BARRIERS TO ETHNIC MINORITY AND WOMEN’S ENTERPRISE: EXISTING EVIDENCE, POLICY TENSIONS AND UNSETTLED QUESTIONS BY E. I. OLINMAH

BARRIERS TO ETHNIC MINORITY AND WOMEN’S ENTERPRISE: EXISTING EVIDENCE, POLICY TENSIONS AND UNSETTLED QUESTIONS

BY

E. I. OLINMAH

ABSTRACT

This article presents an overarching review of the evidence regarding enterprise diversity. It discusses the context of ethnic minorities and women in enterprise and summarizes research evidence relating to their relative access to finance, market selection and management skills. Policy within the field of diversity and enterprise is characterized by a number of tensions and unresolved questions including the presence of perceived or actual discrimination, the quantity and quality of ethnic minority and women-led businesses, potential market failure in the support provided to diverse enterprises and the substantive uniqueness of ethnic minority and women-led enterprises. Particular implications for policy and practice as well as directions for future research.  Women and minority entrepreneurs often face even greater obstacles. While business formation is, of course, primarily a matter for the private sector, public policy can and should encourage increased rates of entrepreneurship, and the capital, networks, and skills essential for success, especially among women and minorities. In particular, this article calls for an expanded Small and Medium Scale Business and other Credit Facilities Initiative and an enlarged SME’s to encourage private sector investment in new and small businesses. These capital initiatives should be complemented with new federal support for local business networks, and for local skills acquisition initiatives, to make it more likely that small businesses will form, survive, and grow. For Africa and United States to continue to grow, to innovate, and even more importantly to generate jobs, we need to expand our rate of business formation and improve the prospects for survival and growth of young and small businesses. Increasing the rate of minority and female entrepreneurship may help to reduce the race and gender wealth gaps, to reduce income and wealth inequality, and to increase social mobility. With this, it’s becoming more heterogeneous increase in business formation by minority female entrepreneurs which is critically improving the rate of entrepreneurship in overtime. Thus, if we are to grow as a country today, we should create jobs, and make progress on correcting income and wealth inequality, we need to help minority and Women entrepreneurs succeed.

KEYWORDS Barriers, Enterprise, Ethnic Minority,  Women Entrepreneurs

 

INTRODUCTION

The enviable entrepreneurial culture and track record of building new companies also have deep and sophisticated lending and equity markets that facilitate the growth of firms across the size spectrum.

New businesses are critical to creating more jobs: 40 percent of net new jobs created in the past two decades were the result of hiring by new businesses.  Increasingly, new businesses—especially small businesses—are being created by women and people from minority backgrounds. From 1997 to today the number of minority-owned small businesses, defined as any business with fewer than 500 employees and in which the majority of owners do not identify as white non-Hispanic, increased by more than 25 percent. Specifically, Asian-, American Indian–, and Pacific Islander–owned small businesses collectively increased by approximately 35 percent, while African American– and Hispanic-owned small businesses grew by 14 and 17 percent, respectively. The number of white-owned businesses, meanwhile, grew by only 6 percent. In addition, there was a near-perfect switch in the composition of firm ownership by gender, with the number of women-owned businesses increasing by 7 percent while male-owned businesses fell by 7 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2001, 2007, n.d.).  Not only are minority and women business owners a growing segment of the entrepreneur population, but their businesses also tend to be relatively dynamic. From 1997 to 2007 total gross receipts—defined as sales, receipts, and values of shipments—from minority firms grew much faster than the total gross receipts of nonminority firms (U.S. Census Bureau 2001, 2007, n.d.; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2015). Total gross receipts from women business owners also grew faster.

A notable feature of the enterprise policy discourse in the United Kingdom is the longstanding concern that entrepreneurial ambitions, participation and fortunes are unevenly distributed across social groups (see, for example, Parker, 2004; Ram and Jones, 2008; Southern, 2011). Two groups have captured the particular attention of policy-makers: ethnic minorities and women, and both have been the focus of concerted efforts by successive governments aiming to increase enterprise level. The rationale for supporting both groups is subtly different. Policy interest in women’s enterprise has concentrated on the potential economic gains that could accrue from increased rates of participation and productivity. Ethnic minority businesses (EMBs), of which operate in highly visible sectors such as retailing and catering, have been particularly valued for their role in promoting social cohesion and multiculturalism. While policy-makers typically regard these two groups as distinctive – and each has developed its own separate set of activists and advocacy groups – policy initiatives have often occurred in tandem. This was most clearly seen in the simultaneous establishment, management and reporting of the Ethnic Minority Business Task Force and the Women’s Enterprise Task Force (2007–2009). For both groups, the prevailing policy discourse emphasizes boosterism (Blackburn and Ram, 2006), an approach underpinned by the view that ‘all enterprise is good, more enterprise is better’. Despite longstanding policy interest, research suggests that attempts to boost ethnic minority and women’s (EMW) enterprise have yielded only modest changes in the numbers of diverse business owners.

Entrepreneurship also regards these two groups as separate and distinctive, a bifurcation which evolved from and has widened with the growing specialization within entrepreneurship scholarship. As business owning groups, ethnic minorities and women have both been researched extensively, but largely in isolation from each other. Few studies have focused simultaneously on the experiences of both EMB owners and women business owners; appear to be little overlap between the two specialist research areas. Nevertheless, there are considerable practical similarities, not least because the lower enterprise participation and performance of women and some ethnic minorities are due, in part, to lower levels of resources and other factors necessary for business entry and growth. These chiefly pertain to money, markets and management skills, dubbed the ‘3Ms’ by Bates et al. (2007) who identified them as vital Building Blocks for Business that ethnic minority enterprises are frequently unable to adequately access.

Brush et al. (2009) in turn espouse and elaborate the 3Ms framework as a springboard for researching women’s entrepreneurship, thereby, inadvertently perhaps, integrating the conceptual underpinnings of both EMW’s enterprise.

The Enterprise Research Centre’s focus on diversity and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), one of its six thematic research areas, allows us to bring together research evidence relating to ethnic minority and female business ownership to review the connections between these two separate areas of inquiry.

This article presents the results of an examination of the extant research evidence on barriers to EMW’s enterprise, its purpose being to identify key gaps that require prompt research attention, highlight policy tensions common to both groups and outline a research agenda accordingly. Following Bates et al. (2007), the review of prior research on EMW’s enterprise is structured around three themes central to both research areas, pertaining to access to external finance (money), markets and management skills and outcomes. Distilling two extensive bodies of the literature into three research themes inevitably entails losing much of the broad landscape of each research area, but this is compensated by the ability to focus in detail on these three issues that are central to both fields. In doing so, we are able to draw broad comparisons in the experience of entrepreneurship as perceived by each group and also draw attention to particular research questions, methodologies and insights that have proven fruitful in one area that may profitably be used in the other.

As one of the first reviews to bring together the research evidence pertaining to EMW’s business ownership, this article affords an opportunity not only to explore how business ownership is experienced by diverse social groups but also to consider the consequences of research practices that separate social groups into distinctive areas of study, in which minority subjects may be represented as being ‘in deficit’ to a mythologized norm (Ahl and Marlow, 2012; Ogbor, 2000). Bringing together these two separate strands of scholarship raises two immediate questions: first, a consideration of why these research strands have not been united previously and, second, to reflect on the likelihood that future studies will move beyond a focus on the experiences of a single group to encompass multiple dimensions and modalities of social relations (McCall, 2005). In answer to the first question, it is clear that while intersectionality – the interaction of multiple identities and experiences of exclusion – has emerged as a major paradigm in social research, particularly women’s studies (Walby et al., 2012), it has made minimal impact either on small business research or on public policy relating to SMEs. So far, the two research strands have developed to their current state because of the advantages conferred by specialized scholarship, but there now may be benefits in exploring whether the intersection of multiple inequalities provides opportunities for advancing entrepreneurship theory and informing public policy relating to SMEs. There are similarities here with the concept of ‘mixed embeddedness’ (Kloosterman, 2010) in ethnic minority and immigrant business research, which emphasizes the variety of political, spatial, economic and regulatory contexts in which minority firms operate. Although the approach has gained popularity among researchers (Ram et al., 2013), its traction with policy-makers is negligible (Ram and Jones, 2008). These issues are considered in the conclusions of this article, which also reflects on some policy tensions and highlights directions for future research.

 

LITERATURE REVIEW

ETHNIC MINORITY–OWNED BUSINESSES:-Within the broader social context of the ‘super diversity’ in modern Britain (Vertovec, 2007), EMBs are a complex and rapidly changing group of enterprises that include longstanding immigrant communities, notably South Asians and African-Caribbeans, and comparatively new arrivals from eastern Europe and Africa (Clark and Drinkwater, 2010; Ram et al., 2013; Sepulveda et al., 2011). While the term ‘EMB’ is a convenient way of describing enterprises owned and managed by ethnic minorities, and the term adopted in this article, some caution is necessary in its use.   Since many EMBs themselves eschew the ethnic label, ethnicity should not be taken as the defining characteristic of EMBs. We recognize that the processes that attend the labeling of such groups are rarely remarked upon; yet they can have profound effects on the way in which immigrant and other groups are constructed and perceived by the wider population. Often unarticulated philosophical assumptions lurk behind the taken-for-granted terminology that permeates policy discourse in this area. This neglect leaves researchers and policy-makers in a ‘treacherous bind’ which involves managing the tension of ‘how [they] can work with inadequate racial and ethnic categories that are to hand, whilst also finding ways of identifying and disrupting the ways in which the same categories can “essentials”’ (Gunaratnam, 2003: 29). Our review is cognizant of this double-bind.   Recent government estimates suggest that there are almost 300,000 EMBs comprising around 6% of the small firm population in the United Kingdom (BIS, 2013b). Other estimates suggest a share of 8%, but indicate further that EMBs are unevenly distributed across the United Kingdom with higher concentrations in the main urban areas, notably London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds (IFF Research, 2011; cf. Regeneris Consulting, 2010). UK government estimates suggest that EMBs contribute about £3 billion worth of gross value added (GVA) to the UK economy (BIS, 2013b), around 6%–7% of total GVA attributable to all SMEs in the United Kingdom (Regeneris Consulting, 2010). Other economic contributions include the revival of declining sectors and places (McEwan et al., 2005), as well as the enhancement or development of new conduits for transnational trading links (Mascarenhas-Keyes, 2008). EMBs also play an important role in the social adaptation and integration of new migrants in their local economies and communities (Jones et al., 2012; Zhou, 2004). Yet, EMBs continue to face barriers in relation to access to finance, the often narrow markets and sectors that they serve, and management competencies and practices. Below, we review the extant evidence pertaining to these fundamental issues.

