Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Technological Forecasting & Social Change journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore Can female entrepreneurs boost social mobility in developing countries? An institutional analysis Sebastian Aparicio a, b, David Audretsch c, Maria Noguera b, d, David Urbano a, b, * a Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Department of Business, Edifici B, Campus UAB, Cerdanyola del Vallès (Barcelona), 08913 Spain b Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Centre for Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation Research (CREIS), Edifici S, Campus Sabadell UAB, C/ Emprius 2, Sabadell (Barcelona), 08202 Spain c Indiana University, O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Institute for Development Strategies, 1315 East 10th Street, SPEA Room 201, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA d Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Edifici Blanc, Campus UAB, 08913, Cerdanyola del Vallès (Barcelona), Spain A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: Entrepreneurship has been linked to economic development at the regional and national levels, yet the micro­ Social mobility economic nuances of entrepreneurial diversity and the challenges that different entrepreneurs face in producing Female entrepreneurship social benefits remain unexplored. Numerous studies have recognised that a gender gap exists not only in Female self-employment entrepreneurship but also in development outcomes, such as firm performance and poverty alleviation. Few, Institutional economics though, have considered the role of institutions in incentivising women and men in the generational improve­ Developing countries ment process, such as social mobility. Hence, does the institutional environment framing gender differences constrain or enable potential effects of female (compared with male) entrepreneurs on microeconomic outcomes such as social mobility? We investigate the institutional influence on the probability of becoming a female entrepreneur and the effect of this decision on social mobility in developing countries. We test gender com­ parisons through two-stage probit least squares (2SPLS), showing that post-materialism, autonomy, network membership, democracy, and respect for human rights have positive effects on both women’s and men’s self- employment jointly as well as female self-employment specifically. We also show that the decision to become an entrepreneur has a greater influence on social mobility for female than for male entrepreneurs. Policy im­ plications regarding gender equality are discussed. 1. Introduction entrepreneurship differently, in turn having an impact on outcomes such as inclusion and social mobility (Lerner et al., 1997; Mejía and Melén­ It has been argued that the solution to some of the main social dez, 2014). For example, Terjesen and Lloyd (2015) showed that some problems in both developed and developing countries (i.e. exclusion, African and East Asian countries lack a solid financial and educational poverty, and inequality) requires a strategy based on inclusion and structure that provides support for new ventures led by women. Terje­ gender equality that is associated with entrepreneurship (McMullen, sen and Lloyd’s (2015) report about the female entrepreneurship index 2011; Patel et al., 2018; Pathak and Muralidharan, 2018; Scott et al., also determined that female entrepreneurs in Latin America require a 2012). In this respect, the role of not only male but also female entre­ better regulative and legal system that reduces uncertainty in local preneurs could generate a social transition that alleviates poverty markets and helps them to start looking for international customers. If (Bruton et al., 2013; Hechavarria et al., 2019; Rosca et al., 2020). In line the context matters, then it is relevant to comprehend how the gap be­ with this suggestion, a significant number of articles have been pub­ tween women and men is augmented or reduced by the characteristics of lished in recent years in the field of female entrepreneurship (see Brush each national context (Marlow, 2019; Yousafzai et al., 2019), helping et al. (2020) for a thorough discussion). However, few of these articles entrepreneurs to generate economic and social benefits. have considered the context of developing countries (Yousafzai et al., The foundations of institutions have assisted in understanding the 2019) or investigated how institutions might affect male and female context in which individuals make continual economic transactions and * Corresponding author. E-mail address: david.urbano@uab.cat (D. Urbano). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121401 Received 29 July 2020; Received in revised form 21 October 2021; Accepted 25 November 2021 Available online 4 December 2021 0040-1625/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 decisions, redistributing wealth across society (Davanzati, 2006). Ace­ that institutions matter for both female and male entrepreneurship in moglu et al. (2014) and Rodrik (2003) recognised that institutions are developing countries but that they matter in different ways. Consistent effectively the frame in which productive factors operate to enhance the with a microeconomic approach, we analyse the manner in which in­ national income. According to Rodrik (2003), institutions affect devel­ stitutions affect male entrepreneurship, which is different from the way opment through different endowments (e.g. capital, labour, and in which they influence female entrepreneurship. This research also knowledge, amongst others), which are directly linked to growth and reaffirms the importance of entrepreneurship (and especially female development. Thus, institutional economics (North, 1990, 2005) is entrepreneurship) as a conduit for institutions and as a means of considered to be a viable framework for analysing those conditioning enhancing social mobility in developing countries. factors that affect growth, productivity, and development (Leite et al., After this introduction, the next section of this article develops and 2014). posits the main hypotheses about how and why institutions affect men Hausmann and Rodrik (2003) and Rodrik (2003) suggested that and women differently, drawing on the extant literature. Afterwards, we firms and entrepreneurs explain countries’ national income, which, at describe the data and methodology. Next, we present the results and, the same time, is highly influenced by their institutional context. In this subsequently, discuss some of the policy implications related to the sense, Urbano et al. (2019) found abundant literature about institutions, significance of female entrepreneurship for social mobility. Finally, entrepreneurship, and development. However, there is room for further conclusions and future research lines are presented. explorations, especially focusing on other types of entrepreneurship. Drawing on this idea, Dean et al. (2019) claimed that there is a lack of 2. Theoretical framework studies testing empirically how institutions affect both female and male entrepreneurs who are also contributing to welfare and economic 2.1. Institutions and entrepreneurship development. Aparicio et al. (2016) and Welter (2011) suggested that future As noted earlier, this article uses institutional economics (North, research should produce a broader analysis of institutions and entre­ 1990, 2005) to explain why institutions may affect male and female preneurship that pays special attention to developing countries. More entrepreneurship differently. Institutions are defined as the “rules of the empirical research is needed because entrepreneurship in emerging game in a society, or more formally, […] the constraints that shape economies acts as a policy mechanism to solve social problems. For human interaction” (North, 1990, p. 3). Institutions can be formal, such instance, Bruton et al. (2009, 2013) suggested that entrepreneurship is as regulations, contracts, and procedures, or informal, such as the cul­ especially useful for competitiveness and for the alleviation of poverty in ture, values, or social norms of a particular society. As North (1990) emerging economies since entrepreneurial activity has become an suggested, formal institutions intend to reduce transaction costs based alternative to participation in the labour market in these countries. on regulations, whereas informal institutions exist to reduce the un­ Entrepreneurial activity, however, has also been constrained by certainty caused by the decision making of individuals (North, 2005). different issues, such as the unofficial economy, a lack of infrastructure One additional element of this framework is related to the interactions for entrepreneurs, and the violation of human rights, especially for between formal and informal institutions. Here, some regulations could women (Aidis et al., 2007). Stephan and Uhlaner (2010) showed that be efficient depending on the cultural values and intentionality of a some of these problems have been overcome thanks to the existence of society. Thus, informal institutions constrain the nature of formal in­ societal values (e.g. post-materialism, collectivism, and association) as a stitutions and vice versa. Nevertheless, whereas formal institutions can vehicle that supports entrepreneurial activity. Audretsch and Moog change over a short period of time, informal institutions change more (2020) added democracy to this discussion. This defines a social slowly (Williamson, 2000). Although these two distinguished groups configuration around political and economic decisions in favour of exist, the literature has emphasised institutions in general as mecha­ markets in which everybody can participate actively through productive nisms that indirectly affect economic development (cf. Acemoglu et al., behaviours (such as entrepreneurship). Despite the existence of evidence 2014). Indeed, Williamson (2000) analysed institutions through four and discussions about these contextual elements and entrepreneurship, clear layers – culture; regulations; governance structure, associations, little has been said about their influence on closing the gender gap and transactions; and resource allocation and individual characteristics (Hechavarria et al., 2017) to generate outcomes beyond economic in terms of employment – to explain differences across countries. development (Hechavarría et al., 2019), such as social mobility (Lora More than differentiating between formal and informal institutions, and Castellani, 2013). the recent literature has revealed growing recognition of the significant In this context, this paper investigates the institutional influence on influence that institutional factors, in addition to other factors, have on the probability of becoming a female entrepreneur and the impact of this the entrepreneurial process (Urbano et al., 2019), especially in the case decision on social mobility in developing countries. For comparison of female entrepreneurship (Hechavarría et al., 2018; Langowitz and purposes, apart from studying female entrepreneurship, we analyse the Minniti, 2007; Yousafzai et al., 2015) as well as in the context of influence of institutional factors on general entrepreneurship (self- developing countries (Centindamar et al., 2012; Lerner et al., 1997; employment) and on male self-employment and their relative impor­ Maas et al., 2014). In this sense, Centindamar et al. (2012) highlighted tance for social mobility. We support our hypotheses using the con­ the beneficial impact of entrepreneurial activity for both men and ceptual framework of institutional economics, which explains those women in Turkey. Their findings suggest that the impact of human conditioning factors that promote entrepreneurship amongst both capital on the likelihood of becoming an entrepreneur is greater for women and men and their effect on social mobility. Using information women than for men. They also reflect the importance of institutions from the period 2011–2014, from the unique data set of the World with respect to entrepreneurial activity and suggest that these factors Values Survey (WVS), complemented with information at the national contribute significantly to the improvement of economic development. level from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Transparency Lerner et al. (1997) described the social structures that relate to female International, we find that female entrepreneurs are more influenced by entrepreneurs while keeping in mind how work, family, and organised institutions (post-materialism, autonomy, membership of an organisa­ social life vary between developed and developing countries. Research tion, democracy, and respect for human rights), while male entrepre­ has shown that social learning (entrepreneurial socialisation), network neurs are affected only by autonomy, membership of an organisation, affiliation (contacts and membership of organisations), human capital and respect for human rights. We also find that both male and female (level of education and business skills), and contextual influences self-employment contributes to social mobility in developing countries, (location and socio-political variables) affect women’s enterprise crea­ despite the smaller impact of male entrepreneurs relative to their female tion and economic development in the context of non-OECD countries. counterparts. We contribute to the literature by highlighting not only This evidence is consistent with Williamson’s (2000) ideas about 2 S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 institutions as a set of four layers. In this regard, the entrepreneurship make the analysis more complex. That is, necessity-driven entrepre­ literature has been interested in exploring cultural values through neurship is not bad per se as, in some cases, entrepreneurs are able to post-materialism (Uhlaner and Thurik, 2007), regulations through scale up their entrepreneurial activity thanks to opportunity recogni­ property and human rights (McMullen and Bergman, 2017), governance tion. However, in other cases, entrepreneurs are heavily constrained by structure, associations, and transactions through networks (Scott et al., market restrictions and competition, reducing their capacity for auton­ 2019), and individual