Female entrepreneurial activity in Latin-America: A
literature review within perspective of Institutional Theory
Actividad
Empresarial Femenina en Latinoamérica: Una revisión de literatura bajo la
perspectiva de la Teoría Institucional
Dyala de la O Cordero[1]
Instituto Tecnológico de Costa
Rica
David Urbano
Pulido[2]
Universitat Autónoma de
Barcelona
Tipo:
Revisión de la literatura
Recibido: 2019-08-20
Aceptado: 2019-12-09
RAN - Revista Academia
& Negocios, Vol. 5 (2) 2019, pp. 9-28
Abstract
The aim of this study is
to analyze the content of research studies on female entrepreneurial activity,
using the institutional economics as a theoretical framework. This paper shows
how Latin America is study as a single region and, the topics are studied
independently or in topics group. Private organizations –mostly- and scholars demonstrate
an interest to study the female Latin-American entrepreneurial initiatives; however,
the phenomenon is still poorly understood. There is a lack of official
government information and statistics. Recognizing contributing factors of
female entrepreneurial activity could help to improved public policies in Latin
America. The research contributes theoretically to knowledge regarding to the
content of research focusing on female entrepreneurial activity and provides an
overview of the subject in Latin America.
Resumen
El objetivo de este estudio es analizar el contenido de los estudios de
investigación sobre la actividad empresarial femenina, utilizando la Teoría
Institucional como marco teórico. Esta investigación muestra cómo América
Latina se estudia como una sola región y los temas se estudian de forma
independiente o en alguna clase de agrupamiento de temas. Las organizaciones
privadas –principalmente– y los académicos demuestran interés en estudiar las
iniciativas empresariales femeninas latinoamericanas; sin embargo, el fenómeno
todavía se entiende poco. Falta información oficial del gobierno y
estadísticas. Reconocer los factores contribuyentes de la actividad empresarial
femenina podría ayudar a mejorar las políticas públicas en América Latina. La
investigación contribuye teóricamente al conocimiento con respecto al contenido
de la investigación centrada en la actividad empresarial femenina y a
proporcionar una visión general del tema en América Latina.
Keywords: female
entrepreneurship, institutional theory, Latin America.
Palabras clave: emprendimiento
femenino, Teoría Institucional, América Latina.
INTRODUCTION
Previous research has
suggested that gender, gender characteristics, and institutional environment
influence female entrepreneurship, but more work is needed to better understand
gender and entrepreneurship (Díaz, Urbano and Hernández, 2005; Estrin and Mickiewicz,
2011; Minniti and Nardone, 2007; Noguera,
Alvarez, and Urbano, 2013). Research often focuses on
the number of undertakings carried out rather than the formal and informal
factors that encourage specific types of firms or entrepreneurs. At the same
time, it is still necessary to understand what woman entrepreneurs fight for,
what problems they encounter, and what managerial stereotypes they confront
(Brush, de Bruin, and Welter, 2009; Jennings and Brush, 2013; Minniti and Nardone, 2007).
Researchers need to
stop asking the traditional questions about the differences between male and
female entrepreneurial styles and on the difficulty’s women face. Fostering
female entrepreneurship requires a twofold approach that examines both the
current situation and prospects. Such understanding is an important emerging
topic in Latin America because entrepreneurial activity is predominantly a male
phenomenon: men own most businesses, and the role of women in entrepreneurial
activity and social mobility remains poorly understood (Castellani and Lora,
2014).
The literature reveals
that in the Latin American region, entrepreneurial activity is directly linked
to economic growth, infrastructure improvement, and international
competitiveness, all of which are associated with improvements in quality of
life (Acs and Amorós, 2008;
Wennekers, Uhlaner and Thurik, 2002). Despite varying levels of participation
in entrepreneurship across Latin America and the Caribbean and within
individual economies, structural changes are needed to improve the level of
entrepreneurial dynamics (Amorós and Cristi, 2008). Thus, female Latin-American entrepreneurs
are critical for business growth and societal improvement, although they play a
different role in each economy and their contributions depend on the kind of
agent they are (Wennekers et al., 2002).
Entrepreneurship is
gendered, and families influence women’s undertakings. Nascent business
undertakings by women can be the result of necessity or opportunity, and they
could represent more than an economic issue (Jennings and Brush, 2013). Common
frameworks usually consider only markets, money, and management, but for
further development of the study of women’s entrepreneurship, other factors
such as motherhood and environmental factors need to be added (Brush et al.,
2009).
Therefore, it is still
necessary to do more work to understand gender differences. Evidence suggests
the following: 1) some variables have an influence on entrepreneurial behavior,
and attitudes toward entrepreneurship reflect subjective perceptions rather
than objective conditions (Minniti and Nardone,
2007); 2) entrepreneurial women would achieve greater personal success and add
to economic growth if they could reach an adequate relationship between work
conditions and family life (Peris-Ortiz, Rueda-Armengot
and Benito-Osorio, 2015); 3) women are less likely than men to enter
self-employment unless they have advanced degrees; 4) for women, primary child
care, household activities, and being married have direct effects on
self-employment (Gurley-Calvez; Harper and Biehl, 2009);
5) promoting entrepreneurial opportunities could help companies to easily reach
their objectives; 6) women’s potential is an underestimated element in most
companies (Mattis, 2004); and 7) risk aversion seems to be stronger in women
than in men (Wagner, 2007).