FINANCE:-Historically, access to finance has been cited as one of the most significant barriers facing EMBs (Bates, 2011; Pierce, 1947). Despite this, there has been remarkably little research specifically examining this major concern. UK evidence suggests, however, that ethnic minority groups tend to have widely divergent experiences of external finance (Fraser, 2009; Ram et al., 2002; on EMBs in the United States, see Blanch flower et al., 2003). Research has focused on bank lending as the major providers of external business finance. Drawing on large and representative datasets examining bank lending to EMBs, Fraser’s (2009) study proposed three key observations.

First, the experience of unfavorable credit outcomes varies among entrepreneurs from different minority ethnic groups. Black African firms are more than four times as likely as White firms to be denied a loan outright, Black Caribbean firms 3.5 times as likely, Bangladeshi firms 2.5 times as likely and Pakistani firms 1.5 times as likely. Indian firms had a slightly lower loan denial rate than White firms. Furthermore, discouragement, a situation where a firm would like to apply for finance but does not for fear of rejection (Kon and Storey, 2003), was found to be highest among EMBs. Here, 44% of Black African, 39% of Black Caribbean, 31% of Bangladeshi, 21% of Pakistani and 9% of Indian firms compared to 4% of White firms reported that the fear of rejection had stopped them from applying for loans that their businesses actually required.   Second, standard risk factors (e.g. age of business, financial track records) rather than direct discrimination largely accounted for discrepancies between different ethnic minority groups. As Fraser (2009) noted, ‘In particular Black African firms are significantly more likely to miss loan repayments and/or exceed their agreed overdraft limit and this behaviour seems to largely account for their much higher loan denial rates’ (p. 601).

Finally, even after controlling for the effect of other explanatory factors such as poorer credit worthiness, Fraser (2009) found that ethnicity remained a significant factor in discouragement, particularly for Black Caribbean firms and, to a lesser extent, Indian firms (see also Blanch flower et al., 2003). Given that modern lending relies to a large extent on more objective statistical estimations of customer riskiness than relationship lending where the subjective judgment of the lending bank employee may be pivotal (Allen et al., 2004; Berger and Udell, 2002; Mester, 1997), and the regulatory context is such that discrimination by race, ethnicity or gender is prohibited, Fraser (2009) argues that EMBs may be discouraged by their own misperceptions of the possibility of discrimination.    While the concept of discouragement has itself received little research attention both in terms of conceptual elaboration and wider empirical application, there is clearly a significant ethnicity element requiring further investigation. Indeed, intra-minority differences in the perceptions of bank borrowing have scarcely been addressed in the extant literature. There is also scope for experimental research methodologies in assessing the bank lending experiences of minority entrepreneurs, following the experimental techniques used to assess the impact of gender on bank lending decisions (Carter et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2007).   For policy and practice, the importance of fostering mutual understanding between banks and EMBs by improving engagement and information flows cannot be over emphasized. Programmes of action learning and engaged scholarship may be expected to enable EMBs of various ethnic backgrounds to appreciate the changing nature of modern bank lending with more objective systems and less scope for prejudice. The knowledge or assurance that applications are mostly considered using statistical methods and objective risk variables may abate EMB discrimination fears and misperceptions, thereby encouraging application. Banks, however, may learn of the particular sources of concern held by EMBs and therefore, re-consider their lending procedures.   Indeed, research suggests that while the substitution of statistical techniques as a replacement for subjective judgment by local bank managers in predicting risk has led to increases in bank lending to small businesses (Frame et al., 2001), there have also been misgivings about this practice. Avery et al. (2004), for example, contend that misspecification errors in statistical models may lead to unpredicted credit losses on the part of the bank, as well as high borrowing costs and unnecessary customer rejections. While ethnicity is not itself directly factored into these models, certain variables associated with poor credit scores, such as problematic postcodes (Fraser, 2009) and sectors (Ram and Jones, 2008), may be coterminous with ethnicity and hence, adversely affect EMB applications. Other situational household and social factors central to enterprise that banks may consider have been found to vary non-randomly across minority ethnic groups (Borooah and Hart, 1999). Accordingly, structural financial disadvantage may neither be independent of, nor incidental to, ethnicity. Such effects may be culturally disaggregated in a way that may be occluded by ethnic labels. Basu and Altinay (2002), for example, report significant differences between Asian entrepreneurs of various origins. However, besides fragmented findings and anecdotes, a granular audit of the extent to which unfavourable structural or ‘strictly business’ factors are variously ethicized, if at all, is yet to be documented.

MARKETS Obvious but easily overlooked is the simple truth that, without a viable volume of custom, even the most richly capitalized and expertly managed firm is unable to succeed. Certainly, the initial wave of policy-based EMB surveys tended to pay more attention to lack of financial and human capital than to lack of markets, with the effect of potentially over-emphasizing the former at the expense of the latter. Beyond an assessment of their independent effects, a deeper investigation of path dependence, interactions and/or nestedness of these and their effects on various aspects of minority enterprise may illuminate the situation further. For example, small-scale retailing and catering make relatively modest demands on capital and expertise and hence, are highly popular with under-resourced immigrant entrepreneurs who may not have access to large supplies of capital and may also be discouraged from pursuing bank finance or have had rejected applications. With low cost entry, however, the supply of minority retail and catering businesses has tended to out-run market potential, creating excessive competition and market saturation, thereby stifling the earning capacity of competing EMBs (Jones et al., 2000). Heightening this problem is exposure to fierce competition from corporations (supermarkets and restaurant chains). For the most part, however, the most intense competition faced by South Asians and Chinese is with one another (Jones and Ram, 2011).

Although the latter is also a problem for African-Caribbean entrepreneurs, their exposure is less acute because of their lesser concentration in catering and small retail (Ram and Jones, 2008). African-Caribbean self-employment is not only much less restricted to the disadvantaged retail and catering sectors, it is also much smaller than South Asian self-employment in general (Borooah and Hart, 1999; Ram and Jones, 2008). Historical studies have suggested that the need to drum up custom proved a challenge at the outset for immigrant newcomers searching for market space amid deeply rooted incumbent native firms. The relatively higher prevalence of South Asian retailers since the 1970s was in part driven by their own co-ethnic communities with their demand for Asian food, clothing and other ethno-cultural artifacts supplemented by demand for non-specific items purchased by fellow Asians – a demand which emanated from a combination of ethnic loyalty and neighborhood proximity (Aldrich et al., 1981).   In contrast, it has been argued that the comparatively slight volume of Black Caribbean retailing stems from a relative lack of this ethnic customer particularism (Ward, 1991). While Asian entrepreneurs contended with narrow ethnic markets, cultural factors would have rendered the effective customer base for potential Black entrepreneurs too narrow to sustain even a small ethnic retail operation. Nevertheless, from the 1980s, Asian and other ethnic minority retailers have increasingly spread into more expansive White residential markets (Ward, 1985). Increasingly, this caused a shift towards non-ethnic general purpose necessities, with food retailing and newsagents in the vanguard.   More spectacularly, perhaps, over the years, South Asian and Chinese entrepreneurs have managed to cater for a vast demand for exotic cuisine (Barrett et al., 1996). Little research has been carried out, however, to investigate why Africans and West Indians have not been as successful in commodifying their cuisines and/or targeting wider markets. In particular, whether it is the size of the immediate ethnic market that affords significant springboard effects or whether there are other cultural entrepreneurial drivers that play a larger role has not been established.  Indeed, besides food and retail, globalization dynamics in the apparel industry afforded opportunities for sectorial diversification that were seemingly seized by South Asian and (in London) Turkish entrepreneurs. Setting up operations in defunct industrial premises, these businesses took advantage of locational proximity to outcompete foreign suppliers. Notwithstanding such advances, structural disadvantage springs from the fact that UK producer firms are in direct competition with low-cost labour in the developing world, with only geographical proximity operating in their favour. With such overseas competition, especially the ascendant role of Chinese producers, survival by EMBs in the apparel sector has been increasingly precarious and dependent on extreme cost-cutting measures, sometimes even non-compliance with minimum wage requirements (Jones et al., 2006; Ram et al., 2003). Coupled with this, their customers are mostly large-scale high street retailers, whose terms and conditions tend to be disadvantageous (Ram and Jones, 2008).   In the low value-added, low-profit areas in which EMBs operate, commercial survival is often a painful struggle. Indeed, while there is evidence of some diversification of markets and sector, EMBs remain in disadvantaged spaces characterized by parochial ethnic silos, narrow locality-based markets. Even for firms operating in White residential areas, cannibalistic competition between EMBs and their low-pay ‘open-all-hours’ operations (Jones and Ram, 2011). Exposure to unequal competition from corporations constrains scalability and returns. (Jones et al., 2000), global competition from cheaper imports and exploitative monopolistic buyers (Ram and Jones, 2008), as well as unequal treatment in industrial markets (Ram and Small bone, 2003; Worthington, 2009) also pose significant threats to small EMBs.   US research also finds that low performing EMBs, which again is uneven between different ethnic minority groups (Fairlie and Robb, 2008), have limited labour markets in that they frequently recruit fellow ethnics, while more successful EMBs have a more diverse workforce with significant shares of White employees (Bates, 2011). These labour market dynamics have rarely been studied in the United Kingdom. In general, however, future prospects of EMBs within the various ethnic groups critically depend upon the creation of new market opportunities by targeting broader markets, as well as diversifying into markets and sectors higher up the value-added chain. While it hardly needs stating that such a break-out requires financial and human capital on a scale as yet unavailable to most EMBs (Ram and Jones, 2008), a thorough understanding of the whole gamut of barriers faced by the various minority businesses in broadening their markets and the role policy could play is yet to be established.

