Working Paper No. 2014/14

Beyond the Critique: How Feminist Perspectives Can Feed Entrepreneurship Promotion in Developing Countries Saskia Vossenberg¹ 7 May 2014

© The author, 2014

¹ Consultant Gender and Women's Political Empowerment, NIMD | Netherlands Institute for Multiparty

Democracy

External Research fellow 'Women and Entrepreneurship in Developing Countries', Maastricht School of

Management

Program manager 'Women's Entrepreneurship Promotion', Maastricht School of Management

The Maastricht School of Management is a leading provider of management

education with worldwide presence. Our mission is to enhance the management

capacity of professionals and organizations in and for emerging economies and

developing countries with the objective to substantially contribute to the

development of these societies.

www.msm.nl

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s). Publication does not imply

endorsement by the School or its sponsors, of any of the views expressed.

1

- Working Paper -

Beyond the Critique: How Feminist Perspectives

Can Feed Entrepreneurship Promotion in

Developing Countries

Saskia Vossenberg, May 2014

Presented at International Research and Policy Seminar

Promoting Women’s Entrepreneurship: Which Policies & Practices Work Best?

8-9 May 2014, Maastricht School of Management

Abstract

How can we move the debate beyond feminist critique and present policy-makers and development practitioners

with premises for entrepreneurship promotion in its attempt to overcome issues of gender inequality in economic

growth and development? Feminist epistemologies can offer a set of conceptual advances and tools of analysis to

define goals, problems and solutions for entrepreneurship promotion. By means of a literature review it is argued

that a critical realist approach, as found in standpoint feminism, provides a strong basis for thinking through

feminist concerns about entrepreneurship promotion. Consequently, four premises for feminist driven

entrepreneurship promotion are presented. Key words: feminist theory, female entrepreneurship, developing

countries, entrepreneurship promotion, policy.

1. Introduction

With the recognition of entrepreneurship as a key driver for economic development, it is no surprise

that many governments, donors and development organizations nowadays promote entrepreneurship

as a potential pathway out of poverty (Szirmai, 2011; Naudé and Szirmai, 2013; Goedhuys and

Sleuwaegen, 2002). Both as drivers and main beneficiaries of this growth, female entrepreneurs

especially have been identified as the „new heroes of the developing economy‟. As a result they have

become an important focus in poverty reduction and private sector development programmes.

Whereas resources are being directed to develop the entrepreneurial potential of women and support

their micro and small enterprises, little evidence is available on how entrepreneurship promotion in

developing countries benefits women, leads to growth and development or helps to reduce gender

inequalities (for an overview see Vossenberg, 2013). Development practitioners and policy-makers

anecdotally admit that such virtuous development rarely happens and only have intuitive answers to

the critical questions: „what works‟ and „what not‟ in entrepreneurship promotion, and how its

outcomes contribute to gender just inclusive economic growth in developing countries? Indeed,

feminist researchers have been raising major concerns with the focus on private sector development as

important instrument to drive development processes (Barrientos and Kabeer 2013, Barrientos and

Evers, 2013; Rai and Waylen, 2013; Razavi, 2013; Duflo, 2011) Knowing that gender blind or

insensitive policies and development programmes lead to poor and ineffective outcomes, they

rightfully point out that the effects or alleged benefits for women remain unclear and that it is

unrealistic to seek for „miracle solutions‟ to overcome gender inequality in policy efforts solely

focused at economic development. This suggests that we need to temper our expectations of

entrepreneurship promotion to establish gender equality and economic development that benefits both

men and women.

2

A Feminist Approach to Entrepreneurship Promotion: Goals, Problems and Solutions

This paper makes the case for a feminist approach to entrepreneurship promotion. Drawing on the

policy analysis framework of Deborah Stone (2002)1 and Mieke Verloo‟s (2007) notion of a „policy

frame‟2 , I here understand „entrepreneurship promotion‟ as the deliberate organisation of a set of

policy goals, problems and solutions enacted by state and non-state actors with a view to influence and

intervene in entrepreneurial behaviour and context that occurs across a range of sectors in both the

formal and informal economy.

In this paper I investigate by means of a literature review how different interpretations of gender and

entrepreneurship, as manifested in different feminist perspectives, can affect the way in which

entrepreneurship promotion is framed and enacted and, as a result, potentially lead to different policy

outcomes. I will argue that in order to move entrepreneurship policy debate forward and beyond

feminist critique, we need to engage with these policies and feed policy-makers and development

practitioners with the necessary information and knowledge that can advance the feminist agenda.

Whereas all feminist perspectives can be valuable for entrepreneurship promotion, some provide the

policy maker and development practitioner with more tangible premises and tools than others. I will

argue that the „critical realist‟ approach as found in feminist standpoint epistemology provides a strong

basis for thinking through feminist concerns about entrepreneurship promotion, and seems the most

useful for putting feminist theory into practice.

Needless to say that for the sake of the purpose of this paper, I had to jump over some important

debates among the multiple stances in feminist epistemologies which might generate the misleading

impression of the existence of neatly defined categories of feminist thinking, oversimplifying the

complex and rich body of feminist philosophy3. I do not attempt to lay down the requirements for what

is „a good entrepreneurship policy from a feminist perspective‟ as that would be not only impossible

but also not do justice to the ongoing debates among feminist perspectives. Moreover, it would be an

idealist attempt, ignoring local contexts, experiences and practices. There is no such thing as „good

feminist policy‟ that can be adopted to any situation, regardless of the actual situation in which one is

trying to intervene (Moi, 1999). However, I would like to argue that feminist epistemologies can offer

a set of conceptual advances and policy tools that potentially can feed entrepreneurship promotion and

evaluation in its attempt to overcome issues of gender inequality in economic development in

developing countries. My attempt here is to formulate a series of building blocks, or premises that

might be useful for policy-makers and development practitioners to shape, evaluate and reframe

entrepreneurship promotion in developing countries, making use of the valuable theorizing and

empirical contributions feminisms have made. Using the overwhelmingly rich body of literature I will

argue that a more feminist driven approach to entrepreneurship promotion would first entail an explicit

commitment to gender justice as a policy goal, second be build „upon situated goals, problems and

solutions‟, third consider a variety of policy outcomes and appropriate solutions besides individually

and economic oriented values and fourth, acknowledges the gendered and complex power relations in

1 Stone defines policy as „means of power that are continuously in a state of change to get people to do what they otherwise might not do‟.

Her social constructionist model helps understand how policies are shaped in their context and is based on three broad concepts: policy goals,

problems and solutions. In this perspective policy problems are constructed, competing interpretations of what is the problem exist, and

policy solutions are built in the representation of the problem (Bacchi, 1999) 2 Conceptual frames that shape the understanding of reality exist in policy process as argues by Verloo. She defines a „policy frame‟ as an

„organising principle that transforms fragmentary information into a structured and meaningful problem, in which a solution is implicitly or

explicitly included‟. This definition refers to the various dimensions in which a given policy problem can be represented. 3 Some of the rich debates and disagreements I had to skate over for example is the plead of Intemann (2010) of merging feminist empiricism

with standpoint theory „feminist standpoint empiricism‟ since both have evolved and absorbed critique over the past twenty-five years.