characteristics in favour of productivity through omy and therefore their intentions and actions, which are crucial to the autonomy (Urbano et al., 2021). decision to start a business (Minniti and Nardone, 2007). Previous Post-materialism, one of the institutional factors included amongst studies have shown that women perceive their autonomy and the social attitudes, refers to the degree to which the population of a society entrepreneurial environment less favourably than men. As a conse­ values non-materialistic life goals, such as personal identification, quence, the low perception of autonomy affects the final decision to esteem, self-expression, subjective welfare, and quality of life (Inglehart create a business, especially in sectors that are traditionally considered and Welzel, 2005, 2009). Much of the literature on entrepreneurship has to be male (Anna et al., 2000; Noguera et al., 2013; Verheul et al., 2005). proposed that cultural values and social attitudes play important roles in Hence, creating a business may require a high level of autonomy, and entrepreneurial behaviour, especially in the case of female entrepre­ women may find this difficult (Dolinsky and Caputo, 2003; Hechavarría neurship (BarNir et al., 2011; Hechavarría et al., 2017; Manolova et al., et al., 2017; Romani et al., 2012). Improving this characteristic will raise 2007). Perceptual variables, such as the fear of failure, the perception of perceptions of venture feasibility, thus increasing the perception of op­ one’s own capabilities, and the perception of opportunities and role portunities (Krueger et al., 2000). Along the same lines, various scholars models, are the most important drivers of entrepreneurship (Arenius and have suggested the importance, for both men and women, of their au­ Minniti, 2005; Noguera et al., 2013; Romani et al., 2012). Cultural tonomy for their own abilities as well as their perception of entrepre­ values, such as self-expression, are also important for female entrepre­ neurial opportunities (Brush et al., 2017). Nonetheless, those neurs in developing countries or economies in transition (Alammari perceptions depend on the gender of the entrepreneur because a soci­ et al., 2019; Smallbone and Welter, 2001; Welter and Smallbone, 2008). ety’s culture, attitudes, values, and social conventions may encourage or In the course of their investigations, various authors have treated the discourage certain behaviours, including female entrepreneurship family context as an additional cultural factor. For example, Langowitz (Arenius and Minniti, 2005; Centindaman et al., 2012; Digan et al., and Minniti (2007) observed that, in societies in which the role of 2019; Langowitz and Minniti, 2007). Accordingly, the following hy­ women is closely tied to family responsibilities, entrepreneurial activity potheses are proposed: is perceived as less desirable. Furthermore, Jennings and McDougald (2007) found that the family context might have a greater impact on Hypothesis 2a: Greater autonomy is positively related to the prob­ women than on men. Along the same lines, role models are important ability of becoming an entrepreneur. because of their ability to enhance self-efficacy (Minniti and Nardone, Hypothesis 2b: Greater autonomy has a larger positive effect on the 2007), but women appear to need a more personal role model than men probability of men than the probability of women becoming (BarNir et al., 2011). In contrast, Uhlaner and Thurik (2007) explored entrepreneurs. how post-materialism, social factors, education, and life satisfaction might explain the differences in entrepreneurial activity across coun­ Embedded in Williamson’s (2000) ideas, transaction costs might be tries. Their findings confirm the significance of these aspects in pre­ reduced by the existence of networks, in which individuals share values, dicting entrepreneurial activity. Consistent with Inglehart and Welzel customs, and knowledge. The existing literature on entrepreneurship (2005), their study highlighted the negative effects of post-materialism has demonstrated the importance of social and collaborative networks on entrepreneurial activity. Morales and Holtschlag (2013) also pre­ as relevant institutional factors when making the final decision to create sented evidence that post-materialism decreases a person’s likelihood of a business, especially for the female collective (Jayawarna et al., 2015). becoming an entrepreneur; in fact, they demonstrated that the effect is Subsequently, this factor can help a female entrepreneur’s business to more negative in countries with high levels of entrepreneurship. From survive and succeed (Greve and Salaff, 2003). Although the ways in this review of the research, it is apparent that post-materialism has a which men and women create networks are quite similar, the kinds of significant impact on entrepreneurial activity and even more so on fe­ networks that they create differ considerably (Brush et al., 2019; Neu­ male entrepreneurship. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed: meyer et al., 2019). For example, women and men benefit in different ways from family networks. Prior research has shown that women use Hypothesis 1a: Post-materialism has a positive effect on the prob­ their contacts to obtain more personal or operational support rather than ability of becoming an entrepreneur. strategic support (Noguera et al., 2013; Sorenson et al., 2008). Other Hypothesis 1b: Post-materialism has a more positive effect on the types of networks have also turned out to be beneficial for women and probability of women becoming entrepreneurs than on that of men. men in different ways. For instance, J.H. Lee et al. (2011) and Lerner et al. (1997) demonstrated that social structures, such as network The support from the society and its values also needs solid market affiliation (contacts and membership of organisations such as churches, structures, which implies that individuals can make decisions freely. In supportive groups, clubs, etc.), motivation, human capital, and envi­ this regard, Williamson (2000) suggested that the analysis of institutions ronmental factors, explain variations between South Korean and Israeli is conditioned, amongst others, by the individual capacity to observe female entrepreneurs and their male counterparts with relative eco­ and learn from the market. Although part of this theoretical narrative is nomic parity: the differential effects of network affiliation are signifi­ based on the neoclassical point of view, in which individuals are con­ cantly more important for women than for men. However, this research strained by their income level, preferences, and incentives, autonomy is also proved that commitment to a single organisation (e.g., a church) is a factor that plays an important role in the decision-making process better than a loose alignment with many support groups. Along the same (Baumol, 1990). Market fluctuations thus define the economic situation lines, recent studies have established that people who are members of of every regional and national economy, imposing new conditions on associations and socialise with other entrepreneurs are more likely to individuals, who, through their autonomy, enter entrepreneurship create a business (Busch, 2014; Dufays and Huybrechts, 2014). Being motivated by either opportunities or necessity issues. The latter aspect is around and becoming acquainted with other businesspeople or role common in Latin American countries and other emerging economies, models have a positive impact on starting a new business, more so in the which are characterised by necessity entrepreneurship (Urbano and case of women (BarNir et al., 2011; Brush et al., 2019; Langowitz and Aparicio, 2016). Puente et al. (2019) explained that, even though this Minniti, 2007). Consequently, we posit the following hypotheses: type of entrepreneurship predominates in the region, nuances exist that 3 S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 Hypothesis 3a: Being a member of a network has a positive effect on 2011; Chitsike, 2000; Tlaiss, 2019). Other studies have asserted the the probability of becoming an entrepreneur. opposite. Higher levels of education may also offer better-paid Hypothesis 3b: Being a member of a network has a more positive employment opportunities and better working conditions, making it effect on the probability of women becoming entrepreneurs than on less probable that entrepreneurship will be the most desirable option that of men. (Castagnetti and Rosti, 2011; Morales and Holtschlag, 2013). However, the most important point is to have the opportunity to access education Drawing on Williamson (2000), Audretsch and Moog (2020) sug­ because education is one of a number of structural barriers, including gested that entrepreneurship in the emerging economies of central and the lack of marketable skills, the time and ability to travel, and family eastern Europe is not only an intended outcome of the transition from providers, which aggravate the problem of entrepreneurship amongst socialism to capitalism but also a key factor in ensuring the success of the women in developing countries (Chitsike, 2000). Studies conducted in transition and that it encourages economic development, stimulated by other emerging economies, such as Turkey, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, transitioning institutional policies that favour private enterprises. Thus, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka, have shown that entrepreneurial activity the relevance of entrepreneurship is reflected in both directions (Ireland amongst women is also correlated with their level of education and the et al., 2008; Rosca et al., 2020). Along the same lines, social changes and educational level attained by their husbands (Özlem, 2014; Rijkers and the emerging democratisation of some East Asian countries, such as Costa, 2012). Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed: Taiwan and South Korea, have affected entrepreneurship and economic growth. Taiwan, for example, was formerly ruled by an authoritarian Hypothesis 5a: Greater respect for individual human rights has a political system with extremely effective governmental control; with the positive effect on the probability of becoming an entrepreneur. introduction of a democratic process, the political environment has Hypothesis 5b: Greater respect for individual human rights in­ changed and entrepreneurship must be encouraged (Liu, 1998). Like­ creases the probability of women becoming entrepreneurs more than wise, research has investigated how the regional institutional context that of men. affects the entry of new firms in Russia. The findings indicate that higher levels of democracy increase the entry rates of small firms but reduce the 2.2. Entrepreneurial activity and social mobility entry rates for medium or large businesses (Bruno et al., 2013; Goel, 2018). Furthermore, in recent years, different aspects of democracy Since Schumpeter (1934), scholars of entrepreneurship have asked have been studied, including the way in which, within a representative questions about the effects of entrepreneurial activity (Urbano et al., democracy, the number of representatives affects entrepreneurship. For 2019). Acs et al. (2012) and Minniti and Lévesque (2010), amongst example, Auriol and Gary-Bobo (2012), taking a sample of one hundred others, have suggested that, across countries, some types of entrepre­ countries, demonstrated the positive correlation between an excess neurship affect economic development more than others. For example, number of representatives in a democracy and indicators of red tape and Reynolds et al. (2005) proposed that entrepreneurship is the net result of barriers to entrepreneurship. Similarly, when men and women consider individual decisions to create entrepreneurial initiatives leading to so­ establishing and developing an entrepreneurial business in countries cial welfare. Sutter et al. (2019) explored the existing literature on with an unstable political situation, female entrepreneurs tend to entrepreneurship as a solution to poverty, especially in the developing perceive barriers to entrepreneurship much more negatively than their world. They suggested that entrepreneurship plays a key role in male counterparts (Bobera et al., 2014; Centindamar et al., 2012; including people in the labour market. However, the mechanisms Chitsike, 2000). To summarise, we propose the following hypotheses: through which these social benefits are obtained remain at the centre of the discussion. At the country level, it is clear that more employment, Hypothesis 4a: A higher level of democracy in each country has a innovation, productivity, and competitiveness are obtained through positive effect on the probability of becoming an entrepreneur. entrepreneurship (van Praag and Verslot, 2007). At the individual level, Hypothesis 4b: A higher level of democracy increases the proba­ the results are not as conclusive. Some scholars have started exploring bility of women becoming entrepreneurs more than that of men. well-being (Amorós et al., 2021; Bjørnskov and Foss, 2020) and happi­ ness (Naudé et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2020) as mechanisms through In recent years, some of the research relating to developing countries which individuals affect themselves by becoming entrepreneurs. None­ has focused on how democracy and individual rights are associated with theless, this approach remains individual centred, impeding the obser­ entrepreneurship and how they affect economic development vation of how entrepreneurs affect other individuals. As a solution, Lora (Audretsch and Moog, 2020). Czegledi (2010) suggested that, when a and Castellani (2013) and Mejía and Meléndez (2014) explored social person believes it is possible to achieve property rights by respecting mobility as an alternative mechanism to achieve development at the individual or human rights, this becomes an important factor in entre­ individual level. Although social mobility has been defined and preneurship. For instance, it has been found that some human rights, measured in different ways (e.g., education and intergenerational im­ such as health (Pollack et al., 2015; Toivanen et al., 2015), equality provements), Friedman (1962, pp. 170–171) discussed