MANAGEMENT:-While skills and other entrepreneurial capabilities have been identified as an important building block for the creation of viable small businesses, access to educational and business-related experiences is a significant barrier facing EMBs (Bates et al., 2007). Evidence from the United States suggests that the possession of higher level qualifications is associated with the higher presence of recent African American graduates in ‘emerging’ business lines, including new business sectors like media, information technology (IT) and engineering (Bates, 2011). Besides education, however, applied managerial skills are also crucial for success in business. Reiterating the importance of context and the interrelatedness between the key factors, a recent study in the USA observed differences between the fortunes of Latino construction entrepreneurs in Philadelphia and those in North Carolina (Islander). In Philadelphia, Latino entrepreneurs were confined to informal and unskilled small-scale residential works as powerful labour unions that control industry training and credentialing processes are largely closed to immigrant workers. Here, EMBs evidently face obstacles related to both the labour market and consumer market. In contrast, the relative absence of such limitations in North Carolina enabled Latino workers to gain experience; first, in supervisory and managerial roles in mainstream construction companies and later, as independent entrepreneurs embedded in the networks of prime contractors as key subcontractors (Islander).   In recent British studies, three trends are evident. First, although the uptake of information and communications technology (ICT) among EMBs in traditional sectors has remained relatively low (Beckinsale et al., 2011), EMBs are increasingly to be found in non-traditional sectors (notably, pharmaceuticals, IT and the media) and run by highly credentialed owners (Ram and Jones, 2008). The possession of higher level skills creates opportunities to engage in knowledge-based entrepreneurial activities where knowledge is a primary asset and a source of competitive advantage (Thompson et al., 2010).

Second, there is a lengthy and persistent history of mismatch between qualifications and occupation in the field of self-employment with highly qualified individuals in activities completely unrelated to their specialized expertise (Aldrich et al., 1981; Jones et al., 1994; Ram et al., 2002). Studies of new migrant business repeat this finding (Jones et al., 2011; Sepulveda et al., 2011), and the prevalence of ‘necessity entrepreneurship’ among EMB owners in the United Kingdom is illustrated in a series of recent studies (for a review, see Ram and Jones, 2008). Although the pertinence of the necessity/opportunity construct in deprived contexts has been questioned, not least since motivations may change post-entry (Rosa et al., 2009; Williams and Williams, 2011), the propensity towards necessity entrepreneurship among highly educated ethnic minorities and the labour market dynamics in play here remains relevant, albeit relatively under-researched. For example, Fraser (2009) finds high levels of financial delinquency among Black African entrepreneurs, despite the fact that they had relatively higher rates of professional and postgraduate qualifications. It may be the case, here, that applied professional experience may be an integral complement to formal qualifications, and lack of it may actually render the qualifications economically futile even where the agent pursues self-employment.  The market ‘break-out’ that is often called for in policy discourse is heavily dependent on the more strategic deployment of the entrepreneur’s labour. This is likely to require not just experience and skills, but a wholesale re-direction of the proprietor’s efforts, if not the nature of the business itself. This can be challenging for the many EMBs that operate on a tight budget with little paid assistance (Jones et al., 1994) and with high propensity for ethnic homophily (Ruef et al., 2003). Yet, a broader personnel base is often a feature of EMBs that have diversified, something which is evident in ethnic minority suppliers to large organizations (Ram et al., 2011). Intriguingly, Wang and Altinay’s (2012) study of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) in EMBs suggested that while co-ethnic advice and labour had no effect on the development of a firm’s EO, access to co-ethnic suppliers of facilities and utilities had a significant effect and promoted subsequent employment growth.

Self-employed minorities engaging in a variety of low value-added activities may therefore, not gain the skills and capabilities necessary to strategically steer the business to success. Rather, it is the employment and deployment of workers in more specialized and professional roles, especially workers recruited from diverse ethnic groups, that are associated with better EMB performance (Bates, 2011). Whether the division of labour and diversification of workers are causally related to firm performance and growth has yet to be established. Furthermore, the extent to which EMBs in the United Kingdom are shunning or are prepared to shun parochial and patriarchal tendencies and move towards a more diverse workforce, more professionalized delegation and more broadminded strategic growth, and the complexities such moves entail are relatively unexplored by enterprise research (Jones and Ram, 2010).

WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES:-Given the relatively high proportion of joint male–female business ownership, particularly among marital couples and sibling relations, women-owned businesses can be difficult to define and precisely enumerate. However, recent estimates by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate that women comprise about 29% of the United Kingdom’s self-employed population and 22% of incorporated businesses are women-led (BIS, 2013b; Causer and Park, 2009). Women-owned businesses contribute about £75 billion to GVA, about 16% of the approximate GVA that all UK SMEs generate (BIS, 2013b). At the regional scale, self-employment rates for men and women are closely correlated, and the highest rates of female self-employment in the United Kingdom are in those regions where male self-employment rates are also highest (South East, South West and London) (BIS, 2013a).   Despite many initiatives to increase women’s participation in enterprise (Alexander et al., 2009; Causer and Park, 2009), men are still almost twice as likely to start businesses as women (Kelley et al., 2011; Marlow et al., 2012). The ‘global gender gap’ debate underpins much of the policy interest in women’s enterprise as it identifies a clear economic rationale for the encouragement of women to become independent business owners. Relative to other high-income countries, particularly the United States, UK rates of female business ownership have been persistently low (Hausmann, 2013; Kelley et al., 2011; Xavier et al., 2013). While there have been strong critiques of the United States as an appropriate comparator for UK entrepreneurship policy (Marlow et al., 2008), and pointed resistance to the view of women entrepreneurs as ‘lacking and incomplete men’ (Ahl and Marlow, 2012: 543), the scale of the UK enterprise ‘gap’ is commonly illustrated by reference to both men in the United Kingdom and women in the United States. These estimates suggest that an additional 150,000 businesses would be created if rates of business ownership among women were the same as men, and an additional 900,000 businesses would be created annually if the United Kingdom had the same rates of women’s business ownership as in the United States (Alexander et al., 2009).  While the number of women engaged in self-employment and business ownership has risen in recent years, much of the growth has been in women working part-time and among those wanting more flexible working hours to complement domestic commitments (Causer and Park, 2009). Studies suggest that a substantial proportion of self-employed women ‘may be working very few hours – as little as an hour per week’, fitting in flexible self-employment around family commitments (Causer and Park, 2009: 47). Indeed, more women than men use their home as a business base (Mason et al., 2011), and some women do not even consider their self-employment as ‘proper work’ (Marlow, 2006). Research has found that although the career transition experiences of women are complex (Patterson and Mavin, 2009), many women use self-employment as a temporary solution within a broader career path and are therefore, likely to exit business for personal reasons other than business failure (Marlow et al., 2012). While some studies report under-participation of women in self-employment, other data suggest that the participation of women may be widespread, but masked by dual ownership. In 2012, on top of the 19% of SME employers that were women-led, a further 23% were equally led by men and women, suggesting that about 42% of SME employers in the United Kingdom are at least equally, if not wholly, led by women (Rhodes, 2013). When entrepreneurship studies focus only on the individual, besides overlooking the important contributions of the family and the household to the business (Alsos et al., 2014), the much wider participation of women in enterprise is disguised (see also, Jennings et al., 2013). Thus, existing levels of self-employment among women are not accurate indicators of entrepreneurial activity and economic contributions. With much of the extant research evidence suggesting a bimodal profile of male-owned and female-owned businesses with regard to size, age, income and other performance measures, efforts towards generating a richer and more robust understanding of women’s entrepreneurship have been called for (Hughes et al., 2012).  That women are under-represented in enterprise can be seen to be a complex research issue obscured by the use of gender labels. Arguing that the use of biological sex to dichotomise businesses is overly simplistic, Bird and Brush (2002) propose a more nuanced approach which considers gender as a mental (cognitive and affective) perspective that influences the process of organizational creation and operations but is not necessarily isomorphic with biological sex (see also Marlow and Swail, 2014). Alongside these issues on the conceptualization of gender in enterprise research, the extent and causes of female ‘under-performance’ have been subject to extensive debate and empirical research (Chell and Baines, 1998; Johnsen and McMahon, 2005; Marlow and McAdam, 2013; Watson, 2002). Towards advancing this research, Brush et al. (2009) argue that while Bates et al.’s (2007) framework is useful, extending and mediating the 3Ms with issues pertaining to family and household (motherhood) as well as the meso-context and social and cultural norms at the macro-level could further a holistic understanding of women’s enterprise.

MONEY:-Securing external finance has long been regarded as the major obstacle preventing women from starting and growing a successful enterprise. Although regulatory developments have sought to make access to finance gender neutral by annulling formal gender identification, women still perceive higher financial barriers (Roper and Scott, 2009) and are therefore, more likely to be discouraged borrowers (Freel et al., 2012; Treichel and Scott, 2006). Indeed, while sources of finance for male- and female-led businesses are largely similar (Irwin and Scott, 2010), studies show that women-owned businesses start with substantially lower levels of overall capitalization from personal and external sources, use lower ratios of debt finance and are much less likely to use private equity or venture capital (Carter and Rosa, 1998; Carter and Shaw, 2006).   Further evidence suggests that initial under-capitalization has a long-term effect constraining future business growth prospects (Alsos et al., 2006; Carter et al., 2001; Rosa et al., 1996; Watson, 2002), not least because under-capitalization may mire the firms in sub-optimal scales (Quadrini, 2009), which leave them more susceptible to failure (Headd, 2003). Understanding gender-based differences in finance usage is therefore, crucial and has been a major research focus. Three main explanations often cited in the literature include structural dissimilarities, supply-side discrimination and demand-side risk aversion.

