Advertisement

Small Business Economics

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 1–21 | Cite as

What a Difference a Y makes-Female and Male Nascent Entrepreneurs in Germany

  • Joachim WagnerEmail author
Article

Abstract

In western industrialized countries men are on average more than twice as active in entrepreneurship as women. Based on data from a recent representative survey of the adult population in Germany this paper uses an empirical model for the decision to become self-employed to test for differences between women and men in the ceteris paribus impact of several characteristics and attitudes, taking the rare events nature of becoming an entrepreneur into account. Furthermore, a non-parametric approach using Mahalanobis- distance matching of man and woman which are as similar as possible in all characteristics and attitudes but the “small difference” is used to investigate the difference in the propensity to become self-employed by sex. A core finding is that the difference between men and women in both the extent and the effect of considering fear of failure to be a reason not to start one’s own business is important for the explanation of the gap in entrepreneurship by sex.

Keywords

differences in entrepreneurship by sex Germany Nascent entrepreneurs 

JEL classification

J23 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acs, Z. J., P. A., Michael Hey and M. Minniti, 2005, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2004 Executive Report, Babson College and London Business School.Google Scholar
  2. Alsos G. A. and Ljunggren E. (1998). Does the Business Start-Up Process Differ by Gender? A Longitudinal Study of Nascent Entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurial Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA .Google Scholar
  3. Armington C. and Acs Z. J. (2002). The Determinants of Regional Variation in New Firm Formation. Regional Studies 36: 33–45 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audretsch D. B. and Fritsch M. (1994). The Geography of Firm Births in Germany. Regional Studies 28: 359–365 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beesley M. E. and Hamilton R. T. (1984). Small Firms Seedbed Role and the Concept of Turbulence. Journal of Industrial Economics XXXIII: 217–231 .Google Scholar
  6. Bergmann, H., 2004, Gründungsaktivitäten im regionalen Kontext. Eine Untersuchung von Gründern, Gründungseinstellungen und Rahmenbedingungen in zehn deutschen Regionen auf der Basis von Mikrodaten. (Kölner Forschungen zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeographie, 57) Köln: Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
  7. Bergmann, H., A. Japsen and C. Tamasy, 2002, Regionaler Entrepreneurship Monitor (REM) – Gründungsaktivitäten und Rahmenbedingungen in zehn deutschen Regionen. Universität zu Köln and Universität Lüneburg.Google Scholar
  8. Blanchflower, D. G., 2004, Self-employment: More may not be better. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper 10286, February.Google Scholar
  9. Blanchflower D. G. and Meyer B. D. (1994). A Longitudinal Analysis of the Young Self-Employed in Australia and the United States. Small Business Economics 6: 1–19 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blinder A. S. (1973). Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural Variables. Journal of Human Resources 8: 436–455 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boden R. J. (1996). Gender and Self-Employment Selection: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of Socio-Economics 25: 671–682 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boden R. J. (1999). Flexible Working Hours, Family Responsibilities and Female Self-Employment: Gender Differences in Self-Employment Selection. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 58(1): 71–83 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borjas G. J. (2000). Labor Economics. McGraw-Hill, Boston etc .Google Scholar
  14. Bruce D. (1999). Do Husbands Matter? Married Women Entering Self-Employment. Small Business Economics 13(4): 317–329 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carr D. (1996). Two paths to self-employment? Women’s and men’s self-employment in the United States, 1980. Work and Occupations 23: 26–53 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carter N. (1997). Entrepreneurial Processes and Outcomes: The Influence of Gender. In: Paul, D. R. and Sammis, B. W. (eds) The Entrepreneurial Process. Economic Growth, Men, Women and Minorities, pp. Quorum Books, Westport, Connecticut, and London .Google Scholar