a dynamic soci­ (Hechavarría et al., 2017), freedom (Boudreaux, 2014), labour market ety observed through families’ capacity to scale up their income level in participation (Styhre, 2014), and education (do Paço et al., 2015; Hafer comparison with a static society characterised by lower mobility. and Jones, 2015), amongst others, encourage entrepreneurial activity. Drawing on this idea, there have been attempts to understand the role of Thus, access barriers to these rights could deter the entrepreneurship entrepreneurship in social mobility by improving household income dynamics. (Banerjee and Duflo, 2008; Behrman et al., 1999) and intergenerational The literature has emphasised education as a fundamental and mobility (Boudreaux, 2014). egalitarian human right. For example, limited access to education in However, the question about the role of both male and female en­ Zimbabwe has been shown to be a barrier to entrepreneurship amongst trepreneurs in social mobility, as well as their interplay, remains rural women, promoting inequalities between women and men. In this unanswered (Mejía and Meléndez, 2014; Pathak and Muralidharan, case, culture is seen as a barrier to self-confidence and economic au­ 2018). This question is related to the capacity to perceive opportunities tonomy amongst women (Chitsike, 2000). The relationship between to create new firms and, at the same time, to spark benefits for society education and entrepreneurship is one of the factors that is relevant to (Acs et al., 2012; Aparicio et al., 2021; Rosca et al., 2020). Indeed, Acs female entrepreneurship and, over the years, it has been investigated by et al. (2013) and Audretsch and Keilbach (2008) suggested that entre­ various authors. Some authors have suggested that education empha­ preneurship could be a vehicle for transferring social capacity to social sises management skills, allowing female entrepreneurs to evaluate value. Here, institutions are the external environment that encourages entrepreneurial opportunities more effectively (Castagnetti and Rosti, or discourages the decision to become an entrepreneur. As noted earlier, 4 S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 the influence of institutions on male and female entrepreneurs differs 3.2. Variables widely (Noguera et al., 2013). There are institutions that devote extensive resources to tracking the 3.2.1. Dependant variables progress of nations towards the elimination of gender inequality. Some The measurement of entrepreneurship has taken different ap­ organisations promote entrepreneurial programmes for women to pro­ proaches. For example, Reynolds et al. (2005) provided a framework vide incomes in developing countries. These include the CARE that helps scholars to measure entrepreneurial activity and its process at Bangladesh Rural Sales Program and the Coca-Cola women’s entrepre­ the individual level. A parallel approach consists of observing labour neurship commitment in Africa. Studies such as that by Scott et al. market decisions, such as whether to be an employee or self-employed (2012) have shown the success that the multinational firm Avon has (Parker et al., 2012). Although this measure does not take into ac­ achieved in this respect. They have used entrepreneurship to help count firm characteristics (i.e., size, sector, etc.), it captures how in­ impoverished women to earn a better income and to strive for empow­ dividuals lead (entrepreneurial) initiatives to generate their own erment. Some research has highlighted the need to develop women’s income. In this sense, we considered self-employment as a dummy capacity for autonomy and decision making to encourage entrepre­ variable that takes the value 1 if the individual is self-employed and neurship amongst them, such as in the case of Botswana. The aim is to 0 otherwise. Additionally, we identified individuals as women or men, combat unemployment and impoverishment, which have worsened in using independent dummy variables equal to 1 if the individual is either the absence of a national unemployment benefit scheme (Werbner, a self-employed woman or a self-employed man, respectively, and 2010). Along the same lines, other studies have focused on some areas of 0 otherwise. South India where an increasing interest in strategies for women’s As our final outcome is social mobility, we considered the household micro-enterprise development has been shown to improve women’s income of the respondents. Particularly, our measure shows, for each incomes and economic status. However, the findings also show that, in 10% (decile) of households, the proportion of overall income or wealth. these programmes, while women were listed amongst registered Hence, this measure ranges from 1 to 10. This is consistent with the resellers in the Indian silk industry, men still controlled the businesses. previous literature, in which household income across time has been The results demonstrate the existence of gender inequality in this considered as a proxy for social mobility (Lora and Castellani, 2013; context and indicate that this problem is systemic and structural in na­ Mejía and Meléndez, 2014). These dependant variables were taken from ture (Mayoux, 1993). Similarly, Scott et al. (2012) showed in their study the WVS, following López-Calva and Ortiz-Juarez (2014) and Markus­ that the case of Avon in South Africa is an example of an entrepreneurial sen et al. (2018). project that, in the context of income, allows female entrepreneurs to rank in the top half of wage-earning black women and allows them to 3.2.2. Independent variables have competitive earnings that are closer to those of black men in South The five institutional variables also come from the WVS. In the case Africa. Other recent studies have described the relationship between of post-materialism, we utilised a standard index built by Inglehart entrepreneurial activity and household income as a positive option (1997). Consistent with Stephan and Uhlaner (2010) and Uhlaner and when low household incomes threaten social mobility in some countries. Thurik (2007), a post-materialist index ranging from 0 to 5 was adopted. However, they have also shown that gendered childcare responsibilities Autonomy was measured through a dummy variable, which indicates create differences between women and men, with the balance clearly whether the respondent sees her-/himself as an autonomous individual. not being in favour of women (Jayawarna et al., 2014). Therefore, we This variable is characterised by the preference for leading projects posit the following hypotheses: within a community (Urbano et al., 2021). Being a member of a network is captured by a dummy variable that takes the value 1 if the individual Hypothesis 6a: Entrepreneurial activity is positively associated with belongs to groups such as church, sport, art, music, labour union, po­ social mobility. litical party, environmental, professional association, humanitarian, Hypothesis 6b: Male entrepreneurs have a greater impact on social consumer, self-help, or other groups and 0 otherwise. In this way, we mobility than their female counterparts. covered the existence of different associations that increase entrepre­ neurial alertness (Aidis et al., 2007). Both democracy and respect for 3. Methods human rights follow a recent research line, in which the social structure and human rights laws create a stable environment for entrepreneurship 3.1. Data (Audretsch and Moog, 2020; van Gelderen et al., 2021). In the case of democracy, individuals state (using a 10-point scale) how democrati­ To assess our hypotheses, we used several questions from the WVS, a cally the country is being governed today, while respect for human global network of social scientists focused on the study of changing rights is captured by a dummy variable that takes the value 1 if the values. The WVS has carried out surveys in 97 countries, representing respondent considers that there is a great deal or a fair amount of respect about 90% of the world’s population (cf. Inglehart, 2004). Six waves of for individuals and 0 otherwise. the WVS have been published (1981–1984; 1989–1993; 1994–1999; 1999–2004; 2005–2009; and 2010–2014), enquiring into individuals’ 3.2.3. Controls basic values and attitudes across a broad range of issues, including As both self-employment (and its distinction between women and politics and economics, family and religious values, gender issues, and men) and social mobility are also affected by unobservable character­ environmental awareness. istics, some control variables at the individual and country levels were This database has been widely used by researchers, for example to included. For instance, Parker et al. (2012) suggested that the decision to analyse economic and political change (Inglehart, 1997); trust in large be self-employed is conditioned by age. Accordingly, there is an inverted organisations; trust and well-being across nations (Inglehart, 2000); U-shape between these two variables (Puente et al., 2019). Hence, the post-materialism (Inglehart and Abramson, 1999); and values and cul­ concavity is captured by the squared value of respondents’ age. Despite tural change (Inglehart and Baker, 2000). Specifically, we used data our focus on comparing entrepreneurial activity between women and from the 2011–2014 wave, based on 85,070 respondents from 59 men, some models were employed jointly. In this regard, gender (equal countries across five continents. The final sample size in this paper is to 1 if male; 0 otherwise) was introduced as a control due to differences smaller (38 developing countries and 40,970 individuals) because we across these two population groups (Noguera et al., 2013). Savings are eliminated developed countries and some missing values. an important support to scale up businesses (Parker et al., 2012), so we used a dummy variable that takes the value 1 if the respondent reported family savings during the past year and 0 otherwise. Human capital 5 S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 complements this support as it is expected that greater knowledge in­ of standard error correction to avoid heteroscedastic results. Eq. (1) was creases opportunity recognition (Verheul et al., 2005). Thus, education estimated with probit and Eq. (2) via OLS, and the predicted values ( SÊi is a dummy variable equal to 1 if the respondent has incomplete sec­ and SM ̂i ) from each model were obtained for use in the second stage. In ondary school, university, or a higher-level degree and 0 otherwise. As the second stage, the original endogenous variable in Eq. (1) was family context matters (Thornton et al., 2011; Vladasel et al., 2020), we included life satisfaction, in response to which respondents stated their replaced by SE ̂i . The final step in this procedure is the correction of satisfaction with their life (10-point scale), as well as the number of standard errors. Using the cdsimeq command developed by Keshk children in the family, which captures the household’s load. As indi­ (2003) in Stata, all these estimations were executed automatically. A list vidual information from previous years is not available due to the data of countries can be found in Appendix 1. set, the GDP per capita (PPP) lagged one period was included to account for social mobility (Aparicio et al., 2021). In addition, the market size 4. Results conditions entrepreneurial activity (Reynolds et al., 2005). In this sense, the IMF’s number of inhabitants (i.e. the population) was considered as 4.1. Main findings a country-level control, which was complemented by the corruption perception index (Mickiewicz and Rebmann, 2020), taken from Trans­ Table 1 presents the mean, standard deviation, and correlation ma­ parency International. trix for the variables of the econometric model presented previously. The table shows that, in our sample, the average rate of self-employment is 15.9% across the developing countries. As expected, the level of male 3.3. Empirical approach self-employment is higher than that of female self-employment (9.9% and 6.0%, respectively). In terms of social mobility, approached through Considering that entrepreneurship (the decision to become self- the income level, on average, individuals across countries are located in employed) is measured as a dummy variable, we used two-stage the middle of the deciles (4.91). probit least squares (2SPLS) (Maddala, 1983), a dummy variable Additionally, the correlation analysis shows several significant cor­ version of two-stage least squares (2SLS), as the estimation strategy. The relations that met our expectations. To test for the problem of multi­ structural equations are stated below: collinearity, we calculated the VIF values for each individual predictor P(SEi = 1) = f (Ii , CVi ) (1) and found that they were low (below 1.02). Furthermore, to address the possibility of heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation amongst observa­ SMi = f (̂ SEi , xi ) (2) tions pertaining to the same country, corrected standard errors were estimated (Keshk, 2003). The 3SLS and 2SPLS regression analyses are where SEi corresponds to self-employment (women and men jointly and presented in Table 2, in which we report the estimated coefficients, the distinguishing between them), Ii represents institutions, and CVi are the marginal effects (probit models), and corrected standard errors in pa­ control variables for Eq. (1). Regarding Eq. (2), SMi is social mobility, SEi rentheses for all the models. We included time fixed effects since the self-employment, and xi the control variables for this equation. All these wave uses data across several years. By including these dummies, we variables are for each individual i. tried to control the different economic conditions during the period The estimation followed a two-stage process with an additional step Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix. Variable Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min Max 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Self-employment 40,970 0.159 0.365 0.000 1.000 1 2 Female self-employment 40,970 0.060 0.238 0.000 1.000 0.581* 1 3 Male self-employment 40,970 0.099 0.298 0.000 1.000 0.761* -0.083* 1 4 Social mobility 40,970 4.905 2.118 1.000 10.000 -0.017* -0.011* -0.013* 1 5 Post-materialism 40,970 1.854 1.146 0.000 5.000 0.018* 0.016* 0.009* 0.051* 1 6 Autonomy 40,970 0.709 0.454 0.000 1.000 0.034* 0.014* 0.030* 0.062* 0.037* 1 7 Member of a network 40,970 0.395 0.489 0.000 1.000 0.099* 0.092* 0.048* 0.038* 0.131* 0.005 8 Democracy 40,970 5.999 2.607 1.000 10.000 0.035* 0.043* 0.008* 0.112* 0.02* 0.058* 9 Respect for human rights 40,970 0.559 0.497 0.000 1.000 0.046* 0.045* 0.020* 0.075* -0.012* 0.031* 10 Age 40,970 38.669 15.135 16.000 99.000 0.035* 0.012* 0.033* -0.105* -0.062* -0.009* 11 Gender 40,970 0.484 0.500 0.000 1.000 0.119* -0.244* 0.341* 0.020* 0.014* 0.039* 12 Savings 40,970 0.263 0.440 0.000 1.000 0.026* 0.017* 0.018* 0.266* 0.036* 0.041* 13 Education 40,970 0.390 0.488 0.000 1.000 -0.111* -0.073* -0.077* 0.196* 0.048* 0.030* 14 Life satisfaction 40,970 6.821 2.369 1.000 10.000 -0.004 0 -0.005 0.226* 0.069* 0.046* 15 No. of children 40,970 1.872 1.890 0.000 8.000 0.081* 0.068* 0.044* -0.113* -0.049* 0.014* 16 GDP pct-1 40,970 12,607.810 8075.007 875.849 42,220.440 -0.147* -0.106* -0.096* 0.018* 0.000 0.000 17 Population 40,970 122.016 303.807 1.333 1354.040 -0.037* -0.049* -0.006 -0.067* -0.001 0.021* 18 Corruption perception index 40,970 35.916 11.960 18.000 72.100 0.011* 0.034* -0.013* 0.012* 0.064* 0.104* Variable 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 7 Member of a network 1 8 Democracy 0.090* 1 9 Respect for human rights 0.059* 0.320* 1 10 Age -0.061* -0.009* -0.031* 1 11 Gender 0.039* -0.007 0.009* -0.002 1 12 Savings 0.091* 0.046* 0.062* -0.082* 0.040* 1 13 Education 0.015* -0.025* -0.025* -0.147* 0.029* 0.102* 1 14 Life satisfaction 0.066* 0.204* 0.075* -0.030* -0.003 0.112* 0.087* 1 15 No. of children -0.014* 0.018* 0.006 0.518* -0.069* -0.090* -0.210* -0.00* 1 16 GDP pct-1 -0.174* 0.027* -0.078* 0.154* -0.009* -0.013* 0.146* 0.111* -0.041* 1 17 Population -0.002 -0.008* 0.086* 0.053* 0.043* 0.068* -0.051* -0.058* -0.037* -0.108* 1 18 Corruption perception index 0.086* 0.217* 0.120* 0.058* 0.031* 0.016* -0.012* 0.062* -0.029* 0.316* 0.046* * p < 0.10. Notes. Obs. Observations; Std. Dev. Standard Deviation. 