3

intra-household dynamics as key to addressing the problem. In the following sections I first explicate

the rationale of a feminist approach to entrepreneurship promotion. Secondly, I describe the

advantages and limitations for understanding entrepreneurship from different feminist epistemologies

based on a literature review. Subsequently I discuss the implications of a feminist approach to

entrepreneurship promotion when formulating policy goals, problems and solutions. Finally, I will

present four premises of feminist entrepreneurship promotion in developing countries.

2. What’s at stake? Feminist critique of entrepreneurship research and policy

The global shift towards neo-liberalism, promoting private sector and entrepreneurship as key drivers

of economic development, has been a major concern of feminist for decades. Important contributions

have been made by posing feminist alternative approaches to mainstream economic thinking, which

has resulted in an impressive and sophisticated body of knowledge. Traditional economic models have

been challenged and reframed as gendered structures, making the effects of economic policy, reform

and crises on women and gender relations visible and explicit in the past decades (Elson, 2013;

Kabeer, 2014; Rai and Waylen, 2013). Feminist work also made important contributions to

development policy making, which is demonstrated by the fact that most development organisations

and donors nowadays have adopted aspects of gender analysis in its policy making and program

formulation. Even though research indicates that the terms of this adoption remain oblique and

slantwise, focussing on individual and micro level interventions rather than on transformative change

towards gender justice, important experiences and instruments for „gender-sensitive policy-making‟

are now widespread available (Rai and Waylen, 2013; Verloo and Van der Vleuten, 2009).

In entrepreneurship promotion as part of private sector development, with its growing focus on female

entrepreneurship and the representation of women in the business sector, the adoption of a feminist

lens is relatively new and its experiences, impact and challenges still need be explored and

documented. Feminist theory is most visible when used to deconstruct and critique the assumptions,

foundations and applicability of entrepreneurship theorizing and empiric research (Calas et al, 2009;

Ahl and Nelson, 2010; for an overview see Vossenberg, 2013). It is emphasized that much of

entrepreneurship research and policy formulation share in a discourse of economic growth and

individualism, where the female entrepreneur and her business is seen as „underperforming‟, not living

up to her potential of generating economic growth, and therefore needs to be fixed (Marlow and Mc

Adam, 2010). As a result, in most entrepreneurship development policies it is usually the individual

(woman) entrepreneur that is advised and supported to enhance her business, leadership and

networking skills through training and counseling designed to „repair‟ her under-performance (Ahl,

2006, 2012; Marlow and McAdam, 2010). Women‟s entrepreneurial context is then left unaffected

and other possible solutions and efforts to fix the gender bias in entrepreneurship are not considered.

Also Welter, Brush and de Bruin (2014) argue that it is imperative to understand that entrepreneurship

is „gendered‟ and can only be understood in its (local) spatial and institutional context. Thus, policy

makers need to formulate integrated and holistic approaches, targeting (instead of ignoring) the

underlying gendered structures when fostering women‟s entrepreneurship. Brickell (2011) argues that,

even in programmes that do acknowledge women‟s context and experiences, such as their prime role

in unpaid care work, this recognition is linked almost exclusively to economic goals and the need to

„unleash economic potential‟.

“Indeed, in an array of contemporary policies and programs the sparse or non-existent attention

accorded to changing anything other than women‟s access to material resources simply adds to

4

women‟s burdens, entrenching if not entrapping them (and their male counterparts) in stereotypical

and uneven roles and interrelations”(Chant and Brickell, 2013 P.89).

Here, Chant and Brickell (2013) add to the feminist critique particularly echoed on poverty reduction

programs using instruments such as micro finance and cash transfer. Even though usually „framed‟ as

an instrument for women‟s economic empowerment, in most cases they focus primarily on women‟s

conditions and capacities instead of their embedded and gendered positions (of inferior power). Such

policies do not challenge patriarchy nor change the norms that support it, leaving the gendered context

unaffected. Following that, Bradshaw (2008) argues that by targeting development resources only at

women means that „men‟s socially constructed behavior is implicitly being problematized but not

addressed. This way, „fixing women‟ is presented as the only possible solution to a wider and societal

problem. As a result, such policies contribute very little in terms of advancing women‟s position in

society, let alone in terms of gender just inclusive growth (Sholkamy, 2010). Despite the availability

of feminist driven research, which has long uncovered the importance of unpaid care work and

household work divisions in influencing women‟s lives, Chant and Brickell (2013) point out that its

impact and relevance for policy making and program development has remained limited, under-

researched and documented.

In general there is a lack of reliable, consistent and country-specific data that is able to address the

question in „what works‟ and „what not‟ in entrepreneurship promotion. Also, it seems that the

majority of the literature available heavenly draws on experiences and theories from developed

economies, driven by a positivist epistemology and human capabilities approach (Ahl, 2006).

Substantial efforts for example are being devoted to documenting differences between male and

female entrepreneurs and their businesses (Welter, de Bruin and 2014; Greene, Brush and Gatewood,

2006; James, 2012). Feminists‟ convincingly criticize the inability of such research to unravel the

gendered complex power structures and subtleties of the (developing) economy, indicating a need for

alternative epistemological approaches and contextualized empirical findings. Moreover, feminists

have argued (for over thirty years) that scholars should put an end to the ideological and statistical

underestimation of how the gendered division of unpaid and paid care work affects both for women

and men and women‟s experiences in particular. And more importantly, that society at large needs to

start dealing with the implications of how the gendered context affects processes of change and

development in general (Kabeer, 2013; Pearson, 2007; Razavi, 2011).

No wonder that indeed no large scale paradigm shift can be observed until today that has provided a

path-way out of poverty for larger groups of women and unleash societies‟ potential of gender just

inclusive growth. Feminist scholars have pointed out that we need to be reticent about ostensibly

gender-neutral or gender-insensitive policies that leave the power dynamics that underpin the gender

bias in complex patriarchal societies unquestioned (Rai and Waylen, 2013; Lombardo, Meier and

Verloo, 2009). Here, potentially entrepreneurship promotion may benefit greatly from different

feminist perspectives and present the policy maker and development practitioner with tangible

building blocks and premises which may affect the way in which entrepreneurship promotion is

enacted and as a result, lead to different policy outcomes. Applying an explicit feminist perspective to

entrepreneurship promotion can enhance our understanding of entrepreneurship as a thoroughly

gendered process which may shed light on what is appropriate for entrepreneurship promotion and go

beyond the feminist critique while feeding the policy-maker and development practitioner with

feminist considerations in order to bring the feminist project a step further in the realisation of more

caring and egalitarian politics that benefit women.

5

3. Feminist epistemologies

It was Sandra Harding (1987; 1991) who more than twenty five years ago, distinguished three views

that are still referred to as the „feminist philosophy of science‟ namely, feminist empiricism,

standpoint feminism and post-structural feminism. These feminist epistemologies4 share a common

pro-women approach whereby they challenge traditional views of science and development by

critiquing its tendency to be centred around male experiences and needs, and, on multiple levels

exclude or subordinate women‟s voices and experiences (Intemann, 2010, Alcoff and Potter, 2013;

Racine, 2011). Instead, feminisms acknowledge the social, political and normative situatedness of „the

knower‟ which shape experiences, knowledges and visions. Feminisms also advocate the inclusion of

underrepresented and marginalized voices and (lived) experiences as valuable knowledge, discourses

and constructs of power. Lastly, they share a commitment to gender justice, suggesting the need for

social change and advancing the feminist agenda for egalitarian and caring politics. However, there are

important epistemological and ontological differences to be accounted for (Potter, 2006; Intemann,

2010; Alcoff and Potter, 2013).

Feminist Empiricism

Feminist empiricism or liberal feminism found its origins in positivism and sets out from a realist

ontology of „men and women‟ and „social structures‟. Men and women are considered equally able but

dissimilar, with different qualities and endowments that can be differently valued by society. Through

empirical research it is assumed, we can describe and understand „what is real‟ and „why people act‟.

Feminist empiricism suggests that knowledge and science is „better‟ and more complete when it

constitutes and is inclusive of women. Through the inclusion of women, the male bias can be

eliminated and female characteristics (of, for example, women entrepreneurs) interpreted as benefits or

underutilized advantages that society needs to exploit and value more. Here the idea is that a more

advanced society emerges when it recognizes that women have different experiences and that they can

make valuable contributions to society. However, women may experience structural discriminating

barriers and disadvantages, embedded in society and the economy that need to be identified, treated

and eliminated. As argued by Intemann (2010) this empiricist or liberal feminism has evolved over the

years into a more contextualist and normative driven approach to science and knowledge by

recognizing that research contexts are not independent from social values and politically charged. Still,

empiricists or liberal feminism is often criticized by other feminist‟s scholars for reducing gender to

sex, thereby reifying the gendered power structures in society that women and men alike are facing

(Ahl, 2006; Calas et al, 2009).

Feminist Standpoint Epistemology

A more critical stance can be found in feminist standpoint epistemology, driven by a critical realist

approach, which posits that knowledge, „knowers‟ and societies are socially constructed and inevitably

gendered (Harraway, 1988). In contrast to empirical feminism, this epistemology is not so much

focused on empirical „men and women‟ but on gender relations – as ongoing dynamic constructs of

power that structure society. Through the reproduction of these relations in ongoing processes of

socialization, “women and men know different things in different ways” (Jackson, 2006 P. 530).

Standpoint feminism rejects the „realist‟ ontology of inter alia empiricist feminism arguing that it

reduces societies into „individual and flat objects‟ which operate only at the level of the empirical

(Intemann, 2005, 2010). People and reality, they argue, cannot be reduced to simply „act and

4 Epistemology is a theory of knowledge and answers the question of „how we know what we know‟. What counts as knowledge? Who can

be a knower?

6

experience‟. In such a critical realist approach the world is layered in the empirical, the actual and the

real whereby the real includes historically determined mechanisms, events and experiences (Bhaskar,

2008). A critical realist or a standpoint feminist for that matter is interested in understanding which

aspects of the real produce the “messy outcomes at the level of direct experiences in the everyday

world of the empirical” (Clegg, 2006, P. 316). It starts from the assumption that people live multiple,

layered identities that spring from the different social relations, history and the operation of structures

of power one can experience (Symington, 2004; Collins, 2003). People are „situated‟ members of

more than one community at the same time, and can simultaneously experience oppression and

privilege. A standpoint feminist aims to reveal these multiple identities and uncovering the different

types of exclusion and disadvantage that can occur as a consequence of the combination of identities.

It entails solving the puzzle as to why and how certain circumstances, structures or power relations are

producing certain outcomes (Clegg, 000).

Standpoint feminism carries three important theses that are worthwhile highlighting (Intemann, 2005,

2010; Alcoff and Potter, 2013). First, the „situated-knowledge thesis‟ that claims how our location

(geographically, historically and socially) systematically influences our experiences and thus limits

and shapes what we (can) know. Location here is understood as a position subjected to power relations

and inequality. Second, the „thesis of epistemic advantage‟ argues that the standpoints of particularly

marginalized groups need be treated with privilege when analysing societies and issues of social

change (Jackson, 2006). Given women‟s historically determined and constructed position in society,

black feminism for example departs from the standpoint that women‟s subordination implies

knowledge of „truer‟ accounts of reality (Racine, 2011). Likewise socialist feminists depart from the

standpoint that women have privileged access to information that informs us on how patriarchy fails to

meet people‟s needs (Harding, 2006). The third thesis that underpins standpoint feminism bears

methodological implications as it suggests that any research affecting marginalized and oppressed

groups needs to start with and be developed from the lives and experiences of these groups. In other

words, researchers always need to examine the power relations, institutional context and policies that

perpetuate subordination from the perspective of the subordinated (Crasnow, 2006).

Post-Structural Feminist Epistemology

Feminist post-structural epistemology distinguishes itself by stressing locality, instability, uncertainty,

ambiguity and contestability in any account of social reality (Alcoff and Potter, 2013). Founded in

post modern thinking, this feminist epistemology rejects any claims of objectivity and universality

found in positivist driven research and knowledge production. Instead, post-structural feminism

emphasizes discourse and, similar to standpoint feminism, the multiplicity of identities. Post

structuralism is concerned with the deconstruction of women as a political „subject‟ and understands

the „world‟ as a discursive practice. In other words, people are not „objects‟ that can be understood

through research but non-knowable „subjects‟ that both produce, and are a product of, discourse which

may be unravelled through deconstruction (Clegg, 2006; Foucault, 2012). Post structural feminism

aims to deconstruct the discourses that produce racism, patriarchy, gender and class oppression and

other systems of discrimination that can create inequalities and affect positioning of women. This is

also referred to as the concept of „intersectionality‟, which may be seen as “an analytical tool for

studying, understanding and responding to the ways in which gender intersects with other identities

and how these intersections contribute to unique experiences of oppression and privilege” (Symington,

2004, P. 2).

