection According to Age Groups and Sex
To obtain the
rate of growth of Nigeria from the 1991 census to the 2006 census, where the
population of Nigeria as at 1991 census is 88,992,220 and as at 2006 census is
140,431,790. The exponential equation;
 |
(1)
|
where Pt
= population at a given point in time or the projected population. Po =
total population at the point in time taken as base year sometimes called base
line population. It is also known as base year population (population of year
2006), r = population growth rate, n = length of the interval between two time
period, that is, 1, 2, 3,…,9 for 2007, 2008, ….., 2015 respectively and ℮ =
constant.
Taking the log
of both sides in equation (1), then apply the product rule we have “r” to be
 |
(2)
|
Where n =
2006-1991 = 15
Pt =
population as at 2006
Po =
population as at 1991
∴
r=3.04%
(population growth rate)
This implies
that the 1991 population of Nigeria growing exponentially at an average rate of
3.04 percent would yield a population of about 140,431,790 in 2006.
Here, we
illustration on how to calculate the projections in using 2013 for example
Recall, the formula
|
|
(1)
|
Where; n, r, Po,
Pt and ℮ remain as defined.
• Total
population for 2013 (men)
P2013
= 71345488 ℮0.03047 = 88,264,157 = 88.3 million
• Total
population for 2013 (women)
P2013
= 69086302 ℮0.2128 = 85,469,234 = 85.5 million
• Total
population for 2013 Age Groups (men)
P0-14
= 30462148 ℮0.2128 = 37,685,856
P15-64 =
38,348,799 ℮0.2128 = 4 7,442,726
P65+ =
2534541 ℮0.2128 = 3,135,575
• Total
population for 2013 Age Groups (women)
P0-14
= 28274149 ℮0.2128 = 34,979,002
P15-64 =
38609933 ℮0.2128 = 48,013,212
P65+ =
2002220 ℮0.2128 = 2,477,021.
Table 3. Showing the Projected Men and Women Population of
Nigeria from 2007 to 2015 using their Age Group and Sex
From Table 3, the first column is for age group which is divided into three categories (0 to 14, 15 to 64, and 65 and above). Age group (0–14) has a total population of 58,736,297 being made up of 30,462,148 men and 28,274,149 women, age group (15 – 64) has the total population 77,158,732 being made up of 38,348,799 men and 38,809,933 women, the age group (65+) which is the last category has the total population of 4,536,761 being made up of 2,534,541 men and 2,002,220 women. The sum of it gives the grand total of 140,431,790 as the population of 2006 and the projected values of the population for years 2007 to 2015 using the year 2006 as the base year population. From the projected figures, the total population of Nigeria growing exponentially at 3.04% will increase from 140 million in 2006 to 168.5 million in 2012 as against the estimated 170 million at 2.53% from the central intelligence agency (CIA) world fact book. However, from the base year shows that the women population will rise from 69 million to (85.5, 88.1 and 90.8) million in 2013, 2014, and 2015 respectively. Also for the men population will also rise from 71.3 million to (88.3, 91.0, and 93.8) million in 2013, 2014, and 2015 respectively.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION
The main
objective of this paper is to ascertain the level, differential, and prediction
of gender equality of women in 2015. The population projection by age group and
sex in Nigeria is shown in Table 3
used the year 2006 as the baseline population with population growing
exponentially at the rate of 3.04%. Projections were made for years 2007 to
2015. With population projection, estimate about the future can be made and
this helps in providing the necessary information for future planning
especially for women because by 2015 the population of women will be greater
than that of men. The tremendous increase in Nigeria population depicts that
the realization of the third millennium development goal which is to promote gender
equality is far from realization. This also means that to promote gender
equality by 2015 is at risk after having missed the initial deadline of 2005.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In this course
of study, we have found out that women population should not be neglected in
the development and plan of the Nigeria economy. Therefore, there is need to
improve in accuracy of these data such that its effect on planning will enhance
economic development. Considering the findings, the following recommendations
are made:
i. Data
collection is very expensive and very vital as well, government should provide
enough funds to counter the financial challenges involved in data collection so
that the accurate population especially women population will be ascertained.
ii. Government
should provide sufficient fund towards sensitize the key people in that
particular area that can disseminate the importance of training women.
iii. Government
should allow women to contribute and participate fully in all aspects of life
in Nigeria.