6 S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 Table 2 Results of simultaneous equation model. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 3SLS 2SPLS Self- Female Self- Male Self- Self-employment Female Self-employment Male Self-employment employment employment employment Estimation Estimation Estimation Estimation dy/dx Estimation dy/dx Estimation dy/dx Post-Materialism 0.005*** 0.004*** 0.003** 0.020** 0.004** 0.026** 0.003** 0.011 0.002 (0.002) (0.001) (0.001) (0.011) (0.002) (0.009) (0.001) (0.012) (0.001) Autonomy 0.022*** 0.010*** 0.021*** 0.099*** 0.021*** 0.059*** 0.006*** 0.112*** 0.018*** (0.004) (0.002) (0.003) (0.018) (0.004) (0.024) (0.002) (0.020) (0.003) Member of a network 0.034*** 0.021*** 0.013*** 0.169*** 0.038*** 0.230*** 0.024*** 0.085*** 0.014*** (0.004) (0.002) (0.003) (0.017) (0.004) (0.022) (0.003) (0.019) (0.003) Democratic country 0.005*** 0.004*** 0.002*** 0.017*** 0.004*** 0.027*** 0.003*** 0.003 0.000 (0.001) (0.000) (0.001) (0.003) (0.001) (0.005) (0.001) (0.004) (0.003) Respect for Human 0.019*** 0.014*** 0.009*** 0.066*** 0.015*** 0.085*** 0.008*** 0.029 0.005 Rights (0.004) (0.002) (0.003) (0.017) (0.004) (0.023) (0.002) (0.019) (0.003) Age 0.017*** 0.007*** 0.010*** 0.087*** 0.019*** 0.076*** 0.008*** 0.065*** 0.011*** (0.001) (0.000) (0.001) (0.003) (0.001) (0.004) (0.001) (0.003) (0.001) Age2 -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.001*** -0.000*** -0.001*** -0.000*** -0.001*** -0.000*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Gender 0.087*** 0.411*** 0.091*** (0.003) (0.016) (0.004) Social mobility -0.007 -0.005 -0.001 -0.031** -0.039** -0.001 (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.011) (0.014) (0.012) GDP pct-1 -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) GDP pc2t-1 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Population -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.001*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Constant -0.172*** -0.056*** -0.073*** -2.647*** -2.822*** -2.476*** (0.014) (0.009) (0.012) (0.084) (0.115) (0.092) (Pseudo) R2 0.066 0.030 0.021 0.085 0.077 0.036 Probability 0.137 0.048 0.091 Log likelihood -16,404.076 -8592.0526 -12,722.539 LR X2 3048.12 1429.02 954.13 Social Social Mobility Social Mobility Social Social Social Mobility Mobility Mobility Mobility Self-employment 0.912*** 0.191*** (0.116) (0.025) Female self- 3.169*** 0.339*** employment (0.265) (0.032) Male self- 1.231*** 0.176*** employment (0.255) (0.041) Savings 1.127*** 1.114*** 1.131*** 1.104*** 1.092*** 1.114*** (0.023) (0.023) (0.023) (0.023) (0.024) (0.023) Education 0.622*** 0.636*** 0.627*** 0.684*** 0.711*** 0.668*** (0.022) (0.022) (0.023) (0.022) (0.024) (0.023) Life satisfaction 0.174*** 0.173*** 0.174*** 0.173*** 0.174*** 0.173*** (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.005) (0.004) No. of children -0.073*** -0.078*** -0.073*** -0.074*** -0.087*** -0.069*** (0.006) (0.006) (0.005) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) Corruption 0.007*** 0.006*** 0.006*** 0.005*** 0.004*** 0.006*** perception index (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) Constant 2.986*** 2.998*** 3.014*** 3.401*** 3.999*** 3.356*** (0.054) (0.054) (0.059) (0.064) (0.099) (0.075) Country fixed-effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Time fixed-effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Observations 40,970 40,970 40,970 40,970 40,970 40,970 R2 0.134 0.075 0.126 0.152 0.154 0.151 * p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01. Note. Models 1–3 are estimated through 3SLS, while models 4–6 are estimated using 2SPLS, which have corrected standard errors (in parentheses). Estimates for country and time fixed-effects are not presented but can be supplied upon request. 2011–2014. All the models are highly significant (p ≤ 0.000). Model 1 estimated through 3SLS. By comparison, Model 4 (self-employment and presents the regression results for institutional factors and gender social mobility), Model 5 (female self-employment and social mobility), entrepreneurship (Eq. (1)) and the link between these and social and Model 6 (male self-employment and social mobility) were estimated mobility (Eq. (2)) using simultaneous linear regression models (three-­ through 2SPLS. Finally, following Arenius and Minniti (2005) and stage least squares – 3SLS) in both equations. Model 2 shows the results Langowitz and Minniti (2007), we included control variables related to for female self-employment, and, for comparison purposes, Model 3 socio-demographic factors in all the models (gender, age, age squared, presents the results for male self-employment; both models were GDP per capita, and population for Eq. (1) and savings, education, life 7 S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 satisfaction, number of children in the household, and corruption self-employment but not in the case of male self-employment. These perception index for Eq. (2)), estimated to analyse the probability of findings are in line with those of Bobera et al. (2014), Centindamar et al. becoming self-employed and its effect on social mobility. It is important (2012), and Chitsike (2000), who suggested that unstable political sit­ to mention that the gender variable was dropped in Models 2, 3, 5, and uations are perceived more negatively by female entrepreneurs than 6, thus avoiding collinearity problems in these models. Additionally, male entrepreneurs. country and time fixed effects were included. In the case of Hypotheses 5a and 5b, we found support through our Concerning the hypothesis testing, the first set of hypotheses posited estimation results. Our findings suggest that greater respect for human that post-materialism has a positive effect on the probability of rights is positively related to becoming an entrepreneur (Model 4, p < becoming an entrepreneur. We found support for Hypothesis 1a (due to 0.01). According to Czegledi (2010), a realistic appreciation of property the marginal effect of this variable), which is positive and significant in rights as well as human rights is useful for reducing the uncertainty that Model 4 (p < 0.05). This result is consistent with evidence that a higher entrepreneurs face every day. Here, the emphasis on entrepreneurship level of post-materialism can be related to a higher level of entrepre­ could reduce threats from violence and urban theft. Additionally, human neurial activity (Hechavarría et al., 2017; Morales and Holtschlag, 2013; rights guarantee equality between women and men by providing them Uhlaner and Thurik, 2007). Furthermore, as we expected, our results with access to the same conditions, such as education, as well as the suggest that post-materialism has a more positive influence on female labour market. In this regard, Castagnetti and Rosti (2011) and Morales entrepreneurs than on their male counterparts (see Model 5, p ≤ 0.05). and Holtschlag (2013) found that the entry barriers to these systems are Hence, a self-employed woman is positively affected by also harmful for entrepreneurs, especially for female ones. Here, our post-materialism, as we expected and according to previous studies Models 5 and 6 suggest (highly significantly) that human rights are one (Smallbone and Welter, 2011; Welter and Smallbone, 2008). This effect of those institutional factors affecting female more than male is statistically significant (see Model 2), although the coefficient is not self-employment. Thus, by strictly establishing human rights, female significant for Model 6. Note that these findings are in accordance with entrepreneurship could be strongly encouraged. Hypothesis 1b. These results could be explained by the fact that women Hypothesis 6a, which states that entrepreneurial activity contributes are more affected by the non-materialistic values of their environment positively to social mobility, is supported by our data. From Models 4 to than men as they tend to be more driven by cultural values. Therefore, 6, it was found that, in general and distinguishing between genders, the for women, the decision to start a new business may be highly dependant decision to become an entrepreneur increases upward mobility for on their family and societal values. people from low-income backgrounds, implying a higher standard of Regarding the second set of hypotheses, which refers to greater in­ living (b = 0.147, p < 0.01; b = 0.265, p < 0.01; and b = 0.161, p < 0.01, dividual autonomy as the positive factor that is related to entrepre­ respectively). Since Schumpeter (1934), the relevance of entrepre­ neurial activity, the coefficients of this variable in Models 4, 5, and 6 are neurial activity to economic development has been highlighted. In this statistically significant. Thus, Hypothesis 2a and Hypothesis 2b are also respect, our findings are in accordance with recent work that has iden­ supported by the results and are in accordance with the literature. The tified the importance of entrepreneurship in creating social value (Acs magnitude of the coefficients shows the positive influence of autonomy et al., 2013). At both theoretical and policy levels of analysis, entre­ on self-employment (Manimoy and Smith-Hunter, 2012 Shinnar et al., preneurship could be considered as an endogenous factor affecting na­ 2012) for both female and male entrepreneurs. However, a small dif­ tional income (Urbano and Aparicio, 2016), which should be taken into ference exists in favour of male self-employment, which is higher than account in government strategies in developing countries that aim to female self-employment. In line with the literature, the results indicate solve problems such as poverty and the unofficial economy (Acs et al., that a higher level of autonomy is more embedded in male entrepreneurs 2012; Bruton et al., 2013). Here, Acs et al. (2012) and Audretsch and than in female ones. Here, the marginal difference suggests that au­ Keilback (2008) found that some macroeconomic factors, such as in­ tonomy is important for both men and women to becoming dustrial and demographic characteristics, affect the level and quality of self-employed. entrepreneurial activity related to the achievement of development. In Hypotheses 3a and 3b, regarding membership of a network, are also this regard, Urbano and Aparicio (2016) suggested that public policy supported by our data. Here, the literature has suggested that networks should be formulated from institutional factors (rules, laws, values, and are an important factor determining the occupational choice to be self- education, amongst others) to increase the motivation to become an employed (Busch, 2014; Dufays and Huybrechts, 2014; J.H. Lee et al., entrepreneur and thus obtain growth and development. 