STRUCTURAL DISSIMILARITIES:-Differences in finance usage between male- and female-owned businesses are most often explained as a product of differences in business size, age and sector (Marlow et al., 2012), with women more likely to found firms in sectors and sizes with low capital requirements (Carter and Shaw, 2006; Coleman, 2000). While this explains much of the difference, it is not a complete explanation; studies using matched samples of men and women have reported residual gender-based finance differences even after structural factors have been controlled (for a review, see Carter et al., 2007). Importantly, one recent study also suggests the presence of second-order gender effects in US small business borrowing costs, arguing that ‘the “gendering” of structure is itself a gender effect’ (Wu and Chua, 2012). Indeed, the extent to which structure and gender are coterminous remains an important question for research.

SUPPLY-SIDE GENDER DISCRIMINATION:-Although there have been high-profile accusations of gender discrimination by lenders (Hertz, 2011), there is virtually no evidence to unequivocally support this claim. Extant evidence from Italy (Alesina et al., 2013), France (Orhan, 2001) and the United States (Coleman, 2000) indicates that certain supply-side practices, in particular collateral requirements, may disadvantage women business owners more than their structurally identical male peers. Historically, results such as these were used to explain higher levels of female dissatisfaction with banks, and accompanied by claims of sexual stereotyping (Buttner and Rosen, 1988; Hisrich and Brush, 1990) and conjectures of unconscious discrimination (McKechnie et al., 1998). Recent studies deploying more sophisticated and experimental methodologies found that differences in finance usage were not the result of systemic supply-side gender bias, but rather the outcome of a co-produced lending decision about businesses which could often be started – although not necessarily successfully sustained – with minimal capital outlay (Carter et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2007).

DEMAND-SIDE RISK AVERSION:- Other studies suggest that the lower uptake of debt finance among women entrepreneurs may simply emanate from a reluctance to actually request it (Marlow and Carter, 2004). While some studies have drawn on the psychological literature to claim the existence of higher levels of risk aversion among women (Powell and Ansic, 1997), more credible analyses of women’s entrepreneurial endeavours have argued that women’s disinclination to engage in fast-paced business growth (Bird and Brush, 2002; Cliff, 1998) and reluctance to take on high levels of business debt (Watson and Robinson, 2003) are symptomatic of wider socio-economic gender differences. Feminist analyses have shown how entrepreneurship theory has been informed and shaped by prevailing hetero-normative assumptions that serve to valorise the successful male entrepreneur while positioning women as ‘lacking’ (Ahl and Marlow, 2012: 543). Assertions of female ‘risk aversion’ illustrate how the subordination of women may be reproduced within entrepreneurship theory by simplistic descriptions that offer little explanation and even less critical reflection on ‘the idea of who can be and what might be an entrepreneur’ (Ahl and Marlow, 2012: 543).

MARKETS:-That many women are relatively loath to engage in or pursue business growth (Bird and Brush, 2002; Cliff, 1998; Rosa et al., 1996; Watson and Robinson, 2003) suggests that women’s enterprise will by definition, and by choice, have narrow markets and smaller operations. Studies have consistently demonstrated that women-owned firms are typically smaller, over-represented within service sectors and more likely to be part-time and to operate from a home-base (Hughes et al., 2012). Women-led businesses may hence routinely contend with efficiency issues, not least scale economies and cost optimization, that ordinarily determine not just how well a business performs but also whether it manages to survive at all.   In contrast, Cliff (1998) argues that women-led enterprises espousing guardedly managed or deliberately suppressed growth should out-survive firms pursuing high growth but risky strategies. Marlow and McAdam (2013), however, observe that the fact that the overall share of women’s enterprise has changed very little over the last two decades despite high entry into self-employment is indicative of ‘high levels of churn’. While non-business reasons, such as return to employment in line with parenting demands, do account for some exits (Marlow et al., 2012), it is undoubted that classical micro-economic fundamentals regarding competitive efficiencies are responsible for a substantial share of exits. The extent of the trade-offs between scale inefficiencies vis-à-vis control efficacies in determining the longevity of women-led businesses is therefore, an open question.  Although business growth is a paramount question for policy, some have suggested that growth aversion among women is so intrinsic that even ‘providing courses specifically for women that are designed to foster growth may be largely a wasted effort’ (Watson and Robinson, 2003: 774). In fact, Hundley (2000) finds that while male entrepreneurs pursued higher earnings, women pursued self-employment to be able to flexibly work around household (caring) demands. Thus, business growth may not be a priority or indeed, an objective for women entrepreneurs.  While this may also be said of many male business owners (Marlow and McAdam, 2013), Hundley’s (2000) finding that more ambitious women tend to favour organizational employment over self-employment while more ambitious men elect entrepreneurship over salaried work suggests fundamental differences with significant effects on enterprise outcomes. Other research, however, finds that women entrepreneurs are as motivated and growth-driven as their male counterparts (Fischer et al., 1993; Gundry and Welsch, 2001), including in high-technology sectors (Marlow and McAdam, 2013), which suggests that barriers to expansion may be external. Whether there are significant gender differences in entry motives and growth aspirations, and the nature (internal or external) and causes of the apparently suppressed business expansion ambitions among women remain unsettled.  Be that as it may, women’s participation in the economy is traditionally limited to highly gendered and under-valued sectors and occupations – a situation that has remained a persistent challenge to gender equity within employment and in society more generally (Grimshaw and Rubery, 2007; Perrons, 2009). According to Grimshaw and Rubery (2007), under-valuation of women’s economic activities may be summarized under five Vs.: visibility – limited sectorial diversity; valuation – endemic cultural deprecation of women’s work; vocation – the association of women’s work with ‘natural talents’ as well as socialized or affective dimensions as mothers and careers rather than professional skills; value-added – women are more likely to work in low value-added and high labour intensive areas (e.g. care for children and the elderly) with little scope for the use of technology to enhance productivity and variance – the perception of women’s work and work patterns (due to household demands) as fundamentally different from men’s.  A key explanation of female under-participation and under-performance in enterprise is that women’s employment trends are reproduced in self-employment (Marlow, 1997). In a debate described as ‘the female under-performance hypothesis’ (Du Rietz and Henrekson, 2000), studies have sought to explain the profiles of women-owned enterprises arguing that the performance potential of women’s businesses is constrained by specific socio-economic influences which position their firms in particular gendered spaces (Marlow and McAdam, 2013). This limits the markets for women’s enterprise in terms of both sectorial diversity and the returns accruable to women’s enterprises. Indeed, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2002) estimates that 75% of women are concentrated in just 19 highly feminized sectors (more than 70% female employment) out of 114 sectors, compared to 30 sectors for men. UK data from the ONS similarly illustrate the prevalence of highly feminized sectors as the location for much female self-employment; 43% of self-employed women were found in just 13 sectors, the largest of which were child-minding, teaching, cleaning, retail and hairdressing. In contrast, the construction sector accounts for 2% of female self-employment compared to 27% of male self-employment (Causer and Park, 2009).  Remarkably, information and communication and financial and insurance services account for about 23% of both male and female self-employment, suggesting that more diversified increases in female self-employment may be underway. The growing number of women entering the liberal professions such as accounting, law and medicine similarly has the potential to lead more women into self-employed private practice in higher value-added sectors (Marlow and Carter, 2004). The extent to which these successes in diversifying women’s careers are translating to the enterprise scene makes for an interesting area for research. Indeed, while discrimination in the work-place may lead women into entrepreneurship, the broader market, not least for finances, may not be gender neutral as the unsettled financial discrimination question suggests.

MANAGEMENT:-Within recent studies examining the performance of women-led enterprises, much of the variability in performance has been attributed to resource endowments and business structure (Birley et al., 1987; Du Rietz and Henrekson, 2000; Johnsen and McMahon, 2005; Robb and Watson, 2012; Watson, 2002; Watson and Robinson, 2003; Zolin et al., 2013). Women entrepreneurs have been found to have less managerial experience than their male counterparts (Boden and Nucci, 2000; Brush, 1992; Zolin et al., 2013), to use ‘less than optimal or perhaps “feminine” management practices or strategies’ (Ahl, 2006: 603) such as bounded growth (Cliff, 1998) and to engage in sectors where advanced managerial skills and competencies are not required (Marlow and McAdam, 2013). Here, as is the case with finance (Wu and Chua, 2012), the issue that strongly emerges is the impact of gendered structure. Rather than under-performance as such, Marlow and McAdam (2013) argue that women’s enterprise is constrained by strong socio-economic influences that funnel women into unpropitious sectors, and since this is not a question of managerial competency, a focus on education and similar human capital enhancements fails to address the fundamental issue. Indeed, while Hundley (2001) finds that women without children earn more than men suggesting that parenting is a pivotal determinant of economic performance, Gorman and Kmec (2007) argue that women face stricter performance standards and have to, and do indeed, try harder.  Beyond this complex debate, Bird and Brush (2002) have developed a gendered perspective on managerial practice. Since this concept of gender is a set of abstract constructs and continua, it may not correspond with dichotomous biological sex, hence, perhaps, why no latent gender effects have been observed after accounting for structure (see also, Watson, 2012). There may be scope, yet, for empirical research to explore these perspectives, not least qualitatively. In addition, while the debate on women’s participation and contributions in corporate boardrooms has been vibrant (Terjesen et al., 2009), research into managerial dynamics within jointly owned (male and female) enterprises and how such firms perform relative to male- or female-owned businesses has not been forthcoming.