  17. Carter N. (2002). The Role of Risk Orientation on financing Expectations in New Venture Creation: Does Sex Matter?. Frontiers of Entrepreneurial Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA .Google Scholar
  18. Carter, N., and L. Kolvereid, 1998, Woman starting new businesses: The experience in Norway and the United States, in: OECD, Women Entrepreneurs in Small and Medium Enterprises. Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Carter S. (2001). Women’s Business Ownership: A Review of the Academic, Popular and Internet Literature. Report to the Small Business Service, Department of Marketing, University of Strathclyde, mimeo .Google Scholar
  20. Cramer J. S., Hartog J. and Jonker N. (2002). Low Risk Aversion Encourages The Choice For Entrepreneurship: An Empirical Test of a Truism. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 48: 29–36 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Delmar F. and Davidsson P. (2000). Where Do They Come From? Prevalence and Characteristics of Nascent Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 12: 1–23 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Devine, T. J., 1994, ‘Characteristics of self-employed women in the United States’, Monthly Labor Review 117(3), March, 20–34.Google Scholar
  23. Eckel, C. C., and P. J., Grossman, 2003, Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study of Actual and Forecast Risk Attitudes of Woman and Men. Mimeo, Virginia Tech and St. Cloud State University, October.Google Scholar
  24. Engel, D., and F. Welter, 2004, Dreamers and Doers – Who succeeds in the Process of Venture Creation? Draft, RWI Essen, January.Google Scholar
  25. Evans D. S. and Jovanovic B. (1989). An Estimated Model of Entrepreneurial Choice under Liquidity Constraints. Journal of Political Economy 97: 808–827 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Evans D. S. and Leighton L. S. (1989). Some Empirical Aspects␣of Entrepreneurship. American Economic Review 79: 519–535 .Google Scholar
  27. Fairlie R. W. (1999). The Absence of the African-American Owned Business: An Analysis of the Dynamics of Self-Employment. Journal of Labor Economics 17: 80–108 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fairlie, R. W., 2003, An Extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition Technique to Logit and Probit Models. Economic Growth Center, Yale University, Discussion Paper No. 873, November.Google Scholar
  29. Fehrenbach S. and Lauxen-Ulbrich M. (2002). A Gender View on Self-Employment in Germany. Institute for Small Business Research, University of Mannheim, mimeo .Google Scholar
  30. Fischer E. M., Rebecca Reuber A. and Dyke L. S. (1993). A Theoretical Overview and Extension of Research on Sex, Gender, and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 8: 151–168 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gerlach K. and Wagner J. (1994). Regional differences in small firm entry in manufacturing industries: Lower Saxony, 1979–1991. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 6: 63–80 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Georgellis, Y., and H. J. Wall, 2000, Gender Differences in Self-Employment: Panel Evidence from Germany. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Paper 99–008B, November.Google Scholar
  33. Greene W. H. (2000). Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall International, Upper Saddle River, NJ .Google Scholar
  34. Heckman J. J., Lalonde R. J. and Smith J. A. (1999). The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In: Orley, C. A. and David, C. (eds) Handbook of Labor Economics Volume 3A, pp 1865–2097. , Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hübler O. (1991). Was unterscheidet Freiberufler, Gewerbetreibende und abhängig Beschäftigte?. Eine ökonometrische Untersuchung über Gruppenheterogenität, Einkommensdeterminanten und Statuswechsler, Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung 24: 101–114 .Google Scholar
  36. Hübler O. (1992). Selbständige in Ostdeutschland. Eine theoretische und mikro-ökonometrische Analyse, Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, Heft 3/4: 107–129 .Google Scholar
  37. Johnson P. S. (1986). New Firms: An Economic Perspective. Allen and Unwin, London .Google Scholar
  38. Jungbauer-Gans M. (1993). Frauen als Unternehmerinnen. eine Untersuchung der Erfolgs- und Überlebenschancen neugegrÜndeter Frauen- und Männerbetriebe. Frankfurt am Main etc, Peter Lang .Google Scholar
  39. (2004). Chefinnensache. Frauen in der unternehmerischen Praxis, Heidelberg: Physica .Google Scholar
  40. Kihlstrom R. E. and Laffont J.-J. (1979). A General Equilibrium Entrepreneurial Theory of Firm Formation Based on Risk Aversion. Journal of Political Economy 87: 719–748 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. King G. and Zeng L. (2001a). Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data. Political Analysis 9(2): 137–163 .Google Scholar
  42. King G. and Zeng L. (2001b). Explaining Rare Events in International Relations. International Organization 55(3): 693–715 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lauxen-Ulbrich M. and Leicht R. (2003). First Statistical Overview – National Report on Women (Start-up) Entrepreneurs and Female Self-employed in Germany. Small Business Research Institute, University of Mannheim, mimeo .Google Scholar
  44. Lazear, E. P., 2002, Entrepreneurship. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 9109, August.Google Scholar
  45. Le A. T. (1999). Empirical Studies of Self-Employment. Journal of Economic Surveys 13(4): 381–416 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lechner M. and Pfeiffer F. (1993). Planning for Self-Employment at the Beginning of a Market Economy: Evidence from Individual Data of East German Workers. Small Business Economics 5: 111–128 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leicht R. and Welter F. (2004). Gründerinnen und selbständige Frauen. Potenziale, Strukturen und Entwicklungen in Deutschland, Karlsruhe: v. Loeper .Google Scholar
  48. Leuven, E. and B. Sianesi, 2003, PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html. Version 1.2.3.Google Scholar
  49. Linan Alcalde, F., D. M. Martin and R. Gonzales Rodriguez, 2002, Characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs in Germany, Paper presented at the 42nd ERSA Conference, Dortmund, 27–31 August 2002, mimeo, Universidad de Sevilla.Google Scholar
  50. Long J. S. and Freese J. (2001). Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables using Stata. TX: Stata Press, College Station .Google Scholar
  51. Lückgen, I. and D. Oberschachtsiek, 2004, Regionaler Entrepreneurship Monitor (REM II 2003/2004), Zur Dynamik von Gründungsaktivitäten in Deutschland: Ausmaß und Ursachen, Universität zu Köln und Universität Lüneburg.Google Scholar
  52. Lohmann, H., 2001, Self-employed or employee, full-time or part-time? Gender differences in the determinants and conditions for self-employment in Europe and the US. Arbeitspapiere – Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung (MZES), Nr. 38.Google Scholar
  53. Mason C. (1991). Spatial Variations in Enterprise: The Geography of New Firm Formation. In: Burrows, R. (eds) Deciphering the Enterprise Culture. Entrepreneurship, Petty Capitalism and the Restructuring of Britain, pp. Routledge, London and New York .Google Scholar
  54. McManus P. A. (2001). Women’s Participation in Self-Employment in Western Industrialized Nations. International Journal of Sociology 31(2): 70–97 .Google Scholar
  55. Minniti, M. and P. Arenius, 2003, Women in Entrepreneurship. Paper presented at “The Entrepreneurial Advantage of Nations: First Annual Global Entrepreneurship Symposium”, United Nations Headquarters, April 29, 2003.Google Scholar
  56. Minniti, M., P. Arenius and N. Langowitz, 2005, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2004 Report on Women and Entrepreneurship, Babson College and London Business School.Google Scholar
  57. Moore C. S. and Mueller R. E. (2002). The Transition From Paid to Self-Employment in Canada: The Importance of Push Factors. Applied Economics 34: 791–801 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nielsen H. S. (1998). Discrimination and Detailed Decomposition in a Logit Model. Economics Letters 61: 115–120 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nopo, H., 2004, Matching as a Tool to Decompose Wage Gaps. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) Discussion Paper 981, January.Google Scholar
  60. Oaxaca R. L. (1973). Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets. International Economic Review 14: 693–709 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Oaxaca R. L. and Ransom M. R. (1994). On Discrimination and the Decomposition of Wage Differentials. Journal of Econometrics 61: 5–21 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. (2000). Employment Outlook. OECD, Paris .Google Scholar
  63. Parker S. (2004). The Economics of Self-Employment and Entrepreneurship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, etc .Google Scholar
  64. Reynolds P. D. (1997). Who Starts New Firms? – Preliminary Explorations of Firms-in-Gestation. Small Business Economics 9: 449–462 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reynolds P. D. (2000). GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2000 Executive Report. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, Kansas City .Google Scholar
  66. Reynolds P. D. (2001). GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2000 Executive Report. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, Kansas City .Google Scholar
  67. Reynolds P. D. (2004). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2003 Executive Report. , Babson College.Google Scholar
  68. Reynods P. D., Storey D. and Westhead P. (1994). Cross- national Comparisons of the Variation in New Firm Formation Rates. Regional Studies 28: 443–356 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rybczynski, K., 2004, Gender Differences in the Incidence and Duration of Self-Employment. Mimeo, Queen’s University, January.Google Scholar
  70. Simpson, W. and R. Sproule, 1998, Econometric Analysis of Canadian Self-Employment Using SLID. Income and Labour Dynamics Working Paper Series: Statistics Canada Product Number 75F002M, November.Google Scholar
  71. Sorensen O. and Audia P. G. (2000). The Social Structure of Entrepreneurial Activity: Geographic Concentration of Footwear Production in the United States, 1940–1989. American Journal of Sociology 106: 424–462 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. StataCorp, 2003, Stata Statistical Software: Release 8.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.Google Scholar
  73. Statistisches Bundesamt, 2002, Datenreport 2002, Zahlen und Fakten über die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.Google Scholar
  74. Sternberg R. and Bergmann H. (2003). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Länderbericht Deutschland 2002, Universität zu Köln .Google Scholar
  75. Sternberg R., Bergmann H. and Lückgen I. (2004). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Länderbericht Deutschland 2003, Universität zu Köln .Google Scholar
  76. Sternberg R. and Lückgen I. (2005). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Länderbericht Deutschland 2004, Universität zu Köln .Google Scholar
  77. Strohmeyer, R. and R. Leicht, 2000, Small Training Firms: A Breeding Ground for Self-Employment? International Journal of Sociology 30(4), 59–89.Google Scholar
  78. Studenmund A. H. (2001). Using Econometrics, A Practical Guide. Addison Wesley Longman, Boston etc .Google Scholar
  79. Wagner J. (2003a). Testing Lazear’s Jack-of-all-trades View of Entrepreneurship with German Micro Data. Applied Economics Letters 10: 687–689 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wagner, J., 2003b, Are Nascent Entrepreneurs Jacks-of-all-Trades? A Test of Lazear’s Theory of Entrepreneurship with German data. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) Discussion Paper 911, September (forthcoming in: Applied Economics).Google Scholar
  81. Wagner J. (2003c). The Impact of Personal Characteristics and the Regional Milieu on the Transition From Unemployment to Self-Employment: Empirical Evidence for Germany. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 223: 204–222 .Google Scholar
  82. Wagner J. (2003d). Taking a second chance – Entrepreneurial restarters in Germany. Applied Economics Quarterly 49: 255–272 .Google Scholar
  83. Wagner, J., 2004, Are young and small firms hothouses for nascent entrepreneurs? Evidence from German micro data, Applied Economics Quarterly 50, 379–391.Google Scholar
  84. Wagner J. and Sternberg R. (2004). Start-up Activities, Individual Characteristics and the Regional Milieu: Lessons for Entrepreneurship Support Policies From German Micro Data. Annals of Regional Science 38: 219–240 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wagner J. and Sternberg R. (2005). Personal and Regional Determinants of Entrepreneurial Activities: Empirical Evidence from the Regional Entrepreneurship Monitor (REM) Germany. Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft 25: 91–105 .Google Scholar
  86. Welter, F. and B. Lagemann, 2003, Gründerinnen in Deutschland – Potenziale und institutionelles Umfeld. Essen: Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.Google Scholar
  87. WieBner, F., 2001, Arbeitslose werden Unternehmer. Nürnberg: Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung der Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.Google Scholar
  88. Yun M.-S. (2004). Decomposing Differences in the First Moment. Economics Letters 82: 275–280 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EconomicsUniversity of LueneburgLueneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations