Small Bus Econ

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-9992-9

A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems

Candida Brush & Linda F. Edelman & Tatiana Manolova &
Friederike Welter

Accepted: 15 December 2017

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract Underlying entrepreneurship ecosystems is the JEL classification B54 . J16 . L26
implicit assumption that all entrepreneurs have equal access
to resources, participation, and support, as well as an equal
chance of a successful outcome (venture start-up). However
1 Introduction
in practice, this is not always the case. Research finds that
when it comes to many aspects of the entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship ecosystems involve a number of inter-
ecosystem, women are at a disadvantage. In this paper,
connected elements that are mutually reinforcing, facil-
we offer a brief overview of current ecosystem frameworks
itating innovation and the growth of entrepreneurship
pointing out where Bgender^ matters in ecosystems at the
(Aulet 2008; Brush 2014; Fetters et al. 2010; Isenberg
institutional, organizational, and individual levels. We go
2010; Kantis and Federico 2012). Entrepreneurship eco-
on to present a summary of the contributions to this special
systems include a conducive culture, the availability of
edition and conclude with suggestions for future research.
financing, the acquisition and development of human
capital, new markets for products and services, and a
range of institutional and infrastructural supports
Keywords Entrepreneurship ecosystems . Gender .
(Isenberg 2011; WEF 2013). Entrepreneurship ecosys-
Institutional level . Organizational level . Individual level
tems are by nature dynamic, and actors and institutions
are interdependent in that they are influenced by, and in
C. Brush turn influence, their particular entrepreneurship ecosys-
Babson College, Wellesley, MA, USA tem (Acs et al. 2017; Feld 2012; Spigel 2017).
e-mail: cbrush@babson.edu Behind the concept of entrepreneurship ecosystems
L. F. Edelman (*) : T. Manolova
is a growing motivation to develop programs, policies,
Bentley University, Waltham, MA, USA and initiatives to promote entrepreneurship and grow
e-mail: ledelman@bentley.edu entrepreneurial activity across regions (Auerswald
2015; Isenberg 2014; World Economic Forum 2013).
T. Manolova Along with policy and practical interest, a rising number
e-mail: tmanolova@bentley.edu
of academic studies explore the theoretical foundations,
conceptualizations, and lineages of entrepreneurship
F. Welter ecosystems (Mack and Mayer 2016; Spigel 2017;
IfM Bonn, Bonn, Germany Stam and Spigel 2016), as appeared most recently in a
e-mail: welter@uni-siegen.de
special issue of this journal (Acs et al. 2017) and a
F. Welter forthcoming special issue in Strategic Entrepreneurship
Universitat Siegen, Siegen, Germany Journal (Autio et al. 2017; Spigel and Harrison 2017).
 C. Brush et al.

Underlying most entrepreneurship ecosystem frame- satisfied with lending relationships (Coleman 2000;
works is the assumption that all entrepreneurs have equal Treichel and Scott 2006; Coleman and Robb 2012).
access to resources, participation, and support, as well as an The access to capital challenge increases when exam-
equal chance of a successful outcome (venture start-up) ining women’s access to equity capital. There is a clear
within the entrepreneurship ecosystem. In theory, this is a and pervasive gap in the venture capital funding rates
reasonable assumption, but in practice, we find this is not between women- and men-led businesses. The most re-
always the case. There is substantial evidence that women cent examination of all US venture capital funded busi-
entrepreneurs’ participation, access to resources, and out- nesses between 2011 and 2013 found that only 15% had
comes in ecosystems vary from those of men. For instance, one woman on the executive team and only 3% had a
if we consider the recent Global Entrepreneurship Monitor woman CEO (Brush et al. 2014a, 2018). Several theories
(GEM) Global Women’s Report, we see substantial differ- are offered to explain the disparity, including social cap-
ences in start-up rates between men and women in 74 ital, human capital, strategic choice, and perceived risk
economies, with only five economies showing parity (Carter et al. 2003), but these theories do not offer suffi-
(GEM Global Report, 2016/2017). Similarly, across all cient explanation for the rationale as to why venture
levels of development, women are 20% more likely to cite capitalists would not invest in women-led ventures. In
necessity (rather than opportunity) motives for start-up, fact, many fundable women entrepreneurs had the requi-
even though at individual level, women tend to have equiv- site skills and experience to lead high-growth ventures
alent human capital (education). These differences are at- (Brush et al. 2014a, b). Nonetheless, such women entre-
tributed to several different framework conditions, which preneurs have been consistently left out of the networks of
are in essence, ecosystem attributes (institutions, cultural, growth capital finance and appeared to lack the contacts
political, economic, infrastructure, financial markets, poli- needed to Bbreak through^ to access this network and
cies and programs, etc. http://www.gemconsortium. obtain the venture funding their ventures needed.
org/wiki/1148). For example, ecosystem factors such as When we look at sectors where women entrepreneurs
programs and economic support for child care may are creating jobs, in the USA they are expected to create
facilitate and encourage more women to participate in over half of the 9.72 million new small business jobs by
entrepreneurship across economies (Brush and Greene 2018,1 although most of these jobs are lower-tech. Entre-
2016; Elam and Terjesen 2010). There is also evidence that preneurial sectors, such as STEM and advanced technolo-
family support is particularly important for high-growth- gies, have fewer women entrepreneurs. Recent evidence
oriented ventures (Thébaud 2015). In economies where from Crunchbase shows that there are fewer women
women are participating equally with men in the labor starting technology businesses, and that hostile work envi-
force, achieving wage parity and where they are equally ronments encourage women to leave this sector (Hewlett
likely to serve as managers or executives and in technical 2014).2 Statistics indicate that of 43,008 global technology
and professional fields, they also are as likely to be starting companies with founders achieving initial funding between
businesses, including those started out of opportunity, as 2009 and 2017, about 16% had one female founder. For
well as running established ones (Brush et al. 2017). women operating in high technology incubators, research
More specifically, there is continuing evidence that shows that stereotypical gendered expectations surrounding
access to start-up capital is a challenge for women. The high technology venturing reproduces masculine norms for
Survey of Small Business shows that nearly 65% of entrepreneurial behavior (Marlow and McAdam 2012).
women-led firms start with less than $5000 while about Not only is there evidence that entrepreneurship ecosys-
45% of men-led firms start with the same amount of tem factors differentially influence men and women but
capital (NWBC 2017). Another study shows that men also there is emerging data that show the effects of women
launch their businesses with an average of $135,000 com- on entrepreneurship ecosystems. A follow-up study of
pared to $75,000 for women (Coleman and Robb 2012). participants across 15 countries, in the Goldman Sachs
While some of these differences might be explained by the 10,000 Women Project indicated that 12–18 months after
increased prevalence of women in services and retail, this
is not a comprehensive explanation. Other work shows 1
https://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2012/06/08
that women are just as willing to use debt financing, but
/entrepreneurship-is-the-new-womens-movement/#5aaa920f3b4c.
they receive less favorable treatment in terms of loan size, 2
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/19/in-2017-only-17-of-startups-
interest rates, and collateral requirements, and they are less have-a-female-founder/.
A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems

completion of the program, 90% of the 3000 women matters in ecosystem frameworks across institutional,
entrepreneurs Bpaid it forward^ by mentoring other women organizational, and individual levels; third, we present
entrepreneurs in their ecosystems (Brush et al. 2014b). a summary of the contributions to this issue. Finally, we
They became role models and helped to provide skills offer suggestions for future research that may shed light
and coaching to other aspiring women entrepreneurs. Other on specific areas within ecosystem frameworks where
studies show that women entrepreneurs tend to invest a gender matters and where women influence or are in-
higher proportion of their income back into their families fluenced in this regard.
and communities than men and allocate more money to-
wards food and children’s education (Siba 2016). There-
fore, we see that women are not only impacted by ecosys- 2 Overview of entrepreneurial ecosystem
tems, but in return they impact others in their ecosystems. frameworks
Despite evidence that women are influenced by and, in
turn, influence ecosystems, theory explaining how and Early representations of entrepreneurship ecosystems
when variation by gender might apply differentially is proposed that interdependent actors within geographic
seemingly absent from most discussions of entrepreneur- regions influenced the formation and trajectory of the
ship ecosystems. Our review of recent articles finds that economy as a whole and that these components would
even though cultural and social attributes (e.g., networks, eventually generate new venture creation over time
mentors, role models) are included, no mention of possi- (Spilling 1996; Van de Ven 1993). Neck et al. (2004)
ble gender influences is considered (Acs et al. 2017). examined the components of an entrepreneurial ecosys-
Diversity of ecosystems is generally concerned with va- tem, formal and informal networks, physical
riety of businesses and industries, and system participants infrastructure, and community culture, finding these
(e.g., stakeholders) as well as business models support collectively influenced the development of a
organizations and growth orientation of ventures (Roundy technology cluster. More recently Isenberg (2010) sug-
et al. 2017). Further, it is argued that founders with similar gested that the creation of a successful entrepreneurship
growth intentions will behave similarly in pursuing their ecosystem was dependent on conducive culture, en-
outcomes (e.g., growth, innovation), with the presump- abling policies and leadership, availability of finance,
tion that all actors have the same access to support sys- quality human capital, venture-friendly markets for
tems and resources within the ecosystem. products, and a range of institutional and infrastructural
Therefore, we conceived the idea for this special supports. Isenberg, who tested his model in Manizales,
issue, following the annual Diana International Confer- Colombia and other locations, argues that there is no
ence3 in 2015, held in Wellesley, Mass. at Babson single formula, but it is a bottom up process that seeks
College. We sought papers that broadly fit with the inputs, engages individuals, activates stakeholders, cre-
overarching theme of women entrepreneurs in ecosys- ates a platform, and expands programs leading to an
tems; specifically, papers that explored the impact of increasing number of companies that grow more and
women’s entrepreneurship on ecosystems, as well as the grow more rapidly (Isenberg and Onyemah 2016).
influences of ecosystem factors on women entrepre- Similar to Isenberg’s model, the World Economic
neurs. For this special issue, we received upwards of Forum (WEF) (2013) identifies seven components: mar-
50 submissions, all of which were triple blind reviewed. kets, culture, education and training, regulatory frame-
The remainder of this article proceeds as follows: work and infrastructure, funding and finance, and hu-
first, we offer a brief overview of current ecosystem man capital. In these cases, regional or community
frameworks; second, we point out where Bgender^ efforts are involved to develop a vibrant ecosystem.
New firms emerge and grow not only because talented
3
The Diana Project was launched in 1999 by Professors Brush, Carter, and visionary individuals (entrepreneurs) created them
Gatewood, Greene, and Hart, to study the phenomenon of women’s
and develop them but also because they are located in an
entrepreneurship in the USA. The Diana Project team, in partnership
with ESBRI (Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research Institute, environment or Becosystem^ made of private and public
Sweden), inaugurated the Diana International Project (DIP) in 2003. players, which nurture and sustain them, making the
DIP currently involves researchers from 16 countries worldwide and actions of entrepreneurs easier.
aims to provide a platform from which to develop, conduct and share a
global research agenda dedicated to answering questions about women Stam and Spigel (2016), following more of an inno-
entrepreneurs and growth oriented businesses. vation systems perspective, suggest that ecosystems are
 C. Brush et al.

regionally based and result from interactions and net- activity of some type is an outcome, and that there are
work connections among actors, defining entrepreneur- a combination of institutional, sociocultural, and eco-
ial ecosystems as Ba set of interdependent actors and nomic factors involved (Brown and Mason 2017). In
factors coordinated in such a way that they enable addition, most research highlights the importance of
productive entrepreneurship^ (p. 1). They argue that community, in that there are various actors that in some
start-ups are at the center of the ecosystem, that the way support entrepreneurs financially, socially, or emo-
entrepreneur is the core actor in building a sustaining tionally (Spigel and Harrison 2017). However, there is
ecosystem, and that knowledge, entrepreneurial, techni- no consensus on the actual attributes, the catalyst (the
cal and market are essential. In contrast to Isenberg, they entrepreneur or policy-makers), or the outcomes (start-
suggest that visible entrepreneurial leaders and networks ups, productive businesses, wealth, or high growth)
of entrepreneurs are at the heart of the ecosystem. Fol- (Brown and Mason 2017; Spigel 2017; Stam and
lowing Stam (2015), they propose a three level model: Spigel 2016). There also is little consensus on the actual
key elements of which are systemic and framework measures and metrics for success (Acs et al. 2014, 2017;
conditions, outputs (entrepreneurial activity), and out- Stam and Spigel 2016). Notably, Brown and Mason
comes (aggregate value creation). While there is a feed- note that Bthe initial conceptualizations of EE’s appear
back loop, the model is inherently linear. to be somewhat under-socialized, lacking a time dimen-
Mason and Brown (2014), following economic ge- sion and fail to incorporate the full complexities of the
ography and regional development theory, define entre- socio-spatial context mediating entrepreneurship^
preneurial ecosystems as B(A) set of interconnected (2017, p. 15). Stangler and Bell-Masterson (2015) sug-
entrepreneurial actors, entrepreneurial organizations, in- gest that there are four major categories for measuring
stitutions and entrepreneurial processes which formally the vibrancy of a local entrepreneurial ecosystem and
and informally coalesce to connect, mediate and govern focus on density, fluidity, connectivity, and diversity,
the performance within the local entrepreneurial each having four measures.
environment^(p. 5). They argue that while every eco- Following on Brown and Mason’s (2017) observa-
system is unique, spatial boundedness is common to all. tion, we find that most current definitions presume
Different from Stam and Spigel (2016), they note that objective factors and elements, more often rooted in
the dynamics of ecosystems can be scale up or embry- economics. For example, the notion of Bproductive
onic and propose a taxonomy that characterizes the key entrepreneurship^ is anchored in Baumol’s (1990)
actors—connectors, resource providers and culture, in- work, which argues that productive entrepreneurship is
teractions, and mindsets within ecosystems. the result of ambitions entrepreneurs who explore op-
Other work suggests that ecosystems may either portunities to discover new opportunities and achieve
facilitate or hinder entrepreneurial activity. For exam- growth or innovation exceeding that of the Baverage^
ple, the existence of prior ventures, the availability of entrepreneur (Stam and Spigel 2016). In this view, the
start-up financing mechanisms, a patent system, and a entrepreneurial process involves risk-taking behavior,
culture tolerating failure all facilitate the creation of creating new goods and services, which are explored,
new firms through a supportive entrepreneurial eco- evaluated, and exploited, and leading to innovative and
system, while conversely, an ecosystem might hinder high-growth entrepreneurship (Schumpeter 1934;
entrepreneurship as in corrupt societies or if an entre- Shane and Venkataraman 2000).
preneur tries to introduce a radical innovation when no While current perspectives and frameworks for en-
technical standard yet exists (Stam and Bosma 2015). trepreneurship ecosystems are on the surface relevant
As a result, countries, governments, communities, in- and appropriate for considering factors that facilitate or
stitutions, and cities are making efforts to deliberately inhibit entrepreneurship, these discussions do not take
develop local conditions, programs, and policies by into account that causes of variation may be due to
involving a wide variety of stakeholders to become gender. This apparent omission of gender is likely due
more entrepreneurial, in a way that is unique to their to the current framing of ecosystems within economic
area, that is dynamic and self-sustaining (Isenberg geography, regional development, and information eco-
2010; Stam and Spigel 2016). nomic theories (Brown and Mason 2017; Feldman
Generally, there is some consensus that ecosystems 2014; Stam and Spigel 2016). While gender may be
are regionally or spatially based, that entrepreneurial implicit in definitions of culture (Isenberg 2010; WEF
A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems

2013), or diversity of ecosystem participants (Roundy 3.1 Institutional level

et al. 2017), or what is meant by social status of self-
employment, role models, or start-up communities Institutions set constraining and enabling boundaries for
(Mason and Brown 2014), we argue that explicit recog- individual behaviors and actions, by influencing the
nition of gender may enhance theory and elaborate our nature and extent of entrepreneurship, its development,
understanding of entrepreneurship ecosystems and its outcomes (Welter and Smallbone 2011, 2012).
generally. As enabling forces, they can reduce transaction costs,
uncertainty, and risks of individual behavior; as
constraining forces, they can add to transaction costs
for entering entrepreneurship and developing a business
3 How gender matters in entrepreneurial ecosystems and they affect the returns from entrepreneurship. Insti-
tutional forces shape both individual interests and de-
Gender refers to the individual’s state of possessing sires and opportunity structures, framing possibilities for
characteristics related to being masculine or feminine action and influencing whether these behaviors result in
(Muehlenhard and Peterson 2011; Unger 1979), while persistence or change (Powell and Colyvas 2008).
sex refers to biological aspects of men and women. Regulatory, normative, and cognitive institutions can
Gendered attributes may refer to individuals and their all be of gendered nature. It is argued that gender aspects
roles, organizations, or institutions (Acker 1990; may often be in the Bhidden^ aspects, or informal prac-
Hanson 2009; Johnson and Repta 2013). More specifi- tices, rules, and norms (Chappell and Waylen 2013).
cally, ambitious, bold, and risk-taking behavior sug- Gender may be manifested in institutions both nominal-
gested by these definitions are associated with mascu- ly, the results of men’s historical ongoing dominance of
linity and masculine behaviors of entrepreneurship (Ahl positions of power, and substantively, which is related to
2006; Baughn et al. 2006; Bird and Brush 2002). Fur- gender biases, which emerge from social norms founded
ther, the practice of pursuing high-growth entrepreneur- on accepted ideas about masculinity or femininity. Reg-
ship, in particular those with aggressive funding goals ulatory, normative, and cultural-cognitive institutions
that are more likely to pursue venture capital funding, influence, both direct and indirectly (Scott 2008),
has been consistently considered a masculine behavior whether an individual perceives entrepreneurship as
(Gupta et al. 2009). It has been noted that due to the desirable and feasible (Shapero and Sokol 1982) and
masculine context of entrepreneurship, Bthe stereotype whether entrepreneurs channel their resources into pro-
of ‘think successful entrepreneur – think male’^ con- ductive and innovative activities (Baumol 1990).
tinues to endure (Eddleston et al. 2016: 497; Marlow Regulatory institutions refer to any rules which di-
and Swail 2014). In addition to these differences in rectly influence the costs of setting up a business,
perceptions, there is evidence that men and women conducting business activity, and closing a venture and
have different access and outcomes in ecosystems. For any policies that impact the desirability and feasibility of
example, Hanson (2009) considers how women’s entre- entrepreneurship. Further, the government designs, im-
preneurship is influenced by habitualized patterns and plements, and enforces regulatory institutions. Regula-
interactions within institutions, while at the same time, tory institutions can have a hidden gender dimension
influencing the dynamics of entrepreneurial places by which reduces the feasibility and desirability of entre-
virtue of creating greater heterogeneity in business own- preneurship for women. For example, in countries
ership, shifting power over resources, and social rela- where women cannot own property (Hampel-Milagrosa
tions and networks. 2010), they may face additional difficulties in acquiring
While gender encompasses both men and women, external funding for setting up or growing a business.
we focus on both gender as a concept (masculine and Alternatively, when women own a business, they may
feminine aspects), as well as women and their busi- have to balance double responsibilities for family and
nesses because they are less often included in studies work, while at the same time possibly experiencing
of women’s entrepreneurship (Jennings and Brush disagreement and a lack of emotional support from their
2013). We therefore explore how and where gender family, all of which can further affect business develop-
matters for entrepreneurial ecosystems at three levels: ment. In her analysis of GEM data from 24 industrial-
institutional, organizational, and individual. ized countries over the span of 8 years, Thébaud (2015)
 C. Brush et al.

finds that in countries where favorable institutional ar- questions induce corresponding responses, so that the
rangements such as paid leave, subsidized childcare, regulatory focus of the resultant system perpetuates
and part-time employment opportunities mitigate disparities in funding outcomes.
work-family conflict, women are less likely to opt for Research has indicated quite a few regulatory, nor-
business ownership as a fallback employment strategy, mative, and cultural-cognitive institutions with a poten-
but are more well represented in growth-oriented forms tial gender impact. These include the constitution pro-
of entrepreneurship. Estrin and Mickiewicz (2011) show viding for gender equality in a society; labor market
the complex relations between regulatory and normative rules giving equal access to employment positions; fam-
institutions and the outcomes of women’s entrepreneur- ily and tax policies, such as specific tax regulations and
ship: for example, if women cannot move freely from the overall infrastructure for childcare; and property
home, they are less likely to show high entrepreneurial rights that may allow or prevent female ownership of
aspirations in terms of employment growth even if land, together with the predominant gender ideology
business entry is not affected. and gender stereotypes in a particular society (e.g., Ahl
Normative institutions influence the desirability of and Nelson 2010; Elam and Terjesen 2010; Estrin and
entrepreneurship for women because they determine Mickiewicz 2011; Langevang et al. 2015; Lewellyn and
acceptable roles for individuals within a society and Muller-Kahle 2015; Sjöberg 2004; Verheul et al. 2006;
typical role behavior (Ahl 2006; Baughn et al. 2006; Welter et al. 2014; Welter and Smallbone 2008).
Martin et al. 2015). For example, whether or not a career
as an entrepreneur is valued in society is measured in 3.2 Organizational level
GEM studies and there is variation around the world on
this attitude (GEM Global Report, 2016/2017. Many Gender is argued to be a constitutive element in organi-
societies continue to ascribe housebound and family- zational logic, manifested through underlying assump-
related roles to women, thus implicitly marking entre- tions and practices that make up most work organiza-
preneurship as a less-desirable career choice for women tions (Acker 1990). There are three predominant views
(Pfau-Effinger 2004). Where traditional gender roles of how gender may be manifested in organizations: first,
persist, entrepreneurship also is typically characterized through Bthe advantage and disadvantage, exploitation
as masculine behavior and activity (Fagenson and and control, action and emotion, meaning and identity
Marcus 1991), which can further discourage women. that are pattered through and in terms of a distinction
Entry may be self-restricted to feminized professions, between male and female, masculine and feminine^
sectors, and business fields such as personal services or (Acker 1990: 146); second, the extent to which organi-
care professions (Marlow 2002). This contributes to zations and occupations are male or female dominated
horizontal and vertical gender segregation in (Kanter 1977); and finally, the way in which occupa-
entrepreneurship. tions or organizations are gendered symbolically and
Cultural-cognitive institutions shape the cognitive ideologically, how they are described and conceived in
legitimacy, or Btaken-for-grantedness,^ (Suchman terms of masculinities and femininities (Britton 2000).
1995) of entrepreneurial new ventures. If key social Within an entrepreneurship ecosystem, there are a
constituencies of the entrepreneurship ecosystem, such variety of participating organizations that provide sup-
as suppliers, buyers, regulatory agencies, resource pro- port, training, and participate in the process of stimulat-
viders, or the media, are not sure what to make out of an ing new venture creation (Feld 2012; Isenberg 2010;
organization or are reluctant to accept its outputs, the Stam and Spigel 2016). For example, professional ser-
new venture’s viability and survival chances will be vice organizations—real estate, legal, accounting, insur-
seriously jeopardized. Gaining cognitive legitimacy is ance, and consulting companies all play a role in pro-
a difficult task for all new organizations (Stinchcombe viding specialized support for start-ups. The presence of
1965), but it may be particularly daunting for some accelerators and incubators, co-working spaces, and other
types of women-led entrepreneurial ventures. In the intermediaries that provide spaces and support are also
context of venture financing, for example, Kanze et al. considered essential for creating a vibrant entrepreneurial
(2017) document that investors ask promotion-focused ecosystem. Gender may be manifested with these organi-
questions to male entrepreneurs and prevention-focused zations in different ways that can differentially support or
questions to female entrepreneurs. These gendered inhibit men and women. Following Acker (1990), we
A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems

note three areas where organizations may be gendered mechanism by which individuals are connected
within entrepreneurship ecosystems. and positioned within a social field (Granovetter
1985). Networks shape identity of entrepreneurs
1. Construction of divisions along lines of gender. and institutions and are crucial for the exchange of
Within organizations, this includes division of la- information. Entrepreneurship research shows some
bor—for example, the horizontal or vertical segre- evidence that the network structures may be gen-
gation of work roles and opportunities for women dered, where women may have more women in
may lead to gender differences within an entrepre- their networks than men or they might have less
neurial ecosystem. Horizontal occupational segre- access to people in powerful positions (Aldrich et al.
gation may mean that women are less likely to 1989; Foss 2010; Hanson and Blake 2009).
pursue business ownership in certain sectors, be- Gender itself shapes patterns of social interac-
cause they have not had the opportunity to develop tions (Ridgeway and Smith-Lovin 1999). Within
skills, competencies, and industry knowledge. For networks, some environments may be perceived as
example, as noted earlier, women entrepreneurs are more trusting than others, depending on legitimacy
less likely to be present in STEM industries of the actors (Granovetter 1985). A person’s legiti-
(Coleman and Robb 2016). Vertical occupational macy and trustworthiness may be signaled through
segregation may mean that women will have less the institutions to which she belongs which might
opportunity to develop leadership and decision- include an industry sector, size, and type of new
making experience relevant to business ownership. venture created. For resource providers, there may
There is evidence that women are less likely to be be perceptions that women are less legitimate or
present in the senior leadership ranks of large com- trustworthy in pursuing entrepreneurial activities
panies or to serve on their boards of directors and casting doubt over the legitimacy of the whole
(http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos- enterprise (Bruni et al. 2004; Mirchandani 1999).
sp-500). This may influence the human capital and Other research shows that gender affects network-
experience levels in starting/growing businesses, ing and bootstrapping behavior in early stages of
which may impact the supply of entrepreneurial business development (Carter et al. 2003). Specifi-
ventures (Nielsen and Huse 2010). Similarly, gen- cally, gender differences are identified in the use of
der segregation may also influence income, where- strong and weak ties to support bootstrapping activ-
by women may be paid less for the same work, ities. A number of variations are subject to gendered
therefore have lower funds with which to start busi- influences; in addition, men and women make dif-
nesses (Major and Forcey 1985). Spatial divisions fering use of brokers (Jayawarna et al. 2015).
along gender lines also exist. An extreme case is the
spatial segregation driven by Shari’a laws in Mus- 2. Construction of symbols and images that express
lim societies, which creates distinct and intricately and reinforce gender divisions—language, ideolo-
interwoven Bmale,^ Bfemale,^ and Bmixed^ public gy, and cultural aspects. Within organizations, cul-
spaces and institutions in the entrepreneurship eco- tural images of gender are invented and reproduced
system (Le Renard 2008). Spatial gender by organizations. In entrepreneurship ecosystems,
Bmismatch^ may also result from differential com- the media, support organizations, and funders de-
muting costs. Female entrepreneurs face greater velop narratives and stories about successful entre-
domestic burdens and tend to locate their businesses preneurs. Advertisements for events, lists of suc-
closer to home; female entrepreneurial ventures are cessful entrepreneurs, stories, and competitions that
thus less likely to be found in highly interactive, showcase entrepreneurs may inadvertently celebrate
innovative, and productive agglomerations of eco- men more than women or they may celebrate mas-
nomic activity (Rosenthal and Strange 2012). culinized or feminized images of successful entre-
Networks, both formal and informal, are the preneurs which may differentially influence entre-
basis of social relations in which people are embed- preneurs in ecosystems (Gupta et al. 2009). Re-
ded. Networks are the mechanism through which search shows that when entrepreneurs perceive
resources (information and capital) are introduced themselves to be more similar to males (high on
by specific agents to a particular group and a male gender identification), they have higher
 C. Brush et al.

entrepreneurial intentions (Gupta et al. 2009). Some focusing on certain populations or through routinized
studies look into the media representation of women decision-processes that focus primarily on objective
entrepreneurs, concluding that newspapers, for ex- criteria (e.g., credit scoring).
ample, emphasize the sexuality and good looks of Another area where male domination may influence
women, together with their double or triple role and the gendering of behaviors has to do with organizations
burden as mother and career for the family and providing financing for entrepreneurs in entrepreneur-
entrepreneur, but seeing business success as un- ship ecosystems. Studies show that less than 8% of all
feminine (Achtenhagen and Welter 2011; Eikhof partners in active venture capital firms are female, and
et al. 2013). Other work shows that the architectural that of the 101 active accelerators, fewer than 12% of the
design of spaces influences the social context and partners are female (Brush et al. 2014a;
the design of structures. For instance, symbols of https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/19/the-first-
wealth, use of columns, angles, and lines may be comprehensive-study-on-women-in-venture-capital/).
construed as masculine and can be intimidating to There is speculation that the lack of female partners and
women, while use of curved, slender, and delicate decision-makers may in part explain the disparity of
lines may be more feminine (Bondi 1992). venture capital funding. A recent analysis finds that less
than 3% of the approximately 6500 companies that
3. Gendered social structures including workplace in- successfully raised venture capital during 2011–2013
teractions. Social structures and interactions within had a female CEO (Brush et al. 2018).
and across organizations may also be gendered. In
the entrepreneurship ecosystem, accelerators, incu- 3.3 Individual level
bators, co-working spaces, and other spaces may
have gendered norms for behaviors and interac- In most frameworks, the entrepreneur is a central player
tions. It is estimated that there are more than 7000 in entrepreneurship ecosystems, as either the catalyst for
accelerators worldwide with more than 1250 in the actions (Isenberg 2010) or creator of new ventures
USA alone.4 While the vast majority of these are (Stam and Spigel 2016). This suggests that individual
male dominated, with the percentage of women perception of gender identity and gender roles (mascu-
being around 22%, there are emerging trends of line or feminine) and how these perceptions influence
female focused accelerators that are having some their behaviors is essential to understanding entrepre-
success because they providing women mentors and neurial ecosystems (Johnson and Repta 2013). More
role models (Brush and Greene 2016). specifically, the stereotype of the entrepreneur is per-
ceived to be Bmale^ in many settings. Gender stereo-
Besides accelerators and incubators that house entre- types can influence how an individual’s performance is
preneurs, the interactions of entrepreneurs in the work- perceived; a negative bias could either be created be-
place, with vendors, business partners, suppliers, con- cause of the behavior directly or when individuals act in
tractors, and other organizations may potentially be contrast to their genders’ expected gendered-stereotype
gendered. How organizations are structured in terms of behavior (Balachandra et al. 2017; Rudman 1998;
hierarchies, who the decision-makers are, and the per- Rudman and Glick 1999, 2001). For individual entre-
ceptions of gender roles in these hierarchies have the preneurs, how they see themselves in terms of their
potential to influence men and women differentially gender identity and/or how others see the gender iden-
(Acker 1990; Blake 2006). Social dominance theory tity of the individual entrepreneur may either facilitate or
argues that structural inequality can be manifested by hinder entrepreneurial activity.
group-based heuristics or consensus that may unfairly Role models are another crucial aspect of entrepre-
leave out certain groups but maintain the power of neurship ecosystems (Isenberg and Onyemah 2016;
others (Sidanius et al. 2004). For instance, powerful Stam and Spigel 2016). When entrepreneurs have role
financial institutions may allocate resources in such a models, they are more likely to see themselves as entre-
way to create and maintain group dominance, either by preneurs. In areas where the role models are male or
have only masculine qualities, women may not perceive
4
International Business Innovation Association, 2013. 2012 state of that venture creation is possible, and they may have a
the business incubation industry: INBIA publications. greater fear of failure or less confidence in their abilities
A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems

to start a business (GEM Global Report 2016/2017). methodologies, and major findings of the papers includ-
Women who become entrepreneurs transgress gender ed in the Special Issue.
norms, while at the same time, becoming role models Spigel (2017) suggests that ecosystems are com-
for other women entrepreneurs and inspiring more op- prised of elements that can be broadly characterized as
portunities for self-employment (Hanson 2009). social, cultural, or material. Social elements refer to the
Other individual actors in the entrepreneurship eco- role of social networks within the entrepreneurship eco-
systems also play an important role: investors, mentors, system. Cultural elements reflect the attitudes (positive
advisors, and other individuals. These actors are part of or negative) about entrepreneurship, which can encour-
the resource supporting infrastructure in different places age or discourage entrepreneurial activity. Finally, ma-
and generally considered routinized and habitualized in terial elements refer to place-specific institutions and
their patterns for resource allocation (Blake 2006). As organizations, ranging from physical infrastructure to
such, they are gatekeepers who may prevent or encour- public policies and government-sponsored programs.
age certain types of business formation and develop- The papers in this special issue engage in a thoughtful
ment. Status-expectations state that theory predicts how conversation about the gendered impact of all three
certain actors are expected to behave given certain roles broad elements of an entrepreneurship ecosystem (so-
in organizations—the extent to which the roles are cial, cultural, and material), and they add novel insights
Bgendered^ (perceived as masculine or feminine), this to the three levels we have identified above where
may differentially affect women and men entrepreneurs gender matters in entrepreneurial ecosystems (institu-
(Ridgeway and Correll 2004). Gender roles may be tional, organizational, individual).
described as social norms, rules, or standards that dictate With respect to the gendered effect of the social
different interests, responsibilities, or opportunities. In attributes of the entrepreneurship ecosystem, McAdam
addition, gender roles lead to leadership differences— et al. (2018) and Neumeyer et al. (2018) both study
which is relevant when considering who leads in eco- social networking by men and women entrepreneurs in
systems and who is driving political, corporate, or eco- regional ecosystems. Both studies find significant
nomic activity (Stam and Spigel 2016). In another ex- gender differences in the way entrepreneurs construct
ample, if venture capitalists or bankers are expected to and utilize their networks. Thus, Neumeyer et al. (2018)
be male rather than female, or entrepreneurs are expect- find that male entrepreneurs show comparatively higher
ed to be male, then when women are bankers, venture scores of bridging social capital in aggressive- and
capitalists, or entrepreneurs, they may be perceived as managed-growth venture networks, while women entre-
less trustworthy (Saparito et al. 2013). In contrast, there preneurs surpass their male counterparts’ bridging cap-
is also evidence that homophily plays a role in access to ital scores in lifestyle- and survival-venture networks.
capital, in that venture capital firms with women part- Similarly, McAdam et al. (2018), who focus specifically
ners are more likely to invest in companies that have on women-only networks, find that women participating
women CEOs (Brush et al. 2014a). in such networks are unable to generate gender capital
and, instead, are restricted in their access to other types
of capital, resulting in a their lower credibility. Both
studies, however, find that experienced women entre-
4 The papers in this special issue preneurs are better able to structure and utilize their
networks. This last finding suggests that to better
The seven papers included in the Special Issue are all understand the gendered effects of social networks, we
anchored in the concept of the entrepreneurship ecosys- need to take a more nuanced perspective and explore
tem and focus on a variety of its components, as well as differences within women entrepreneurs, in addition to
their dynamic interaction. They use a variety of theoret- comparing and contrasting male and female
ical perspectives, both qualitative and quantitative re- entrepreneurial experiences. Sperber and Linder (2018)
search methodologies, different levels of analysis (indi- also explore the social attributes of entrepreneurship
vidual, firm, and aggregated country level), and differ- ecosystems by focusing on the effect of the perceived
ent sources of data, ranging from in-depth interviews to level of social support from the ecosystem. These au-
large multicountry panel datasets. Table 1 summarizes thors find significant differences in the perceived levels
the research questions, theoretical perspectives, research of ecosystem support and, consequently, significant
 C. Brush et al.

Table 1 The papers in this special issue

Authors Research question(s) Theoretical platform Research design Major findings

Foss et al. What are the policy Feminist theory within SLR of empirical papers About a third of the articles did
2018 implications of empirically the context of an published between 1983 and not address policies
based research on women’s entrepreneurship 2015 in five top-tier explicitly. Those that did
entrepreneurship? ecosystem entrepreneurship journals formulated mostly policy
(n = 165) implications with unspecified
targets, and focused mostly
on education and training.
Hechavarría Does the entrepreneurial The Entrepreneurial GMM analysis of 2001–2014 The prevalence in
and ecosystem influence the Framework GEM data, coupled with entrepreneurship is highest
Ingram prevalence rates of both men Conditions (EFC) of World Bank Development for women when the
2018 and women? the Global Indicators (n = 403 cases and entrepreneurial ecosystem
Entrepreneurship 75 countries) features low barriers to entry,
Monitor (GEM) supportive government
project policy towards
entrepreneurship, minimal
commercial and legal
infrastructure, and a
normative culture that
supports entrepreneurship.
Conversely, prevalence rates
for men are highest when
there is supportive
government policy but weak
government programs aimed
towards business creation.
McAdam To what extent do formal Bourdieu’s (2005) Reflexive critical analysis of Challenges for women still
et al. women-only networks im- theory of embedded interview data from a remain in entrepreneurial
2018 prove women’s access to, practice purposive sample of ecosystems and women-only
and participation, in entre- coordinators of women-only networks are particularly
preneurial ecosystems? networks (n = 6) and mixed problematic. Rather than
networks (n = 5) and 17 generating gender capital,
women entrepreneurs in a entrepreneurs in women-only
peripheral European region. entrepreneurial networks are
in a situation where they are
unable to access sufficient
economic, social, cultural,
and symbolic capital,
restricting their ability to
establish credibility as field
players.
Neumeyer What are the effects of venture Theories of social Social network data from two Network connectivity and the
et al. typology, race, ethnicity, and capital municipal ecosystems in FL, distribution of social capital
2018 past venture experience on USA (Gainesville and are significantly different for
the social capital distribution Jacksonville); n = 120 (60 in men and women
of women entrepreneurs in each ecosystem) entrepreneurs. It depends on
entrepreneurial ecosystems? the type of venture and is
additionally affected by the
entrepreneur’s experience
and ethnicity.
Orser et al. What is the efficacy of Feminist empiricism Secondary analysis of survey The frequency of bidding on
2018 certifications, specifically and entrepreneurial data of active federal and receiving contracts from
women-owned feminism contractors (n = 634) the US federal government
certifications, on the does not differ significantly
frequency with which SMEs between male and female
bid on, and succeed in business owners and neither
does the frequency of
A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems

Table 1 (continued)