7

Debating its Usefulness for Entrepreneurship Promotion

As the different feminist epistemologies described above carry different approaches to gender and

entrepreneurship, they also offer different perspectives on gender and entrepreneurship as a policy

problem. As indicated by among others Welter, Brush and de Bruin (2014) feminist perspectives tend

to be more implicitly than explicitly part of entrepreneurship research, with liberal feminism more

notably present in research. For liberal feminism however, the gender gap in entrepreneurship is due to

the discrimination of women through structural barriers such as a lack of access to networks, unequal

access to finance for start-up and business growth or unequal access to property rights (Calas et al,

2009; Ahl, 2006). A liberal feminist approach to entrepreneurship and gender thus entails the

positioning of women as disadvantaged „entrepreneurs‟ due to a male dominated and organized

structures in entrepreneurial context. These structures pose limitations to entrepreneurial opportunity

for women, which subsequently can be identified and treated by entrepreneurship promotion policies

aimed at women. In other words, understanding entrepreneurship promotion through a feminist

empiricist epistemology or liberal feminist perspective thus entails the identification of those structural

discriminating barriers in society and the economy that hinder or advance women‟s entrepreneurship,

and either treat or eliminate them so that women can equally perform (and grow their businesses) as

their male counterparts. Policy questions that emerge here are: what are the best policy measures to

eliminate discrimination and disadvantages in the economy towards female entrepreneurs? How can

we unleash and boost women‟s entrepreneurial potential (and capabilities) and facilitate equal access

to resources and participation in market opportunities? The assumption and anticipated policy

outcome is that with more disadvantages and women „treated‟ and their business performance

„repaired‟ and thus included in entrepreneurial activity, the male bias in entrepreneurship can be

corrected.

Liberal feminism and the entrepreneurship research and policy it informs, has been criticised (Calas et

al 2009; Ahl, 2006; Ahl and Nelson, Marlow and Mc Adam, 2013). Calas, Smircich and Bourne

(2009) for example argue that its positivist epistemology reduces entrepreneurship to a set of

„detectable and predictable‟ activities of which the results can be measured and made visible through

research. In this way, entrepreneurship research becomes involved in „discovering‟ the capabilities and

attitudes of entrepreneurs and how they interact with opportunities. Perhaps for a policy maker this is a

very welcome approach as it purports to „prescribe‟ how to act and stimulate or intervene in individual

capacity and behaviour in order to enhance „entrepreneurial opportunity‟. But, from a standpoint

feminist perspective it is not enough to identify the disadvantages and discriminations women

entrepreneurs experience and apply the right measures to turn them into advantages or remove them.

From such a perspective it is unimaginable that the context is left intact and unaffected. Such policies

and programs would be considered ineffective as they do not address „situated problems‟. On the

contrary, entrepreneurship promotion informed by standpoint feminism would set out from delineating

the underlying and institutionalized power structures embedded in society‟s social and economic

fabric that may be reinforcing gender hierarchies and constraining women‟s entrepreneurship. It would

depart from women's gendered activities and experiences, including unpaid care work and aim at

affecting those restraining power relations. Moreover, entrepreneurship promotion informed by

standpoint feminism would be based on, and founded in situated knowledge‟s; explicitly including

those of marginalized groups and advocate for their full participation in the policy-making process.

Here, entrepreneurship is understood as a specific experience for specific people in a specific place,

and with a variety of possible outcomes, including economic value but not exclusively (Hanson, 2009)

In order to achieve certain desired outcomes whether they be economic or social, entrepreneurship

promotion informed by standpoint feminism would first try and understand how entrepreneurs in a

specific context are involved in processes of change, transformation or reproduction, and from there

8

develop a theory on how change is brought about or how stasis is maintained, and what kind of

interventions could contribute to achieving (desirable) different outcomes (Clegg, 2006).

Like standpoint feminism, post-structuralist feminism provides a powerful and useful way to conceive

of entrepreneurship as a specific experience for specific people in specific places. However, its

application for bringing about change and advancing the feminist agenda into political action and

everyday practical analysis and policy-making, has been debated and criticised (Clegg, 2006; Moi,

1999). As argued by Clegg (2006) post structuralism tends to remain at the descriptive level: it

“cannot disentangle the conditions of possibilities for (....) frameworks and the need for carefully

derived, historically specific, forms of generalization” (P. 317). The main issue is that in post-

structuralism, people are understood as merely discursive and social constructs, lacking the resources

“to act creatively in the world, thus creating conditions for transformation and change as well as social

stasis” (Clegg, 2006, P. 319). Due to its descriptive, over-relativistic and theorizing nature, it is a

challenge to derive premises for feminist political action and policy from post structuralism. Still, as

opposed to the more dominant positivist epistemology with its flat interpretation of reality, the post-

structural „tools‟ of deconstruction and intersectional analysis, unravelling the constructs and

discourses that shape societies, unique experiences and practices are applicable in problem

formulation and evaluation (Lombardo and Verloo, 2009). Its emphasis on reflexivity, locality,

intersecting identities and deconstruction of discourse may be adopted as an entrepreneurship

promotion tool.

Epistemological benefits: affecting the gendered power structures in the entrepreneurial context

Evidently, feminist perspectives enhance our understanding of entrepreneurship as a thoroughly

gendered process. As I have indicated, each of the three feminist epistemologies has something to

offer policy-making. However it is the critical realist approach found in feminist standpoint theory

that seems to provide a stronger basis for thinking through feminist concerns in entrepreneurship

promotion and most useful for putting feminist theory into practice (Clegg, 2006; Archer, 2000). If, as

standpoint feminism suggests, we can understand how women entrepreneurs set out to act and create

conditions for transformative change, by means of which strategies and using which resources, then

we can establish whether it is useful, appropriate and fruitful to intervene. Such a policy relevant

theory of change on the basis of standpoint feminism has been empirically substantiated. For example

Ahl (2012) and Muntean (2013) both found evidence of impact of policy solutions addressing

entrepreneurship contexts at multiple levels. Ahl (2012) found that the rate of women‟s

entrepreneurship grew dramatically in the US since 1972, making US entrepreneurship policy an

example for the rest of the world. However, when looking deeper into which policies were pursued, it

turned out that the anti-discrimination acts passed in 1974 and 1988 spurred the dramatic increase

rather than support programs such as entrepreneurship training and counselling that were implemented

in a later stage. In that same study, it was found that in countries where there are no (adequate) family

policies (parental leave, sponsored day care), starting a small business from home is often the only

viable solution. It is evident that such businesses are unable to meet governments and organisations

expectancies of growth, job creation and development. In such contexts, the impact of

entrepreneurship promotion policies is bound to be limited if they do not address inadequate and

poorly functioning welfare systems. Muntean (2013) convincingly suggests that policy makers

interested in improving entrepreneurial opportunities and prosperity for women should focus ensuring

the protection of fundamental freedoms and liberties in an equal manner, and secondly, on ensuring

greater and wider representation of women in higher levels of decision-making so that power is more

equally distributed and directed (including government, finance and business). Thirdly, and similar to

9

Ahl‟s study, she found that the insurance and provision of accessible, affordable and high-quality

parental leave positively affects entrepreneurial choices and experiences.

4. Premises of Feminist Entrepreneurship Promotion

Without attempting to lay down the requirements for what is „good feminist entrepreneurship

promotion‟, I propose four premises or building blocks derived from feminist epistemologies that can

inform entrepreneurship promotion devised to overcome issues of poverty, inequality and exclusion in

economic development in developing countries. In sum, I propose that a feminist driven

entrepreneurship promotion entails first, a commitment to gender justice; second, builds on situated

goals, problems and solutions; third, considers a variety of policy outcomes and appropriate solutions;

and fourth, acknowledges the gendered power relations and dynamics of the intra-household and the

unpaid care economy.

I. Committed to gender justice: politicizing gendered power relations

Following what is common in all feminist epistemologies, a first premise of feminist driven

entrepreneurship promotion entails an implicit or explicit commitment to gender justice as a goal in

itself. This means that entrepreneurship promotion programs and policies have clear defined goals and

theories of change, indicating how the policy or program designed benefits women in particular and

the advancement of a gender just egalitarian society in general. It would also mean that every policy,

legislation or development program should be evaluated from the perspective of whether or not it

reproduces, reduces or increases gender inequalities. From a standpoint feminist perspective, what is

crucial here is that entrepreneurship promotion should not ignore the gendered power relations

embedded in the underlying structures that define the entrepreneurial context and shape

entrepreneurial behaviour. Instead, these gendered power relations should be „politicized‟ and become

an explicit part of the policy goal and its intentions. Lombardo, Meier and Verloo (2009) argue how

the „bending of gender-equality‟ towards others goals, may have particular consequences for policy

outcomes. In their view the issue of gender equality then becomes „depoliticized‟, not representing it

as society‟s problem and thus a political issue.

“(...) when discourses, such as that of „economic growth‟, are represented as unquestioned and

overarching political goals, this limits the possibilities of actors to contest them and the

chances of unveiling power dynamics that are embedded (but silenced) in the process” (Rönnblom,

2005).

In entrepreneurship promotion, whereby the policy rationale to support female entrepreneurs in

developing countries is nowadays commonly framed in terms of „gender-equality equals smart

economics‟, the risk is that reducing its goal to merely economic goals and benefits, the power

dynamics as part of the problem get neutralized and as a result, solutions to affect or change these are

ignored (Razavi, 2011; Brickell, 2011). Drawing on post-structural feminism, feminist driven

entrepreneurship would not only use a feminist analysis when defining „what is the problem‟ but also

be concerned about „what does not get problematized‟ (Bacchi, 1999). What is key here for policy

makers and development practitioners is to continuously deconstruct and reflect upon „who or what is

seen to be holding the problem of the gender bias in entrepreneurship‟? Applying the reasoning of

Lombardo, Meier and Verloo (2009), feminist driven entrepreneurship thus entails an approach in

which gender justice is a goal in itself, because it has consequences for entrepreneurial context and

behaviour, and addressing patriarchy, treating the gender bias in society is explicitly mentioned as part

of the solution. This way, unequal power relations between women and men can be questioned and

10

affected, opening up new pathways and opportunities for change5. As a result, policy makers can

consider a variety of „solutions‟, targeting underlying gendered structures.

II. Build on situated policy goals, problems and solutions

From a standpoint feminist perspective entrepreneurship promotion is to have specific solutions,

addressing the specific goals and problems specific people pursue and experience in specific places.

Entrepreneurship promotion from a feminist perspective would this entail defining its goals, problems

and solutions through „situated knowledge‟s‟. Meaning, in processes of policy design, implementation

and evaluation the gender-specific and often diverse interests and values of differently situated women

and men are explicitly taken into account (Harraway, 1988; True, 2010). Key here are the everyday

experiences, perspectives and activities of women and men within and outside their families,

businesses, communities and the marketplace. Policy-making process should thus entail a thorough

analysis (using situated knowledge) of those gendered structures in society and the economy that

maintain and reproduce gender inequalities that affect and shape the entrepreneurial context and

behaviour. Such deep analysis allows broad understanding of „where‟ the problem and solution are

located or situated, whether in the organization of the economy, the social, the legal or in the

household. These different ways of understanding the problem can subsequently generate completely

different solutions. Here, the thesis of „epistemic advantage‟ presents an important „tool‟ for policy-

makers and development practitioners. While agreeing with Jackson (2006) that essentializing

women‟s knowledge is problematic, for the purpose of policy-making and defining „situated goals,

problems and solutions is precisely the inclusion of women‟s unique experiences, which makes

knowledge „truer‟ and thus of the uttermost importance. The explicit inclusion of women‟s

experiences as a policy building block would not only make entrepreneurship promotion „better‟ in

terms of representation. One could also hypothesize that entrepreneurship promotion, which is built

upon situated knowledge will produce solutions that are better equipped to support women‟s efforts to

interact with structural constraints and conditions and their attempts to reform, transform and

overcome their disadvantaged positions. In addition, the post-structural concept of intersectionality

can be a powerful tool of analysis to think through, deconstruct and address how multiple identities

shape oppression and privilege. For those policies and programs that include the intention to overcome

poverty and generate gender just inclusive development, as is the case in many entrepreneurship

programs, it would be appropriate that marginalized and subordinated groups, acknowledging their

multiple identities are represented throughout the policy-making process. Thus the critical questions

for a policy-maker and development practitioner to be asked are: who has or should have a voice in the

policy-making process and say how the problem of gender inequality or exclusive development can be

solved through entrepreneurship promotion? How can underlying gendered power structures that

constrain inclusive economic growth be addressed through entrepreneurship promotion? As pointed

out by Ferree (2009) it is important to constantly reflect on how local context creates a „web of

meanings‟ which can help the policy-maker understand why in different contexts one finds a particular

approach to overcoming inequalities rather than another (Ferree, 2009). This calls for locally

embedded and participatory approaches to policy-making and the key importance of including and

building upon the lived experiences in daily life of women and men.

5 Just as policy analysts and development practitioners regularly carry out cost–benefit analyses or program impact studies, they can benefit

from the use of „situated knowledge and data‟ as the basis for conducting „gender-audits‟, „gender-risk assessments‟, gender-impact studies‟

or „gender-proofing‟, when designing and evaluating their policies, proposals and programs and make use of the wide-spread experience that

is available on „doing gender‟ in policy and program development and adapt or develop specific and appropriate tools for doing gender in

entrepreneurship promotion.

11

III. Considers a variety of policy outcomes: changing places

In contrast to the common perception that entrepreneurship is a positive activity, contributing to

growth and development or even reducing poverty, in a more feminist approach other outcomes would

also be considered. Following a critical realist stance as seen in feminist standpoint epistemology,

entrepreneurship may be seen as a process of social change, and part of everyday life, which does not

per se deliver positive outcomes defined in terms of growth and development. Feminist driven

entrepreneurship promotion would consider a variety of outcomes, including negative ones such as the

reproduction of gender stereotypes and inequalities, further exploitation of women‟s labour and the

overstretching of women‟s double burden. Outcomes then get a more transformative character,

thinking beyond the impact of entrepreneurship on economic opportunities. Feminist driven

entrepreneurship promotion in that sense potentially may change the life of a household, a

neighborhood, or a larger place through job creation for women, introducing gender-friendly support

structures in the work-place, gendered innovations, empowerment or re-negotiating the gendered work

division. This is in line with growing body of feminist driven research, which convincingly

demonstrates that in complex realities there is not one single trajectory that leads to positive change.

Barrientos and Evers (2013) for example have argued that the rise of female employment in global

production networks has contributed both to the advancement as well as to the further subordination of

women in developing countries. Also Kabeer (2014) found contradicting evidence on how changes in

the global market have both „pushed‟ women into the formal economy on one hand, and expanding

women‟s presence in the informal economy on the other. Hanson (2009) on the other hand found that

“although entrepreneurship is marked by deep stereotypical gender divisions, it is also one through

which people can change the meaning of gender and the way in which gender is lived” (P. 1).

Entrepreneurship potentially can change places, according to Hanson most notably through its social

relations and should be seen as a process that is both the cause and consequence of gender bias and

hierarchies in a number of ways. Feminist driven entrepreneurship promotion would thus be engaged

with asking questions such as what are the effects of private sector development on men and women

and how do they adjust to these changes? How might we use entrepreneurship as an instrument to

advance the feminist agenda?

IV. Beyond the doorstep: Acknowledge the link between entrepreneurship and the family

As pointed out in standpoint feminism, understanding and addressing how the gendered hierarchy of

patriarchy shapes everyday gendered relations of productive and unpaid care work is key in changing

any society. Feminist driven entrepreneurship promotion would thus entail an explicit recognition of

the deeply gendered structures of the usually left for granted or invisible unpaid care economy and

intra-household relationships in which most women operate and how these shape entrepreneurial

context and define outcomes of entrepreneurial behaviour (Razavi, 2013). According to Chant and

Brickell (2013) one of the main factors that perpetuate (and potentially intensify) gender disparities in

society is the fact that household and family are usually not addressed in policy interventions. A

growing body of knowledge demonstrates empirical evidence of how entrepreneurship cannot be

viewed in isolation of the family and society‟s gendered work division of unpaid care and reproductive

work (Ahl, 2012; for an overview see Vossenberg, 2013). Feminist driven entrepreneurship promotion

would entail the recognition of the fact that entrepreneurial behaviour and context is clearly shaped

and defined through these processes, given the fact that worldwide women‟s position in society to a

large extend depends on how care and the family is organized (elderly care, parental leave, day care,

etc.) and whether family policies or care services are provided by the market or state (Ahl, 2012).

Feminist driven entrepreneurship promotion might benefit from this recognition by building upon

locally situated data and knowledge on gendered hierarchies in households and related issues, such as

the distribution of labour and care responsibilities, headship, time investment and intra-household

12

power relationships and structures. It is worrisome that such knowledge and experiences remain

absent from policy analysis and contemporary databases that are widely used to shape and formulate

economic policy and private sector development6. By ignoring the family and the inseparable link

between entrepreneurship and care work, entrepreneurship promotion potentially risks losing out on

important opportunities for social change and gender inclusive development and instead adds up to the

work burden women already experience (Kabeer, 2014; Elson 1989; 1991; 2013).

The household and its family relationships are often considered as „off limits‟, especially in economic

development policy-making (Chant and Brickell, 2013). How family and domestic circumstances and

conditions might affect the business and access to resources are seldom addressed or analyzed.

Consequently, this (crucial) part of people‟s everyday lives remains beyond the span of influence. In

turn, no attention is paid to which household arrangements might be more „enabling‟ spaces for

entrepreneurship then others, resulting in growth, social change or empowerment (Kabeer, 2013).

Reasons Chant and Brickell (2013) argue may be that intervening in gendered family and household

dynamics are long term processes that might not be directly traceable (and measureable) by policy

interventions, leaving policy-makers unable to demonstrate (short term) impact (see also Pearson,

2007; Abeysekera 2004). They find that especially Northern donors demonstrate a reluctance and lack

of commitment to not only address and transform underlying intra-household gender inequalities but

moreover, acknowledge this in policy problem analysis. The home and family are seen as „private

domains‟ and undesirable objects of policy interference. Indeed, the recognition and examination of

the patriarchal power relations within a family or household Chant and Brickell (2013) argue, raises an

obvious dilemma: „how to treat the gender bias without shaking the foundations of the (idealized)

family unit?‟. Here lies an important task for those engaged with entrepreneurship promotion and

interested in change towards gender just inclusive economic development to move the debate beyond

feminist critique and into feminist engagement. We need to open up the domestic context for debate

and start asking the policy question: how can entrepreneurship promotion support men and women

when daily challenging and bending gendered power structures in their household and domestic

contexts that potentially constrain or advance entrepreneurial behavior?

5. Concluding remarks

Feminist critique echoes that most entrepreneurship research and policy formulation shares in a

discourse of economic growth and individualism while applying a liberal perspective of gender,

leaving patriarchal society unquestioned, ignoring women‟s role in unpaid care work and the gendered

powers in the domestic context. As a result such policy formulation does not aim to overcome the

underlying power structures that set structural barriers to the advancement of women‟s

entrepreneurship. In this paper it is argued that feminist perspectives can enhance our understanding

of entrepreneurship as a thoroughly gendered process which may shed light on how and why

businesses (don‟t) grow or graduate, if and how it leads to women‟s economic empowerment and how

it contributes to gender just inclusive growth? When we approach entrepreneurship promotion through

feminist epistemologies, fruitful and powerful premises for policy-making and program development

emerge. The differences lie in the conceptualization of entrepreneurship, women and gender which

may affect the design and formulation of the policy goal, problem analysis and strategies selected as

solutions to be implemented. As a result, policy intentions and outcomes potentially differ in terms of

effectiveness on advancing the poverty, development and gender justice agenda. I have argued that the

6 For example the Gender Inequality Index (UNDP), the Global Gender Gap Index (WEF) and the Global Entrepreneurship Women‟s Report

(GEM).

13

„critical realist‟ approach as found in feminist standpoint epistemology provides a strong basis for

thinking through feminist concerns about entrepreneurship promotion, and seems the most useful for

putting feminist theory into practice.

Table 1

Premises Feminist Driven Entrepreneurship Promotion Policy questions

I. Committed to gender justice

Commitment to gender justice is a goal in itself and entrepreneurship promotion need to have clear defined goals and theories of change, indicating how it aims to benefit women in particular and the advancement of gender just inclusive development in general.

How does entrepreneurship promotion reproduce, reduce or increase gender inequalities? Who or what is seen to be holding the problem of the gender bias in entrepreneurship?

II. Build on situated goals, problems and solutions

Entrepreneurship is a specific experience of specific people in specific places. Entrepreneurship promotion needs to define its goals, problems and solutions through „situated knowledge‟s‟.

What specific people, in specific places have or should have a voice in entrepreneurship promotion? How can specific underlying gendered power structures that constrain inclusive

economic growth be specifically addressed through appropriate entrepreneurship promotion?

III. Considers

different outcomes, besides economic values

Entrepreneurship is a phenomenon that can

reproduce, increase or decrease gendered local practices in a number of negative and positive ways. In entrepreneurship promotion such different outcomes need to be considered and evaluated.

How does entrepreneurship promotion

affect daily lives and experiences of individuals and communities? How can we use entrepreneurship as an instrument to advance the feminist agenda and change places?

IV. Acknowledges women‟s unpaid care work and intra-household power dynamics

Women play a predominant role in unpaid care work and households are sites of gendered power that affect entrepreneurial context and behaviour which need to be acknowledged and included in the policy-making process of defining goals, problems and solutions.

How can entrepreneurship promotion support men and women when daily challenging and bending gendered power structures in their household and domestic contexts that potentially constrain or advance entrepreneurial behavior?

Using a feminist approach to entrepreneurship promotion means to see value in, and explicitly include

what is usually ignored and under-valued in the policy-making process of problem definition and

evaluation. It also means that the phenomenon of entrepreneurship needs to be understood as a local

practice, in a specific context and in which gendered power structures are key to shape specific

entrepreneurial experiences and behaviours. In practice this would mean for example that „women

entrepreneurs‟ are not considered a homogenous group with unified problems that can be addresses

through gender-neutral programs nor „special women‟s programs‟. Instead, entrepreneurship

promotion is to have specific goals and solutions, addressing the specific problems that specific people

experience in specific places. It is assumed here that gender inequalities and gendered outcomes of

entrepreneurship can be addressed, transformed and eradicated by applying a feminist lens and gender-

sensitive approach in entrepreneurship promotion. My next step however, is to further explore whether

such feminist driven entrepreneurship promotion in the developing context has been either designed or

assessed and what can be said about its practices, instruments, effects and challenges? Needless to say,

further modifying and developing these premises in entrepreneurship promotion practice would bear a

rich exercise as it may sharpen and improve the design of future entrepreneurship promotion. This

may move the debate beyond critiquing the neo-liberal economic discourses dominant in

entrepreneurship promotion, towards deepening our understanding of how to engage with these

discourses and transform policy and program outcomes in such a way that they can address feminist

concerns.

14

References

Abeysekera, S. (2004). Social Movements, Feminist Movements and the State: A Regional Perspective. ISIS: Women in

Action. Examining feminist and social movements, Manila, 34-50.

Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5),

595-621.

Ahl, H. (2012). Comparing entrepreneurship policy in different welfare state regimes: lessons from a feminist perspective.

In: The joint ACERE-DIANA International Entrepreneurship Conference (pp. 11-11).

Ahl, H., and Nelson, T. (2010). Moving forward: institutional perspectives on gender and entrepreneurship. International

Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 5-9.

Alcoff, L., M., and Potter, E. (Eds.). (2013). Feminist epistemologies. Routledge.

Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge University Press.

Bacchi, C. L. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. Sage.

Bacchi, C. (2005). Discourse, Discourse Everywhere: Subject “Agency” in Feminist Discourse Methodology. Nordic Journal

of Women‟s Studies 13(3): 198–209.

Bacchi, C. (2009). The Issue of Intentionality in Frame Theory: The Need for Reflexive Framing. Pp. 19–35 in E. Lombardo,

P. Meier and M. Verloo (2009) The Discursive Politics of Gender Equality: Stretching, Bending and Policymaking. London:

Routledge.

Baughn, C. C., Chua, B. L., and Neupert, K. E. (2006). The normative context for women's participation in entrepreneurship:

a multicountry study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 687-708.

Barrientos, S., and Kabeer, N. (2013). Enhancing female employment in global production: policy implications. Global

Social Policy, 4(2), 153-169.

Barrientos, S., and Evers, B. (2013). Gendered Production Networks. In: Rai and Waylen (2013) New Frontiers in Feminist

Political Economy. London: Routledge.

Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. Taylor and Francis.

Brickell, K. (2011). The „Stubborn Stain‟ on Development: Gendered Meanings of Housework (Non-) Participation in

Cambodia. Journal of Development Studies, 47(9), 1353-1370.

De Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., and Welter, F. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: towards building cumulative knowledge

on women's entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and practice, 30(5), 585-593.

Bradshaw, S. (2008). From Structural Adjustment to Social Adjustment A Gendered Analysis of Conditional Cash Transfer

Programmes in Mexico and Nicaragua. Global Social Policy, 8(2), 188-207.

Bruin, de, Brush and Welter (2007). Advancing a Framework for Coherent Research on Women‟s Entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice Volume 31, Issue 3: 323–339.

Brush, de Bruin and Welter (2009) A gender-aware Framework for women‟s entrepreneurship. International Journal of

Gender and Entrepreneurship, Vol.1, No. 1, 2009, p. 8-24.

Butler (1990) Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London, New York: Routledge.

Calás, M. B., Smircich, L., & Bourne, K. A. (2009). Extending the boundaries: Reframing “entrepreneurship as social

change” through feminist perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 552-569.

15

Carter, S and Marlow, S. (2003) Accounting for change: Professionalism as a challenge to gender disadvantage in

entrepreneurship. In J. Butler (Ed.), New perspectives on women entrepreneurs, p. 181–202, Greenwich, CT: Information

Age Publishing.

Chant, S. H. (2007). Gender, generation and poverty: exploring the feminisation of poverty in Africa, Asia and Latin

America. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Chant, S., and Brickell, K. (2013). Domesticating and de-patriarchalizing the development agenda. In: Rai and Waylen

(2013) New Frontiers in Feminist Political Economy, London: Routledge.

Clegg, S. (2006). The problem of agency in feminism: A critical realist approach. Gender and Education, 18(3), 309-324.

Cornwall, A., Harrison, E., and Whitehead, A. (Eds.). (2007). Feminisms in development: contradictions, contestations and

challenges. Zed Books

Collins, P. H. (2000). Gender, black feminism, and black political economy. The Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, 568(1), 41-53.

Collins, P. H. (2003). Some group matters: Intersectionality, situated standpoints, and black feminist thought. In Tommy Lee

Lott & John P. Pittman (eds.), A Companion to African-American Philosophy. Blackwell Pub. (2003)

Crasnow, S. (2006). Feminist anthropology and sociology: Issues for social science. Handbook of the philosophy of

science, 15.

Duflo, E (2011). Women‟s Empowerment and Economic Development. Journal of Economic Literature 2012, 50(4), 1051–

1079.

Elson, D. (2013). Economic Crisis from the 1980s to the 2010s. In: Rai and Waylen (2013) New Frontiers in Feminist

Political Economy, 189. Routledge: London.

Elson, D. (Ed.). (1991). Male bias in the development process. Manchester University Press.

Elson, D. (1993). Gender‐aware analysis and development economics. Journal of International Development, 5(2), 237-247.

Ferree, M. M. (2009). Inequality, intersectionality and the politics of discourse. The discursive politics of gender equality.

London: Routledge, 86-104.

Foucault, M. (2012). The archaeology of knowledge. Random House LLC.

Greene, P. G., Brush, C. G., and Gatewood, E. J. (2006). Perspectives on women entrepreneurs: past findings and new

directions. Entrepreneurship: The Engine of Growth, 1, 181-204.

Goedhuys, M., and L. Sleuwaegen (2002). Growth of Firms in Developing Countries, Evidence from Cote d‟Ivoire, Journal

of Development Economics, 68: 117-35.

Goedhuys, M. and L. Sleuwaegen (2010). High-Growth Entrepreneurial Firms in Africa: a Quantile Regression Approach,

Small Business Economics, 34: 31–51.

Hanson, S. (2009). Changing places through women's entrepreneurship. Economic Geography, 85(3), 245-267.

Harding, S. (1987) Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology: p. 1–14.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Harding, S. (1987) Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology: p. 1–14.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Harding, S. (1991) Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women‟s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

16

Harding, S. (2006). Science and social inequality: Feminist and postcolonial issues. University of Illinois Press.

Harraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial

perspective. Feminist studies, 575-599.

Hughes, K. D., Jennings, J. E., Brush, C., Carter, S., and Welter, F. (2012). Extending women's entrepreneurship research in

new directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3), 429-442.

Intemann, K. (2005). Feminism, underdetermination, and values in science. Philosophy of science, 72(5), 1001-1012.

Intemann, K. (2010). 25 Years of Feminist Empiricism and Standpoint Theory: Where Are We Now? Hypatia, 25(4), 778-

796.

Jackson, C. (2006). Feminism spoken here: Epistemologies for interdisciplinary development research. Development and

Change, 37(3), 525-547.

Jamali, D. (2009). Constraints and opportunities facing women entrepreneurs in developing countries: a relational

perspective. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 24(4), 232-251.

James, A. (2012). Conceptualizing “woman” as an entrepreneurial advantage: A reflexive approach. In: K.D. Hughes andJ.E.

Jennings(Eds.), Global women's entrepreneurship research: Diverse settings, questions and approaches (pp. 226–240).

Cheltenham/Northampton, U.K.: Edward Elgar.

Kabeer, N. (1994). Reversed realities: Gender hierarchies in development thought. Verso.

Kabeer, N. (2013). Paid work, women‟s empowerment and inclusive growth. UN Women Policy Paper, UN Women.

Kabeer, N. (2014). Gender and Social Protection Strategies in the Informal Economy. London: Routledge.

Kelley, J. D., Brush, G. C., Greene, G. P., and Y. Litovsky (2013). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2012 Women's

Report. Center for Women‟s Leadership, Babson College.

Lombardo, E., Meier, P., andVerloo, M. (2010). Discursive Dynamics in Gender Equality Politics What about „Feminist

Taboos‟? European Journal of Women's Studies, 17(2), 105-123.

Lombardo, E., Meier, P., and Verloo, M. (Eds.). (2009). The discursive politics of gender equality: stretching, bending and

policy-making. Routledge: London.

Lombardo, E., & Verloo, M. (2009). Institutionalizing intersectionality in the European Union? Policy developments and

contestations. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 11(4), 478-495.

Moi, T. (1999). What Is a Woman? Sex, Gender, and the Body in Feminist Theory. What is a woman? And other essays, 3-

120.

Marlow, S., and M. McAdam (2013). Gender and entrepreneurship: advancing debate and challenging myths; exploring the

mystery of the under-performing female entrepreneur. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and

Research, 19(1), 114-124.

Minniti, M., and W. Naudé (2010). What Do We Know About The Patterns and Determinants of Female Entrepreneurship

Across Countries? European Journal of Development Research, 22(3), 277-293.

Muntean, S. C. (2013). Wind beneath my wings: policies promoting high-growth oriented women

entrepreneurs. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 36-59.

Naudé, W. and A. Szirmai (2013), Industrial Policy for Development, UNU-WIDER Policy Brief, Number 2, 2013.

17

Pearson, R. (2007). Reassessing paid work and women's empowerment: lessons from the global economy. In: Cornwall, A.,

Harrison, E., & Whitehead, A. (Eds.). (2007). Feminisms in development: contradictions, contestations and challenges. Zed

Books.

Potter, E. (2006). Feminism and philosophy of science. Routledge: London

Racine, L. (2011). The Impact of Race, Gender, and Class in Postcolonial Feminist Fieldwork: A Retrospective Critique of

Methodological Dilemmas.Aporia, 3(1).

Rai, S. M., and G. Waylen (2013). New Frontiers in Feminist Political Economy. Routledge: London.

Razavi, S. (2011). World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development: An Opportunity Both Welcome and

Missed (An Extended Commentary). United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).

Razavi, S., and Staab, S. (Eds.). (2012). Global Variations in the Political and Social Economy of Care: Worlds Apart (Vol.

8). Routledge: London.

Rönnblom, M. (2005). Letting women in? Gender mainstreaming in regional policies. Nordic Journal of Women's

Studies, 13(03), 164-174.

Sholkamy, H. (2010). Power, Politics and Development in the Arab Context: Or how can rearing chicks change patriarchy &

quest. Development, 53(2), 254-258.

Szirmai, A., W. Naudé and M. Goedhuys (2011). Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and EconomicDevelopment, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: WW Norton.

Symington, A. (2004). Intersectionality: A Tool for Gender and Economic Justice. Women‟s Rights and Economic

Change. Association for Women‟s Rights in Development (AWID) No, 9, 4.

True, J. (2010). Mainstreaming gender in international institutions. Gender Matters in Global Politics: A feminist

introduction to international relations, 189-203.

Verloo, M., and Lombardo, E. (2007). Contested gender equality and policy variety in Europe: Introducing a critical frame

analysis approach. Multiple Meanings of Gender Equality. A Critical Frame Analysis of Gender Policies in Europe, 21-49.

Verloo, M. M. T., and van der Vleuten, J. M. (2009). The discursive logic of ranking and benchmarking: Understanding

gender equality measures in the European Union. In: Lombardo, E., Meier, P., & Verloo, M. (Eds.). (2009). The discursive

politics of gender equality: stretching, bending and policy-making. Routledge.

Vossenberg, S. (2013). Women Entrepreneurship Promotion in Developing Countries: What explains the gender gap in

entrepreneurship and how to close it? Maastricht School of Management Working Paper Series, No. 2013/08.

Walby, S (2005). Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Tensions in Theory and Practice. Social Politics 12(3): 321–43.

Woodward, K. (Ed.). (2004). Questioning identity: gender, class, nation. Routledge: London.

Welter, F., Brush, C., and de Bruin, A. (2014). The gendering of entrepreneurship context (No. 01/14). Working Paper,

Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (IfM) Bonn.

Win, E. J. (2004). Not very poor, powerless or pregnant: The African woman forgotten by development. IDS Bulletin, 35(4),

61-64.