CONCLUSION
The question of why there are so few
female entrepreneurs has long been in the forefront of entrepreneurial
research, but remains a puzzle even today. Most authors point to dissimilar
educational backgrounds and experience, and also differential access to capital
as potential explanations of the gender gap, and empirical research support
these notions. However, even after controlling for such factors most of the
gender gap remains. Another popular explanation is psychological and
motivational differences, which has received a lot of attention since the very
beginning of female entrepreneurship research. The relevance of this
explanation is more debated, however, although an increasing number of studies
conclude that women are both more risk-averse and less competitive than men,
and that men are more motivated by status attainment, while women are more
motivated by achievement and recognition.
Explanatory factors that have
received little attention so far are differences between women and men in their
response to the family and household situation. Since women are still the main
care-givers in most families and carry the primary responsibility for children
and household tasks, children could be more of a barrier for female than for
male entrepreneurship. Likewise, women may be more dependent on the support
from a partner, both in terms of economic resources and backing at home. The
role of the partner is, in particular, an area that is vastly under-researched.
The main contribution of this paper
has been to cast more light on the role of the family and household situation
with regard to determinants of gender differences in entrepreneurship. Thus we
have added to recent findings from Norway indicating that children are no
barrier to self-employment among women, and that most of the associations with
other household- and partner characteristics are fairly similar for women and
men (Rønsen 2014).
This study was based on survey data,
and explored gender differences in the propensity to be self-employed, which is
a definition of entrepreneurship commonly used in entrepreneurship research.
The present study, on the other hand, is based on linked registry data and is
an analysis of gender differences in the propensity to become an entrepreneur.
This approach allows for more causal interpretations, although not without
reservation.
Moreover, we used a more refined
definition of entrepreneurship which comes closer to the classical
“Schumpeterian” meaning of the word, distinguishing between those who enter entrepreneurship
as sole proprietors (self-employed) and those who enter as incorporated
owner-managers.
Somewhat surprising, we found that
children are no barrier to entrepreneurship entry even when we look at the
establishment of an incorporated business, which presumably represents a bigger
decision than mere self-employment or sole proprietorship. Also in line with
previous international and national research we find that the most influential
partner characteristic is whether or not the partner is an entrepreneur himself/herself.
Since the present analysis only studied new establishments, we can rule out
that the positive association merely reflects jointly run family businesses,
and that the special entrepreneurial knowledge and resources of the partner is
likely to play a vital role when setting up one’s own business. Another finding
which corroborates our previous cross-sectional analysis is that
entrepreneurship is negatively associated with the partner’s working hours, but
the dividing line is primarily between those with a partner who does not work
at all and those
with a working partner. A novel finding
related to the partner’s employment status is that women are less likely to
enter self-employment as sole proprietors if the partner is unemployed, but
this is not the case for men.
Other partner characteristics that
have a divergent impact on sole proprietorship among women and men are his/her
educational level and wealth. For women, there is a clear positive effect on
self-employment entry if the partner is more highly educated, while the
corresponding effect among men is mainly non-significant. Since we controlled
for the partner’s income and working hours, this suggests that women are more
sensitive than men to the positive support from a partner in other areas when
setting up a new business. Concerning the partner’s wealth, we found, somewhat
surprisingly, that women with wealthier partners are less likely to become
self-employed, while men are not affected by the wealth of the partner.