Authors Research question(s) Theoretical platform Research design Major findings

obtaining, US federal bidding between certified

procurement contracts? and non-certified
women-only businesses.
Bidding success is not
correlated with various US
federal programs either
individually or collectively.
Simmons What are the gender differences Stigma theory HLM analysis of GEM data There are persisting gender gaps
et al. in reentry decisions after (Goffman, 1963) (n = 8171 entrepreneurs from that vary across an ecosystem
2018 failure? augmented with an 35 countries) framework conditions of
entrepreneurship public stigma of business
ecosystem lens failure and public fear of
business failure. Public
stigma of business failure
may amplify the gender gap
by disproportionately
deterring female
entrepreneurs from trying
again. However, the gap
narrows under conditions of
high fear of failure, because
of the diminished reentry of
male entrepreneurs relative to
female entrepreneurs.
Sperber and To what extent do female and Expectancy theory Configurational analysis based Start-up strategies are a
Linder male strategic choices in (Vroom, 1964, on fuzzy-set qualitative com- reflection of the perceived
2018 starting a new venture reflect 2005) augmented parative analysis (fsQCA) of support from the ecosystem,
gender-specific perceptions with an PSED II data (n = 987) the entrepreneurs’ current life
of ecosystem support, entrepreneurship situation, and the intended
feasibility, and ecosystem support goals. Female and male
entrepreneurial goals? lens nascent entrepreneurs differ
in their expectations of
ecosystem support and, thus,
apply gender-specific
start-up strategies. While
women tend to mobilize
more resources than men to
overcome support
constraints, men are more
confident of their
capabilities.

differences in the ways men and women nascent entrepreneurs from trying again to a larger degree than
entrepreneurs strategize about starting up their new men entrepreneurs. In contrast, men entrepreneurs are
ventures. deterred by a high fear of failure.
Simmons et al. (2018) explore the cultural attributes Two of the studies included in the Special Issue look
of entrepreneurship ecosystems. In particular, they look at the gendered effects of the material attributes of
at how public stigma of business failure and public fear entrepreneurship ecosystems, more specifically, govern-
of business failure differentially affect the likelihood of ment policies. Both studies strongly suggest that there is
reentry of men and women entrepreneurs. They find that a lot more to be done in this area. Interestingly, they do
the public stigma of business failure deters women so from two very different perspectives. Orser et al.
 C. Brush et al.

(2018) study the effect of certifications on the bidding are considered (Acs et al. 2017). We argue that while
frequency and bidding success of women-owned small- current depictions of entrepreneurship ecosystems offer
and-medium sized businesses in obtaining US federal opportunities for framing new research theoretically and
procurement contracts and find that none of the various empirically, due to the multilevel aspects and measur-
certifications increase either bid frequency or bid suc- able outcome dimensions, gender as a construct and
cess. The findings indicate that the efficacy of govern- women’s entrepreneurship are missing. Hence, the arti-
ment procurement policies can be improved consider- cles in this special issue are an important step in explor-
ably. Foss et al. (2018), in turn, study how academics ing both the role of gender across ecosystems and the
influence public policies in support of women’s entre- ways that women entrepreneurs influence or are influ-
preneurship by deriving public policy recommendations enced by levels of ecosystems. However, there is signif-
from empirical studies. The systematic literature review icant work to be done. We offer ideas for future research
of 30 years of research published in the top entrepre- below.
neurship journals reveals that only two thirds of the Women entrepreneurs and women’s entrepreneurship
studies include a public policy recommendation, and
most of these recommendations are rather broad and & What are the influences of ecosystem institutions,
focused on education and training, thus inadvertently culture, and policies on women’s entrepreneurship?
reproducing the second-ordering of women as needing & In what ways do women entrepreneurs influence
to be Bfixed.^ local ecosystems?
Finally, Hechavarría and Ingram (2018) test the impact & How do network ties, interactions, and position-
of all aspects of the national entrepreneurship ecosystem ing influence women entrepreneurs in local
on country levels of nascent entrepreneurship activity, ecosystems?
utilizing 14 years of GEM data from 75 countries. They & What are the spill-over effects of ecosystem innova-
find significant gendered effects of the national entrepre- tion on women’s entrepreneurship?
neurship ecosystem, with women nascent entrepreneurs & How do innovative women entrepreneurs influence
being significantly affected by a greater number of eco- entrepreneurial ecosystems?
system components, compared to men. In addition to a & How does public policy vary across national eco-
supportive government policy, women’s entrepreneurial systems and with regard to influence on women’s
start-up rates are also facilitated by minimal commercial entrepreneurship?
and legal infrastructure, low barriers to entry, and a nor- & How do entrepreneurship ecosystems support or
mative culture that supports entrepreneurship. hinder start-up, growth, and sustainability of
Collectively, the papers elucidate the gendered ef- women’s entrepreneurship?
fects of the different ecosystem components and levels & How do meso-environmental factors and spaces,
and document how women entrepreneurs, in turn, can such as incubators and accelerators influence
affect the vitality of regional and national entrepreneur- women’s entrepreneurship? How are they influ-
ship ecosystems. Further, they demonstrate the value of enced by women entrepreneurs?
a gendered perspective, by drawing attention to the & To what extent does market cooperation and com-
agency of entrepreneurs within their contexts. petition influence women’s entrepreneurship in
ecosystems?
& Do ecosystems reproduce gendered and spatial seg-
5 Directions for future research regation patterns in entrepreneurship, and if so, in
which ways? How can entrepreneurial ecosystems
This special issue was motivated by observations from assist in overcoming spatial constraints for women
current studies that women are influenced by and, in entrepreneurs?
turn, influence ecosystems. Theory explaining how and
when variation by gender might apply differentially is Gender and gender identity
seemingly absent from most discussions of entrepre-
neurial ecosystem. We find that even though cultural & What is the role of gender in ecosystem institutions?
and social attributes (e.g., networks, mentors, role & How does gender identity influence performance of
models) are included, no possible gender influences individuals in entrepreneurship ecosystems?
A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems

& What is the role of organizational gender identity in and-celebrate/?single_page=true. Accessed 17 December
2017.
promoting or discouraging start-up in entrepreneur-
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D., & Wright, M. (2017).
ship ecosystems? Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of
& How does gender influence legitimacy of entrepre- entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship
neurs seeking resources in entrepreneurship Journal. Accepted Author Manuscript. doi:https://doi.
ecosystems? org/10.1002/sej.1266.
Balachandra, L., Briggs, T., Eddleston, K., & Brush, C. (2017).
& To what degree does gender identity influence the Don’t pitch like a girl! How gender stereotypes influence
perspective of resource providers in entrepreneur- investor decisions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
ship ecosystems? https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717728028
Baughn, C. C., Chua, B.-L., & Neupert, K. E. (2006). The nor-
mative context for women’s participation in entrepreneur-
In sum, current perspectives and frameworks for ship: a multicountry study. Entrepreneurship Theory and
entrepreneurship ecosystems are on the surface relevant Practice, 30(5), 687–708.
and appropriate for considering factors that facilitate or Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship—productive, unproduc-
inhibit entrepreneurship. However, explicit recognition tive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5),
893–921.
of gender may enhance theory and elaborate our under-
Bird, B., & Brush, C. G. (2002). A gendered perspective on
standing of entrepreneurship ecosystems generally and organizational creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and
provide a more comprehensive and holistic view of Practice, 26(3), 41–65.
ways to facilitate and remove obstacles to entrepreneur- Blake, M. K. (2006). Gendered lending: gender, context and the
ship overall. rules of business lending. Venture Capital, 8(02), 183–201.
Bondi, L. (1992). Gender symbols and urban landscapes. Progress
in Human Geography, 16(2), 157–170.
Bourdieu, P. (2005). The social structures of the economy.
References Cambridge: Polity.
Britton, D. M. (2000). The epistemology of the gendered organi-
zation. Gender & Society, 14(3), 418–434.
Achtenhagen, L., & Welter, F. (2011). ‘Surfing on the ironing Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: a
board’—the representation of women’s entrepreneurship in critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial eco-
German newspapers. Entrepreneurship & Regional systems. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 11–30.
Development, 23(9–10), 763–786. https://doi.org/10.1080
Bruni, A., Gherardi, S., & Poggio, B. (2004). Doing gender, doing
/08985626.2010.520338
entrepreneurship: an ethnographic account of intertwined
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered practices. Gender, Work & Organization, 11(4), 406–429.
organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158. Brush, C. (2014). Exploring the concept of an entrepreneurship
Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of education ecosystem. In D. Kuratko (Ed.), Innovative path-
entrepreneurship: measurement issues and policy implica- ways for university entrepreneurship in the 21st century (pp.
tions. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494. 25–39). Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innova-
Acs, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B., & O’Connor, A. (2017). tion and growth (Vol. 24). Bingley: Emerald.
The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Brush, C., Kelley, D., Ali, A., & Greene, P. (2017). The influence
Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10. of human capital factors and context on women’s entrepre-
Ahl, H. (2006). Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new neurship: which matters more? Journal of Business Venturing
directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), Insights, 8(1), 105–113.
595–621. Brush, C., & Greene, P. (2016). Closing the gender gap in entre-
Ahl, H., & Nelson, T. (2010). Moving forward: institutional per- preneurship: a new perspective on policies and practices.
spectives on gender and entrepreneurship. International White paper prepared for the Organization of Economic
Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 5–9. Cooperation and Development. Paris: OECD.
Aldrich, H., Reese, P. R., & Dubini, P. (1989). Women on the Brush, C.G., Greene, P. G., Balachandra, L. & Davis, A. (2014a).
verge of a breakthrough: networking among entrepreneurs in Women entrepreneurs 2014: bridging the gap in venture
the United States and Italy. Entrepreneurship & Regional capital. Report sponsored by Ernst & Young, Wellesley:
Development, 1(4), 339–356. Babson College.
Auerswald, P. E. (2015). Enabling entrepreneurial ecosystems: Brush, C., Greene, P., Balachandra, L., & Davis, A. (2014b).
insights from ecology to inform effective entrepreneurship Investing in the power of women. Progress report on the
policy. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Foundation Research Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women Initiative. Wellesley:
Series on City, Metro and Regional Entrepreneurship. Babson College.
Aulet, B. (2008). How to build a successful innovation ecosystem: Brush, C., Greene, P., Balachandra, L., & Davis, A. (2018). The
education, network and celebrate. Xconomy.com. gender gap in venture capital—progress, problems, and per-
https://www.xconomy.com/national/2008/10/14/how-to- spectives. Venture Capital, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1080
build-a-successful-innovation-ecosystem-educate-network- /13691066.2017.1349266
 C. Brush et al.

Carter, N., Brush, C., Greene, P., Gatewood, E., & Hart, M. (2003). intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship
Women entrepreneurs who break through to equity financ- Theory and Practice, 33(2), 397–417.
ing: the influence of human, social and financial capital. Hampel-Milagrosa, A. (2010). Identifying and addressing gender
Ve n t u re C a p i t a l : A n I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f issues in doing business. European Journal of Development
Entrepreneurial Finance, 5(1), 1–28. Research, 22(3), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1057
Chappell, L., & Waylen, G. (2013). Gender and the hidden life of /ejdr.2010.12
institutions. Public Administration, 3, 599–615. Hanson, S. (2009). Changing places through women’s entrepre-
Coleman, S. (2000). Access to capital: a comparison of men and neurship. Economic Geography, 85(3), 245–267. https://doi.
women-owned small businesses. Journal of Small Business org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01033.x
Management, 38(3), 37–52. Hanson, S., & Blake, M. (2009). Gender and entrepreneurial
Coleman, S., & Robb, A. (2012). A rising tide: financing strate- networks. Regional Studies, 43(1), 135–149. https://doi.
gies for women-owned firms. Palo Alto: Stanford University org/10.1080/00343400802251452
Press. Hechavarría, D. M., & Ingram, A. E. (2018). Entrepreneurial
Coleman, S., & Robb, A. (2016). The next wave: financing ecosystem conditions and gendered national-level entrepre-
women’s growth oriented firms. Palo Alto: Stanford neurial activity: a fourteen-year panel study of GEM. Small
University Press. Business Economics, this issue.
Eddleston, K. A., Ladge, J. J., Mitteness, C., & Balachandra, L. Hewlett, S. A. (2014). What’s holding women back in science and
(2016). Do you see what I see? Signaling effects of gender technology industries. Harvard Business Review.
and firm characteristics on financing entrepreneurial ven- Isenberg, D. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution.
tures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(3), 489– Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.
514. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12117 Isenberg, D. (2011). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a
Eikhof, D. R., Summers, J., & Carter, S. (2013). BWomen doing new paradigm for economic policy: Principles for cultivating
their own thing^: media representations of female entrepre- entrepreneurship. Presentation at the Institute of International
neurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial and European Affairs, Dublin, Ireland, May 12.
Behaviour & Research, 19(5), 547–564. Isenberg, D. (2014). What an entrepreneurship ecosystem actually
Elam, A., & Terjesen, S. (2010). Gendered institutions and cross- is. Harvard Business Review, 5, 1-7.
national patterns of business creation for men and women. Isenberg, D., & Onyemah, V. (2016). Fostering scaleup ecosys-
European Journal of Development Research, 22, 331–348. tems for regional economic growth (innovations case narra-
Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2011). Institutions and female entre- tive: Manizales-Mas and Scale Up Milwaukee). Innovations,
preneurship. Small Business Economics, 37(4), 397–415. 11(1/2), 60–79.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9373-0 Jayawarna, D., Jones, O., & Marlow, S. (2015). The influence of
Fagenson, E. A., & Marcus, E. C. (1991). Perceptions of the sex- gender upon social networks and bootstrapping behaviours.
role stereotypic characteristics of entrepreneurs: women’s Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 316–329.
evaluations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(4), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.06.002
33–47. Jennings, J. E., & Brush, C. G. (2013). Research on women
Feld, B. (2012). Startup communities: building an entrepreneurial entrepreneurs: challenges to (and from) the broader entrepre-
ecosystem in your city. John Wiley & Sons. neurship literature? The Academy of Management Annals,
Feldman, M. P. (2014). The character of innovative places: entre- 7(1), 663–715. https://doi.org/10.1080
preneurial strategy, economic development, and prosperity. /19416520.2013.782190
Small Business Economics, 43(1), 9–20. Johnson, J., & Repta, R. (2013). Sex and gender: beyond the
Fetters, M., Greene, P. G., & Rice, M. P. (eds) (2010). The binaries. Chapter 2. In J.L. Oliffe & Greaves, L. (Eds.)
development of university-based entrepreneurship ecosys- Designing and conducting gender, sex and health research.
tems: global practices. Edward Elgar Publishing. London: Sage Publishing, p. 17–37.
Foss, L. (2010). Research on entrepreneur networks: the case for a Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life:
constructionist feminist theory perspective. International skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American
Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 83–102. Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965–990.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17566261011026565 Kantis, H.D., & Federico, J.S. (2012). Entrepreneuerial ecosys-
Foss, L., Henry, C., Ahl, H., & Mikalsen, G. H. (2018). Women’s tems in Latin America: the role of policies. International
entrepreneurship policy research: a 30-year review of the Research and Policy. Entrepreneurial Development
evidence. Small Business Economics, this issue. Programme, Institute of Industry, Universidad Nacional de
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). (2016/2017). Global General Sarmiento (Argentina).
Entrepreneurship Monitor 2016/2017. Report on women’s Kanze, D., Huang, L., Conley, M. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2017). We
entrepreneurship. Wellesley: GERA Research Association. ask men to win & women not to lose: closing the gender gap
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on a spoiled identity. Jenkins, in startup funding. Academy of Management Journal
JH & Carpenter. (forthcoming); published ahead of print April 27, 2017.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the Langevang, T., Gough, K. V., Yankson, P. W. K., Owusu, G., &
problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Osei, R. (2015). Bounded entrepreneurial vitality: the mixed
Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. embeddedness of female entrepreneurship. Economic
Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., Wasti, S. A., & Sikdar, A. (2009). The Geography, 91(4), 449–473. https://doi.org/10.1111
role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and /ecge.12092
A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems

Le Renard, A. (2008). BOnly for women^: women, the state, and Orser, B., Riding, A., & Weeks, J. (2018). The efficacy of gender-
reform in Saudi Arabia. The Middle East Journal, 62(4), based federal procurement policies in the united states. Small
610–629. Business Economics, this issue.
Lewellyn, K. B., & Muller-Kahle, M. I. (2015). A configurational Pfau-Effinger, B. (2004). Socio-historical paths of the male bread-
approach to understanding gender differences in entrepre- winner model—an explanation of cross-national differences.
neurial activity: a fuzzy set analysis of 40 countries. British Journal of Sociology, 55(3), 377–399. https://doi.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2004.00025.x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-015-0366-3 Powell, W., & Colyvas, J. (2008). Microfoundations of institution-
Mack, E., & Mayer, H. (2016). The evolutionary dynamics of al theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R.
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Urban Studies, 53(10), 2118– Suddaby (Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational institution-
2133. alism (pp. 276–298). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.
Major, B., & Forcey, B. (1985). Social comparisons and pay Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system
evaluations: preferences for same-sex and same-job wage and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 191–216.
comparisons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender
21(4), 393–405. system: a theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social
Marlow, S. (2002). Women and self-employment: a part of or apart relations. Gender and Society, 18, 510–531.
from theoretical construct? The International Journal of Rosenthal, S. S., & Strange, W. C. (2012). Female entrepreneur-
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3(2), 83–91. https://doi. ship, agglomeration, and a new spatial mismatch. Review of
org/10.5367/000000002101299088 Economics and Statistics, 94(3), 764–788.
Marlow, S., & McAdam, M. (2012). Analyzing the influence of Roundy, P. T., Brockman, B. K., & Bradshaw, M. (2017). The
gender upon high-technology venturing within the context of resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Business
business incubation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Venturing Insights, 8, 99–104.
36(4), 655–676. Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women:
Marlow, S., & Swail, J. (2014). Gender, risk and finance: why can't the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression
a woman be more like a man? Entrepreneurship and management. Journal of Personality and Social
Regional Development, 26(1–2), 80–96. https://doi. Psychology, 74(3), 629–645.
org/10.1080/08985626.2013.860484 Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and
Martin, L., Wright, L., Beaven, Z., & Matlay, H. (2015). An backlash toward agentic women: the hidden costs to women
unusual job for a woman? Female entrepreneurs in scientific, of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of
engineering and technology sectors. International Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004–1010.
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 21(4), 539–556. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-08-2011-0095 and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social
Mason, C. & Brown, R. (2014) Entrepreneurial ecosystems and Issues, 57(4), 743–762.
growth oriented entrepreneurship. Paris: final report to Saparito, P., Elam, A., & Brush, C. (2013). Bank–firm relation-
O E C D . O E C D h t t p : / / l i b . d a v e n d e r. c o m / w p - ships: do perceptions vary by gender? Entrepreneurship
content/uploads/2015/03/Entrepreneurial-ecosystems- Theory and Practice, 37(4), 837–858.
OECD.pdf. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The schumpttr: Theory economic de-
McAdam, M., Harrison, R., & Leitch, C. (2018), Stories from the velopment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
field: women’s networking as gender capital in entrepreneur- Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: ideas and
ial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, this issue. interests. London: Sage.
Mirchandani, K. (1999). Feminist insight on gendered work: new Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepre-
directions in research on women and entrepreneurship. neurship as a field of research. Academy of Management
Gender, Work & Organization, 6(4), 224–235. Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Peterson, Z. D. (2011). Distinguishing Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entre-
between sex and gender: history, current conceptualizations, preneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper
and implications. Sex Roles, 64(11–12), 791–803. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90).
National Women's Business Council, 2017. Women's participation Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
in business incubators and accelerators, accessed at Siba, E. (2016). Enabling female entrepreneurs and beyond. Africa
https://www.nwbc.gov/sites/default/files/Women's%20 in focus. Report by the Brookings Institution. https://www.
Participation%20in%20Business%20Incubators%20 brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2016/07/25/enabling-
and%20Accelerators_FINAL.pd. Accessed 25 Nov 2017. female-entrepreneurs-and-beyond/
Neck, H. M., Meyer, G. D., Cohen, B., & Corbett, A. C. (2004). Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social
An entrepreneurial system view of new venture creation. dominance theory: its agenda and method. Political
Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2), 190–208. Psychology, 25(6), 845–880.
Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., Caetano, A., & Kalbfleisch, P. Simmons, S., Wiklund, J., Levie, J., Bradley, S. W., & Sunny, S. A.
(2018). Entrepreneurship ecosystems and women entrepre- (2018). Gender gaps and reentry into entrepreneurial ecosys-
neurs: a social capital and network approach. Small Business tems after business failure. Small Business Economics, this
Economics, this issue. issue.
Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). The contribution of women on Sjöberg, O. (2004). The role of family policy institutions in
boards of directors: going beyond the surface. Corporate explaining gender-role attitudes: a comparative multilevel
Governance: An International Review, 18(2), 136–148. analysis of thirteen industrialized countries. Journal of
 C. Brush et al.

European Social Policy, 14(2), 107–123. https://doi. Van de Ven, H. (1993). The development of an infrastructure for
org/10.1177/0958928704042003 entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 211–
Sperber, S., & Linder, C. (2018). Gender-specifics in start-up 230.
strategies and the role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Verheul, I., Van Stel, A., & Thurik, R. (2006). Explaining female
Small Business Economics, this issue. and male entrepreneurship at the country level.
Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial eco- Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18(2), 151–
systems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72. 183. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620500532053
Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2017). Towards a process theory of Vroom, V.H. (1964) Work and Motivation. John Wiley & Sons,
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship New York.
Journal. Accepted Author Manuscript. doi:https://doi. Vroom, V. H. (2005). On the origins of expectancy theory. In K. G.
org/10.1002/sej.1268. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The
Spilling, O. R. (1996). The entrepreneurial system: ON entrepre- process of theory development (pp. 239-258). New York:
neurship in the context of a mega-event. Journal of Business Oxford University Press.
Research, 36(1), 91–103. Welter, F., Brush, C. G., & de Bruin, A. (2014). The gendering of
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a entrepreneurship context. IfM Working Paper, 01/14. Bonn:
sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), IfM Bonn.
1759–1769. Welter, F., & Smallbone, D. (2008). Women’s entrepreneurship
Stam, E., & Bosma, N. (2015). Growing entrepreneurial econo- from an institutional perspective: the case of Uzbekistan.
mies: entrepreneurship and regional development. In T. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
Baker & F. Welter (Eds.), The Routledge companion to 4(4), 505–520.
entrepreneurship (pp. 325–340). London: Routledge. Welter, F., & Smallbone, D. (2011). Institutional perspectives on
Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2016). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurial behavior in challenging environments.
regional policy. In Sage handbook for entrepreneurship and Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 107–125.
small business. Thousand Oaks, Calif. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00317.x
Stangler, D. & Bell-Masterson, J. (2015). Measuring an entrepre-
Welter, F., & Smallbone, D. (2012). Institutional perspectives on
neurial ecosystem. Kauffman Foundation series on city, met-
entrepreneurship. In D. Hjorth (Ed.), Organizational entre-
ro and regional entrepreneurship. Kansas City: Kauffman
preneurship handbook (pp. 64–78). Cheltenham: Edward
Foundation.
Elgar.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In
World Economic Forum. (2013). Entrepreneurial ecosystems
J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193).
around the globe and company growth dynamics. Davos:
Chicago: Rand-McNally.
World Economic Forum.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and insti-
tutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3),
571–610.
Thébaud, S. (2015). Business as plan B: institutional foundations Websites
of gender inequality in entrepreneurship across 24 industri-
alized countries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(4),
671–711. https://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2012/06/08
Treichel, M. Z., & Scott, J. A. (2006). Women-owned businesses /entrepreneurship-is-the-new-womens-movement/#5aaa920
and access to bank credit: evidence from three surveys since f3b4c.
1987. Venture Capital, 8(1), 51–67. https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/19/in-2017-only-17-of-startups-
Unger, R. K. (1979). Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. have-a-female-founder/.
American Psychologist, 34(11), 1085. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-sp-500.