THE IMPORTANCE OF INCREASING ENTREPRENEURSHIP RATES AMONG MINORITIES AND WOMEN:-

New businesses, small businesses, and entrepreneurship offer a number of benefits for individual business owners as well as for society. Some small businesses tend to stay small, such as owner-operated service, retail, or hospitality businesses. These firms can still be important generators of jobs and economic security in their local communities. Of the roughly 11 percent of workers who are self-employed, most fall into this group. Other small businesses have greater growth possibilities, and can in some instances help to promote large-scale job creation and expansive economic growth. After all, every large business was once a small business. The policy and research literature does not consistently describe “small businesses,” “new businesses,” and “entrepreneurship” as separate concepts, and I use the terms somewhat interchangeably in the discussion here. The differing types of entrepreneurs—for example, those who start a new business, run a business that will stay small, or grow a small business into a larger one—may vary in their economic objectives, roles in the economy, and skills and resources (Schoar 2009). This is particularly likely to be the case with minorities and women, whose rates of self-employment lag behind that of white, non-Hispanic men—although those rates have been growing over the past two decades.  In addition, with racial and ethnic minorities—and women—a growing share of the U.S. workforce, fostering business formation among these groups will play an increasingly important role in contributing to the rate of entrepreneurship overall. If our

country is to continue to foster economic opportunity, create jobs, and make progress on income and wealth inequality, we ought to help women and individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups start businesses and succeed as entrepreneurs.

THE STATE OF MINORITY AND WOMEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Although the United States has long collected demographic and earnings data on workers, detailed data on business owners and their businesses have become regularly available only relatively recently, and they come with a sizeable time lag.  The most recent data available are from 2007, and thus predate the Great Recession. With that caveat, table 1 shows how the size of non-publicly traded firms, in terms of employees, varies by the race, ethnicity, and gender of the owner.

While the vast majority of non-publicly traded businesses consist of a single owner with no employees, as of 2007 minority-owned businesses were nonetheless considerably smaller on average than nonminority-owned businesses in their number of employees, as were businesses owned by women relative to businesses owned by men. These size differences also carry over in terms of revenue. In 2002 average gross receipts for minority-owned businesses was approximately $167,000,

compared to $439,000 for nonminority-owned businesses; receipts were particularly low for African American–owned businesses, at just $74,000 (Fairlie and Robb 2010). A separate and more recent (postrecession) survey of businesses headed by women showed that their annual revenues were approximately $154,000 (American Express 2014), although it is hard to compare this number to those above because the recession disproportionately affected women and minority business owners.

PERSONAL BENEFITS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Providing assistance to entrepreneurs can potentially provide several sets of social benefits: first, to the business owners themselves, including their income and social mobility, and second, to the workers they employ. Finally, assistance to entrepreneurs provides macroeconomic benefits related to the spread of innovation. However, it is challenging to draw a clear cause-and-effect relationship from being an entrepreneur or running a small business to improved economic outcomes:

after all, people with the drive, skills, and organizational ability to run their own business might also have earned more and accumulated more wealth if they had been working as employees. Geographic areas with a greater share of people who have the qualities it takes to be successful entrepreneurs might also have stronger economic outcomes if those people worked inside companies, rather than starting companies of their own. That said, a considerable body of evidence suggests the importance of small and new businesses to individual economic outcomes despite the high risks of business failure, successful entrepreneurship is correlated with wealth, savings, job satisfaction, and economic mobility. Small businesses serve as an important store of wealth for individuals from all income levels. For example, Janet Yellen reports that the Survey of Consumer Finances shows that for households in the bottom half of the wealth distribution the average value of business equity was only $20,000, but that represented 60 percent of those households’ net worth (Yellen 2014).  Business ownership can catalyze social mobility. A study using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the Survey of Consumer Finances found that families who owned a business at the end of a five-year period but not at the beginning of that period were more likely to have moved into a higher income group than were other families over the same period; in fact, families who did not acquire or start a business over the survey period were more likely to either stay in their income category or to fall into a lower one (Quadrini 2000). Another study using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, this time from 1999 to 2009, showed that, controlling for a host of demographic and economic variables, African American entrepreneurs are both more likely to move into higher income groups than are African American non-entrepreneurs, and as likely to do so as are white entrepreneurs (Bradford 2014). The author of that study argues that a higher level of African American entrepreneurship can help to reduce disparities in wealth between white and African American families (Bradford 2014, p. 255). The gender wealth gap, which actually expanded between 1998 and 2011, could also narrow as women gain access to capital, skills training, and networks for business creation and growth (Chang 2010).

ENTREPRENEURSHIP’S BENEFITS TO THE U.S. ECONOMY:-The SBA (2014a) estimates that small businesses accounted for 63 percent of net new jobs created from 1993 to 2013. However, recent academic literature has emphasized that the size of the firm matters less than the age of the firm, which should not be surprising, as many small businesses do not really seek to expand. Indeed, a well-regarded recent study demonstrates that young firms, which by their nature tend to be small, are responsible for most net new job creation (Haltiwanger, Jarmin, and Miranda 2013). Though start-up firms in their first year of existence account for only 3 percent of employment in the United States, they constitute 20 percent of total hires.  Furthermore, though many of these firms fail, surviving firms generate jobs at a significantly higher rate than older firms do.

A variety of studies have pointed out reasons that small businesses can make an outsized contribution to innovation and economic growth. Small businesses often lead the market to embrace new processes, different incentives, and alternative organizational models, which may lead to increased efficiency and subsequent economic growth (Carree and Thurik 2005; Edmiston 2007). An increase in the number of small businesses may also lead to more variety in the supply of products and services, thus offering a greater range of niche products and services, and may produce new methods of research and development. (Priest 2003; Thurik and Wennekers 2004).  The opportunity for new firms to break away from existing firms can lead to the spillover and commercialization of knowledge that might otherwise have remained dormant or commercialized in the incumbent firm generating that knowledge (Audretsch and Keilbach 2007). Patenting small businesses produce sixteen times as many patents per employee as do large patenting businesses (SBA 2014b).

In short, supporting business growth offers a number of benefits to entrepreneurs themselves and to the economy more broadly. In the remainder of the paper, I recommend three specific policy proposals to assist would-be minority and women business owners seeking to start new businesses and/or to improve their existing business ventures.

EXPAND ACCESS TO BUSINESS NETWORKS FOR MINORITY AND WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS:-Business networks can help any firm build its customer and supplier base, improve access to debt and equity finance, and provide useful advice and support. Such networks can be especially beneficial for new and smaller firms that, because of their size, often have a narrower range of contacts. Moreover, peer networks may be particularly valuable for entrepreneurs who face similar problems or are located in the same communities. Women- and minority-owned businesses often are cut off from business networks even though they might benefit the most from access to them. While participants in these networks suggest that they are worthwhile, systematic evidence is lacking on how best to structure them and what payoffs are likely to result. Congress should appropriate =N=500 million as an add-on to the SSBCI to permit state and local governments to support regional and sector-specific business networks. As part of the grants, recipients would agree to rigorous evaluation of different network models. SSBCI-funded initiatives would help to build networks of different sizes, memberships, skill distributions, and methods of communicating, with the goal of providing evidence for proven models that could be applied on a larger scale.  Many networking initiatives tend to operate through meetings and seminars based around key issues of common interest, such as particular business techniques or opportunities.  When entrepreneurs network, they can often help each other with information and advice that will increase their social capital, knowledge of business, and confidence to overcome business challenges or to take greater advantage of business opportunities (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 2005).

Evidence on the extent and importance of networks is hard to find, but some suggestive evidence appears in studies of venture capital. One likely reason that minorities are disproportionately underserved by institutional sources of venture capital may be an information failure that results from a lack of common networks. This hypothesis is supported by the growth in venture capital investment for women-owned businesses as the number of women-owned businesses has increased (Rubin 2010). Similarly, because angel networks are often built informally between investors with a history of doing business together, minorities may not have as much access to this form of capital. Venture capital networks also tend to be geographically based. To the extent that minority entrepreneurs seek to launch businesses in areas of high minority concentration and not in areas where venture capital investors are concentrated, geographic isolation may reinforce exclusion from these networks (Jones 2007).

While business networks should be based in the business community and led by business people, the federal government can play a role in fostering these networks, especially for minority and female entrepreneurs and for businesses in low-income communities. One example was the Business LINC (Learning, Information, Networking, and Collaboration) partnership, which was launched in 1998 by the Clinton administration, and has since operated under several different names and incarnations. The Bush administration bolstered and renamed the program the “Urban Entrepreneurship Partnership” in 2004, under which name it operated until 2012, when it entered into a new partnership with the Center

for Transformation and Strategic Initiatives, a program that still operates on a localized level (Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation 2014). The Urban Entrepreneurship Partnership finds local start-up champions to lead the coalitions, along the same lines as the original Business LINC concept; however, the Urban Entrepreneurship Partnership is much more focused on peer-to-peer entrepreneurial connections, and is less focused on economically distressed communities. The Obama

administration reimagined these types of partnerships as part of its Startup America initiative, launched in 2011.

Business LINC was initially led by the SBA and Treasury (Office of the Vice President 1998) and was then handed off to private sector leaders. Partnerships such as Business LINC are designed to encourage large businesses to work with small business owners and entrepreneurs, and to bolster peer-to-peer entrepreneurial connections at the local and regional levels. Small businesses are able to obtain critical advice, enhance management development, leverage core strengths, assess sources of financing, increase marketplace credibility, and enter subcontracts and joint ventures. At the same time, larger companies are able to leverage relationships with smaller companies to penetrate local

markets with untapped buying power, find new strategic market niches, and diversify supplier bases. This multifaceted strategy encourages development of business networks through one-on-one consulting, group training, peer groups and advisory boards, subcontracting and supplier development programs, and sales channel development programs, among other approaches.

While networking can be mutually beneficial, setting up and maintaining a network often requires both a local champion and outside resources, if the benefits of the network are to extend to other firms and the broader community as well.

The Business LINC approach was flexible enough to assume various forms. The usual structure of a Business LINC coalition was to have a CEO of a major corporation serve as chair, while the coalition was hosted by community, civic, or business organizations. One example of a well-functioning local coalition was in Washington, DC. The Business LINC coalition partnered with local government and community development organizations to match neighborhood small business owners with a mentor from the Washington Area Board of Trade. As a result of the collaboration, local businesses reported increased revenue. The Washington, DC local coalition also conducted workshops for entrepreneurs on tax incentives (Jones 2002).

Other coalitions were formed around the country, including in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Flint, Houston, the Mississippi River Delta, Nashville, New York City, Richmond, and San Francisco.

Supporting Skills Acquisition for Business Owners Congress should appropriate $500 million as part of the SSBCI to finance skills acquisition initiatives. Three components figure prominently in the plan:

•           One component would include challenge grants to develop an app for entrepreneurs that use a mix of professionally developed just-in-time information and peer-to-peer just-in-time advising.

•           A second component would run rigorous experiments on the best methods to assist in skills acquisition.

•           A third component would support local Small Business Development Centers and Women’s Business Centers run by the SBA, Minority Business Development Agency Business Centers supported by the Commerce Department, and community college entrepreneurial training initiatives.

The projects would offer various curriculum choices and then follow-up with participants to collect evidence to help determine which models could be applied on a larger scale.

States would receive bonus points in the SSBCI capital program for rigorous program evaluation.

Under this model, several different approaches to skills acquisition would be considered. Some training programs might implement just-in-time consulting services, while others might focus on heuristics or rule-of-thumb training models.

Others might compare online and classroom methods of building skills, or in-person versus telephone or Web-based methods. Still others would focus on helping entrepreneurs acquire necessary skills by efficiently hiring employees with the right skill set. Programs might be aimed at entrepreneurs in different stages: those just starting a business, those with a small business already, and those with a small business that has a chance to grow dramatically. Programs should also be aimed at different types of participants, including those with substantial shares of minorities and women. These programs would compete for federal funds, with some preference going to programs that include rigorous research design—laying out either a randomized or a quasi-experimental approach with a clear comparison group. Programs would be required to submit extensive annual program information, so that outcomes in terms of employment, earnings, growth of business receipts, and payroll, as well as user satisfaction with the program, could be successfully tracked.

LEGAL BARRIERS AND PROCEDURES:-Varying across countries, the lack of government support in terms of policy, laws and services has been identified as a barrier for women entrepreneurs (Jamali, 2009). Even though this varies greatly across countries, most research indicates that regulations, taxation, and legal barriers can pose serious obstacles for running and starting a business.

Data from the annual report Women Business and the Law (World Bank, 2012) measured that in all Middle Eastern and North African countries, women have fewer inheritance rights than men.

Moreover, there are 1 or more legal differences between women and men that limit women’s economic opportunity in over 75% of the world’s economies. According to that same report, women only own 1% of the world’s property and in 2/3 of countries, legal rights of women decline with marriage, 44 countries restrict the number of hours women can work and 71 countries restrict the types of industries.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research adopted a cross-sectional survey design. The survey research method according to Stark

(2004) has two identifying features. First, it is based on a sample of the population. Second, the data are collected by personal interviews or by having each individual complete a questionnaire. The researcher obtained cross sectional data from the respondents by means of questionnaire and In –Depth Interviews (IDIs).

SAMPLING PROCEDURE

Multi stage sampling technique was used to select the sample. These include cluster sampling, simple random sampling, and availability sampling. Purposive sampling was also used in the sampling procedure.

All the city of Lagos was grouped into three clusters, representing the three autonomous communities. After grouping them into clusters, the researcher conducted a simple random sampling (balloting) to select the five Areas to be studied in each of the autonomous communities. In the 15 selected villages, the houses were numbered and another simple random sampling was conducted to enable the researcher select the households that will represent the village. Seventeen (17) households were selected in each of the area of the household two women were picked for the study.

The reason for choosing random sampling for this study is to ensure that all the three autonomous

communities were equally represented and also to give every village in the communities an equal chance of being selected for the study in order to reduce biases (Stark, 2004).

There were cases where there was only one woman who was up to 18 years in the household selected. In cases like this, what the researcher did was to select another woman from another household which did not fall into the sample to make up the number required.

Purposive sampling procedure was also used to select 15 men and 15 women who are opinion leaders, women leaders and the significant orders in the communities. Who have certain qualities and can provide information on the subject area. These are the people who were studied using in depth interviews.

DATA ANALYSIS:

Data collected with the instrument were edited to ensure accuracy.

The quantitative data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Statistical means such as percentages, bar chart, pie chart and frequency tables were used to reduce the

raw data into manageable proportions.

Weighted means were used in analysis of research question 5 (In what areas have the women participated in the political, educational and economic development processes?).

The formula for the weighted mean is: X= åx/åf

Where x = mean score

åx= Total score

åf= Frequency score.

Scale Items                             Mean Weight

Very Great Extent                              4

Great Extent                                       3

Little Extent                                        2

Not at all                                             1

The testing of hypotheses was done using regression analysis. Analysis of qualitative data was done using notes taken during the interviews and transcription from tapes recorded during the interviews. The tapes were transcribed verbatim. Those recorded in local dialect were translated into English language Yoruba and Igbo. Key points were identified and were categorized and coded, reflecting the various themes in the study. The results were then analyzed according to the themes in the study. Statements with contextual importance or connotations were extracted as illustrative quotes to complement the quantitative date.

 

Conclusion: policy implications and questions for future research

That the recent efforts towards boosting EMW’s enterprise have only returned modest changes suggests that policy in this area remains under-developed and problematic (Arshed et al., 2014). In reviewing the existing literature, this article highlights some of the loose ends that have contributed to the obscurity and tensions surrounding EMW’s enterprise research and policy. Among these, we identify four key issues and suggest implications for entrepreneurship policy and practice as well as directions for further research. These are, first, whether discrimination is real or merely perceived; second, quality versus quantity within EMW enterprise; third, market failure and government failure in upholding EMWs and their enterprises and finally, whether EMWs are different ‘in kind’ or ‘in degree’ and therefore whether they require specialist attention.

The question of discrimination remains relevant. Research on access to finance has contributed to the emerging consensus that the divergent experiences of EMBs are attributable to business reasons rather than direct discrimination (Fraser, 2009). Nevertheless, the perception of unequal treatment continues to linger, both in finance and in other industrial markets more widely. Studies elsewhere also find residual gender and ethnicity differences and attribute these to discrimination (Alesina et al., 2013; Blanchflower et al., 2003). Indeed, discrimination remains an important concern for finance institutions and policy in the African and United Kingdom which is dissecting social inequity is a priority area for ongoing research in a variety of disciplines. The lack of accurate data and precise methodologies for identifying discrimination preclude any definitive statement. More focused studies of the demand and supply-side experiences would be valuable. The former could include more focused investigation of minority firms (and a control group) at the point where loan applications are made. Similarly focused examinations of the supply-side would also be appropriate. This should take the form of case studies of the banking process at the point where applications are made by EMBs (Ram et al., 2002).

Besides perceived discrimination, EMW enterprise is characterized by systematic differences within structural factors that are pivotal to enterprise fortunes, including size (Watson and Robinson, 2003), sector (Marlow and McAdam, 2013; Ram and Jones, 2008) and geographical location (Fraser, 2009). Recent research suggests further that significant second-order gender effects are also detectable (Wu and Chua, 2012). A closer empirical examination of the relationship between ethnicity, gender and business structure, in particular the extent to which gender and ethnicity may be coterminous with business structural dimensions, would not only help alleviate persistent concerns regarding access to and cost of borrowing but would also contribute to the development of more discerning policy interventions with higher likelihood of success. For example, younger and smaller EMW enterprises operating in problematic sectors and postcodes may be advised, including by declining banks, to seek finance from community development finance institutions that may be able to offer both friendly finance and business counseling.   The second key issue pertains to the quality and quantity of EMW’s businesses. EMW enterprise policy has been marked by a contradiction between the quantitative expansion of businesses that may be undermined by the low quality of a substantial share of EMW enterprises in respect of profits, turnover and other performance indicators. Within the ‘under-representation’ debate, simplistic policy invocations to become self-employed should be questioned. Certainly, if necessity entrepreneurship, emanating from labour market discrimination for example, drives a large number of EMWs into self-employment, then high levels of the resultant low-quality entrepreneurship among EMWs should not be viewed as an unqualified indicator of upward social mobility. In fact, encouraging further entry into the low quality sectors that most EMW enterprises are already crowded in may actually be counterproductive (Marlow and McAdam, 2013; Ward, 1985). The US experience of focusing on encouraging well-credentialed minority entrepreneurs in high value-added sectors (Bates, 2011) highlights a quality versus quantity entrepreneurship angle that may be instructive to UK enterprise policy.

Importantly, within the under-representation debate, the quantity of EMW enterprises may be hard to properly establish. Indeed, a focus on women-owned and male-owned enterprises, a label not often used by entrepreneurs themselves, masks the substantial role of different household members in supporting both male-owned and female-owned enterprises. In particular, female spouses are understood to make significant but silent contributions to family firms which would normally count as male-led. Although businesses and households have been traditionally regarded as separate spheres, there is growing realization that the two institutions are inextricably linked and compelling arguments to embed entrepreneurship research within the context of the family (Carter, 2011; Jennings et al., 2013). Cases of joint male and female partners are increasing, and developments elsewhere in entrepreneurship research contend that identifying firms with single individuals and crediting them with enterprise outputs epitomize attribution errors (Dimov, 2007). There is much scope, therefore, for further theoretical elaboration and empirical research in this area towards a more sophisticated account of the participation and contribution of households in enterprise.  Indeed, it is appreciable that entrepreneurship requires distinctive skills, aptitudes and indeed preferences, such that agents otherwise productive as employees may not be productive as the designated entrepreneurs. By the same token, whether policy interventions may succeed in changing individuals and cultures and therefore, boosting enterprise outcomes for women has been questioned (Marlow and McAdam, 2013; Watson and Robinson, 2003). These constitute the third key issue that pertains to market failure and government failure. Market failure may emanate from issues related to discrimination and other biases where market dynamics are unable to eliminate EMW disadvantage and may even reinforce such disadvantage further. On the other hand, policy attempts to alleviate the disadvantage may prove unsuccessful and hence, constitute ‘government failure’ as would the non-attempt to correct market failure that then allows the disadvantage to persist.