To summarize, in Latin
America, entrepreneurship is gendered, and so is policy. Women are expected to
contribute to economic growth and job creation while continuing with their
traditional role model. Female entrepreneurs’ background and personal attitudes
could affect their entrepreneurial activity (Ahl and Nelson, 2015; Lofstrom and
Bates, 2009).
This study objective is
to examine literature on female entrepreneurial activity within the framework
of the institutional theory, and state how this activity contributes to
economic development in Latin-America
First, we analyze the
relevant literature on female entrepreneurial activity. Second, the methodology
used is described. Next, the results are presented and discussed, and finally
the conclusions are offered.
Conceptual
framework
Studies do not usually
explicitly connect the relationship between entrepreneurship and institutional
theory. However, some studies have addressed the enhancement of knowledge about
this relationship because entrepreneurs are essential to create and institutionalize
new practices, forms, and managerial structures (Tolbert, David and Sine,
2011).
Some significant
entrepreneurship studies are based on the institutional theory framework. In
this context, three main streams can be identified: the institutional setting
and entrepreneurship, legitimacy and entrepreneurship, and institutional
entrepreneurs. Research also follows different perspectives of the
institutional theory: one based on sociology and organizational theory
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1991) and another based on political science and
economics (North, 1990); the focus has primarily been on culture; and studies
have been single-country studies (Bruton, Ahlstrom and Han-Li, 2010).
Institutional theory
also provides a framework to analyze business creation in relation to rules and
norms that influence economic development positively or negatively (Díaz,
Urbano and Hernández, 2005). The intersection between entrepreneurship research
and institutional theory provides opportunities to enhance understanding of the
phenomenon of female entrepreneurship and opens fruitful avenues for further
research (Tolbert et al., 2011).
Douglas North's
institutional theory (1990) has proved to be especially helpful to
entrepreneurial research and has the potential to generate great insight into
entrepreneurship (Bruton et al., 2010). In North’s perspective, environmental
factors can affect the creation of new businesses. These undertakings can
contribute to new jobs, innovation, and economic growth (Díaz et al., 2005).
Therefore, North’s analytical framework explains the way in which institutions
and institutional changes affect the performance of economies and outcomes at a
given time.
In the study of
entrepreneurship, consideration must always be given to institutions because
they determine and explain the evolutionary aspect of entrepreneurial activity.
Any business decision is an answer to the environmental institutional setup. On
the other hand, as an essential function in a dynamic economy, entrepreneurship
is constantly trying to change institutions (Henkerson, 2007).
Thus, we select
institutional theory as our conceptual framework because there is evidence from
previous studies showing how the institutional approach explains
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activity. In addition, institutional
theory is useful in explaining the formal and informal factors that influence
economic development, and it can accommodate a large range of research methods.
METHODOLOGY
The search for relevant
articles used mostly Web of Science and citations within Journal Citation
Report (JCR), a sampling approach that has gained consensus recently among
several authors. It also made possible an analysis of the impact factor using
JCR.
Besides academic
papers, we also considered relevant reports[3]
from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM Report 2016 and GEM Special
Women’s Report 2014 and 2012), four reports from the Inter-American Development
Bank (IADB) related to entrepreneurial activity (Aboal
and Veneri, 2014; Kantis, Koening and Angelelli, 2004; Kantis, Mashaiko and Mashaiko, 2002; and Weeks and Seiler, 2001); a report from
the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA; the Spanish acronym is CEPAL)[4]
related to women entrepreneurs (Heller, 2010); and on from the World Bank
about entrepreneurial activity in Latin America (Lederman et al., 2014). We
want to highlight that there is also a significant body of material in books, but
they were not considered for this study.
Based on the literature
review, seminal academic studies were identified using the following keywords
in the title, abstract, and keywords: entrepreneurship, female/woman/women
entrepreneurship, institutions, and economic growth/development. Attention was
focused on keywords, journals, objectives, and methodology. The terms of
exploration are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Search
selection criteria
Selection
criterias |
Period: January1996–May 2017 |
Main
database: Web of Science |
Other
database: Science Direct,
Emerald, Springer, others |
Type of publication: Articles in journals with impact factor
SSCI |
Subject
area: Business,
management, economics, women studies |
Languages: English, Spanish |
Source: Own
elaboration.
Our research focuses on
identifying the literature that has considered North´s Theory as a conceptual
framework to explain female entrepreneurship in Latin America and how
entrepreneurship contributes to economic development. Once the exploration
process was finished, we proceeded with a deep exploratory study to construct
an analytical framework to organize about female entrepreneurial activity,
entrepreneurship and institutions, and entrepreneurship and economic
development (Appendix). The terms “gender” and “Latin America” were also considered;
however, by their own nature these were included in the three groups mentioned.
Table 2 summarizes the main findings of our first-round structure review.
Table 2. Literature
review structure: Main findings
Keywords |
Journals in which articles are most
published |
General objectives oriented to |
Most used methodology |
177 different keywords |
Small
Business Economics International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development |
Women’s
role in business and gender differences. The
relationship between entrepreneurship
and institutions. Link
between entrepreneurship and
economic growth and institutions. |
Driven
analyses from a wide range of literature. GEM database
and other national databases analyses are used as a data source. More common
statistical techniques are survey methods, functions, equations, regressions,
correlations, and panel data, among others. |
Source: Own
elaboration.
Table 3 contains the
references for those works we considered seminal. Finally, three other tables
condense the data for the analytical framework analysis; each contains outlined
information covering the name of the study, keywords, authors, objectives,
methodology, and the researcher’s contribution (Appendix).
Table 3. Seminal
academic papers
Female
entrepreneurial activity |
Entrepreneurship and institutions |
Entrepreneurship
and economic growth |
Brush, C., de Bruin, A., and Welter, F. (2009). “A
gender-aware framework for women’s entrepreneurship.” International
Journal Gender Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 (1), pp. 8–24. |
Acs, Z.
J. and Amorós, J. E. (2008). “Entrepreneurship and
competitiveness dynamics in Latin America.” Small Business Economics,
Vol. 31 (3), pp. 305-322. |
Acs, Z.
J. and Szerb, L. (2007). “Entrepreneurship,
Economic Growth and Public Policy.” Small Business Economics. Vol 28.
pp. 109-122. |
Jennings, J. E. and Brush, C. (2013). “Research on
woman entrepreneurship: Challenges to (and from) the Broader Entrepreneurship
Literature?” The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 7 (1), pp.
661-713. |
Bruton, G.,
Ahlstrom, D., and Han-Li, L. (2010). “Institutional Theory and
Entrepreneurship: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Need to Move in the
Future?” Baylor University. May 2010 421. DOI:
10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00390.x |
Acs, Z.J., Desai, S., and Hessels, J. (2008).
“Entrepreneurship, economic development and institutions.” Small Business
Economics, Vol. 31 (3), pp. 219-234. |
Mattis, M.C. (2004). “Women entrepreneurs: out
from under the glass ceiling.” Women in Management Review, Vol.
19 (3), pp. 154-163. |
North,
D. (1990). “Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.”
Cambridge Univ. Press. |
Kantis, H.,
V.M. Koening, and Angelelli,
P. (2004). Developing entrepreneurship:
Experience in Latin America and worldwide. Washington DC: Inter-American
Development Bank. |
Minniti, M. and Nardone, C.
(2007). “Being in someone else’s shoes: The role of gender in nascent
entrepreneurship.” Small Business Economics, Vol. 28 (2–3), pp.
223–239. |
Tolbert, P.,
David, R., and Sine, W. (2011). “Studying Choice and Change: The Intersection
of Institutional Theory and Entrepreneurship Research.” Organization
Science, Vol. 22 (5), pp. 1332-1344. |
van Stel, A., Carree, M., and Thurik, R. (2005). “The Effect of Entrepreneurial
Activity on National Economic Growth.” Small Business Economics, Vol.
24 (3), pp. 311-321. |
Wagner, J. (2007). “What a difference a Y makes –
female and male nascent entrepreneurs in Germany.” Small Business
Economics, Vol. 28 (1), pp. 1-21. |
Veciana, J.M.
and Urbano, D. (2008). “The institutional approach
to entrepreneurship research. Introduction.” International
Entrepreneurship Management Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 365-379. |
|
Source: Own
elaboration.
THEORETICAL
DEVELOPMENT
Qualitative analysis
As discussed above,
this paper analyzes the content of research studies focusing on female entrepreneurial
activity, taking as a conceptual framework the institutional approach (North,
1990), in order to offer a Latin-America overview.
Table 4 shows that 43.48%
of the empirical works are related to female entrepreneurial activity, followed
by institutional approach studies (28.26%) and economics studies (28.26%). Associated
with female entrepreneurial activity, 47% of the works are directly related to
Latin America. However, there are only two academic papers, and the rest are
special reports from private initiatives. Lofstrom and Bates (2009) analyze the
relative success of self-employed female Hispanics, and Kuschel
and Lepeley (2016) study “copreneurial”
women in start-ups.
Table 4. Approach
of the analyzed articles
Approach |
Articles |
Author
and year of publication |
|
No. |
% |
||
Female Entrepreneurial Activity |
20 |
43.48 |
Aboal and Veneri
(2014); Ahl and Nelson (2015); Brush et al. (2009); GEM Special Women’s
Report (2014, 2012); Gurley-Calvez et al. (2009); Heller (2010); Jennings and
Brush (2013); Kantis et al. (2004, 2002); Kuschel and Lepeley (2016); Kuschel
et al. (2017); Lederman et al. (2014); Lofstrom and Bates (2009); Mattis
(2004); Minniti and Nardone (2007); Noguera et al. (2015); Peris-Ortiz et al.
(2015); Wagner (2007); Weeks and Seiler (2001). |
Institutional theory |
13 |
28.26 |
Alvarez and Urbano (2011); Amine and Staub (2009); Autio and Fu (2015);
Bruton et al. (2010); Bygrave (1989); Capelleras, and Rabetino (2008); Díaz
Casero et al. (2005); Estrin and Mickiewicz (2011); Henkerson (2007); Noguera
et al. (2013); Tolbert et al. (2011); Urbano and Alvarez (2014); Veciana and
Urbano (2008). |
Economics |
13 |
28.26 |
Acs et al. (2008,
2012); Acs and Szerb (2007); Acs and Amorós (2008); Amorós and Cristi (2008);
Amorós et al. (2012); Castellani and Lora (2014); GEM Report (2016);
Langowitz et al. (2006); Nissan et al. (2011); Thurik and Wennekers (2004);
van Stel et al. (2005); Wennekers et al. (2002). |
TOTAL |
46 |
100 |
|
Source: Source:
Own elaboration.
Aboal and Veneri
(2014) find that the different types of female Latin-American entrepreneurs
derived from differences in their personality traits and socio-demographic
backgrounds They offer a group of measured characteristics for Latin American
entrepreneurs and find heterogeneity when countries are analyzed separately.
Weeks and Seiler (2001)
summarize known information on women’s entrepreneurship in Latin America and
the Caribbean. They find an absence of official government information and statistics
on women-owned firms, and a frequent absence of comparability of data and
definitions. Meanwhile, Heller (2010) examines continuities and transformations
in Latin American women’s participation in productive activities. She proposes
to characterize the particularities of the entrepreneurial activity carried out
by women in selected countries, and to identify the factors that have propelled
or hampered this activity in the region, from the perspective that examines the
promotion of gender equity in the world of work. The workplaces special
emphasis on the entrepreneurial environment.
Kantis et al. (2004)
and Kantis et al. (2002) analyze the profile of entrepreneurs and the way they
create high growth undertakings in some countries of Latin America, East Asia,
and southern Europe. They also provide a set of case studies related to entrepreneurship
development policies and programs. The results identify a set of areas and
recommendations for decision makers can act in order to promote business
creation and boost private-sector development. On other hand, Lederman et al.
(2014) offer a synopsis of the Latin American entrepreneurial environment for
innovation, addressing entrepreneurship as a source of development.
The studies that take
an institutional approach, 23% are associated with female entrepreneurial
activity, and 15% are associated with Latin America. Noguera
et al. (2013) analyze the factors that influence female entrepreneurship in
Spain. They determine that some social values could have more significant
influence on female entrepreneurial activity than formal factors. The study of
Alvarez and Urbano (2011) analyzes the influence of formal and informal institutions
on business activity, focusing on Latin America. Alvarez and Urbano establish
that informal environmental factors have more influence on entrepreneurial
activity in Latin American countries than formal factors. On the same path, Capelleras and Rabetino (2008)
examine the factors that influence new firm growth and conclude that
entrepreneurs’ characteristics and national institutions are important drivers
of economic growth in Latin America.
Regarding the economics
studies, 29% are linked to Latin America, 14% concern female entrepreneurial
activity, and 14% cover economic development. Acs and
Amorós (2008) analyze the relationship between
entrepreneurial dynamics and the level of competitiveness and conclude that
entrepreneurial activity in Latin America is related to different levels of
countries’ competitiveness. Likewise, Amorós and Cristi (2008) also analyze this relationship. They
determine that Latin American countries must improve structural changes in
entrepreneurial public policies to achieve a high level of economic growth. On
the other hand, Amorós et al. (2012) measure the
relationship between entrepreneurship and competitiveness. Their find that: 1)
Public policies have to address factors with a greater potential according to
the resources available; and 2) to reach greater development, governments need
to improve macroeconomic as well as microeconomic policies of entrepreneurial
activity. Castellani and Lora (2014) study the potential and limits of policies
to promote entrepreneurship as a vehicle for social mobility. They suggest that
in every Latin American country , different formal and informal factors (e.g.,
education, age, gender, income, family background, role model ) influence
entrepreneurial activity and the decision to become an entrepreneur; despite
those differences, entrepreneurial activity is a channel for social mobility in
the region. One common factor is that entrepreneurship is gendered.
Finally, the GEM
Women’s Reports (2012, 2014) offer an understanding of the environment for
female entrepreneurship in Latin America and provide valuable insights. These
reports focused on two elements: 1) the entrepreneurial behavior and attitudes
of Latin American female entrepreneurs, and 2) the Latin American economic context
and how that influences female entrepreneurship.
Quantitative analysis
The literature review
concentrated on keywords, journals, objectives, and methodology. As a result,
the main findings are shown below.
Several keywords were
mentioned in the articles.[5]
In Table 5, they were regrouped according to their focus on:
entrepreneurship/entrepreneurialism/entrepreneurial activity (24%),
institutions/institutional theory (23%), economic growth/economic development
(12%), female/women entrepreneurship (8%), Latin America (4%), GEM (3%), and
others (27%).
Table 5. Keywords
Keywords |
% |
Entrepreneurship/entrepreneurialism/entrepreneurial activity |
24 |
Institutions/institutional theory |
23 |
Economic growth/economic development |
12 |
Female/women entrepreneurship |
8 |
Latin America |
4 |
GEM |
3 |
Others |
27 |
TOTAL |
100 |
Source: Own
elaboration.
Regarding journals, we
found that 24% of the articles were published in Small Business Economics
(impact factor: 1.795), 24% in reports from the private sector (mostly IADB and
GEM), 15% in the Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development (impact
factor: 0.575), and 37% published in other journals. Table 6 shows details.
Small Business
Economics is the journal in which we found the largest number of published
articles on the topics of female entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship and
institutions, and entrepreneurship and economic growth. The reports from the
private sector focused on female entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship and
economic growth, with a perspective on Latin America. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal published articles about
entrepreneurship and institutions and entrepreneurship and economic
development.
Table 6.
Journals and Reports: Published articles per year
Journal |
Before 2000 |
2000-2002 |
2003-2005 |
2006-2008 |
2009-2011 |
2012-2014 |
2015-2017 |
TOTAL |
|
No. |
% |
||||||||
Small Business Economics |
- |
- |
1 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
- |
11 |
24 |
Reports (private
initiatives) |
- |
2 |
1 |
- |
3 |
3 |
2 |
11 |
24 |
International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
2 |
2 |
- |
7 |
15 |
Other journals |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
17 |
37 |
TOTAL |
1 |
3 |
5 |
10 |
11 |
9 |
6 |
46 |
100 |
Source: Own elaboration.
We want to highlight
that we found only two articles published in Latin American journals:
ARLA-Academia Revista Latinoamericana
de Administración (impact factor: 0.237) (Kuschel and Lepeley, 2016); and
Latin American Journal of Economics (impact factor: 0.7) (Castellani and Lora,
2014).
Furthermore, we found
75 authors who have written at least one academic paper on the topics of our
interest. The authors who have published the most are Urbano
(six articles), Acs (four), Alvarez (four), Amorós (three), and Thurik
(three). Urbano and Alvarez commonly publish together, as well as Thurik and
Wennekers. Table 7 shows published articles and academic affiliation for these
authors. Most articles are the product of international teams; we identified
only five articles that are written by a single author: Bygrave (1989), Heller
(2010), Henkerson (2007), Mattis (2004), and Wagner (2007).
Table 7. Main
authors by number of published articles and their academic affiliation
AUTHOR’S NAME |
Author
1 |
Author
2 |
Author
3 |
Author
4 |
TOTAL |
ACADEMIC AFFILIATION |
Urbano, David |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
6[6] |
Universitat de
Barcelona Spain |
Acs, Zoltan |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
George Mason University USA |
Alvarez, Claudia |
1 |
3 |
- |
- |
4 |
Universitat de
Barcelona Spain University of
Medellín Colombia |
Amorós, Ernesto |
2 |
1 |
- |
- |
3[7] |
Universidad del Desarrollo Chile |
Thurik, Roy |
1 |
- |
2 |
- |
3 |
Erasmus
University Rotterdam The
Netherlands |
Source: Own
elaboration.
About the articles’
objectives, those placed in the classification of female entrepreneurial activity
(44%) mostly focus on explaining the dynamics of females’ undertakings in Latin
America. Works classified as entrepreneurship and institutions (28%) commonly
focus on explaining the relationship between entrepreneurship and the
institutional approach. Articles classified as entrepreneurship and economic development
(28%) focus on explaining the link between 1-economics and entrepreneurship; 2-economics,
entrepreneurship, and institutions); and 3-economics, entrepreneurship, and
Latin America. Table 8 brief these results.
Table 8.
Orientation of the objectives
Female Entrepreneurial Activity |
No. |
% |
Entrepreneurship and institutions |
No. |
% |
Entrepreneurship and economic development |
No. |
% |
Document women
entrepreneurship research |
2 |
10 |
Explain entrepreneurship |
1 |
8 |
Economics and entrepreneurship |
4 |
31 |
Understand female
entrepreneurship |
4 |
20 |
Explain entrepreneurship and institutional approach |
6 |
46 |
Economics and entrepreneurship and institutions |
4 |
31 |
Self-employment |
2 |
10 |
Document current entrepreneurship research and
institutions |
2 |
15.3 |
Economics and entrepreneurship and gender |
1 |
7 |
Start-ups |
3 |
15 |
Describe entrepreneurship and institutional
approach and gender |
2 |
15.3 |
Economics and entrepreneurship and Latin America |
4 |
31 |
Differences between
males and females |
2 |
10 |
Entrepreneurship and institutional approach and
Latin America |
2 |
15.3 |
|
|
|
Female entrepreneurship
and Latin America |
7 |
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTALS |
20 |
100 |
|
13 |
100 |
|
13 |
100 |
Source: Own elaboration.
On the analyzed
articles, 68% are driven from databases, 26% from a wide range of literature,
and 6% representing a combination of both. Primary data were used by 31% of
studies, followed by use of the GEM database in combination with national or
other databases (15%). Secondary data sources include national or other
databases (13%) and the GEM database (9%). In all cases, the researchers use
more than one statistical technique; the most common are functions and
equations (29%) and regression (16%).
Table 9. Data used on the analyzed articles
Data |
No. |
% |
Author (s) |
Primary Database |
14 |
31 |
Aboal and Veneri (2014);
Capelleras and Rabetino (2008); GEM (2012, 2014, 2016); Heller (2010); Kantis
et al. (2002, 2004); Kuschel and Lepeley (2016); Kuschel et al. (2017);
Langowitz et al. (2006); Lederman et al. (2014); Mattis (2004); Weeks and
Seiler (2001). |
Literature Review |
12 |
26 |
Acs and Szerb (2007); Acs et al.
