Entrepreneurship: Is There a Gender Gap?

Francesca Lotti
April 19, 2006
Abstract
One of the central pillars of the Lisbon strategy is to make available more and better jobs;
this goal can be attained whether by fostering rms size or by spurring entrepreneurship. In
this perspective, female entrepreneurship can be regarded as an untapped source of potential
economic growth. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of studies aimed at quantifying the
economic impact of womens entrepreneurship around the world. After a review of the
relevance of this phenomenon in the OECD countries, the paper focuses on female rms
in Italy. Despite the existence of a specic law (L215/92) aimed at promoting women
entrepreneurship, the share of female-run rms over the period 2000-2005 has been slightly
decreasing: in 2005, 25.6% of the active rm was owned (or managed, or controlled) by a
woman, down from 26.2% in 2000. Moreover, the entrepreneurial gap between men and
women, dened as the difference between male- and female-run rms divided by the total
number of rms, increased over time: from 46.9% in 2000 to 47.8% in 2005.
1 Introduction

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and entrepreneurship are commonly recognized as one
of the engine of economic growth and a main source of job creation, both in industrialized coun-
tries and in emerging and developing countries (see the Appendix for an up to date denition of
SME). According to OECD data (OECD, 2005), SMEs are the prevailing organizational form
of business, which accounted in 2003 for more than 95% of the business population and up to
99% in some countries (like in Italy). Moreover, they represent a growing share of employment
in most OECD countries: in Europe only, 23 million SMEs provide employment for 66% of the
workers in the private sector. If one of the central pillars of the Lisbon strategy is to make avail-
able more and better jobs (European Commission, 2005), this goal can be attained by fostering
rm size and by spurring entrepreneurship. In this perspective, womens entrepreneurship can
be regarded as an untapped source of potential economic growth. Nevertheless, very little is
known about the economic impact of womens entrepreneurship.
The policy rationale for the development of womens entrepreneurship was traditionally
focussed on issues like poverty alleviation, womens equality and empowerment, and social
inclusion. Only in the more recent years it became clear that female entrepreneurs create new
jobs for themselves and others and [... ] can provide society with different perspectives and
approaches to management, organization and business issues (OECD, 2004). Recent studies
(GEM, 2005) estimate that the share of women owned business ranges between one third to one
fourth in developed countries, and that their weight on the economy is likely to increase. Study-
ing female entrepreneurship is important, since individual characteristics have a non negligible
effect on rm performance. In fact, male and female entrepreneurs are different in terms of the
industry in which they run their business, of the products they bring to the market, of the goals

I would like to thank Cesare Zavaglia (Infocamere) for kindly supplying data on female-run rms in Italy.
Emmanuele Somma has been a precious help for the organization of the database; Marco Chiurato and Elena
Genito provided valuable research assistance. Thanks are due also to Piero Cipollone, Marco Magnani, Fabiano
Schivardi and Roberto Torrini for useful discussions. Of course, the usual disclaimers apply. The views expressed
are those of the author and do not necessarily reect those of the Bank of Italy. Francesca Lotti, Economics
Research Department, Bank of Italy, via Nazionale 91, 00184 Rome, Italy. Tel. +39 06 4792 2824, Fax +39 06
4792 3720. Email: [email protected].
2
they pursue, of the way they structure their business and they choose a degree of delegation
(Mukhtar (2002), Verheul, Stel and Thurik (2004), and Minniti, Arenus and Langowitz (2005)).
However, female entrepreneurs , which suggests that the economic potential of this group is
hardly exploited. The economic impact of women is substantial, but we still lack a reliable
picture describing in detail that specic impact. Recent efforts initiated by the OECD (1998)
are responses to this lack of knowledge, but are mostly based on case studies and best practices
analysis.
This paper represents the rst attempt in quantifying the relevance of female-run rms
in Italy. Despite the existence of a specic law
1
(L215/92) aimed at promoting women en-
trepreneurship, the share of female-run rms seems stable over the period 2000-2005: one
rm out of four is owned (or managed, or controlled) by a woman (25.6% in 2005). The en-
trepreneurial gap between men and women (dened as the ratio of the difference of the number
of men- and female-run to the total number of rms) increased: from 46.9% in 2000 to 47.8%
in 2005. Moreover, failure rates of female rms are much lower than those of male-run rms,
suggesting the existence of a pre-market selection mechanism.
In line with previous studies (Franco and Winqvist, 2002), women generally start and man-
age rms in different industries when compared to men. The industries chosen by women
are mainly retail, education and other service industries, characterized for being less capital-
intensive.
The remaining paper is organized as follows: Section 2 contains a review of the empirical
studies concerning the role of womens entrepreneurship in selected countries; Section 3 depicts
the role of female-run rms in Italy. Section 4 contains some conclusions a poses issues for
further research.
1
See the appendix for a description of the Law and for details about nanced projects
3
2 Previous Empirical Studies
Given that over the last decades women witnessed an increase in their labor market participation
(see Figure 1), it would be expected that the number of female-owned and managed rms would
exhibit the same path, as the former is a requisite for increasing the number of self-employed
women. Despite this trend, the entrepreneurial gap between men and women is still high, even
in more industrialized countries (Figure 2). The lack of reliable and up to date data is still
one of the main obstacles to understanding the challenges specic to womens entrepreneurship
and their impact on economic growth. Gender-disaggregated statistics and gender-based policy
analysis have become more widespread only in recent years.
Only a few studies actually have been able to estimate the economic impact of womens
entrepreneurship: they roughly dene female entrepreneurship as rms owned or managed by
women. In Canada, the Prime Ministers Task Force on Women Entrepreneurs (2003) has
assembled statistics from Statistics Canada on women entrepreneurs. They nd that between
1981 and 2001, the number of women entrepreneurs increased by 208%, compared to a 38%
increase for men. However, average annual sales for women-owned rms are signicantly
lower. In 2000, women-owned SME were half of those sales of rms owned by men. In the
United States a recent analysis from the US Census Bureau estimates that women-owned and
managed rms represent 28% of the 23 million rms and they provide employment for 9.2
million people, accounting for 9% of all employees in the private sector. In Germany, there
is a total of 1.03 million female-owned businesses. Women-owned and managed businesses
with annual turnover of at least Euro 16,620 are 522,000, representing 18% of the total in this
group and providing jobs for 2 million employees (Kay et al, 2003). Both the presence of
women entrepreneurs and their economic impact is quite similar in the US and in Germany. In
Sweden, the entry size for new rms differs between men and women (ITPS, 2002). Women
have on average 0.6 full time employees and men have on average 1.7. Furthermore, while
women-owned businesses have been smaller than their male counterparts, the difference in size
seems to be diminishing. These results point out that, at least for these countries, womens
entrepreneurship is an important economic factor.
4
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor consortium(GEM, hereinafter), evaluates, on a yearly
basis, the emerging trends in entrepreneurship in several countries. In 2005, the rst Report on
Women and Entrepreneurship (GEM, 2005) was released: this constitutes a cross country as-
sessment on womens entrepreneurial activity, using standard denitions. This study includes
34 countries and is focused on three main objectives: i) to measure the level of womens en-
trepreneurial activity across countries; ii) to understand why women become involved in en-
trepreneurial activity; iii) to suggest policies that may increase womens involvement in en-
trepreneurship. The GEM computed the average level of female Total Entrepreneurial Activity
rate
2
(TEA) across the 34 GEM countries. In every country in the study, men are more active
in entrepreneurship than women. The largest gap occurs in middle income nations where men
are 75% more likely to be active entrepreneurs, compared to 33% in high-income countries and
41% in low-income countries.
There are important differences between men and women entrepreneurs. For women, the
lack of alternative job opportunities is a more important factor in pushing towards entrepreneur-
ship than for men. The majority of businesses started by women employ less start-up capital
as compared to men, used known technology, and targeted existing markets. This suggests that
women entrepreneurs may take a more risk-averse approach to business formation, perhaps be-
cause of their higher involvement in necessity driven entrepreneurship. On average, businesses
started by men used more capital than those started by women (US$65,010 vs. US$33,201 re-
spectively). One reason for this discrepancy is the choice of the industry in which starting the
business, even if also this choice is endogenous. In fact, the majority of women entrepreneurs
provide all the required start-up capital themselves, so it should not be surprising that women
tend to select themselves in less capital-intensive industries, bearing the full cost of starting
their businesses. Moreover, women tend to have slower early growth trajectories.
