Keywords

1 Foreword

This work was originally focused on the identification of Female entrepreneurship value creation measurement methods and their classifications. Literature analysis, as detailed in Table 17.1, however, highlights that researches about Female entrepreneurship don’t have investigated whether it is an individual or collective variable, and whether it has social or natural derivation. Female entrepreneurship qualification is a preparatory research to measurement of economic variables connected to it, because a clear framework of a variable is necessary in order to determine the subject matter of its measurement and connected economic variables measurement as well.

Table 17.1 Paper analysis
Full size table

In next paragraph we clarify what has not yet been investigated, according to recent literature; in the following paragraph we set the fourfold classification of Female entrepreneurship concept. In paragraph 4 we outline the four possible Female entrepreneurship classifications and in paragraph 5 we treat some consequences of this classification, regarding Competition concept. Last paragraph is about consequences about aggregate economic variables measurement.

2 Research Question and Literature

In order to analyse literature about Female entrepreneurship, we considered the Analytical framework and Taxonomy outlined in Paoloni and Demartini (2016), focusing on “A2-Female entrepreneurship” category. In particular, attention was focused on the 53 articles described in Table 17.1. Some of these articles analyse Female entrepreneurship characteristics, comparing carried out by male or female entrepreneur enterprises (see Table 17.1, articles: Walsh and Borkowski 2006; Westbrook et al. 2011; Barrett 2011; Mihail 2006). Other articles, directly quantify existing entrepreneurial characteristics in male or female enterprises (see Table 17.1 articles: Singh 2008; Mordi 2010). In total, most of the articles—37 of 53 (68.9%)—are Qualitative; 8 (15% of total) are quantitative, and 10 are case studies, ethnographic articles and literature reviews.

Notwithstanding this array of classification, all of the articles are about Female entrepreneur characteristics identification, or compared with male entrepreneur, but Female entrepreneurship concept, with regard to its nature and qualifications, still remains untapped. The importance of the research about this concept has a dual meaning.

  1. (1)

    Since in literature Entrepreneurship is defined as a variable pertaining to individuals,Footnote 1 the name Female entrepreneurship suggests a Gender—that is collective—qualification for this variable. The point is that in recent literature about Female entrepreneurship its collective character is not problematized.

  2. (2)

    In recent literature about Female entrepreneurship, gender entrepreneurs differences are not investigated with regard to their social or natural origins. That is: it’s not investigated whether female and male entrepreneurship gender diversities are due to historical constructions or natural differences between the two sexes—if we can refer to the traditional two sexes, as called to mind by the term female.

These two points indicates why the literature review has stimulated us a methodological issue, that is preparatory to any recognition and classification of female entrepreneurship characteristics, since a research about female entrepreneurship characteristics can only rely on Female entrepreneurship qualification. As we can see in the next paragraph, the two mentioned alternatives brings out four different classification modes, only one of which is correspondent with traditional definition of Entrepreneurship: an individual variable which evolves over time.

3 Female Entrepreneurship Classifications

Our research hypothesis, as specified above, was originally focused on value creation differences between male and female entrepreneurs, with the implicit assumption that Female entrepreneurship definition was clearly established in literature.

However, recent literature analysis has revealed the necessity of a preparatory qualification of Female entrepreneurship, since economic literature considers Entrepreneurship as a set of characteristics pertaining to individuals, and owned by each individual in different amount. Therefore, since economic literature, at least from the last decades of the Nineteenth century, qualifies Entrepreneurship from an individual, rather that collective, point of view,Footnote 2 a reflection is needed in order to classify its nature as individual or collective. At the same time, it’s necessary to clarify whether Female entrepreneurship has a social or natural character. This is because, whether it is individual or collective, its qualification may be the result of social evolution, creating female entrepreneurship features, or the result of natural sex differences. According to the social evolution hypothesis, entrepreneurship characteristics can be owned by male and female entrepreneur and the labelling as male or female entrepreneurship depends on the quantity above which these characteristics determines the qualification as male or female entrepreneurship. This means that social evolution would determine variations in these characteristics and their owned quantities, since male or female entrepreneurship classification wouldn’t be connected with sex assigned at birth. On the other hand, according to natural character hypothesis of male or female entrepreneurship, male entrepreneur can’t own classified Female entrepreneurship characteristics because of their naturally different origin. In this perspective, birth would have determined male and female possibilities and characterizations.Footnote 3

In order to depict prior classification importance, we can refer to the classical problem of linking an economic variable with the consequences of its use. Only after the decision about classification of Female entrepreneurship, it will be possible to establish typical male and female owned by entrepreneurs characteristics; and only after having established it, it will be possible to understand the kind of linkage between characteristics and value creation; i.e. correlation—pure or spurious—or causation. For example: only after having established Female entrepreneurship as a collective variable, it will be possible to exclude that differences between male and female entrepreneur value creation are due to individual differences, instead of gender. In the following paragraph we discuss some reflections about female entrepreneurship as individual or collective variable, and introduce some differences about its social or natural derivation. In Table 17.2 there is the fourfold classification of Female entrepreneurship concept.