2011). Despite that, in general, both men and women constantly interact Finally, Hypothesis 6b, which suggested that male entrepreneurs with people from different groups. The literature has asserted that have a greater impact on social mobility than their female counterparts, women take advantage of their networks for supportive purposes, while is not supported by our data. The literature has presented a lengthy men use them for strategy reasons (Noguera et al., 2013; Sorenson et al., debate concerning the importance of women and men in economic 2008). Thus, the support that female entrepreneurs experience from development. For instance, Cliff (1998) argued that female entrepre­ their groups is more relevant for those who are self-employed than it is neurs tend to define a smaller threshold growth size than their male for their male counterparts. Our findings for developing countries allow counterparts, mainly because women are more risk averse than men. a similar conclusion. Individuals in these countries are mainly encour­ Following this author, it is expected that female entrepreneurship con­ aged by religious groups (Audretsch et al., 2013), which, in most cases, tributes less in terms of job creation, growth, and economic development have neither rivalry nor exclusion issues. than male entrepreneurship. In this respect, Carter et al. (1997) found Regarding the hypotheses about the level of democracy and its in­ that obtaining the initial funding resources and the strategies for over­ fluence on self-employment, Model 4 supports this idea (p < 0.01). Our coming this problem have been less effective for women than for men. results suggest that, when a country allows political and economic Lerner et al. (1997) explored those factors affecting female entrepre­ participation through voting, in general, individuals will be encouraged neurship performance in developing countries, specifically in Israel. to engage in entrepreneurial activities and private activities (Ireland According to these authors, the larger and more complex is the network, et al., 2008). Both high levels of democracy and control over corruption the stronger is the firm performance of female entrepreneurs relative to guarantee the removal of entry barriers and an increased amount of their male counterparts. According to Lerner et al. (1997), women’s entrepreneurial activity (Aparicio et al., 2016). In this regard, egali­ higher educational level relative to that of men and motivations such as tarian participation in political and economic decisions by women and achievement, independence, and economic necessity are some of the men is especially helpful in generating incentives to engage in entre­ drivers shaping the firm performance of female entrepreneurs, implying preneurship. Here, the results support Hypothesis 4b. Our Models 5 and firm growth, job creation, and economic welfare for them, their families, 6 show that democracy is statistically significant in the case of female and society. Similarly, Lerner and Almor (2002) found a high correlation 8 S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 between lifestyle and marketing, financial, and managerial skills, all of classical logit (or probit), OLS, and 3SLS methods enhances both the which were exploited through women’s networks. These elements have theoretical discussion and the policy implications. By controlling for the contributed to dynamic business performance, employment generation, simultaneity problem with the 2SPLS method, our study produced un­ and gender equality in terms of income level. Based on all of these biased and consistent estimators that more accurately capture the previous studies, policy discussions about addressing the glass ceiling impact of self-employment. have taken into account educational characteristics and their quality, Third, we were interested in checking whether another employment which is higher for women than for men, to promote the business per­ status follows a similar trend to that shown in the main results. In this formance, survival, and economic impact of female entrepreneurs. For case, we take into consideration full-time employment as an alternative example, Rodríguez Gutiérrez et al. (2014) discussed the importance of labour decision that members of the population can make. As observed education in increased entrepreneurial orientation and, therefore, in Appendix 2, though the results for Eq. (1) are not similar to those market and learning orientation, which are important in improving displayed in the main results, we found that gender differences exist performance, thus differentiating female entrepreneurs from their male when predicting social mobility. In particular, it was apparent that fe­ counterparts. Mitchelmore and Rowley (2013) found that not only the male full-time employees exert a larger and statistically significant in­ threshold size but also the planning horizons are important expectations fluence on social mobility than their male counterparts. Interestingly, that should be encouraged amongst female entrepreneurs to increase we found that the coefficients for female self-employment are higher their performance and economic impact. Mathew (2010) suggested that than those for female full-time employees. information and communication technologies (ICTs) enable female en­ Fourth, to check whether the gender differences are statistically trepreneurs to achieve equal participation with men in economic growth significant, we estimated alternative linear models that include a gender and development in emerging economies. According to this author, the interaction term that affects the relationship between each of the insti­ reduction of information asymmetries allows female entrepreneurs to tutional variables and self-employment as well as the influence of this participate in global business dynamics, technology transfer, training, status on social mobility. Despite the statistical insignificance of au­ collaboration, and development initiatives. tonomy, the remaining institutional variables have different effects on self-employment depending on gender differences. A similar level of 4.2. Robustness checks significance was found when assessing the influence of self-employment on social mobility. These results are not reported but can be provided on To check whether our results are robust, we performed four robust­ request. ness checks. First, to determine whether Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) are in fact The findings from the checks described above show that our results endogenous, we compared the relationship between these two equations are stable with respect to various changes applied to the original spec­ through the probit and OLS models by using a Durbin–Wu–Hausman ification. Therefore, we are confident that the female and male entre­ (DWH) F-test (Hausman, 1978) for endogeneity. According to Davidson preneurship that we studied had a robust positive effect on social and MacKinnon (1993), an augmented regression test (DWH test) can mobility. Through these results, the reverse causality problem was easily be performed by including the residuals of each endogenous solved, allowing a broad comprehension of the interrelationship be­ right-hand-side variable in a regression of the original model as a tween these variables. Hence, institutional factors such as post- function of all the exogenous variables. Here, the null hypothesis pro­ materialism, autonomy, membership of a network, democracy, and posed is that the maximum likelihood and OLS estimates are consistent, human rights influence both female and male entrepreneurship, which which means that the treatment statuses are exogenous. The DWH test at the same time took account of social mobility in terms of the house­ rejects the null hypothesis that self-employment and social mobility are hold income level. Here, both female and male entrepreneurs contribute exogenous at the 1% significance level (F-test = 30.55). This indicates to social mobility, but the impact of female self-employment remains that considering issues of simultaneity could also bring additional in­ stronger than that of male self-employment. sights into current studies on the entrepreneurship of both women and men and on social mobility. In addition, according to Alvarez and 5. Discussion and conclusions Glasgow (1999), the application of probit or OLS assuming exogeneity will most likely result in biased estimates and incorrect inferences. In this paper, cross-sectional data (for the period 2011–2014) were Hence, the authors concluded that the estimates obtained in the simul­ used to investigate the institutional influence on the probability of taneous equation treatment, and particularly in the estimation of the becoming a female entrepreneur and the impact of this decision on so­ second stage, are consistent. cial mobility in developing countries. Institutional economics (North, Second, comparing the two types of simultaneous models (3SLS vs. 1990) and its application to entrepreneurship were our departure point. 2SPLS), it is worth noting that the coefficients and standard errors These foundations offered us a conversation, to which we wanted to remain relatively stable across the two methods displayed in Table 2. contribute with insights about entrepreneurship behaviour as an engine The simultaneity problem, which was so important with respect to both of social mobility. Our analysis advances traditional macroeconomic female and male self-employment and social mobility variables, does not view of institutions (Bruton et al., 2010; Thornton et al., 2011), showing appear to influence the remainder of the model. For this reason, we that socialization processes proximate to individuals explain gender restricted our description of the institutional variables in the previous differences in entrepreneurship, and most importantly, in accomplishing section to the two-stage probit model displayed in Table 2. It should be social mobility. These findings bring some ideas into the theoretical noted that, even though our analysis was carried out using Models 4 to 6, discussion about institutions, entrepreneurship, and development the results of Models 1 to 3 are in agreement. However, an appropriate (Urbano et al., 2019). Likewise, our results encourage a conversation analysis should be conducted using the 2SPLS results as one of the around policy strategies to encourage female entrepreneurship to dependant variables is binary. Using alternative methods, such as 3SLS, overcome gender inequality and achieve social mobility. implies linear regression inference, which is an additional mistake in this case (Alvarez and Glasgow, 1999). 5.1. Theoretical implications As Acs et al., (2012); Audretsch and Keilbach (2008); Bjørnskov and Foss (2013), and Urbano and Aparicio (2016), amongst others, have There has been a long debate about the direct effect that institutions recognised, the relationship between entrepreneurship and have on economic development (Acemoglu et al., 2001, 2002; Gleaser socio-economic performance should be analysed as though reciprocal et al., 2004; Wietzke, 2015). In this respect, Voigt (2013) provided an causation exists. Thus, employing instrumental variables through a analysis of the measurement of institutions’ importance for economic two-stage probit least squares estimation method rather than the development. This leads to questions concerning the importance of 9 S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 institutions. On the one hand, institutional analysis should take account aspects, spilling knowledge, well-being, and financial resources into the of different types of institutions since cultural factors, regulations, and proximate environment of women and men. socio-cognitive processes complement each other (Voigt, 2013); on the other hand, institutional settings can or cannot be regressed according to 5.2. Policy implications an income function (Gleaser et al., 2004). This means that a conduit is needed to influence socio-economic development. From this microeconomic perspective and simultaneous treatment, In a general sense, Audretsch and Keilbach (2008) discussed the we found that both male and female entrepreneurs contribute to eco­ importance of entrepreneurship for economic growth, highlighting the nomic development by allowing social mobility (Patel et al., 2018). In capacity to create innovation, competition, and progress. These authors this regard, authors such as Mathew (2010), Mitchelmore and Rowley took into account the influence of institutions on entrepreneurship, (2013), and Rosca et al., (2020) have advocated particular policies that despite the lack of further analysis in this regard. However, to explain encourage to think of entrepreneurship and their economic contribu­ the development differences across countries, other authors, such as tion. Certainly, accurate policies may benefit women through the Bruton et al., (2010) and Thornton et al., (2011), have produced different stages of the entrepreneurship process (i.e. exploration, eval­ in-depth analyses of the way in which institutions affect entrepreneurial uation, and exploitation of business ideas). The importance of female activity. Baumol and Strom (2007) complemented this idea by sug­ entrepreneurs in social welfare has been pointed out, taking into account gesting that entrepreneurship is one of the missing links connecting the fact that emerging economies present high entry barriers to women’s institutions and growth. In this regard, economic development has been labour participation (Jennings and Brush, 2013; Watson, 2012). approached through (labour) productivity and national or regional Although it has been found that female entrepreneurs and their business production (Bjørskov and Foss, 2013; van Praag and Versloot, 2007). success contribute to social and economic development, Kantor (2005) This traditional approach remains at the macroeconomic level, leaving suggested that the impact of female entrepreneurs should also be aside other social problems, such as poverty, inequality, violence, and so considered in terms of their importance to the home. In this regard, on, which are particularly observed in developing countries (Aparicio female entrepreneurship could transfer not only market benefits but also et al., 2021; Bruton et al., 2009). benefits for the educational and labour achievements of their offspring, Perhaps, as Amorós et al., (2021) and Bjørnskov and Foss (2020) who, in the long term, could perceive those female entrepreneurs as role suggested, a microeconomic perspective is needed to comprehend models for the future. Based on our results, we suggest that it is further the underlying mechanisms of institutions, entrepreneurship, important to improve the status of women in the home, allowing them to and development. Felin and Foss (2019) offered a compelling analysis of make decisions and take risks and providing support for them in the case the micro-foundations of institutions. Although they referred to orga­ of failure. This implies empowering women in terms of resource use and nisations (i.e., the meso level), our results suggest that individuals carry management. In the case of one-parent families, the role of female en­ the institutional perception of the society, making decisions and per­ trepreneurs is particularly relevant, first, because, in most cases, it is forming actions. This is consistent with Coleman (1990), who depicted a women who have to carry out both activities (childcare and work in the multilevel structure in which institutions at the macro level create labour market) to survive and, second, because entrepreneurship is an conditions of individual action in the form of information. alternative means for them to carry out these two tasks. Hence, L. Lee The way in which information is perceived alters decision-making et al. (2011) and Ratinho