There clearly is an imbalance between supply and market demand, with much of EMW enterprise overcrowded in easy-to-enter, low value-added market sectors. Within gender, discussions about how best to support the growth of women’s participation in enterprise and the existence of gender-based market failure have been largely conflated with much wider debates about the role of women in society and in the economy. These debates encompass relatively modern concerns about the need to introduce gender-based quotas on the boards of publicly listed companies, the ‘leaky pipeline’ of women in Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) industries, as well as the persistent discussions about the relative social importance of economically inactive, stay-at-home mothers. The conflation of complex and overlapping issues has been unhelpful in delineating a clear view of the existence of market failure in women’s entrepreneurship. The paucity of research is similarly unhelpful in this regard.  While some studies suggest that starting one’s own business provides individuals with the means to avoid work-place discrimination and glass ceiling thresholds, more critical studies argue that the context of female self-employment simply reproduces gendered outcomes coupled with relative impoverishment. Furthermore, the tendency of EMW enterprises to employ co-ethnics and women may do little to eliminate wider inequality and may also engender ‘divorced diversity’ as opposed to ‘diffuse diversity’. The lack of a clear evidence base has prevented systematic analysis of the extent of such market failures and how best they may be addressed.

Policy interventions may unwittingly exacerbate market failures. For example, encouraging ethnic minority start-ups may only increase enterprise within ethnic enclaves and therefore, not contribute to a social integration agenda. Ethnic minorities may also not take up business support to the expected extent for a variety of reasons: for instance, they may fear contact with official agencies, particularly if they are concerned about their immigration status as in the case of refugees and asylum seekers, or such provision does not exist in their country of origin and they do not see the relevance of the provision to them (Mascarenhas-Keyes, 2008). Another source of government failure is where the various barriers to minority enterprise are significantly different across ethnic groupings as the present review has revealed. While future research should pursue more granularities to unpack differences, policy may encounter practical and political difficulties in not only customizing support to the various groups but also identifying and targeting some minority groups over others for support. Ram et al.’s (2013) study of a state support agency attempts to get to grips with the phenomenon of ‘super diversity’ hints at the problems of providing a coherent policy towards and an ever more differentiated set of ‘minority’ entrepreneurs.    It is important to ascertain that there is a market failure that justifies the provision of specialist business support for ethnic minorities and for women. This leads to the fourth issue – whether EMW enterprise requires specialist attention. There has been a dilemma between the use of mainstream enterprise policy and specialist interventions particular to EMW entrepreneurs. For minorities, ethnic managerialism may be fraught with difficulties and likely to have unintended consequences leading to new forms of exclusion (Law, 1997). On the other hand, the ‘ethnic blind’ mainstream approach ignores the unique challenges minority enterprises face which may leave them unable to benefit from interventions. Changes introduced by the present coalition UK Government with regard to publicly funded business support institutions may provide a unique opportunity to study the differences in the various interventions and their effects on EMW enterprise (see, for example, Ram et al., 2012b).  Discussions about mainstream or specialist provision for female start-ups and women-led businesses centre on two issues. First, there is well-founded concern about the extent to which women wish to engage with specialist institutions. Many women view the prospect of women-only business support mechanisms with skepticism, although evidence suggests that single sex business coaching may be highly effective (Fielden and Hunt, 2011). Second, there is an equally well-founded concern that mainstream support, particularly support focused on businesses identified as high-growth firms, in practice excludes women-led businesses as relatively few meet inclusion thresholds of selective programmes and initiatives. In this regard, gender-blindness may be disadvantageous to women-owned firms which are typically smaller in scale.

Enterprise research itself also faces its own dilemmas with regard to how it studies ethnic minorities and women’s enterprise. While the emergence of intersectionality has so far gained little traction in entrepreneurship research (or policy), it has become a major paradigm particularly within women’s studies (McCall, 2005; Walby et al., 2012). The benefits of intersectional approaches are clear given that the separation of research effort focusing either on ethnic minority or on women’s enterprise has given little voice to the experiences of entrepreneurial groups at the intersection of two or more identity categories. While the methodologies of intersectionality are still emerging (Walby et al., 2012), the approach is likely to prove fruitful to future EMW studies. A similar observation can be made to the conceptual approach of ‘mixed embeddedness’ which is rather more established in the field of ethnic minority and immigrant business research (Jones et al., 2014; Kloosterman, 2010; Ram et al., 2013). The concept has been proved fruitful in sensitizing researchers to the importance of the political, economic and regulatory contexts in which firms are embedded, as well the more usual concern with the social ties and resources of minority entrepreneurs. But mixed embeddedness too needs be more attentive to importance of racism, the agency and of minority entrepreneurs and workers, and gender (Jones et al., 2014).  In their proposed framework for women’s entrepreneurship research, Brush et al. (2009) explore whether a new theory is required to understand women’s enterprise or whether mere expansions of extant theory should suffice. Indeed, SMEs of various backgrounds have been found to be broadly similar (Irwin and Scott, 2010; Marlow and McAdam, 2013). Differences within the groups may be more significant than differences between the groups, thereby rendering the differentiation of enterprises by gender or ethnicity unnecessary or erroneous (Ahl, 2006). However, that many studies still find residual effects that may be solely attributable to gender and ethnicity (Alesina et al., 2013; Blanch-flower et al., 2003; Borooah and Hart, 1999), as well as significant second-order effects (Wu and Chua, 2012), and that gender (Bird and Brush, 2002) and ethnicity (Basu and Altinay, 2002) are more complex than presently understood or typically operationalized only underscore the fact that there is much scope for theory development and empirical research into EMW’s enterprise within the larger domain of entrepreneurship. Perhaps one way of addressing this question is to pay attention to ‘meta-theory’, which relates to the philosophical assumptions that underpin the practice of research. Useful lessons can be learnt from the cognate field of organization and management studies, which has extended its reach by embracing a proliferating array of topics, modes of theorizing and methods. This pluralization rises questions about what is considered ‘good’ or ‘acceptable’ research (Cunliffe, 2011). Explicating the philosophical and political context of organizational (and minority entrepreneurship?) research is an important means of accommodating diversity and producing credible research (Amis and Silk, 2008; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Leitch et al., 2010). In short, meta-theoretical positioning will have practical consequences for the conduct of research (Cunliffe, 2011). Isolated studies of minority entrepreneurs that are sensitive to such philosophical matters are beginning to emerge (Jones et al., 2014; Scholin et al., forthcoming); they suggest that greater attention to meta-theory might be helpful in grasping the ‘diversification of diversity’ (Vertovec, 2007) that increasingly characterizes research on ethnic and women-owned businesses.

Minority and women entrepreneurs—and those who would become entrepreneurs—are increasingly

important in the United States, but many of them face critical barriers. Access to capital, business expertise, and connections to networks of peers and to market opportunities are essential for entrepreneurs to succeed. In this paper, I have offered specific policy proposals in three areas. First, to build access to capital I propose that Congress expand funding for the SSBCI and increase and make permanent the NMTC. Second, I call for new federal funding for local networking initiatives through the SSBCI. Third, I suggest new federal funding for local skills acquisitions programs, also through the SSBCI.   These proposals are based on recognition that increasing access to capital, building business networks, and expanding access to business skills must rely on local, community-based initiatives, but that these can and must be bolstered and supported at the national level.

For the United States to continue to grow and to innovate, and even more importantly to generate jobs, we need to expand our rate of business formation and improve the prospects for survival and growth of young and small businesses. Expanding business formation may help to contribute to reduction of income and wealth inequality and to greater social mobility.  Increasing the rate of minority and female entrepreneurship may help to reduce racial and gender wealth gaps. With the U.S. population becoming increasingly diverse, fostering business formation among minority and female entrepreneurs is critical to improve the rate of entrepreneurship overall and to develop employment opportunities in the United States.

Funding . This research was undertaken as part of the research programme of the Enterprise Research Centre (ERC). The ERC is an independent research centre funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS), and the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) and, through the British Bankers Association (BBA), by the Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and Lloyds TSB Bank PLC.

 

REFERENCES

	Ahl, H (2006) Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30: 595–621. Google Scholar, Link, ISI
	Ahl, H, Marlow, S (2012) Exploring the dynamics of gender, feminism and entrepreneurship: Advancing debate to escape a dead end? Organization 19: 543–562. Google Scholar, Link
	Aldrich, H, Cater, J, Jones, T. (1981) Business development and self-segregation: Asian enterprise in three British cities. In: Peach, C, Robinson, V, Smith, SW (eds) Ethnic Segregation in Cities. London: Croom Helm, pp.170–190. Google Scholar
	Alesina, AF, Lotti, F, Mistrulli, PE (2013) Do women pay more for credit? Evidence from Italy. Journal of the European Economic Association 11: 45–66. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Alexander, P, Stone, G, Ahmad, S. (2009) Greater Return on Women’s Enterprise: Final Report and Recommendations of the Women’s Enterprise Task Force. London: Women’s Enterprise Task Force. Google Scholar
	Allen, L, DeLong, G, Saunders, A (2004) Issues in the credit risk modeling of retail markets. Journal of Banking & Finance 28: 727–752. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Alsos, GA, Carter, S, Ljunggren, E (2014) Kinship and business: How entrepreneurial households facilitate business growth. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 26: 97–122. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Alsos, GA, Isaksen, EJ, Ljunggren, E (2006) New venture financing and subsequent business growth in men- and women-led businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30: 667–686. Google Scholar, Link
	Amis, JM, Silk, ML (2008) The philosophy and politics of quality in qualitative organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 11: 456–480. Google Scholar, Link
	Arshed, N, Carter, S, Mason, C (2014) The ineffectiveness of entrepreneurship policy: Is policy formulation to blame? Small Business Economics 43: 639–659. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Avery, RB, Calem, PS, Canner, GB (2004) Consumer credit scoring: Do situational circumstances matter? Journal of Banking & Finance 28: 835–856. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Barrett, GA, Jones, TP, McEvoy, D (1996) Ethnic minority business: Theoretical discourse in Britain and North America. Urban Studies 33: 783–809. Google Scholar, Link
	Basu, A, Altinay, E (2002) The interaction between culture and entrepreneurship in London’s immigrant businesses. International Small Business Journal 20: 371–393. Google Scholar, Link
	Bates, T (2011) Minority entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship 7: 151–311. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Bates, T, Jackson, WE, Johnson, JH (2007) Introduction: Advancing research on minority entrepreneurship. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 613: 10–17. Google Scholar, Link
	Beckinsale, M, Ram, M, Theodorakopoulos, N (2011) ICT adoption and ebusiness development: Understanding ICT adoption amongst ethnic minority businesses. International Small Business Journal 29: 193–219. Google Scholar, Link
	Berger, AN, Udell, GF (2002) Small business credit availability and relationship lending: The importance of bank organisational structure. Economic Journal 112: F32–F53. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Bird, B, Brush, C (2002) A gendered perspective on organizational creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26: 41–65. Google Scholar, Link
	Birley, S, Moss, C, Saunders, P (1987) Do women entrepreneurs require different training. American Journal of Small Business 12: 27–35. Google Scholar, Link
	BIS (2013a) Business Population Estimates for the UK and Regions 2013. London: Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. Google Scholar
	BIS (2013b) Small Business Survey 2012: Estimates for Women-led, Minority Ethnic Group (MEG) Led and Social Enterprises in the UK. London: Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. Google Scholar
	Blackburn, R, Ram, M (2006) Fix or Fiction? The contributions of small firms to social inclusion. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 18(1): 73–89. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Blanchflower, DG, Levine, PB, Zimmerman, DJ (2003) Discrimination in the small-business credit market. Review of Economics and Statistics 85: 930–943. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Boden, RJ, Nucci, AR (2000) On the survival prospects of men’s and women’s new business ventures. Journal of Business Venturing 15: 347–362. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Borooah, VK, Hart, M (1999) Factors affecting self-employment among Indian and Black Caribbean men in Britain. Small Business Economics 13: 111–129. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Brush, C (1992) Research on women business owners: Past trends, future directions, and a new perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16: 5–30. Google Scholar, Link
	Brush, CG, De Bruin, A, Welter, F (2009) A gender-aware framework for women’s entrepreneurship. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 1: 8–24. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Buttner, EH, Rosen, B (1988) Bank loan officers’ perceptions of the characteristics of men, women, and successful entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 3: 249–258. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Carter, S (2011) The rewards of entrepreneurship: Exploring the incomes, wealth, and economic well-being of entrepreneurial households. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35: 39–55. Google Scholar, Link
	Carter, S, Anderson, S, Shaw, E (2001) Women’s Business Ownership: A Review of the Academic, Popular and Internet Literature: Report to the Small Business Service. London: DTI Small Business Service. Google Scholar
	Carter, S, Rosa, P (1998) The financing of male– and female–owned businesses. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 10: 225–242. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Carter, S, Shaw, E (2006) Women’s Business Ownership: A Review of the Academic, Popular and Internet Literature: Report to the Small Business Service. London: DTI Small Business Service. Google Scholar
	Carter, S, Shaw, E, Lam, W. (2007) Gender, entrepreneurship, and bank lending: the criteria and processes used by bank loan officers in assessing applications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31: 427–444. Google Scholar, Link
	Causer, P, Park, N (2009) Women in business. Regional Trends 41: 31–51. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Chell, E, Baines, S (1998) Does gender affect business ‘performance’? A study of microbusinesses in business services in the UK. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 10: 117–135. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Clark, K, Drinkwater, S (2010) Recent trends in minority ethnic entrepreneurship in Britain. International Small Business Journal 28: 136–146. Google Scholar, Link
	Cliff, JE (1998) Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towards growth, gender, and business size. Journal of Business Venturing 13: 523–542. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Coleman, S (2000) Access to capital and terms of credit: A comparison of men-and women-owned small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management 38: 48. Google Scholar
	Cunliffe, AL (2011) Crafting qualitative research: Morgan and Smircich 30 years on. Organizational Research Methods 14: 647–673. Google Scholar, Link
	Dimov, D (2007) Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31: 713–731. Google Scholar, Link
	Du Rietz, A, Henrekson, M (2000) Testing the female underperformance hypothesis. Small Business Economics 14: 1–10. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Easterby-Smith, M, Golden-Biddle, K, Locke, K (2008) Working with pluralism: Determining quality in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods 11: 419–429. Google Scholar, Link
	Fairlie, RW, Robb, AM (2008) Race and Entrepreneurial Success: Black-, Asian-, and White-Owned Businesses in the United States. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
	Fielden, SL, Hunt, CM (2011) Online coaching: An alternative source of social support for female entrepreneurs during venture creation. International Small Business Journal 29: 345–359. Google Scholar, Link
	Fischer, EM, Reuber, AR, Dyke, LS (1993) A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 8: 151–168. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Frame, WS, Srinivasan, A, Woosley, L (2001) The effect of credit scoring on small-business lending. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 33: 813–825. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Fraser, S (2009) Is there ethnic discrimination in the UK market for small business credit? International Small Business Journal 27: 583–607. Google Scholar, Link
	Freel, M, Carter, S, Tagg, S. (2012) The latent demand for bank debt: Characterizing ‘discouraged borrowers’. Small Business Economics 38: 399–418. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Gorman, EH, Kmec, JA (2007) We (have to) try harder: Gender and required work effort in Britain and the United States. Gender & Society 21: 828–856. Google Scholar, Link
	Grimshaw, D, Rubery, J (2007) Undervaluing Women’s Work. Manchester: European Work and Employment Research Centre, University of Manchester. Google Scholar
	Gunaratnam, Y (2003) Researching Race and Ethnicity: Methods, Knowledge, and Power. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Gundry, LK, Welsch, HP (2001) The ambitious entrepreneur: High growth strategies of women-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing 16: 453–470. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Hausmann, R (2013) The Global Gender Gap Index 2012. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Google Scholar
	Headd, B (2003) Redefining business success: Distinguishing between closure and failure. Small Business Economics 21: 51–61. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Hertz, N (2011) Women and Banks: Are Female Customers Facing Discrimination? London: Institute for Public Policy Research. Google Scholar
	Hisrich, RD, Brush, CG (1990) The Woman Entrepreneur: Starting, Financing, and Managing a Successful New Business. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Google Scholar
	Hughes, KD, Jennings, JE, Brush, C. (2012) Extending women’s entrepreneurship research in new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36: 429–442. Google Scholar, Link
	Hundley, G (2000) Male/female earnings differences in self-employment: The effects of marriage, children, and the household division of labor. Industrial and Labour Relations Review 54: 95–114. Google Scholar, Link
	Hundley, G (2001) Why women earn less than men in self-employment. Journal of Labor Research 22: 817–829. Google Scholar, Crossref
	IFF Research (2011) BIS Small Business Survey 2010 Minority Ethnic Group (MEG) led businesses boost. Report prepared for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), London, June. Google Scholar
	Irwin, D, Scott, JM (2010) Barriers faced by SMEs in raising bank finance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 16: 245–259. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Iskander, N, Lowe, N (2010) Hidden talent: Tacit skill formation and labor market incorporation of Latino immigrants in the United States. Journal of Planning Education and Research 30: 132–146. Google Scholar, Link
	Jennings, JE, Breitkreuz, RS, James, AE (2013) When family members are also business owners: Is entrepreneurship good for families? Family Relations 62: 472–489. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Johnsen, GJ, McMahon, RGP (2005) Owner-manager gender, financial performance and business growth amongst SMEs from Australia’s Business Longitudinal Survey. International Small Business Journal 23: 115–142. Google Scholar, Link
	Jones, T, Ram, M (2010) Review article: Ethnic variations on the small firm labour process. International Small Business Journal 28: 163–173. Google Scholar, Link
	Jones, T, Ram, M (2011) Ethnic entrepreneurs and urban regeneration. In: Southern, A (ed.) Enterprise, Deprivation and Social Exclusion: The Role of Small Business in Addressing Social and Economic Inequalities. London: Routledge, pp.58–73. Google Scholar
	Jones, T, Barrett, G, McEvoy, D (2000) Market potential as a decisive influence on the performance of ethnic minority business. In: Rath, J (ed.) Immigrant Businesses: The Economic, Political and Social Environment. London: Macmillan, pp.37–53. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Jones, T, McEvoy, D, Barrett, G (1994) Labour intensive practices in the ethnic minority firm. In: Atkinson, J, Storey, DJ (eds) Employment, the Small Firm and the Labour Market. London: Routledge, pp.172–205. Google Scholar
	Jones, T, Mascarenhas-Keyes, S, Ram, M (2011) The ethnic entrepreneurial transition: Recent trends in British Indian self-employment. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38: 93–109. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Jones, T, Ram, M, Edwards, P (2006) Shades of grey in the informal economy. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 26: 357–373. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Jones, T, Ram, M, Edwards, P. (2012) New migrant enterprise: Novelty or historical continuity? Urban Studies 49: 3159–3176. Google Scholar, Link
	Jones, T, Ram, M, Edwards, P. (2014) Mixed embeddedness and new migrant enterprise in the UK. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 26: 500–520. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Kelley, D, Brush, CG, Greene, PG. (2011) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2012 Women’s Report. Babson Park, MA: Babson College. Google Scholar
	Kloosterman, RC (2010) Matching opportunities with resources: A framework for analysing (migrant) entrepreneurship from a mixed embeddedness perspective. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 22: 25–45. Google Scholar, Crossref
	Kon, Y, Storey, DJ (2003) A theory of discouraged borrowers. Small Business Economics 21: 37–49. Google Scholar, Crossref