Table 17.2 Female entrepreneurship (FE) classification
Full size table

4 Entrepreneur or Gender

Economic literatureFootnote 4 maintains that Entrepreneur combines productive factors and obtains profit because of her/his particularFootnote 5—not general—abilities, since she/he is not the owner of a particular productive factor; and she/he is not an individual representing any social group. In this way, a multitude of independent agents acts in every economic system, every agent trying to assert her/his capacity to profitably combine productive factors. According to economic literature, value creation and capital enhancing depend on individual qualities instead of gender qualities.

Where instead value creation is studied in relation to Female entrepreneurship, entrepreneur’s profit is implicitly considered the result of Gender qualities and differences—not individuals—; and this is even hypothesizing individual differences depending on different quantities owned by each entrepreneur, because this can’t invalidate original common matrix of gender differences. This hypothesis underlies research about gender issues in business and economics. In this case, Female entrepreneurship qualification as a social or natural variable arises, since in economic literature there is no consensus about this. Barker and Kuiper (2003: 1), for example, indicate that Feminist economics is “reconceptualizing what economics is”. This is because feminist point of view implies a different vision of economic categories and gender difference takes on a different and natural meaning if a gender vision is not recognized as filtered through particular lenses. In this way we think it can be read the following quotation: “we intend to participate in moving feminist economics out of the margin and into the center: to become economics, unmodified” (Ibidem). In this viewpoint, the feminist vision does not stand alongside a male-dominated vision and believes that it is moving from a universal point of view. Therefore, when Female entrepreneurship concept changes, it changes due to the affirmation of a more general point of view and gender differences are considered natural differences.

We can on the contrary place on another level the book edited by Bettio and Verashchagina (2008). According to these Authors, gender questions have social nature, that is, they depend on historical factors that created them. Pat Hudson writes: “Gender is a social rather than a biological construction, and it has a history” (Bettio and Verashchagina 2008: 21). As a social construction, Female entrepreneurship is a variable whose characteristics can also be owned by male entrepreneur, even if to such an extent that they do not determine their qualification as female entrepreneurs. As a gender variable, however, it is still a super-individual variable, but its collective nature has a definite historical connotation.

5 Some Implications for Competition Concept

The importance of Female entrepreneurship concept qualification in one of the four proposed classifications (see: Table 17.2) is also closely linked to the consequences it has on the classification of linked economic variables and concepts.

From a preliminary assessment of the nature of Female entrepreneurship, we can infer that if it is considered a collective quality, then Competition concept, which now includes the economic situation characterized by the presence of a set of small businesses, each of which it is not able to influence fundamental economic magnitudes, can’t be scientifically defined as the limit towards which the economic system tends. This is because every economic system, according to this point of view, is not characterized by the presence of independent entrepreneurs, as they have autonomous characteristics, and who compete on the markets because of their different aims. Economic system, on the contrary, is characterized by the presence of classifiable in standard types entrepreneurs; therefore, market would be populated by subjects who behave according to standard qualities that cancel the individual essence characterizing ideal entrepreneur, described as independent from other entrepreneurs, owners of inputs and consumers. Standard qualities and gender differences, instead of particular, limit individual differences characterizing a competitive market.

The essence of the entrepreneur, in this way, would no longer be individual even considering that each entrepreneur have the same characteristics as others, but held in different quantities. This is because the essence of Gender is what remains once neglected individual particularities, which is neglected precisely because entrepreneurship is defined as a gender variable. It is necessary to carefully understand this alternative: if female entrepreneurship is considered an individual quality, you can’t trace and measure it within a gender-based research; whereas it is considered a gender and standardized quality, you can’t explain economic system qualities and dynamics by means of individual entrepreneurs. This alternative requires also a step backwards with respect to Competition concept assumptions. For example: is profit maximization an individual purpose? Is price determination a merely subjective matter?

6 An Open Wide Conclusion

Female entrepreneurship, because of the term female, can be intended as a gender-based research: a research about standardized qualities and functions of standardized human beings, instead of a research about a particular function characterizing individuals. This qualitative difference, moreover, distinguishes the eventually subsequent quantitative research, because it is preparatory to the possibility of measuring the research object; but the research has a wider significance.

The two alternative determinations of Female entrepreneurship as economic variable (individual or gender), in fact, pose a theoretical problem also at aggregate level, not just at company level. As we have already noted in two our recent works,Footnote 6 National accounting systems can’t measure entrepreneurship contribution to value creation, because of price variations accounting rules and theory. This is because we can’t actually establish if a price variation of a commodity stands, at aggregate level, for a relative prices variation or an increase in wealth inserted in an economic system; and in the case of Female entrepreneurship it emerges a preceding identification problem, i.e., the previous qualification of what should be, but can’t actually be, measured. Female entrepreneurship field of research, therefore, indicates a path to follow for a more general and methodological reflection on the nature of Entrepreneurship in general. This is because Female entrepreneurship expression itself indicates an implied research attention towards a super-individual level of economic variable analysis, that directly involves all economic research, not just Gender issues.