(2008); Amine and Staub (2009); Brush et al. (2009); Bruton et al. (2010);
Bygrave (1989); Henkerson (2007); Jennings and Brush (2013); Peris-Ortiz et
al. (2015); Thurik and Wennekers (2004); Tolbert et al. (2011); Veciana and
Urbano (2008). |
GEM Database and
National or Other Database |
7 |
15 |
Amorós and Cristi (2008); Amorós
et al. (2012);
Autio and Fu (2015); Díaz Casero et al. (2005); Estrin and Mickiewicz (2011); Noguera et al.
(2015); van Stel et al. (2005). |
National or Other
Database |
6 |
13 |
Acs et al. (2012); Ahl and
Nelson (2015); Gurley-Calvez et al. (2009); Lofstrom and Bates (2009); Nissan
et al. (2011); Wagner (2007). |
GEM Database |
4 |
9 |
Alvarez and
Urbano (2011); Minniti and Nardone (2007); Noguera et al. (2013); Urbano and Alvarez (2014). |
Literature Review, GEM
Database, and National (Other) Database |
3 |
6 |
Acs and Amorós (2008);
Castellani and Lora (2014); Wennekers et al. (2002). |
TOTAL |
46 |
100 |
|
Source:
On the
other hand, 59% of the articles focus on Latin America as a single region, while 35%
focus on one particular sector (Latin American female entrepreneurs), and 6%
concentrate on a group of countries (Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, and Peru; see
Table 10).
Table
10. Analyzed articles focus on Latin
America
Latin America as: |
No. |
% |
Author (s) |
Single Region |
10 |
59 |
Aboal and Veneri (2014); Acs and
Amorós (2008); Alvarez and Urbano (2011); Amorós and Cristi (2008); Amorós et
al. (2012); Castellani and Lora (2014); Kantis et al. (2002, 2004); Kuschel and
Lepeley (2016); Lederman et al. (2014). |
Particular sector (women) |
6 |
35 |
GEM (2012, 2014). Heller (2010).
Lofstrom and Bates (2009); Weeks and Seiler (2001); Kuschel et al. (2017). |
Group of countries |
1 |
6 |
Capelleras and Rabetino (2008). |
TOTAL |
17 |
100 |
|
Source: Own elaboration.
Finally, related to the
statistical techniques used in the articles focused on Latin America, 35% used
a driven analysis, 24% used a survey method, 18% used functions and equations,
and 24% used some combination of methods (Table 11). These studies were
discussed above.
Table
11. Analyzed articles focus on Latin
America: statistical techniques
Latin America as: |
No. |
% |
Author (s) |
Driven analysis |
6 |
35 |
Aboal and Veneri (2014); Castellani and Lora (2014);
Lederman et al. (2014); Kantis et al. (2002, 2004); Weeks and Seiler (2001) |
Survey |
4 |
28 |
Kuschel et al. (2017); Kuschel and Lepeley (2016); GEM
(2014, 2012) |
Functions and equations |
3 |
18 |
Alvarez and Urbano (2011); Amorós and Cristi (2008);
Capelleras and Rabetino (2008) |
Other methods |
4 |
28 |
Amorós et al. (2012); Heller
(2010); Lofstrom and Bates (2009); Acs and Amorós (2008) |
TOTAL |
17 |
100 |
|
Source: Own elaboration.
We also explored the
relationship between the level of analysis (i.e., single region, sector
[women], and a group of countries) and the approaches (i.e., economic growth,
female entrepreneurial activity, and institutional theory). The results showed
that χ2 is 29.7 with 6 degrees of freedom and is significant at 0.00. Hence, we
determined that there is a statistical association between the level of
analysis and the approach. Figure 2 presents the scatter diagram between the
level of analysis and the approaches. It shows that studies focused on female
entrepreneurial activity are associated with a sector (women) level of
analysis, while economic growth studies are associated with a single regional
level of analysis, and institutional approaches are associated with a country
group level of analysis.
Figure 1. Approach
versus level of analysis
Source: Own
elaboration.
We also found a
statistically significant association of 0.000 (χ2 is 17.6 with 9 degrees of
freedom) between the statistical techniques and the approaches used. There is
also an evident relationship between female entrepreneurial activity and driven
analysis techniques; as well as between the economic growth approach and the
use the analyses of others (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Approach
versus statistical technique
Source: Own
elaboration.
Finally, Figure 4
characterizes a tridimensional representation of the studies related to Latin
America. There is a clear relationship between the type of approaches, level of
analysis, and database. Possible future lines of research could analyze the
institutional approach and use GEM data and national databases to close the gap
by providing a more detailed view of the economic approach.
Figure 3. Tridimensional
representation
Source: Own
elaboration.
CONCLUSIONS
Institutional approach
is useful in explaining the entrepreneurial environment as well as the formal
and informal factors that influence economic development in Latin America.
There is increasing evidence for its use. Our study demonstrates both the
prevalence of studying Latin America as a single region, and little attention
to sectors (separate countries or females’ contribution to entrepreneurship).
We conclude that there
is a gap in the investigation of female entrepreneurial activity and its
relationship with economics in Latin America using the institutional approach.
Most studies explain these topics separately or in an arrangement, such as
female entrepreneurship and Latin America; entrepreneurship, institutional
approach, and Latin America; or economics, entrepreneurship, and Latin America.
