Abstract
Purpose From the analysis of recent literature it emerges a methodological issue about Female entrepreneurship concept which has not been treated. It is not yet clear if Female entrepreneurship is an individual or collective concept and if it is considered a social or natural variable. The purpose of present research is to clear up that these alternatives are preparatory to any research about Female entrepreneurship which would measure its features and effects over other economic variables. Design/methodology/approach This research starts with an analysis of recent literature about Female entrepreneurship in which arises a lack of reflections about the qualification of Female entrepreneurship concept. The work proceeds by classifying Female entrepreneurship concept in four modes and discussing their characterisations. Originality/value Since Entrepreneurship is considered an economic variable pertaining to individuals in different measure, Female entrepreneurship is a concept that has to be classified before it can be measured and before its contribution to economic value can be measured. Originality of this work consists in its fourfold classification of Female entrepreneurship concept as a preparatory step to the analysis of its characteristics and measures. Practical implications Since we don’t clear up the nature of Female entrepreneurship concept, we can’t measure it and its contribution to value creation. Its evaluation could be inserted in Business financial reporting and National accounting systems as a useful information for customs, supply chain determination and public regulators; but in order to do so, its nature has to be clarified, with regard to its individual or collective, and social or natural characterizations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Screpanti and Zamagni (2005: 181–2) say that in modern Economics model “the economy is made up of a plurality of agents who are present on the market either as consumers or as suppliers of productive services or as entrepreneurs […] Clearly, there is no place in this model for the notion of social class. On the contrary, there are just two groups of individuals: the consumers and the entrepreneurs, distinguished solely by the different decisions they are called upon to take.”
- 2.
Schumpeter (1991: 855) writes that, according to Economics, dominating since that period “all social phenomena resolve themselves into decisions and actions of individuals that need not or cannot be further analyzed in terms of superindividual factors.”
- 3.
Table 17.2 at the end of this paragraph points out the four cases.
- 4.
According to Swedberg (2000: 7) it’s worth important to remind that “most people who are not economists probably expect the economics literature to be full of analyses of entrepreneurship, since economics after all is the social science that deals most directly with contemporary economic reality. This, however, is not the case”.
- 5.
Leòn Walras maintains that Entrepreneur is the “fourth character” (2006: p. 319) who combines productive factors.
- 6.
In Serafini (2014: 3090) we found that at “corporate level, a decrease in sales prices results in a decrease of the value created. On the contrary, in comparisons in constant prices, this decrease is not measured at macroeconomic level”. In Serafini (2017: 957) we found that “even if Female entrepreneurship is considered a variable that creates value, its contribution can’t be measured at an aggregate level since we won’t be able to adequately separate a change in price from a change in wealth”.
References
Barker, D. K., & Kuiper, E. (Eds.). (2003). Towards a feminist philosophy of economics. London and New York: Routledge.
Bettio, F., & Verashchagina, A. (Eds.). (2008). Frontiers in the economics of gender. London and New York: Routledge.
Paoloni, P., & Demartini, P. (2016). Women in management: Perspectives on a decade of research (2005–2015). Palgrave Communications.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1991). History of economic analysis [1954]. London: Routledge.
Screpanti, E., & Zamagni, S. (2005). An outline of the history of economic thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Serafini, G. (2014). Intellectual capital value creation and economic theories. In D. Carlucci, J. C. Spender, & G. Schiuma (Eds.), IFKAD 9th international forum on knowledge asset dynamics (pp. 3090–3110). Institute for Knowledge Asset Management, Arts for Business, University of Basilicata.
Serafini, G. (2017). Business economics vs political economics: Why female entrepreneurship value creation is underestimated at macroeconomic level. In J. C. Spender, G. Schiuma, T. Gavrilova (Eds.), Knowledge management in the 21st century: Resilience, creativity and co-creation (pp. 957–961). Institute for Knowledge Asset Management, Arts for Business, University of Basilicata, GSOM, St. Petersburg University.
Swedberg, R. (Ed.). (2000). Entrepreneurship. The social science view. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walras, L. (2006). Elementi di economia politica pura [1874–7] (Vol. 11). Milano: Milano Finanza editori, I grandi classici dell’economia.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Paoloni, P., Serafini, G. (2019). A Fourfold Classification of Female Entrepreneurship Concept. In: Paoloni, P., Lombardi, R. (eds) Advances in Gender and Cultural Research in Business and Economics. IPAZIA 2018. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00335-7_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00335-7_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00334-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00335-7
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)