At the outset we had expected
greater gender differences in the impact of family- and household
characteristics on the propensity to become an incorporated business owner than
on the propensity to become a sole proprietor. However, our main impression is
that the gender differences are smaller for incorporated entrepreneurship than
for self-employment. For example, there is no difference between the sexes with
regard to the impact of the partner’s education–which is negative also for
women in the case of incorporated entrepreneurship. Moreover, there is no
longer a significant difference in the effect of the partner’s wealth. However,
similar to the results for sole proprietorship, we found that the strongest
predictor of incorporation entry among the partner characteristics is whether
or not the partner is an entrepreneur himself /herself, and –as in the case of
self-employment –we found no difference between the sexes in this respect. To sum up, the present study did not bring us
much closer to revealing the secrets as to why there are so few female
entrepreneurs. What we have contributed to, however, is to rule out that the
family and household situation is a major explanation. Moreover, since van
Praag and Raknerud (2014) have shown that there may not be much to gain in
economic terms by setting up one’s own small-scale business (at least not on
the individual level), what the gains are for the society as a whole remains to
be discussed. Along with OECD one may argue that the gender gap in
entrepreneurship represents an untapped female labor reserve that could make a
significant contribution to new business formation, job creation and overall
economic growth. On the other hand, when female employment is as high and
unemployment as low as in Norway, there may be less to gain also for the
society as a whole. Besides, politicians and policy-makers probably face a hard
task in promoting more female entrepreneurship as there are many options
available in the ordinary (wage) labor market, which may be just as attractive
and pay off just as well–at much less risk –than managing one’s own business.
REFERENCES
Aastebro, T. (2012): The returns to
entrepreneurship. In D. Cumming (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of
Entrepreneurial Finance, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Aastebro, T. and J. Chen (2014): The
Entrepreneurial Earnings Puzzle: Mis-measurement or Real? Journal of Business
Venturing, 29(1): 88-105.
Alsos, G. A. (2006): Barrierer for
kvinners entreprenørskap: Diskusjonsnotat. Arbeidsnotat nr. 1009/2006. Bodø: Nordlandsforskning.Becker,
G.S. (1991):
A treatise on the family, enlarged
edition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Benz, M. and B. Frey (2008): Being
independent is a great thing: Subjective evaluations of self-employment and
hierarchy.
Economica 75(298): 362-383.Berglann,
H., E. R. Moen, K. Røed and J. S. Skogstrøm (2011): Entrepreneurship: Origins
and returns.
Labour Economics 18:
180-193.Berglann, H., R. Golombek and K. Røed (2012): ”Entreprenørskap i Norge
–Mest for menn? Søkelys på Arbeidslivet01-02/2013: 3-19.
Berk, S. F. (1985): The Gender
Factory: The Apportionment of Work in American Households. New York: Plenum
Press.
Bernardi, F. (1999) : Does the
husband matter? Married women and employment in Italy. European
Sociological Review15 (3): 285-300.
Birley, S. (1989): Female entrepreneurs: Are they really any different? Journal
of Small Business Management 27(1): 7-31.
Boden, R. J. (1999): Flexible
working hours, family responsibilities, and female self-employment.
Gender differences in
self-employment selection.
American Journal of Economics and
Sociology 58(1) : 71-83. Boden, R. J. (2001): Gender and self-employment
selection: An empirical assessment. Journal of Socio-Economics 25(6): 671-682.
Boden, R. J. and A. R. Nucci (2000):
On the survival prospects of men’s and women’s new business ventures. Journal
of Business Venturing 15(4): 347-362
Bruce, D. (1999): Do husbands
matter? Married women entering self-employment. Small Business Economics 13:
317-329.
Bullvåg, E., L. Kolvereid and B. W.
Åmo (2011). Entreprenørskap i Norge 2010, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.
Bodø: Bodø Graduate School of
Business.Bø, T. P., R. H. Kitterød, T. Køber, S. M. Nerland and T. Skoglund
(2008): Arbeidstiden mønstreog utviklingstrekk.Reports 2008/12.
Oslo-Kongsvinger: Statistics Norway.
Bönte, W. and M. Piegeler (2012):
Gender differences in competitiveness, risk tolerance, and other personality
traits: Do they contribute to the gender gap in entrepreneurship? Paper
presented at IZA Workshop: New Directions in the Economics of Entrepreneurship,
Potsdam, and June 2012.
Carter, S., S. Anderson and E. Shaw
(2001): Women’s business ownership: A review of the academic, popular and
internet Literature. 2001.
Report to the U.K. Small Business
Service. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde Connelly, R. (1992):
Self-employment and providing child care Demography 29(1): 17-29.
Croson, R. and U. Gneezy (2009):
Gender differences in preferences Journal of Economic Literature 47(2):
448-474.