We also found that private organizations always use their own primary data,
while academics use other databases like GEM combined with other databases, and
both apply a large range of research and statistical methods for data analyses.
Finally, based on the above,
we settle that the forces that stimulate or hinder entrepreneurial activity and
the role of gender differences among entrepreneurs remain poorly understood in
Latin America, where there is an absence of official government information and
statistics about female entrepreneurial activity.
However, the literature
review showed that most of the available studies resulted from the initiatives
of private organizations, such as IADB, GEM, WB, and ECLA, rather than from
scholarly research. There is no evidence suggesting that a body of academic
papers related to female entrepreneurial activity in Latin America has been
published in SSCI journals.
Greater recognition of
the role of female entrepreneurs could stimulate research interest in this
group, with the goal of increasing overall entrepreneurial and economic
activity in Latin America. To date, a considerable body of research has sought
to understand the relationship between entrepreneurial activity and economic
growth, including antecedents and consequences. Although this research has
generated a number of important insights, it has paid scant attention to
females’ contributions to economic activities. Identifying the determinants of
female entrepreneurial activity will have important implications for those who
formulate, deliver, and evaluate entrepreneurial policies in Latin America.
REFERENCES
Aboal, D., & Veneri,
F. (2014). Entrepreneurs in Latin-America.
Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.
Acs,
Z. J., & Amorós, J.E. (2008). Entrepreneurship
and competitiveness dynamics in Latin America. Small Business Economics,
31 (3), 305-322.
Acs, Z.J., Audretsch,
D., & Lehmann, E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of
entrepreneurship. Revista Latinoamericana de Administración,
41 (1), 757-774.
Acs,
Z.J., Audretsch, D., Braunerhjelm,
P., & Carlsson, B. (2012). Growth and entrepreneurship. Small
Business Economics, 39 (2), 289-300.
Acs, Z.J., Desai, S., & Hessels,
J. (2008). Entrepreneurship, economic development and institutions. Small
Business Economics, 31 (3), 219-234.
Acs, Z. J., & Szerb,
L. (2007). Entrepreneurship, Economic Growth and Public Policy. Small
Business Economics. 28. 109-122.
Ahl,
H., & Nelson, T. (2015). How policy positions women entrepreneurs: A
comparative analysis of state discourse in Sweden and the United States. Journal
of Business Venturing, 30 (2), 273-291.
Alvarez,
C., & Urbano, D. (2011). Environmental factors and entrepreneurial activity
in Latin America. Small Business Economics, 48, 31-45.
Alvarez,
C., Urbano, D., & Amorós,
J.E. (2014). GEM research: achievements and challenges. Small Business
Economics, 42 (3), 445-465.
Amine,
L.S., & Staub, K.M. (2009). Women entrepreneurs in sub-Saharan Africa: An
institutional theory analysis from a social marketing point of view. Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development: An International Journal, 21 (2), 183-211.
Amorós, J. E., & Cristi,
O. (2008). Longitudinal analysis of entrepreneurship and competitiveness
dynamics in Latin America. International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, 4 (4), 381-199.
Amorós, J. E., Fernández, C., &
Tapia, J. (2012). Quantifying the relationship between entrepreneurship and
competitiveness development stages in Latin America. International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, 8 (3), 249-270.
Audretsch, D., & Link, A. N. (2012). Entrepreneurship
and Innovation: public policy frameworks. The Journal of Technology Transfer,
37, 1-17.
Autio, E., & Fu, K. (2015). Economic
and political institutions and entry into formal and informal entrepreneurship.
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32, 67-94.
Brush
C., de Bruin A., & Welter, F. (2009). A gender-aware framework for women’s
entrepreneurship. International Journal Gender Entrepreneurship, 1 (1),
8–24.
Bruton,
G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Li, H. L. (2010). Institutional theory and
entrepreneurship: where are we now and where do we need to move in the future?. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 34(3),
421-440.
Bygrave,
W. (1989). The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (I): A Philosophical Look at Its
Research Methodologies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14 (1),
7-26.
Capelleras, J-L., & Rabetino,
R. (2008). Individual, organizational and environmental determinants of new
firm employment growth: evidence from Latin America. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4 (1), 79-99.
Castellani,
F., & Lora, E. (2014). Is Entrepreneurship a Channel for Social Mobility in
Latin America?. Latin
American Journal of Economics, 51 (2), 179-194.
Díaz Casero, J. C., Urbano Pulido, D., & Hernández
Mogollón, R. (2005). Teoría económica institucional y creación de empresas. Investigaciones
Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 11 (3), 1135-2533.
DiMaggio,
P. J. 1991. Constructing
an organizational field
as a professional project: U.S. art museums, 1920–1940. W. W. Powell, P. J.
DiMaggio, eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, 267–292.
Estrin,
S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2011). Institutions and female entrepreneurship. Small
Business Economics, 37, 397-415.
GEM.
(2012). Global Entrepreneur Monitor, Special Women’s Report. Babson Park, MA,
London, UK: Babson College and London Business School.
GEM.
(2014). Global Entrepreneur Monitor, Special Women’s Report. Babson Park, MA,
London, UK: Babson College and London Business School.
GEM.
(2016). Global Entrepreneur Monitor. Babson Park, MA, London, UK: Babson
College and London Business School.
Heller, L. (2010). Mujeres
emprendedoras en América Latina y el Caribe: realidades, obstáculos y desafíos.
Santiado de Chile: División de Asuntos de Género, CEPAL.
Henkerson, M. (2007). Entrepreneurship and Institutions. Comparative
Labor Law and Policy Journal, 28 (4). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1006253.
Jennings,
J. E., & Brush, C. (2013). Research on woman entrepreneurship: Challenges
to (and from) the Broader Entrepreneurship Literature?.
The Academy of Management Annals, 7 (1), 661-713.
Kantis,
H., V.M. Koening., & Angelelli,
P. (2004). Developing entrepreneurship:
Experience in Latin America and worldwide. Washington, D.C: Inter-American
Development Bank.
Kantis, H., Mashaiko,
I., & Mashaiko, K. (2002). Empresarialidad en economías emergentes: Creación y
desarrollo de nuevas empresas en América Latina y el Este de Asia: Resumen.
Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, Departamento de Desarrollo Sostenible,
Subdepartamento de Empresa Privada y Mercados Financieros, División de Micro,
Pequeña y Mediana Empresa.
Kuschel, K., & Lepeley, M.T. (2016). Copreneurial women in start-ups Growth-oriented or
lifestyle? An aid for technology industry investors. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 29 (2), 181-197.
Kuschel, K., Lepeley,
M.T., Espinosa,
F., & Gutiérrez,
S. (2017). Funding
challenges of Latin American women start-up founders in the technology industry. Cross
Cultural & Strategic Management, 24 (2), 310-331.
Langowitz, N., Sharpe, N., & Godwyn, M. (2006). Women’s business centers in the United
States: effective entrepreneurship training and policy implementation. Journal
of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 19 (2), pp. 167–181.
Lederman,
D., Messina, J., Pienknagura, S. & Rigolini, J. (2014). Enmprendimiento en América Latina. Muchas empresas y poca innovación.
Washington, D.C.: Banco Mundial.
Lofstrom,
M., & Bates, T. (2009). Latina Entrepreneurship. Small Business
Economics, 33, 427-439.
Mattis,
M.C. (2004). Women entrepreneurs: out from under the glass ceiling. Women in
Management Review, 19 (3), 154-163.
Minniti, M., & Nardone, C. (2007).
Being in someone else’s shoes: the role of gender in nascent entrepreneurship. Small
Business Economics, 28 (2–3), 223–239.
Nissan,
E., Galindo-Martín, M.A., & Méndez-Picasso, M.T. (2011). Relationship
between organizations, institutions, entrepreneurship and economic growth
process. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7 (3),
311-324.
Noguera, M., Alvarez, C., Merigó, J., & Urbano, D.
(2015). Determinants
of female entrepreneurship in Spain: an institutional approach. Computational
and Mathematical Organization Theory, 21, 341-355.
Noguera, M., Alvarez, C., & Urbano, D. (2013). Socio-cultural factors and female
entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
9 (2), 183-197.
North,
D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge
Univ. Press.
Peris-Ortiz, M., Rueda-Armengot, C., &
Benito-Osorio, D. (2015). Women
in business: entrepreneurship, ethics and efficiency. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8, 343-354.
Thurik, R., & Wennekers, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship,
small business and economic growth. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 11 (1), 140-149.
Tolbert,
P., David, R., & Sine, W. (2011). Studying Choice and Change: The
Intersection of Institutional Theory and Entrepreneurship Research. Organization
Science, 22 (5), 1332-1344.
Urbano, D., & Alvarez, C. (2014).
Institutional dimensions and entrepreneurial activity: an international study. Small
Business Economics, 41 (4), 703-716.
van
Stel, A., Carree, M., &
Thurik, R. (2005). “The Effect of Entrepreneurial Activity on National Economic
Growth”. Small Business Economics, 24 (3), 311-321.
Veciana, J.M., & Urbano,
D. (2008). The institutional approach to entrepreneurship research.
Introduction. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal, 4,
365-379.
Wagner,
J. (2007). What a difference a Y makes -female and male nascent entrepreneurs
in Germany. Small Business Economics, 28 (1), 1-21.
Weeks,
J., & Seiler, D. (2001). Women´s
Entrepreneurship in Latin-America: An Exploration of Current Knowledge. Washington,
D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.
Wennekers,
S., Uhlaner, L., & Thurik, R. (2002).
Entrepreneurship and its conditions: a macro perspective. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1 (1), 25-65.
[1] Autora corresponsal. Instituto Tecnológico de
Costa Rica, Escuela de Administración de Empresas, Calle 15, Avenida 141 km Sur
de la Basílica de los Ángeles, Cartago, COSTA RICA.
[2] Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Departamento
de Empresa, Plaça Cívica, 08193
Bellaterra, Barcelona, ESPAÑA.
[3] These
reports are considered due to their methodological rigor.
[4] CEPAL
(Comisión Económica para América Latina).
[5] Keywords
are not mentioned in reports.
[6] Two are related to Latin America and were written with
Alvarez.
[7] All of
them are strictly related to Latin America.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Catalogs and Indexes:
Plagiarism analysis by: