Innovative and Technology-Based Women Entrepreneurs in Turkey: Capital and Performance

Year 2018, Issue: 57, 151 - 183, 28.06.2018

Mehmet Cansız , Pelin D. Tekneci

Abstract

This study explores the association of social, cultural, and economic capital with the performance of women entrepreneurs established in Turkey’s technoparks. It contributes to the limited set of women’s entrepreneurial studies in developing countries such as Turkey. In addition, it seeks to understand the relative role of different capital factors in women’s success as entrepreneurs. This has two major implications: the first is that the findings will provide empirical evidence supporting the theories suggested in the entrepreneurial literature on the relationship between different capital factors and entrepreneurial performance. The second is that the findings will inform the decision makers who provide entrepreneurial support. We will address these factors within the framework of Bourdieu’s concept of social, cultural, and economic capital classifications. 

The data in this paper comes from surveys conducted in 2015 on 196 women entrepreneurs operating in 24 technoparks in 13 of Turkey’s provinces. The statistical model employs logistic regression because the outcome variable “being successful” is binary. We defined a successful entrepreneur as one who has either achieved high growth performance within the last three years or who is currently exporting their products or services. The model includes two control variables and twelve independent variables as proxies of cultural, social, and economic capital. The results show that some of the proxies selected for social and cultural capital are statistically associated with successful women entrepreneurs. Having previous work experience, having three or more partners, and the age of the venture are found to be positively associated with success, whereas having a doctorate-level education is negatively related to it. It is interesting to note that previous entrepreneurship experience has no statistically significant association with entrepreneurial success. Furthermore, none of the selected proxies for economic capital has a statistically significant relationship with being a successful entrepreneur. Moreover, operating in ICT and software sectors is found to be negatively associated with successful performance. This study will contribute to closing gaps in the existing literature that analyzes women entrepreneurs in non-western developing countries and non-traditional industries and to providing a better understanding for developing policies to promote successful women entrepreneurs.

Keywords

Women entrepreneurs, social capital, cultural capital, economic capital, technology-based entrepreneurship

Türkiye’de Yenilikçi ve Teknoloji Tabanlı Kadın Girişimciler: Sermaye ve Performans

Abstract

Bu çalışma, sosyal, kültürel ve ekonomik sermaye ile Türkiye’deki teknoparklarda iş yapmakta olan kadın girişimcilerin performansı arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Türkiye gibi kalkınmakta olan ülkelerde gerçekleştirilen kadın girişimciliği çalışmalarına katkı sağlamanın yanı sıra, kadın girişimcilerin girişimcilik başarılarıyla farklı sermaye faktörlerinin ilişkisini anlamak iki temel çıkarımı ortaya koyacaktır: Birincisi, bu konuda mevcut girişimcilik literatüründe yer alan teoriler açısından ampirik bulgular elde etme, ikincisi ise girişimcilik alanında kamu desteği sağlayan karar mercilerinin kararlarına ışık tutmaktır. Söz konusu sermaye faktörleri açısından Borudieu’nun sosyal, kültürel ve ekonomik sermaye sınıflandırması uygulanmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında, 13 ilde kurulmuş bulunan 24 teknoparkta işyeri sahibi olan 196 kadın girişimciye anket uygulanmıştır. Çalışmanın bağımlı değişkeni başarılı olmak olarak seçilmiş ve son üç yılda hızlı büyüyen ya da ihracat yapan girişimci kadınlar başarılı olarak tanımlanmıştır. Lojistik regresyon modeline iki adet kontrol değişkeni ile sosyal, kültürel ve ekonomik sermaye kapsamında 12 adet bağımsız değişken dahil edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları sosyal ve kültürel sermaye kapsamında seçilen değişkenlerden bir kısmının istatistiksel olarak kadın girişimcilerin başarısıyla ilişkisi olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çerçevede, iş tecrübesine sahip olmak, üç ya da daha fazla ortağa sahip olmak ve firmanın yaşının başarıyla pozitif yönde ilişkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir. İlginç bir şekilde, daha önce girişimcilik deneyimine sahip olma ile başarı arasında bir ilişki saptanmamıştır. Diğer yandan, doktora derecesine sahip olmanın başarıyla negatif yönde ilişkisi olduğu görülmüştür. Ekonomik sermaye kapsamında seçilen değişkenlerin hiçbirinin, girişimcinin başarısıyla istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde ilişkisi bulunmamıştır. Ayrıca, bilgi iletişim teknolojileri ve yazılım sektöründe iş yapmanın başarıyla ters yönlü ilişkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın gelişmekte olan ülkelerde ve geleneksel olmayan sektörlerde çalışan kadın girişimciler konusunda mevcut literatürdeki eksikliği kapatmaya katkı sağlayacağı ve yüksek teknoloji sektörlerde çalışan kadın girişimcilere yönelik destekleme politikalarının tespitine ışık tutacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

Kadın girişimci, sosyal sermaye, kültürel sermaye, ekonomik sermaye, teknoloji tabanlı girişimciliği

References

• Ahl, H. (2003, August). The scientific reproduction of gender inequality: A discourse analysis of research articles on women’s entrepreneurship. Paper presented at Gender and Power in the New Europe, the 5th European Feminist Research Conference, Lund University, Sweden.
• Almus, M., & Nerlinger, E. A. (1999). Growth of new technology-based firms: Which factors matter? Small Business Economics, 13(2), 141–154.
• Altonji, J., Elder, T., & Taber, C. (2005). Selection on observed and unobserved variables: Assessing the effectiveness of Catholic schools. Journal of Political Economy, 113(1), 151–184.
• Anna, A. L., Chandler, G. N., Jansen, E., & Mero, N. P. (2000). Women business owners in traditional and non-traditional industries. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(3), 279–303.
• Arenius, P., & DeClercq, D. (2005). A network-based approach on opportunity recognition. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 249–265.
• Atalay, Y., & Varol, Ç. (2016). Woman entrepreneurship in high-tech sector: Sectoral and spatial differentiations in Ankara. Planning, 26(3), 181–192.
• Audretsch, D. (2012). Entrepreneurship research. Management Decision, 50(5), 755–764.
• Beckman, C., Eisenhardt, K., Kotha, S., Meyer, A., & Rajagopalan, N. (2012). The role of the entrepreneur in technology entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(3), 203–206.
• Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477–1492.
• Bell, D. (1974). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. London, UK: Heinemann.
• Blake, M. K., & Hanson, S. (2005). Rethinking innovation: Context and gender. Environment and Planning A, 37(4), 681–701.
• Bloodgood, J. M., Sapienza, H. J., & Almeida, J. G. (1996). The internationalization of new high-potential U.S. ventures: Antecedents and outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(4), 61–76.
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In I. Szeman & T. Kaposy (Eds.), Cultural theory: An anthology (pp 81–93). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
• Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Bowen, D. D., & Hisrich, R. D. (1986). The female entrepreneur: A career development perspective. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 393–407.
• Brodsky, M. A. (1993). Successful female corporate managers and entrepreneurs: Similarities and differences. Group and Organization Management, 18(3), 366–378.
• Brush, C. G., & Hisrich, R. D. (1991). Antecedent influences on woman-owned business. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 6(2), 9–16.
• Buttner, E. H., & Rosen, B. (1989). Funding new business ventures: Are decision makers biased against women entrepreneurs? Journal of Business Venturing, 4(4), 249–261.
• Çakıcı, A. (2006). Mersindeki kadin girisimcilerin is yasamini etkileyen faktorler [Factors affecting the business life of female entrepreneurs]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(4), 54–78.
• Can, Y., & Karatas, A. (2007). Yerel ekonomilerde kalkınmanın itici gücü olarak kadın girişimcilerin rolü ve mikro finansman: Muğla ili örneği [Özel Sayı: Yerel Ekonomiler] [The role of female entrepreneurs as the driving force of development in local economies and micro-financing: The case of Muğla]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Karaman İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 251–261.
• Canina, L., Enz, C. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2005). Agglomeration effects and strategic orientations: Evidence from the U.S. lodging industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 565–581.
• Cansız, M. (2010). Türkiye organize sanayi bölgeleri politikaları ve uygulamaları [Organized industrial zones policies and applications in Turkey]. Ankara, Turkey: Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı.
• Cansız, M. (2014). Innovative entrepreneurship of Turkey; The case of Turkish technoparks. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Development.
• Cansız, M. (2016). Türkiye’de akademik girişimcilik [Academic entrepreneurship in Turkey]. Ankara, Turkey: Kalkınma Bakanlığı.
• Cansız, M. (2017). Türkiye teknoparkları [Technoparks of Turkey]. Ankara, Turkey: Kalkınma Bakanlığı.
• Cansız, M., & Ozbaylanlı, B. (2017). Teknoparkların Ar-Ge ve yenilik fikirlerine katkıları [Contribution of technoparks to R&D and innovation ideas]. Verimlilik Dergisi, 3, 125–166. 
• Cansız, M., & Ulusoy, M. D. (2017). Teknoloji tabanlı girişimcilerin başarısında yapısal, ekonomik, sosyal, kültürel ve beşeri sermayenin etkileri: Türkiye örneği [The effects of structural, economic, social, cultural capitals and human capital on the success of technology based enterpreneurs: The Turkish case]. Sosyoloji Konferansları, 56, 113–149.