DAMVAD (in collaboration with René
Chester Goduscheit) (2011) State of the Art in Entrepreneurship Research. A
Policy-Oriented Review with Particular Emphasis on the Gender Perspective and
the Norwegian Context. DAMVAD and University of Southern Denmark. Available at http://www.damvad.com/media/11159/21778-mer_program policyoriented_review_february_2011.pdf
DuRietz A. and M. Henrekson (2000):
Testing the female underperformance hypothesis Small Business Economics 14(1):
1-10. Eastwood, T. (2004):
Women Entrepreneurs: Issues and
Barriers. A Regional, National and International Perspective St Albans:
Exemplas Ltd.
Fischer, E. M., A. R. Reuber and L.
S. Dyke (1993): A theoretical overview and extensions of research
on sex, gender, and
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 8: 151-168.
Fjærli, E., D. Iancu and A. Raknerud
(2013): Facts about entrepreneurship in Norway. Who become
Entrepreneurs and how do they
perform? Reports, 52/2013, Statistisk sentralbyrå. Gundry L. K., M. Ben-
Yoseph and M. Posig (2002):
Contemporary perspectives on women’s entrepreneurship: a review and strategic
recommend izadations. Journal of Enterprising Culture 10(1): 67.
Hamilton, B. (2000): Does
entrepreneurship pay.
An empirical analysis of the returns
to self-employment Journal of Political Economy 108(3): 604-631.
Hisrich, R. D., C. G. Brush, D. Good
and G. DeSouza (1997).
Performance in Entrepreneurial
Ventures: Does Gender matter.
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Hundley, G. (2000): Male/female
earnings differences in self-employment: The effects of marriage,
children, and the household division
of labor Industrial and Labor Relations Review 54(1): 95-114.
Hvide, H.K. (2009): The Quality of
Entrepreneurs Economic Journal, 119, 1010-1035.
Joona, P. A. (2014): Female
self-employment and children: The case of Sweden. IZA DP No. 8486.
Bonn: The Institute for the Study of
Labor.
Kelly, D. J., C. G. Brush, P. G.
Greene and Y. Litovsky (2011)Global Entrepreneurship Monitor–2010 Women’s
Report.
Babson Park, MA: Babson College
Kitterød, R. H. (2007). Far jobber nesten alltid mest. Arbeidstid blant par av
foreldre. In E. Kvande and B. Rasmussen (eds.):
Arbeidslivets klemmer. Paradokser i
det nye arbeidslivet. Bergen: Fagbok-forlaget.
Kitterød, R. H. and M. Rønsen
(2012): Untraditional dual-earners in Norway: when does she work at
least as much as he work, Employment
and Society 26(4) 657 –675.
Kitterød, R. H., M. Rønsen and A.
Seierstad (2013): Mobilizing female labour market reserves: What
promotes women’s transitions between
part-time and full-time work.
Acta Sociologica 56(2): 155-171.
Kolvereid, L. (1992): Growth aspiration among Norwegian entrepreneurs. Journal
of Business Venturing 7: 209-222.
Levine, R. and Y. Rubinstein (2013):
Smart and illicit: Who becomes an entrepreneur and does it pay.
NBER Working Pap No. 19276. National
Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA Ljunggren, E. (2008):
Kunnskapsbehovom entreprenørskap og
kjønn i Norge NF-Arbeidsnotat nr. 1031/2008. In Norwegian.
Bodø: Nordlandsforskning.
Masters, R. and R. Meier (1988): Sex
differences and risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs, Journal
of Small Business Management 26(1):
31-35.
Moore, G. (1990): Structural
determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks.
American Socio-logical Review 55:
726-735.OECD (2003)
The Sources of Economic Growth in
OECD Countries Paris: OECD.(2004):
Women’s entrepreneurship: Issues and
policies. Paris: OECD. (2005):
Understanding Economic Growth.
Paris: OECD.
Orser, B. and S. Hogarth-Scott
(2002): Opting for growth: Gender dimensions of choosing enterprise
development Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences 19: 284-300.
Parker, S. C. and M. van Praag
(2010): Group status and entrepreneurship Journal of Economics and
Management Strategy 19(4): 919-945.
van Praag, M. and A. Raknerud (2014).
The entrepreneurial earnings puzzle:
Evidence from matched person--firm data. Discussion Papers No.
789, Statistics Norway, Research
Department.
Comments
Post a Comment