et al., (2020) suggested that policies that processes regarding actions such as entrepreneurship. This is espe­ encourage female entrepreneurship should take into consideration cially true when it comes to issues such as the gender gap (Al-Dajani and characteristics such as marital status, the presence of children, age, Carter, 2010 Hechavarría et al., 2018). Particular efforts have been education level, and business type. made to understand the proximate (or individual) context of women and Based on our results, the fact that female entrepreneurship is affected men to design an appropriate environment in which information flows by post-materialism implies that these entrepreneurs have an intrinsic smoothly (Aidis et al., 2007; Brush et al., 2019; Elam and Terjesen, characteristic from their past and current family configuration. It means 2010). Audretsch and Moog’s (2020) recent piece of research pointed that some educational strategies aimed at improving their entrepre­ the finger at democracy as the social order and structure enabling neurial and business skills should consider factors such as leadership freedom for individuals and their actions. Our results also add empirical style, experience, personality, self-perception, and social and cultural insights into these ideas, especially for women, who are more positively influences, primarily from their past experiences of work and family affected than men. It seems that democracy creates the conditions for (Junquera, 2011). According to Acs et al., (2013) and Brush et al., individual actions, which translate into better individual and social (2019), entrepreneurial ecosystems as well as entrepreneurship policies conditions. must be appropriate for the particular problems of the incumbents, small Coleman’s (1990) analysis shed light on individual decisions as an­ firms, and entrepreneurs of each economy. Here, these authors have tecedents of macroeconomic outcomes (e.g. growth). Our results, in line argued that entrepreneurs participate in the balance between what ex­ with Amorós et al., (2021) and Bjørnskov and Foss (2020), show that an ists and what is needed and the bridge to achieve economic develop­ additional element might be needed in the Coleman Bathtub. That is, ment. The issue of poverty and its solution through the use of an women’s entrepreneurial actions bring not only higher income to the entrepreneurial strategy (Bruton et al., 2013) should encourage policy home but also other characteristics that affect everybody within the makers to focus their attention on female entrepreneurs, who transcend family. One of the reasons that the marginal effect on social mobility materialistic values and could be the key to reducing poverty by produced by women becoming entrepreneurs is greater than the effect improving social mobility and helping to strike a balance between social produced by men becoming entrepreneurs lies in the natural role that needs and social capacity. The social value created could spread from women have within their families. Although equality implies that both the family outwards to the entire society. parents look after their children, the natural connection between Henry et al., (2015) and Kantor (2005) emphasised the empower­ mothers and their offspring imprints an additional element to the effect ment and leadership of women in the both home and work contexts. on social mobility. While we focus on household income, showing that Complementing the previous idea, empowerment should come not only female entrepreneurs increase the income level about twice as much as from the family structure but also from the government, which should male entrepreneurs, complementary literature has shown effects on establish and enforce the capacity for self-respect and respect from additional social mobility elements, such as higher educational attain­ others. In this regard, the self-perception of autonomy allows individuals ments (Mejía and Meléndez, 2014) and wealth, which become a funding to take decisions by themselves. According to Romani et al., (2012), source for future generations (Behrman et al., 1999). Hence, entrepre­ social policies should be orientated towards encouraging the capacity of neurship becomes an engine that brings benefits beyond economic female entrepreneurs in terms of creating and exploiting opportunities 10 S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 based primarily on their needs (including families) and on the markets. approach, in which individuals are different but countries are the same Encouraging women’s autonomy from their families and society makes over the years. This idea is also consistent with recent analyses about it possible to increase their self-esteem, which, in turn, is useful for democracy and entrepreneurship (Audretsch and Moog, 2020). Addi­ increasing the range of investors and individuals interested in their so­ tional research could build upon our results to see whether gender dif­ cial projects. ferences and their effect on microeconomic outcomes such as social Achieving autonomy is also a matter of social and political structure mobility remain across other groups of countries. (Audretsch and Moog, 2020). According to Robinson et al., (2007), fe­ Certainly, the existence of seven waves may impose additional male entrepreneurs create a link between self-employment decisions challenges as time variation and changes in political structures occur and social stratification, in which institutions and culture frame the smoothly. Nevertheless, important insights can be brought into the relationship. Here, not only the glass ceiling but also the social status are analysis of institutions, (female) entrepreneurship, and social mobility. problems that female entrepreneurs face. According to van Stel et al. Additionally, the different economic impacts of female and male (2007), some corrupt governments create additional entry barriers for entrepreneurship, such as job creation, community development, inno­ entrepreneurs. It is predominantly governments with fewer democratic vation, standards of living, and regional performance, amongst others, processes that tend to establish procedures in favour of multinational (or could extend and provide keys to improving the debate about entre­ large) organisations, thus diminishing the economic activity of small preneurship and social mobility. The study of these two variables is firms and new entrepreneurs (van Stel et al., 2007). Our findings are in proposed as a new avenue in terms of entrepreneurship research and keeping with this assertion since a higher level of democracy in each economic and management science. economy and the respect for human rights positively affect both female and male entrepreneurs in developing countries. These two factors have Authorship contributions an especially strong influence on female entrepreneurship, highlighting the importance of governments and their policy decisions in encour­ All persons who meet authorship criteria are listed as authors, and all aging or discouraging the empowerment needed by female authors certify that they have participated sufficiently in the work to entrepreneurs. take public responsibility for the content, including participation in the Finally, public policies should consider those communities of women concept, design, analysis, writing, or revision of the manuscript. who support each other in terms of childcare and shared work: effec­ Furthermore, each author certifies that this material or similar material tively, women empowering women. This kind of network is especially has not been and will not be submitted to or published in any other useful since poverty, as well as unemployment issues, remains in publication before its appearance in Technological Forecasting and Social developing countries. Strategies should pay attention to those cooper­ Change. ative groups in which female entrepreneurs work together for social Category 1: Conception and design of study: Sebastian Aparicio, purposes. In this sense, governments and incumbent firms could David Audretsch, Maria Noguera, David Urbano acquisition of data: contribute to these types of networks by providing, on the one hand, an Sebastian Aparicio, David Audretsch, Maria Noguera, David Urbano aligned financial structure to support the projects carried out by these analysis and/or interpretation of data: Sebastian Aparicio, David entrepreneurs and, on the other, a platform that connects their goods Audretsch, Maria Noguera, David Urbano and services with the markets. By supporting these entrepreneurial Category 2: Drafting the manuscript: Sebastian Aparicio, David initiatives, it could be possible, through social mobility, to help families Audretsch, Maria Noguera, David Urbano revising the manuscript crit­ that are caught in the poverty trap. ically for important intellectual content: Sebastian Aparicio, David Audretsch, Maria Noguera, David Urbano 5.3. Limitations and future research Category 3: Approval of the version of the manuscript to be pub­ lished: Sebastian Aparicio, David Audretsch, Maria Noguera, David Finally, we believe that a study of the influence of institutional fac­ Urbano tors, not independently but in terms of their overall effects, would be a very worthwhile endeavour. In this sense, future research should focus Acknowledgements on comparing institutional settings between developed and developing countries. This may enhance the perspective of entrepreneurship The authors want to thank the Editor and anonymous Reviewers for amongst both women and men and its effects on social mobility as a valuable comments and guidance throughout the whole process. This mechanism for overcoming poverty. Other control variables at the in­ paper benefited from the presentation at the 78th Annual Meeting of the dividual and country levels should also be included since heterogeneity Academy of Management (Chicago, USA), particularly from comments between countries exists. Additionally, according to Ahl (2006), by Pia Arenius and Linda Edelman. Sebastian Aparicio as a Serra Hunter research on female entrepreneurship should take a further direction. Fellow at the UAB acknowledges the Serra Hunter programme and the Specifically, Ahl (2006) referred to a new analysis that avoids under­ Catalan Government for constant support. Additionally, Sebastian ac­ estimating the role of female entrepreneurs in comparison with male knowledges COLCIENCIAS Ph.D. programme (617/2013), as well as entrepreneurs. Instead, new variables affecting female entrepreneurship Sapiencia-Enlaza Mundos (Municipio de Medellín) for financial support and its impact on economic welfare should be explored. Here, following during Ph.D. studies. In addition, Sebastian Aparicio, Maria Noguera the views of North (1990, 2005), institutional factors should be included and David Urbano acknowledge the financial support from project as a means of ruling out the differences between countries. ECO2017–87885-P (Spanish Ministry of Economy & Competitiveness). Consistent with Welter (2011), it has been suggested that one of the David Urbano acknowledges 2017-SGR-1056 (Economy & Knowledge aspects characterising institutions is time. Although we used Department, Catalan Government) and ICREA under ICREA Academia cross-sectional data from the 2011–2014 wave, future research might be programme. interested in including the time dimension through a pseudo-panel data Appendix 1. List of countries 11 S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 Country 2011 2012 2013 2014 Country 2011 2012 2013 2014 1 Algeria 0 0 684 0 21 Morocco 406 0 0 0 2 Azerbaijan 908 0 0 0 22 Nigeria 1759 0 0 0 3 Armenia 774 0 0 0 23 Pakistan 0 1137 0 0 4 Brazil 0 0 0 1110 24 Peru 0 836 0 0 5 Belarus 406 0 0 0 25 Philippines 0 1164 0 0 6 Chile 621 0 0 0 26 Romania 0 1062 0 0 7 China 0 1293 0 0 27 Russia 1004 0 0 0 8 Taiwan 0 1038 0 0 28 Rwanda 0 1517 0 0 9 Colombia 0 1282 0 0 29 South Africa 0 0 2658 0 10 Ecuador 0 0 1173 0 30 Zimbabwe 0 1493 0 0 11 Ghana 0 1552 0 0 31 Thailand 0 0 924 0 12 India 0 0 0 1130 32 Trinidad and Tobago 336 0 0 0 13 Iraq 0 918 0 0 33 Tunisia 0 0 832 0 14 Kazakhstan 1500 0 0 0 34 Turkey 1250 0 0 0 15 Jordan 0 0 0 1043 35 Ukraine 421 0 0 0 16 Kyrgyzstan 655 0 0 0 36 Egypt 0 0 1523 0 17 Lebanon 0 0 814 0 37 Uruguay 574 0 0 0 18 Libya 0 0 0 1402 38 Yemen 0 0 0 716 19 Malaysia 0 1267 0 0 Total 10,614 16,347 8608 5401 20 Mexico 0 1788 0 0 Appendix 2. Results for full time employees (1) (2) (3) 2SPLS Full time employee Female Full-time employee Male Full-time employee Estimation dy/dx Estimation dy/dx Estimation dy/dx Post-Materialism -0.019 0.006 -0.006 -0.001 -0.016** -0.004** (0.032) (0.007) (0.008) (0.001) (0.010) (0.002) Autonomy -0.142** -0.047** -0.202** -0.036*** -0.001 0.000 (0.053) (0.018) (0.020) (0.004) (0.017) (0.004) Member of a network 0.020 0.007 0.019 0.003 0.036** 0.009** (0.052) (0.017) (0.019) (0.003) (0.017) (0.004) Democratic country -0.013 -0.004 -0.006 0.001 -0.014*** -0.003*** (0.009) (0.003) (0.004) (0.001) (0.003) (0.001) Respect for Human Rights -0.038 -0.012 -0.044** 0.007** -0.013 -0.003 (0.052) (0.017) (0.019) (0.003) (0.017) (0.004) Age 0.133*** 0.043*** 0.104*** 0.017*** 0.093*** 0.023*** (0.009) (0.003) (0.004) (0.001) (0.003) (0.001) Age2 -0.002*** -0.001*** -0.001*** -0.000*** -0.001*** -0.000*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Gender 0.491*** 0.158*** (0.048) (0.016) Social mobility 0.250*** 0.205*** 0.169*** (0.032) (0.012) (0.010) GDP pct-1 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) 2 GDP pc t-1 -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** -0.000*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Population 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Constant -4.776*** -4.369*** -3.733*** (0.239) (0.105) (0.086) (Pseudo) R2 0.124 0.074 0.054 Probability 0.257 0.093 0.161 Log likelihood -21,637.636 -13,409.021 -18,133.304 LR X2 6130.60 2149 2049.54 Social Mobility Social Mobility Social Mobility Full time employee 0.029 (0.022) Female full-time employee 0.063** (0.022) Male full-time employee 0.015 (0.028) Savings 1.131*** 1.129*** 1.134*** (0.029) (0.023) (0.023) Education 0.612*** 0.600*** 0.621*** (0.029) (0.023) (0.022) Life satisfaction 0.172*** 0.171*** 0.171*** (0.005) (0.004) (0.004) No. of children -0.063*** -0.061*** -0.064*** (0.007) (0.005) (0.005) Corruption perception index 0.006*** 0.006*** 0.006*** (continued on next page) 12 S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 (continued ) (1) (2) (3) 2SPLS Full time employee Female Full-time employee Male Full-time employee Estimation dy/dx Estimation dy/dx Estimation dy/dx (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) Constant 3.171*** 3.274*** 3.149*** (0.074) (0.073) (0.063) Country fixed-effects Yes Yes Yes Time fixed-effects Yes Yes Yes Observations 40,970 40,970 40,970 R2 0.151 0.151 0.151 * p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01. Note. Corrected standard errors in parentheses. (Female/Male) full time employee is measured through a dummy variable that takes the value 1 if the individual is full time employee and 0 otherwise. References Bobera, D., Lekovic, B., Berber, N., 2014. Comparative analysis of entrepreneurship barriers: findings from Serbia and Montenegro. Eng. Econ. 25 (2), 167–176. Boudreaux, C.J., 2014. Jumping off of the Great Gatsby curve: how institutions facilitate Acemoglu, D., Gallego, F.A., Robinson, J.A., 2014. Institutions, human capital, and entrepreneurship and intergenerational mobility. J. Institutional Econ. 10 (2), development. Annu. Rev. Econ. 6 (1), 875–912. 