• Carr, J. C., & Sequeira, J. M. (2007). Prior family business exposure as intergenerational influence and entrepreneurial intent: A theory of planned behavior approach. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1090–1098.
• Carter, S., & Rosa, P. (1998). The financing of male and female-owned businesses. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 10(3), 225–241.
• Carter, S., & Marlow, S. (2006). Female entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. In N. Carter, C. Henry, B. O’ Cinniede, & K. Johnston (Eds.), Female entrepreneurship: Implications for education, training and policy (pp. 11–36). London, UK: Routledge.
• Castells, M. (2005). Ağ toplumunun yükselişi, (Vol. 1, E. Kılıç, trans., ed.) [The rise of network society]. İstanbul, Turkey: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Çelik, C., & Özdevecioglu, M. (2001, November). Kadın girişimcilerin demografik özellikleri ve karşılaştıkları sorunlara ilişkin Nevşehir ilinde bir araştırma [A research on the demographic characteristics and problems of women entrepreneurs in Nevşehir]. Paper presented at the 1. Orta Anadolu Kongresi, Nevşehir, Turkey.
• Chaganti, R. (1986). Management in women-owned enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 24(4), 19–29.
• Chamanski, A., & Waagø, S. J. (2001). Organizational performance of technology-based firms-the role of technology and business strategies. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 2(3), 205–223.
• Chan, S. Y., & Foster, M. J. (2001). Strategy formulation in small business: The Hong Kong experience. International Small Business Journal, 19(3), 56–71.
• Cieślik, J., & Kaciak, E. (2014). The impact of export dynamics on a firm’s growth. Management and Business Administration Central Europe, 126(3), 18–36.
• Cincera, M., Kempen, L., von Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., Veugelers, R., & Villegas, C. (2003). Productivity growth, R&D and the role of international collaborative agreements: Some evidence from Belgium manufacturing companies. Brussels Economic Review, 46(3), 107–140.
• Cliff, J. E. (1998). Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towards growth, gender and business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(6), 523–541.
• Coleman, S. (2000). Access to capital and terms of credit: A comparison of men- and women-owned small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(3), 37–52.
• Collinson, S., & Gregson, G. (2003). Knowledge networks for new technology-based firms: An international comparison of local entrepreneurship promotion. R&D Management, 33(2), 189–208.
• Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3), 42–49.
• Cromie, S. (1992). Networking by female business owners in northern Ireland. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(3), 237–251.
• Dalborg, C. (2015). The life cycle in women-owned businesses: From a qualitative growth perspective. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 126–147.
• Davis, A. E., & Shaver, K. G. (2012). Understanding gendered variations in business growth intentions across the life course. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 495–512.
• De Bruin, A., Brush, C. G., & Welter, F. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: Towards building cumulative knowledge on women’s entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(5), 585–593.
• De Vita, L., Mari, M., & Poggesi, S. (2014). Women entrepreneurs in and from developing countries: Evidences from the literature. European Management Journal, 32(3), 451–460.
• Delmar, F., & Gunnarsson, J. (2000). How do self-employed parents of nascent entrepreneurs contribute? In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College. Retrieved March 12, 2017 from https://fusionmx.babson.edu/entrep/fer/VI/VIA/VIA.htm
• Dunn, T., & Holtz-Eakin, D. (2000). Financial capital, human capital, and the transition to self-employment: Evidence from intergenerational links. Journal of Labor Economics, 18(2), 282–305.
• Ferreira, J. J., Ferreira, F. A., Fernandes, C. I., Jalali, M. S., Raposo, M. L. & Marques, C. S. (2016). What do we [not] know about technology entrepreneurship research? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(3), 713–733.
• Fischer, E. M., Reuber, A. R., & Dyke, L. S. (1993). A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 151–168.
• Frenette M., & Chan, W. (2015). Academic outcomes of public and private high school students: What lies behind the differences? (Analytical Studies Branch Research Paper Series). Statistics Canada. Retrieved March 12, 2017 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2015367-eng.pdf
• Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2017). GEM 2016/2017 global report. Retrieved April 3, 2017 from http://gemconsortium.org/report/49812
• Greene, P. G., Brush, C., & Hart, M. M. (1999). The corporate venture champion: A resource-based approach to role and process. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 23(3), 103–122.
• Greve, A., & Salaff, J. W. (2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(1), 1–22.
• Griffiths, W. E., Carter Hill, R., & Pope, P. J. (1987). Small sample properties of Probit model estimators. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 929–93.
• Gujarati, D. N. (2005). Temel ekonometri [Basic econometrics]. İstanbul, Turkey: Literatür Yayınları.
• Gundry, L., & Welsch, H. (2001). The ambitious entrepreneur: High growth strategies of women owned enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 453–470.
• Hall, B. H. (1987). The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the U.S. manufacturing sector. Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 583–606.
• Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. The Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 81–94.
• Horowitz, J. B., & Spector, L. C. (2005). Is there a difference between private and public education on college performance? Economics of Education Review, 24(2), 189–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.03.007
• Judge, G. G., Griffiths, W. E., Hill, R. C., Lütkepohl, H., & Lee, T. C. (1985). The theory and practice of econometrics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
• Kalleberg, A. L., & Leicht, K. T. (1991). Gender and organizational performance: Determinants of small business survival and success. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 136–161.
• Kantor, P. (2005). Determinants of women’s microenterprise success in Ahmedabad, India: Empowerment and economics. Feminist Economics, 11(3), 63–83.
• Kautonen, T., Down, S., South, L., (2008). Enterprise support for older entrepreneurs: the case of PRIME in the UK, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research Vol. 14 No. 2, s. 85-101.
• Koellinger, P., Minniti, M., & Schade, C. (2013). Gender differences in entrepreneurial propensity. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 75(2), 213–234.
• Kolvereid, L. (1992). Growth aspirations among Norwegian entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(3), 209–222.
• Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 21(1), 47–58.
• Krugman P. (1998). What’s new about the new economic geography? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14(2), 7–17.
• Kuivalainen, O., Saarenketo, S., & Puumalainen, K. (2012). Start-up patterns of internationalization: A framework and its application in the context of knowledge-intensive SMEs. European Management Journal, 30(4), 372−385.
• Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 615–640.
• Lee-Gosselin, H., & Grise, J. (1990). Are women owner-managers challenging our definitions of entrepreneurship? An in-depth survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(4), 423–433.
• Lerner, M., Brush, C., & Hisrich, R. (1997). Israeli women entrepreneurs: An examination of factors affecting performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 315–339.
• Light, I., & Dana, L. P. (2013). Boundaries of social capital in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 603–624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/etap.12016
• Lööf, H., & Broström, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 73–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-006-9001-3
• Loscocco, K. A., Robinson, J., Hall, R. H., & Allen, J. K. (1991). Gender and small business success: An inquiry into women’s relative disadvantage. Social Forces, 70(1), 65–85.
• Maccoby, E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: A historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006–1017.
• Marion, T. J., Dunlap, D. R., & Friar, J. H. (2012). The university entrepreneur: A census and survey of attributes and outcomes. R&D Management, 42(5), 401–419.
• Marlow, S. (1997). Self-employed women - new opportunities, old challenges? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 9(3), 199–210.
• Ministry of Science Industry and Trade. (2017). Teknoloji geliştirme bölgeleri [Technology development zones]. Retrieved June 1, 2017 from https://teknopark.sanayi.gov.tr/Content/Detay
• Morris, M. H., Miyasaki, N. N., Watters, C. E., & Coombes, S. M. (2006). The dilemma of growth: Understanding venture size choices of women entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 221–244.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Eurostat-OECD manual on business demography statistics. Paris, France: Author.
• Pindyck, R. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1998). Econometric and economic forecast (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.
• Poggesi, S., Mari, M., & De Vita, L. (2016). What’s new in female entrepreneurship research? Answers from the literature. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(3), 735–764.
• Porter, M.E. (1998, November/December). Clusters and the new economics of competition, Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90.
• Reed, R., Storrud-Barnes, S., & Jessup, L. (2012). How open innovation affects the drivers of competitive advantage: Trading the benefits of IP creation and ownership for free invention. Management Decision, 50(1), 58–73.
• Roper, S., & Scott, J. M. (2009). Perceived financial barriers and the start-up decision: An econometric analysis of gender differences using GEM data. International Small Business Journal, 27(2), 149–171.
• Safarik, L., Wolgemuth, J. R., & Kees, N. L. (2003). A feminist critique of articles about women published in the Community College Journal of Research and Practice: 1990-2000. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(9–10), 769–786.
• Sayın, E. (2011). Kadın girişimcilerin sorunlarının betimleyici analizi [The descriptive analysis of the problems of women enterpreneurs]. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(1), 23–32.
• Singh, V., Kumra, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2002). Gender and impression management: Playing the promotion game. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 77–89.
• Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., Van Der Bij, H., & Halman, J. I. M. (2008). Success factors in new ventures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 7–27.
• Sullivan, D. M., & Marvel, M. R. (2011). Knowledge acquisition, network reliance, and early-stage technology venture outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1169–1193.
• Tan, F. Z. S. (2006). Tarihi akış içinde Kastamonu kadın girişimciliği [Kastamonu female entrepreneurship in historical flow]. 14. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı [Proceedings of the 14th National Management and Organization Congress] (pp. 527–532). Erzurum, Turkey: Atatürk Üniversitesi.
• Tan, J. (2008). Breaking the bamboo curtain and the glass ceiling: The experience of women entrepreneurs in high-tech industries in an emerging market. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 547–564.
• Tekneci, P. D., & Cansiz, M. (2016). Dünyada ve Turkiye`de girisimci üniversiteler ve akademik girisimciligin gelisimi [In the world and Turkey’s development of entrepreneurial universities and academic entrepreneurship]. In I. S. Akcomak, E. Erdil, T. Pamukcu, & M. Tiryakioglu (Eds.), Bilim, teknoloji ve yenilik: Kavramlar, kuramlar ve politika [Science, technology and innovation: Concepts, theories and policy] (pp. 613–637). Istanbul, Turkey: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Terjesen, S., & Elam, A. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurs’ venture internationalization strategies: A practice theory approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), 1093–1120.
• Ufuk, H., & Özgen, O. (2001). Interaction between the business and family lives of women entrepreneurs in Turkey. Journal of Business Ethics, 31(2), 95–106.
• Wang, C. K., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Entrepreneurial interest of university students in Singapore. Technovation, 24(2), 163–172.
• Welch, C. L., Welch, D. E., & Hewerdine, L. (2008). Gender and export behaviour: Evidence from women-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(1), 113–126.
• West, M. R., & Woessmann, L. (2010). Every Catholic child in a catholic school: Historical resistance to state schooling, contemporary private school competition, and student achievement across countries. Economic Journal, 120(546), F229–F255.
• Yetim, N. (2008). Social capital in female entrepreneurship. International Sociology, 23(6), 864–885. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0268580908095913
• Yordanova, D. I., & Tarrazon, M. A. (2010). Gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions: Evidence from Bulgaria. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 15(03), 245–261.
• Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2000). International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 925–950.
• Zapalska, A. (1997). A profile of woman entrepreneurs and enterprises in Poland. Journal of Small Business Management, 35(4), 76–82.