231–255. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., Robinson, J.A., 2001. The colonial origins of comparative Brush, C., Ali, A., Kelley, D., Greene, P., 2017. The influence of human capital factors and development: an empirical investigation. Am. Econ. Rev. 91 (5), 1369–1401. context on women’s entrepreneurship: which matters more? J. Bus. Ventur. Insights Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., Robinson, J.A., 2002. Reversal of fortune: geography and 8, 105–113. institutions in the making of the modern world income distribution. Q. J. Econ. 117 Brush, C., Edelman, L.F., Manolova, T., Welter, F., 2019. A gendered look at (4), 1231–1294. entrepreneurship ecosystems. Small Bus. Econ. 53 (2), 393–408. Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., Braunerhjelm, P., Carlsson, B., 2012. Growth and Brush, C.G., Greene, P.G., Welter, F., 2020. The Diana project: a legacy for research on entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 39 (2), 289–300. gender in entrepreneurship. Int. J. Gend. Entrepreneurship 12 (1), 7–25. Acs, Z.J., Boardman, M.C., McNeely, C.L., 2013. The social value of productive Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D., Li, H.L., 2010. Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 40 (3), 785–796. where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrep. Theory Ahl, H., 2006. Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrep. Pract. 34 (3), 421–440. Theory Pract. 30 (5), 595–621. Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D., Puky, T., 2009. Institutional differences and the development Aidis, R., Welter, F., Smallbone, D., Isakova, N., 2007. Female entrepreneurship in of entrepreneurial ventures: a comparison of the venture capital industries in Latin transition economies: the case of Lithuania and Ukraine. Fem. Econ. 13 (2), America and Asia. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 40 (5), 762–778. 157–183. Bruton, G.D., Ketchen Jr, D.J., Ireland, R.D, 2013. Entrepreneurship as a solution to Al-Dajani, H., Carter, S., 2010. Women empowering women: female entrepreneurs and poverty. J. Bus. Ventur. 28 (6), 683–689. home-based producers. In: Brush, C., de Bruin, A., Gatewood, E.J., Henry, C. (Eds.), Busch, C., 2014. Substantiating social entrepreneurship research: exploring the potential Women Entrepreneurs and the Global Environment For growth: A Research of integrating social capital and networks approaches. Int. J. Entrep. Ventur. 6 (1), Perspective. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA, pp. 118–137. 69–84. Alammari, K., Newbery, R., Haddoud, M.Y., Beaumont, E., 2019. Post-materialistic Carter, N.M., Williams, M., Reynolds, P.D., 1997. Discontinuance among new firms in values and entrepreneurial intention–the case of Saudi Arabia. J. Small Bus. Enterp. retail: the influence of initial resources, strategy, and gender. J. Bus. Ventur. 12 (2), Dev. 26 (1), 158–179. 125–145. Alvarez, R.M., Glasgow, G., 1999. Two-stage estimation of nonrecursive choice models. Castagnetti, C., Rosti, L., 2011. Who skims the cream of the Italian graduate crop? Wage Polit. Anal. 8 (2), 147–165. employment versus self-employment. Small Bus. Econ. 36 (2), 223–234. Amorós, J.E., Cristi, O., Naudé, W., 2021. Entrepreneurship and subjective well-being: Cetindamar, D., Gupta, V.K., Karadeniz, E.E., Egrican, N., 2012. What the numbers tell: does the motivation to start-up a firm matter? J. Bus. Res. 127, 389–398. the impact of human, family and financial capital on women and men’s entry into Anna, A.L., Chandler, G.N., Jansen, E., Mero, N.P., 2000. Women business owners in entrepreneurship in Turkey. Entrepreneurship Reg. Dev. 24 (1–2), 29–51. traditional and non-traditional industries. J. Bus. Ventur. 15 (3), 279–303. Chitsike, C., 2000. Culture as a barrier to rural women’s entrepreneurship: experience Aparicio, S., Audretsch, D., Urbano, D., 2021. Does entrepreneurship matter for inclusive from Zimbabwe. Gend. Dev. 8 (1), 71–77. growth? the role of social progress orientation. Entrep. Res. J. 11 (4), 20190308. Cliff, J.E., 1998. Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes Aparicio, S., Urbano, D., Audretsch, D., 2016. Institutional factors, opportunity towards growth, gender, and business size. J. Bus. Ventur. 13 (6), 523–542. entrepreneurship and economic growth: panel data evidence. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Coleman, J.S., 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press, Change 102, 45–61. Cambridge, MA. Arenius, P., Minniti, M., 2005. Perceptual variables and nascent entrepreneurship. Small Czegledi, P., 2010. Individual rights as a factor of economic convergence. Acta Bus. Econ. 24 (3), 233–247. OEconomica 60 (4), 375–403. Audretsch, D.B., Boente, W., Tamvada, J.P., 2013. Religion, social class, and Davanzati, G.F., 2006. Ethical Codes and Income distribution: a Study of John Bates entrepreneurial choice. J. Bus. Ventur. 28 (6), 774–789. Clark and Thorstein Veblen. Routledge. Audretsch, D.B., Keilbach, M., 2008. Resolving the knowledge paradox: knowledge- Davidson, R., MacKinnon, J.G., 1993. Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. Oxford spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth. Res. Policy 37 (10), 1697–1705. University Press, New York. Audretsch, D.B., Moog, P., 2020. Democracy and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Dean, H., Larsen, G., Ford, J., Akram, M., 2019. Female entrepreneurship and the Theory and Practice. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720943307. metanarrative of economic growth: a critical review of underlying assumptions. Int. Auriol, E., Gary-Bobo, R.J., 2012. On the optimal number of representatives. Public J. Manag. Rev. 21 (1), 24–49. Choice 153 (3–4), 419–445. Digan, S.P., Sahi, G.K., Mantok, S., Patel, P.C., 2019. Women’s Perceived Empowerment BarNir, A., Watson, W.E., Hutchins, H.M., 2011. Mediation and moderated mediation in in Entrepreneurial Efforts: the Role of Bricolage and Psychological Capital. J. Small the relationship among role models, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial career intention, Bus. Manag. 57 (1), 206–229. and gender. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 41 (2), 270–297. Do Paço, A., Ferreira, J.M., Raposo, M., Rodrigues, R.G., Dinis, A., 2015. Entrepreneurial Baumol, W.J., 1990. Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive, and destructive. intentions: is education enough? Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 11 (1), 57–75. J. Polit. Econ. 98 (5), 893–921. Dolinsky, A.L., Caputo, R.K., 2003. Health and female self-employment. J. Small Bus. Baumol, W.J., Strom, R.J., 2007. Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Strateg. Manag. 41 (3), 233–241. Entrepreneurship J. 1 (3–4), 233–237. Dufays, F., Huybrechts, B., 2014. Connecting the dots for social value: a review on social Behrman, J.R., Birdsall, N., Székely, M., 1999. Intergenerational Mobility in Latin networks and social entrepreneurship. J. Soc. Enterp. 5 (2), 214–237. America: Deeper Markets and Better Schools Make a Difference (Vol. 3). Carnegie Elam, A., Terjesen, S., 2010. Gendered institutions and cross-national patterns of Endowment for International Peace, Global Policy Program, Washington D.C. business creation for men and women. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 22 (3), 331–348. Banerjee, A.V., Duflo, E., 2008. What is middle class about the middle classes around the Felin, T., Foss, N., 2019. Microfoundations for institutional theory? In: Haack, P., world? J. Econ. Perspect. 22 (2), 3–28. Sieweke, J., Wessel, L. (Eds.), Microfoundations of Institutions (Research in the Bjørnskov, C., Foss, N., 2013. How strategic entrepreneurship and the institutional Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 65B). Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, context drive economic growth. Strateg. Entrepreneurship J. 7 (1), 50–69. pp. 393–408. Bjørnskov, C., Foss, N.J., 2020. Well-being and entrepreneurship: using establishment Friedman, M., 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. size to identify treatment effects and transmission mechanisms. PLoS One 15 (1), e0226008. 13 S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 Glaeser, E.L., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., 2004. Do institutions cause Markussen, T., Fibæk, M., Tarp, F., Tuan, N.D.A., 2018. The happy farmer: self- growth? J. Econ. Growth 9 (3), 271–303. employment and subjective well-being in rural Vietnam. J. Happiness Stud. 19 (6), Goel, R.K., 2018. Foreign direct investment and entrepreneurship: gender differences 1613–1636. across international economic freedom and taxation. Small Bus. Econ. 50 (4), Marlow, S., 2019. Gender and entrepreneurship: past achievements and future 887–897. possibilities. Int. J. Gend. Entrepreneurship 12 (1), 39–52. Greve, A., Salaff, J.W., 2003. Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Mathew, V., 2010. Women entrepreneurship in Middle East: understanding barriers and Pract. 28 (1), 1–22. use of ICT for entrepreneurship development. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 6 (2), 163–181. Hafer, R.W., Jones, G., 2015. Are entrepreneurship and cognitive skills related? some Mayoux, L., 1993. Gender inequality and entrepreneurship: the Indian silk industry. Dev. international evidence. Small Bus. Econ. 44 (2), 283–298. Policy Rev. 11 (4), 413–426. Hausman, J., 1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46 (6), 1251–1271. McMullen, J.S., 2011. Delineating the domain of development entrepreneurship: a Hausmann, R., Rodrik, D., 2003. Economic development as self-discovery. J. Dev. Econ. market-based approach to facilitating inclusive economic growth. Entrep. Theory 72 (2), 603–633. Pract. 35 (1), 185–193. Hechavarria, D., Bullough, A., Brush, C., Edelman, L., 2019. High-growth women’s McMullen, J.S., Bergman Jr, B.J, 2017. Social entrepreneurship and the development entrepreneurship: fueling social and economic development. J. Small Bus. Manag. 57 paradox of prosocial motivation: a cautionary tale. Strateg. Entrepreneurship J. 11 (1), 5–13. (3), 243–270. Hechavarría, D.M., Terjesen, S.A., Ingram, A.E., Renko, M., Justo, R., Elam, A., 2017. Mejía, P., Meléndez, M., 2014. Middle-class entrepreneurs and inadequate prospects for Taking care of business: the impact of culture and gender on entrepreneurs’ blended social mobility through entrepreneurship in Colombia. Lat. Am. J. Econ 51 (2), value creation goals. Small Bus. Econ. 48 (1), 225–257. 279–305. Hechavarría, D.M., Terjesen, S.A., Stenholm, P., Brännback, M., Lång, S., 2018. More Mickiewicz, T., Rebmann, A., 2020. Entrepreneurship as trust. Found. Trends Entrep. 16 than words: do gendered linguistic structures widen the gender gap in (3), 244–309. entrepreneurial activity? Entrep. Theory Pract. 42 (5), 797–817. Minniti, M., Lévesque, M., 2010. Entrepreneurial types and economic growth. J. Bus. Henry, C., Foss, L., Fayolle, A., Walker, E., Duffy, S., 2015. Entrepreneurial leadership Ventur. 25 (3), 305–314. and gender: exploring theory and practice in global contexts. J. Small Bus. Manag. Minniti, M., Nardone, C., 2007. Being in someone Else’s Shoes: the role of gender in 53 (3), 581–586. nascent entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 28 (2–3), 223–239. Inglehart, R., 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization. Princeton University Press, Mitchelmore, S., Rowley, J., 2013. Growth and planning strategies within women-led New York. SMEs. Manag. Decis. 51 (1), 83–96. Inglehart, R., 2000a. Globalization and postmodern values. Wash. Q 23 (1), 215–228. Morales, C., Holtschlag, C., 2013. Postmaterialist values and entrepreneurship. a Inglehart, R., 2004. World Values Surveys and European Values Surveys, 1999–2001: multilevel approach UK. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 19 (3), 266–282. User Guide and Codebook. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Naudé, W., Amorós, J.E., Cristi, O., 2014. Surfeiting, the appetite may sicken”: Research, Ann Arbor. entrepreneurship and happiness. Small Bus. Econ. 42 (3), 523–540. Inglehart, R., Abramson, P.R., 1999. Measuring postmaterialism. Am. Political Sci. Rev. Neumeyer, X., Santos, S.C., Caetano, A., Kalbfleisch, P., 2019. Entrepreneurship 93 (03), 665–677. ecosystems and women entrepreneurs: a social capital and network approach. Small Inglehart, R., Baker, W.E., 2000. Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of Bus. Econ. 53 (2), 475–489. traditional values. Am. Sociol. Rev. 65 (1), 19–51. Noguera, M., Alvarez, C., Urbano, D., 2013. Socio-cultural factors and female Inglehart, R., Welzel, C., 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy. entrepreneurship. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 9 (2), 183–197. Cambridge University Press, New York and Cambridge. North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Inglehart, R., Welzel, C., 2009. How development leads to democracy: what we know Cambridge University Press, New York. about modernization. Foreign Aff. 88 (2), 33–48. North, D.C., 2005. Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton University Ireland, R.D., Tihanyi, L., Webb, J.W., 2008. A tale of two politico-economic systems: Press, Princeton. implications for entrepreneurship in Central and Eastern Europe. Entrep. Theory Özlem, A.O., 2014. Entrepreneurial subjectivities and gendered complexities: neoliberal Pract. 32 (1), 107–130. citizenship in Turkey. Fem. Econ. 20 (4), 235–259. Jayawarna, D., Jones, O., Marlow, S., 2015. The influence of gender upon social Parker, S.C., Congregado, E., Golpe, A.A., 2012. Is entrepreneurship a leading or lagging networks and bootstrapping behaviours. Scand. J. Manag. 31 (3), 316–329. indicator of the business cycle? evidence from UK self-employment data. Int. Small Jayawarna, D., Rouse, J., Macpherson, A., 2014. Life course pathways to business start- Bus. J. 30 (7), 736–753. up. Entrepreneurship Reg. Dev. 26 (3–4), 282–312. Patel, P.C., Doh, J.P., Bagchi, S., 2018. Can entrepreneurial initiative blunt the economic Jennings, J.E., Brush, C.G., 2013. Research on women entrepreneurs: challenges to (and inequality–growth curse? evidence from 92 Countries. Business & Society. In press. from) the broader entrepreneurship literature? Acad. Manag. Ann. 7 (1), 663–715. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318797103. Jennings, J.E., McDougald, M.S., 2007. Work-family interface experiences and coping Pathak, S., Muralidharan, E., 2018. Economic inequality and social entrepreneurship. strategies: implications for entrepreneurship research and practice. Acad. Manage. Bus. Soc. 57 (6), 1150–1190. Rev. 32 (3), 747–760. Paul, M., Smith-Hunter, A., 2011. Using decision tree analysis to predict women’s Junquera, B., 2011. Where does female entrepreneurial human capital come from? A entrepreneurial choices. J. Manag. Inf. Decis. Sci. 14 (1), 137–162. review of the literature. Innov.: Manag. Policy Pract. 13 (3), 391–411. Pollack, J.M., Forster, W.R., Johnson, P.D., Coy, A., Molden, D.C., 2015. Promotion-and Kantor, P., 2005. Determinants of women’s microenterprise success in Ahmedabad, prevention-focused networking and its consequences for entrepreneurial success. India: empowerment and economics. Fem. Econ. 11 (3), 63–83. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci 6 (1), 3–12. Keshk, O.M., 2003. CDSIMEQ: a program to implement two-stage probit least squares. Puente, R., González Espitia, C.G., Cervilla, M.A., 2019. Necessity entrepreneurship in Stata J. 3 (2), 1–11. Latin America: it’s not that simple. Entrepreneurship Reg. Dev. 31 (9–10), 953–983. Krueger Jr, N.F., Reilly, M.D., Carsrud, A.L, 2000. Competing models of entrepreneurial Ratinho, T., Amezcua, A., Honig, B., Zeng, Z., 2020. Supporting entrepreneurs: a intentions. J. Bus. Ventur. 15 (5–6), 411–432. systematic review of literature and an agenda for research. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Langowitz, N., Minniti, M., 2007. The entrepreneurial propensity of women. Entrep. Change 154, 119956. Theory Pract. 31 (3), 341–364. Reynolds, P., Bosma, B., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., Servais, I., Lopez-Garcia, P., Lee, J.H., Sohn, S.Y., Ju, Y.H., 2011a. How effective is government support for Korean Chin, N., 2005. Global entrepreneurship monitor: data collection design and women entrepreneurs in small and medium enterprises? J. Small Bus. Manag. 49 (4), implementation 1998–2003. Small Bus. Econ. 24 (3), 205–231. 599–616. Rijkers, B., Costa, R., 2012. Gender and rural non-farm entrepreneurship. World Dev. 40 Lee, L., Wong, P.K., Der Foo, M., Leung, A., 2011b. Entrepreneurial intentions: the (12), 2411–2426. influence of organizational and individual factors. Journal of Business Venturing 26 Robinson, J., Blockson, L., Robinson, S., 2007. Exploring stratification and (1), 124–136. entrepreneurship: african American women entrepreneurs redefine success in Leite, D.N., Silva, S.T., Afonso, O., 2014. Institutions, economics and the development growth ventures. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 613 (1), 131–154. quest. J. Econ. Surv. 28 (3), 491–515. Rodríguez Gutiérrez, P., Fuentes Fuentes, M.D.M., Rodríguez Ariza, L., 2014. Strategic Lerner, M., Almor, T., 2002. Relationships among strategic capabilities and the capabilities and performance in women-owned businesses in Mexico. J. Small Bus. performance of women-owned small ventures. J. Small Bus. Manag. 40 (2), 109–125. Manag. 52 (3), 541–554. Lerner, M., Brush, C., Hisrich, R., 1997. Israeli women entrepreneurs: an examination of Rodrik, D., 2003. Introduction: what do we learn from country narratives? In: Rodrik, D. factors affecting performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 12 (4), 315–339. (Ed.), In Search of prosperity: Analytic narratives On Economic Growth. Princeton Liu, S.J., 1998. Industrial development and structural adaptation in Taiwan: some issues University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 1–19. of learned entrepreneurship. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 45 (4), 338–348. Romani, G., Atienza, M., Ernesto Amorós, J., 2012. Informal investors in Chile: an López-Calva, L.F., Ortiz-Juarez, E., 2014. A vulnerability approach to the definition of exploratory study from a gender perspective. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 13 (1), 111–131. the middle class. J. Econ. Inequal. 12 (1), 23–47. Rosca, E., Agarwal, N., Brem, A., 2020. Women entrepreneurs as agents of change: a Lora, E., Castellani, F. (Eds.), 2013. Entrepreneurship in Latin America: A step Up the comparative analysis of social entrepreneurship processes in emerging markets. Social Ladder?. The World Bank Press, Washington D.C. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 157, 120067. Maas, J., Seferiadis, A.A., Bunders, J.F., Zweekhorst, M.B., 2014. Bridging the Schumpeter, J., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, disconnect: how network creation facilitates female Bangladeshi entrepreneurship. Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Transaction Publishers. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 10 (3), 457–470. Scott, L., Dolan, C., Johnstone–Louis, M., Sugden, K., Wu, M, 2012. Enterprise and Maddala, G.S., 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. inequality: a study of Avon in South Africa. Entrep. Theory Pract. 36 (3), 543–568. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Scott, S., Hughes, M., Kraus, S., 2019. Developing relationships in innovation clusters. Manolova, T.S., Carter, N.M., Manev, I.M., Gyoshev, B.S., 2007. The differential effect of Entrepreneurship Reg. Dev. 31 (1–2), 22–45. men and women entrepreneurs’ human capital and networking on growth Shinnar, R.S., Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., 2012. Entrepreneurial perceptions and expectancies in Bulgaria. Entrep. Theory Pract. 31 (3), 407–426. intentions: the role of gender and culture. Entrep. Theory Pract. 36 (3), 465–493. 14 S. Aparicio et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 175 (2022) 121401 Smallbone, D., Welter, F., 2001. The distinctiveness of entrepreneurship in transition Wietzke, F.B., 2015. Long-term consequences of colonial institutions and human capital economies. Small Bus. Econ. 16 (4), 249–262. investments: sub-national evidence from madagascar abbreviation. World Dev. 66, Sorenson, R.L., Folker, C.A., Brigham, K.H., 2008. The collaborative network orientation: 293–307. achieving business success through collaborative relationships. Entrep. Theory Pract. Williamson, O.E., 2000. The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. 32 (4), 615–634. J. Econ. Lit. 38 (3), 595–613. Sutter, C., Bruton, G.D., Chen, J., 2019. Entrepreneurship as a solution to extreme Yousafzai, S., Fayolle, A., Saeed, S., Henry, C., Lindgreen, A., 2019. The contextual poverty: a review and future research directions. J. Bus. Ventur. 34 (1), 197–214. embeddedness of women’s entrepreneurship: towards a more informed research Styhre, A., 2014. Gender Equality as Institutional Work: the Case of the Church of agenda. Entrepreneurship Reg. Dev. 31 (3–4), 167–177. Sweden. Gend. Work Organ. 21 (2), 105–120. Yousafzai, S.Y., Saeed, S., Muffatto, M., 2015. Institutional theory and contextual Terjesen, S., Lloyd, A., 2015. The female entrepreneurship index (FEI). An Analysis of the embeddedness of women’s entrepreneurial leadership: evidence from 92 countries. Conditions That Foster High-Potential Female Entrepreneurship. The GEDI Institute, J. Small Bus. Manag. 53 (3), 587–604. Washington D.CUSA. Zhao, D., Jiang, J., Yin, Z., 2020. Can entrepreneurship bring happiness? evidence from Thornton, P.H., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., Urbano, D., 2011. Socio-cultural factors and China. Econ. Model. 91, 679–686. entrepreneurial activity: an overview. Int. Small Bus. J. 29 (2), 105–118. Tlaiss, H.A., 2019. Contextualizing the career success of Arab women entrepreneurs. Sebastian Aparicio is a Serra Hunter Fellow at the Department of Business and researcher Entrepreneurship Reg. Dev. 31 (3–4), 226–241. at the Centre for Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation Research (CREIS) (Universitat Toivanen, S., Mellner, C., Vinberg, S., 2015. Self-employed persons in Sweden-mortality Autònoma de Barcelona). He is also a Research Fellow at the Centre for University differentials by industrial sector and enterprise legal form: a five-year follow-up Entrepreneurship (CIEU –Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), a Junior Research Fellow study. Am. J. Ind. Med. 58 (1), 21–32. in the Institute for Development Strategies at the School of Public and Environmental Uhlaner, L., Thurik, R., 2007. Postmaterialism influencing total entrepreneurial activity Affairs (IDS-SPEA, Indiana University), and an External Researcher at Fundación ECSIM across nations. J. Evol. Econ. 17 (2), 161–185. (Medellin, Colombia). He has participated in different research projects (e.g. GUESSS, Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., 2016. Entrepreneurship capital types and economic growth: World Bank, amongst others). His-research focuses on the effects of entrepreneurial ac­ international evidence. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 102, 34–44. tivity and innovation on economic growth and development under the institutional lenses. Urbano, D., Aparicio, S., Audretsch, D., 2019. Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: what has been learned? Small Bus. Econ. 53 (1), 21–49. David Audretsch is a Distinguished Professor and the Ameritech Chair of Economic Urbano, D., Felix, C., Aparicio, S., 2021. Informal institutions and leadership behavior in Development in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) at Indiana Uni­ a developing country: a comparison between rural and urban areas. J. Bus. Res. 132, versity. He is also the Director of the Institute for Development Strategies (IDS) at SPEA, 544–556. and the co-founder and co-editor of Small Business Economics. He was awarded the 2001 van Gelderen, M., Wiklund, J., McMullen, J.S., 2021. Entrepreneurship in the future: a Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research by the FSF, and in 2011 he received the delphi study of ETP and JBV editorial board members. Entrepreneurship Theory and Schumpeter Prize from the University of Wuppertal. He has several scholarly international Practice. In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211010503. publications analysing the links between entrepreneurship, government policy, innova­ van Praag, C.M., Versloot, P.H., 2007. What is the value of entrepreneurship? a review of tion, economic development and global competitiveness. recent research. Small Bus. Econ. 29 (4), 351–382. van Stel, A., Storey, D.J., Thurik, A.R., 2007. The effect of business regulations on Maria Noguera is Head and Professor at the School of Tourism and Hospitality Manage­ nascent and young business entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 28 (2–3), 171–186. ment at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). She received a Ph.D. (International Verheul, I., Uhlaner, L., Thurik, R., 2005. Business accomplishments, gender and Doctorate in Entrepreneurship and Management -IDEM) from UAB. Her research areas are entrepreneurial self-image. J. Bus. Ventur. 20 (4), 483–518. focused on entrepreneurship, specifically on those environmental factors affecting female Vladasel, T., Lindquist, M.J., Sol, J., Van Praag, M., 2020. On the origins of entrepreneurship from the institutional approach. She has various academic papers in this entrepreneurship: evidence from sibling correlations. Journal of Business Venturing. research field. Additionally, she has been part of the Centre for University Entrepreneur­ In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106017. ship (CIEU) at UAB, participating actively in projects about female entrepreneurship. Voigt, S., 2013. How (not) to measure institutions. J. Institutional Econ. 9 (1), 1–26. Watson, J., 2012. Networking: gender differences and the association with firm performance. Int. Small Bus. J. 30 (5), 536–558. David Urbano is a professor of entrepreneurship at the Department of Business and deputy Welter, F., 2011. Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways director at the Centre for Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation Research (CREIS) forward. Entrep. Theory Pract. 35 (1), 165–184. (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), and ICREA-Academia research fellow. His-research Welter, F., Smallbone, D., 2008. Women’s entrepreneurship from an institutional focuses on the analysis of factors affecting entrepreneurship in different contexts, using perspective: the case of Uzbekistan. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 4 (4), 505–520. institutional economics as a theoretical framework, and combining quantitative and Werbner, P., 2010. Appropriating social citizenship: women’s labour, poverty, and qualitative methodologies. He has several scholarly international publications, partici­ entrepreneurship in the manual workers union of Botswana. J. South. Afr. Stud. 36 pates in numerous international research projects (e.g. GEM, PSED, GUESSS), and regu­ (3), 693–710. larly visits Haas School of Business (University of California Berkeley). 15