Figure 3 shows the comparative results based on the TEA index for men and women in each
country. Clearly, the participation of women in entrepreneurship varies signicantly across the
34 countries under exam, ranging from 39.1% in Peru, 25.5% in Uganda, and 24.4% in Ecuador,
2
This index measures the percentage of women in the labor force that is either actively involved in starting a
new business or who owns or manages a business less than 42 months old.
5
to 1.2% in Japan and 1.6% in Hong Kong and Slovenia. There is no country where women are
more active than men. The gender gap is widest in France, Greece, Hong Kong and Spain.
There are also a few countries where the gender gap is not statistically signicant (Ecuador,
Finland, Hungary, Japan, South Africa, and the United States). The distribution of the gender
gap in entrepreneurship is strictly linked the the overall countrys economic conditions: the ratio
of female to male entrepreneurs is higher in the case of necessity based entrepreneurship, which
constitutes a high proportion of activity in the low-income countries (Ecuador, Hungary, Peru,
and South Africa). For high-income countries, such as Finland and the United States, closing
the gender gap may be the result of targeted programs, cultural changes, and more stress on
entrepreneurial education leading to more equal opportunities for women.
Studies comparing the performance of male and female owned rms show that businesses
headed by women tend to be smaller than those headed by men (GEM, 2005). Normally, the
smaller size is perceived as a problem and it is assumed that, if they could, women would
expand their businesses as much as men. This perception has important consequences for fe-
male entrepreneurship, as women may have a harder time in obtaining external nancing and,
in general, credibility as business owners and managers. Also, women tend to form relatively
egalitarian coalitions, while men build on relatively hierarchical coalitions (GEM, 2005). The
hierarchical structure allows them to create organizations that can effectively monitor large
numbers of people. On the other hand, the stronger ties of female organizations reduce the
need for monitoring and for systems of explicit incentives. This analysis suggests that male and
female entrepreneurs will differ in the value attached to start-up size and to business expansion.
An important determinant of the level of female entrepreneurship is the availability of -
nancing. In general, the size and composition of start-up capital show that female entrepreneurs
have a smaller amount of start-up capital. The issue of external nancing is particularly rel-
evant for high-income countries, where increasing numbers of women are beginning to start
more technological and capital intensive businesses. Venture capitalists expect a funded ven-
ture to grow rapidly in term of sales and prots, so that the venture capital rm can exit within a
few years and benet from the risk taken. Such a strategy may not t with womens more con-
6
servative approach to rm growth. Some evidence, however, is starting to emerge suggesting
that in high-income countries, women-owned businesses are beginning to attract venture capital
in some technological intensive industries (GEM, 2004).
3 Female-run rms in Italy
3.1 Beyond the Obvious: how to Determine Firms Gender
There is no internationally recognized denition of women entrepreneur, nor of female-run
rm. Denition used by countries to disseminate data on male and female entrepreneurship,
include concepts such as owners, managers, self-employed and employers (OECD 1998). The
two indicators most commonly collected and used are based on the employment concept. These
indicators are:
1. the number and the share of women and men employers and
2. the number and the share of self-employed women and men.
These indicators are often collected by means of labor force surveys (LFS) or available in the
Census data.
Alternative set of indicators are based on the idea of ownership and control: this kind of
statistic is mainly collected through business or enterprise registers for administrative purposes
(the rst) and by means of direct surveys, as the LFS (the latter). The indicators in this set are:
1. the number (or the percentage) of enterprises owned on managed by women and men
(with territorial and industrial breakdown);
2. the number of women and men members of executive boards of large enterprises;
3. the number of women and men presidents of executive boards of large enterprises.
In Italy, these indicators are collected by the National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) and by
the Chamber of Commerce. Given data availability, it is possible to clearly identify not only
7
which rms are classied as female , but also the degree of femininity. Sole proprietorships
are the simplest case, as it goes with the owners gender. With corporations, the gender of
the equitys owners has to be considered, while for partnerships and other legal forms, the
prevailing gender of partners and of the board of directors respectively (see Table 1 for a detailed
description). For our purpose, in line with the denition adopted by the Ministry of the Industry,
a female-run rm has a degree of femininity of more than 50%.
3.2 Trend in the Presence of Female-run Firms in Italy: 2000-2005
Infocamere (a company controlled by the Chamber of Commerce) is the producer of gender-
disaggregated statistics on rms demography in Italy. As all Italian rms are compelled to
register at the Camber of Commerce in order to start their business, Infocamere data represent
the universe of Italian rms. Table 2 describes the share of female-run rms by industry (2-
digits) and time: it can be immediately noticed that, overall, this share has been remarkably
stable over the six years period under exam. Some sectoral heterogeneity emerges: in line with
the previous literature, also in Italy women tend to start their business in less capital-intensive
industries, such as the public and domestic services, health and social works, and the tourism
sectors. This result is even stronger looking at the sole proprietorship rms (Table 3), where
its easier to identify a female-run rm. The presence of female-run rms among corporations
is rareed (Table 4): the share of female rms ranges from 13.0 % of the energy and the real
estate, renting & business activities, to 29.6 % of the health & social work sector. Looking
at a more disaggregated industry classication (for manufacturing and retail only; Table 5),
the stability of the share of female rms over time is striking, both in the retail sector and in
the manufacturing. The exceptions are the basic metals and the tobacco industries, in which
the presence of female rms increased, and the textile industries, where the share remarkably
declined.
The entrepreneurial gap between men and women, dened as the difference between the
number of male- and female-run rms, divided by the total number of rms, slightly increased
over the time period under exam (46.9% in 2000, 47.8% in 2005; Table 6). In 2005, this gap
8
is nihil in the case of the clothing industry, even if in the early 2000s the gap was negative,
pointing out a prevalence of female rms in this industry. On average, the gap is more marked
in more capital-intensive industries.
To sum up, we nd that the share of female-run rms over time has slightly declined, leading
to an increase in the entrepreneurial gap. Female-run rms operate in less capital-intensive
industries, as they tend to provide the required start-up capital on their own. Assuming that
managerial abilities are equally distributed among males and females, howcan this phenomenon
be explained? Compelling with data availability, the rst answer concerns the likelihood of exit.
Women likely-to-be entrepreneurs select themselves to operate in those industries i) where their
perceived chances of survival are higher or, alternatively ii) where their managerial project
are perceived to be more successful by venture capitalists or by banks, involved in providing
external nancing. In both cases, one should observe higher default rates for female rms
operating in those industries characterized by a massive presence of male-run rms. Clearly,
this is not what we observe in the data. Tables 7 - 11 report the default rates (simply computed
as the number of exiting rms during the year divided by the number of active rms at the
beginning of the year) by gender. Over time, Table 7, there is no signicant difference in
failure rates between men and women. Looking at the single industries (Tables 8 and 9), in
the Construction, Recycling and Trade, carry & repairing industries, female-run rms has a
signicant higher default rates. Concerning location, only female rms located in Molise are
more likely to exit than male-run rms.
Overall, with the few exceptions mentioned above, female rms exhibit failure rates signif-
icantly lower than male-run rms. This fact suggests that a pre-market selection mechanism
might be at work: the presence of higher entry barriers for women likely-to-be entrepreneurs
tend to select the ttest projects with the higher chance to become successful rms (Jovanovic,
1982).
9
4 Open questions
According to an OECD study (OECD, 1998), women-owned rms (SMEs in particular), grow
at faster rates than the economy as a whole in several countries. Even if female entrepreneurs
are becoming a major force in most OECD countries, their contribution to economic growth
could become more signicant if some restrictions were removed, so that their potential could
be fully exploited, both in industrialized and less developed countries.
As a stylized fact, it emerges that women tend to start and to run their business in the retail,
education and other service industries. Moreover, for every industry under exam, female-run
rms have lower failure rates that their male counterparts.
For a better understanding and to address accurate policy measures, female entrepreneurship
must be examined both at the individual level (the choice of becoming self-employed) and at
the rm level (looking at the dynamics of female-run rms). At the individual level, one of
the main obstacles for a woman to start a new rm, as pointed out by OECD (OECD, 2004)
and by the Italian Ministry of Industry (2004), is the lack of external nance for the start-up
capital. For a given business opportunity and for equally capable individuals, women must
secure additional resources compared to men, in order to exploit their business, as they control
less capital (according to the OECD study, on average, women have lower personal nancial
assets than men). This is a reason why female-run rms can be more credit-constrained than
male-run rms, as women may have a harder time getting external nance as a consequence of
gender discrimination. Reviewing the empirical literature on this topic, Carter et al. (Carter et
al, 2001) nd rather mixed evidence on gender discrimination from lending institutions. One
one hand, credit constraints can inhibit women entrepreneurship, on the other, they can can
force women to start their business in less capital intensive industries, generating a sort of
segregation between industries. Further research at the rm level is needed to understand the
role of nancial institutions in shaping the dynamics of female-run rms.
10
Appendix
A Denition of Small & Medium Enterprise (SME)
There is not a unique denition of SME among OECD countries. SMEs are generally dened as
non-subsidiary, independent rms with less than a certain number of employees. This threshold
is 250 in the EU, 500 in the US. Small rms are those with less than 50 employees, while
micro-enterprises usually have less than 5 employees.
In the EU, a new denition with higher nancial ceilings is in force since January 2005. This
denition applies to all community acts and funding programs concerning SMEs, as this kind
of rms are eligible with a higher intensity of State aids. In particular:
medium enterprises turnover (50-249 employees) should not exceed EUR 50 million (or
alternatively, balance sheets should not exceed EUR 43 million);
small enterprises turnover (10-49 employees) should not exceed EUR 10 million (or
alternatively, balance sheets should not exceed EUR 10 million);
micro-enterprises turnover (less than 10 employees) should not exceed EUR 2 million
(or alternatively, balance sheets should not exceed EUR 2 million);
The Law 215/92 Daughters
Despite the increase in labor force participation of women, and the availability of public funding
to boost female entrepreneurship, the gap between men and women entrepreneurship is still
large, and no catching-up seems to emerge in the period under exam (2000-2005). The Law
215 passed in 1992 was created with the purpose of fostering female entrepreneurship and to
spur growth of female-run rms (with a total or strong presence of women, as dened in Table
1). The targeted industries are manufacturing, retail, transportation and hospitality. Subsidized
activities are i) new rm creation (greeneld entry); ii) rm take-overs; iii) accomplishment of
innovative managerial projects; iv) acquisition of external services aimed at increasing rms
productivity and innovativeness. In Table 1A, the number of applications and the amount of
public funding are reported.
The nanced project are mainly related to greeneld entry (more than 80%) and addressed
to retail, hospitality and other services (around 70%). As employment growth is one of the
11
Table A1 - Applications, grants and public funding allocated by Law 215/92 (monetary
aggregates are expressed in million euros).
Ban N. of applications N. of grants Co-funded investments Public funding Employment
I 4,109 518 56.6 22.5 3,388
II 4,852 917 101 36.9 5,559
III 5,301 1,311 154.2 62.8 7,566
IV

26,951 5,669 474 288 30,628
Total 41,213 8,415 785.8 410.2 47,141
Source: Ministry of Industry.

: In the IV ban, co-nancing by the Italian Regions is required. This explains the higher funding
availability.
main objectives of the Law, labor intensive projects are more likely to be selected (the average
amount of co-nanced investment per employee is 16,700 euros). The lack of data about these
subsidized rms prevents a sound exercise of policy evaluation. Nevertheless, the fact that the
nanced project are evaluated on the criterion of the induced employment and not on efciency,
can cast some doubts on reliability of the selection procedures. Moreover, looking at the sec-
toral composition, there is no attempt of re-balancing the presence of female-run rms in those
industries, like manufacturing, where male-run rms are dominant.
12
References
Bygrave, William D., and Stephen A. Hunt (2004) 2004 Financing Report. GEM - Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor
Carter, Sara, Susan Anderson, and Eleanor Shaw (2001) Womens Business Ownership: a
Reviewof the Academic, Popular and Internet Literature. Small Business Services Report:
UK
European Commission (2005) Common Actions for Growth and Employment: The Community
Lisbon Programme (Brusseles: COM(2005) 330 nal)
Franco, Ana, and Karin Winqvist (2002) The Entrepreneurial Gap between Women and Men.
Eurostat: Statistics in Focus
Infocamere (2004) Impresa in Genere (Rome: Rapporto Nazionale sullImprenditoria Fem-
minile)
ITPS (2002) Newly Started Enterprises in Sweden (2000 and 2001). ITPS: Swedish Institute
for Growth Policy Studies Report
Jovanovic, Boyan (1982) Selection and Evolution of Industry. 50(3), 649670
Kay, Rosemary, Brigitte Gunterberg, Michael Holz, and Hans-J Wolter
Minniti, Maria, Pia Arenus, and Nan Langowitz (2005) 2004 Report on Women and En-
trepreneurship. GEM - Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
Mukhtar, Syeda-Masooda (2002) Differences in Male and Female Management Characteris-
tics: A Study of Owner-Manager Businesses. Small Business Economics (18), 289311
OECD (1998) Women Entrepreneurs in SMEs (Paris: OECD Publishing)
(2004a) Promoting Entrepreneurship and Innovative SMEs in a Global Economy (Paris:
OECD Publishing)
(2004b) Womens Entrepreneurship: Issues and Policies (Paris: OECD Publishing)
(2005) SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook (Paris: OECD Publishing)
Verheul, Ingrid, Andr e Van Stel, and Roy Thurik (2004) Explaining Female and Male En-
trepreneurship across 29 Countries. Discussion Papers of Entrepreneurship, Growth and
Public Policy
13
T
a
b
l
e
1
:
D
e

n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
e
m
a
l
e

r
m
D
e
g
r
e
e
o
f

F
e
m
i
n
i
n
i
t
y

S
o
l
e
p
r
o
p
r
i
e
t
o
r
s
h
i
p
s
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
O
t
h
e
r
l
e
g
a
l
f
o
r
m
s
O
w
n
e
r
:
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
:
E
q
u
i
t
y
:
B
o
a
r
d
o
f
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
s
:
m
u
s
t
b
e
f
e
m
a
l
e
s
f
o
r
m
u
s
t
b
e
f
e
m
a
l
e
s

h
a
n
d
f
o
r
m
u
s
t
b
e
f
e
m
a
l
e
s
f
o
r
T
o
t
a
l
m
u
s
t
b
e
f
e
m
a
l
e
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
S
t
r
o
n
g
-
>
=
6
0
%
>
=
6
6
%
>
=
6
0
%
P
r
e
v
a
i
l
i
n
g
-
>
5
0
%
>
5
0
%
>
5
0
%
14
Table 2: Share of female-run rms on the total number of rms, by industry: all active rms,
2000-2005 (percentages).
All rms 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Agriculture 26.6 25.9 26.4 27.6 26.1 27.6
Fishing 13.0 13.4 14.7 13.3 14.4 14.2
Mining 16.5 16.3 16.5 16.7 16.7 16.1
Manufacturing 24.2 23.9 24.0 23.7 23.5 23.4
Energy 9.4 9.7 10.1 9.7 10.1 12.9
Constructions 9.9 9.4 9.4 9.3 8.8 9.1
Retailing 28.1 32.5 31.8 28.8 30.9 28.3
HoReCa 38.2 39.7 35.7 41.9 37.4 43.8
Transport, storage & communications 12.6 13.7 15.1 14.8 15.5 17.1
Financial intermediation 18.7 19.3 19.9 17.5 22.4 21.1
Real estate, renting & business activities 34.3 28.8 34.4 27.2 25.5 24.7
Education 37.4 36.9 37.7 36.4 37.3 36.4
Health & social work services 43.8 45.5 44.0 45.3 45.5 44.5
Other public, social & personal services 46.7 44.0 47.0 42.4 47.3 47.0
Private households with employed persons 49.6 47.3 44.0 41.5 41.5 47.6
Total 26.2 26.4 27.0 25.7 25.9 25.6
Source: Authors calculation on Infocamere data.
15
Table 3: Share of female-run rms on the total number of rms, by industry: sole proprietorship
active rms, 2000-2005 (percentages).
Sole proprietorships 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Agriculture 28.0 27.0 27.6 28.6 26.7 28.6
Fishing 11.7 12.7 16.6 12.8 15.4 14.6
Mining 10.1 10.0 10.1 10.1 10.2 10.6
Manufacturing 21.8 23.6 27.9 21.7 23.8 24.8
Energy 14.9 14.8 15.8 16.4 16.7 17.7
Constructions 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.4
Retailing 25.8 31.9 29.4 27.4 30.5 28.0
HoReCa 41.9 41.7 35.5 41.6 43.0 45.5
Transport, storage & communications 6.4 5.8 6.5 7.1 7.4 8.6
Financial intermediation 21.8 21.9 21.6 17.8 20.8 23.4
Real estate, renting & business activities 34.3 28.1 28.1 28.4 33.7 32.8
Education 41.9 42.7 43.3 43.8 44.6 44.6
Health & social work services 42.0 43.9 46.7 49.3 51.6 57.5
Other public, social & personal services 62.0 54.6 58.8 52.7 59.1 58.7
Private households with employed persons 37.4 37.5 34.3 34.8 33.3 20.0
Total 24.8 25.5 25.4 24.4 25.6 25.5
Source: Authors calculation on Infocamere data.
16
Table 4: Share of female-run rms on the total number of rms, by industry: active corpora-
tions, 2000-2005 (percentages).
Corporations 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Agriculture 18.2 17.2 17.7 19.3 18.1 20.3
Fishing 10.7 11.2 12.3 12.8 13.2 12.6
Mining 14.7 14.5 14.5 14.6 14.7 13.9
Manufacturing 18.1 17.2 16.4 19.0 19.1 16.7
Energy 8.3 8.8 9.4 8.8 9.2 13.0
Constructions 16.9 14.7 15.7 15.8 10.8 15.1
Retailing 24.4 19.5 26.7 18.9 19.9 21.4
HoReCa 24.8 24.8 25.1 26.4 28.3 26.6
Transport, storage & communications 17.0 18.5 19.2 17.0 18.5 20.5
Financial intermediation 12.3 12.4 13.0 10.1 20.5 14.4
Real estate, renting & business activities 28.0 19.5 26.6 21.0 19.4 13.0
Education 28.5 26.9 26.6 26.2 27.2 27.4
Health & social work services 27.5 28.1 28.5 28.9 31.2 29.6
Other public, social & personal services 16.7 18.6 18.0 20.0 20.9 21.2
Total 20.4 18.0 20.3 18.9 19.0 17.3
Source: Authors calculation on Infocamere data.
17
Table 5: Share of female-run rms on the total number of rms: all active rms, manufacturing
& retail, 2000-2005 (percentages).
All rms 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Manufacturing
Food products & beverages 25.8 26.4 27.5 27.4 28.5 28.0
Tobacco 9.7 10.6 12.7 12.3 13.7 14.3
Textiles 45.6 35.9 39.2 39.9 38.1 39.0
Clothing 51.8 52.7 46.6 48.2 51.5 49.8
Leather & footwear 28.8 30.8 31.4 31.5 32.1 31.4
Wood products 12.3 12.4 13.6 11.9 13.3 13.8
Paper & paper products 25.0 25.6 25.9 29.7 25.9 25.5
Printing & publishing 25.1 25.8 25.4 26.7 27.0 25.3
Coke, rened petroleum products & nuclear fuel 13.8 14.1 13.5 13.1 13.0 13.5
Chemical products 18.5 15.4 18.8 14.7 19.9 19.8
Rubber & plastics products 26.0 25.1 26.6 22.1 23.0 26.1
Other non-metallic mineral products 20.9 22.2 22.2 24.0 21.4 23.2
Basic metals 17.9 23.8 24.5 18.6 20.1 28.2
Fabricated metal products 20.1 16.8 16.7 16.9 16.5 18.6
Machinery & equipment, n.e.c. 18.2 18.0 21.1 18.2 17.5 15.3
Ofce, accounting & computing machinery 16.4 16.0 16.8 16.3 16.3 16.2
Electrical machinery & apparatus, n.e.c. 20.8 21.9 21.8 21.8 21.2 23.2
Radio, TV & communications equipment 17.0 17.1 17.1 17.4 17.6 19.1
Medical, precision & optical instruments 14.4 14.9 15.5 14.8 15.8 16.0
Motor vehicles, trailers & semi-trailers 17.0 19.1 17.1 17.5 17.9 20.7
Other transports 14.9 14.8 14.6 14.9 15.0 14.9
Manufacturing & furniture, n.e.c. 20.2 20.3 21.1 22.1 24.0 23.1
Recycling 18.5 18.8 18.5 18.6 18.3 18.1
Retail
Trade, carry repairing etc. 12.4 12.6 12.8 13.1 13.3 13.5
Wholesale trade 18.8 19.0 19.2 19.4 19.5 19.6
Retail trade 40.3 40.1 40.1 40.2 40.3 40.2
Source: Authors calculation on Infocamere data.
18
Table 6: Entrepreneurial gap, by industry, 2000-2005 (percentages).
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Agriculture 46.8 48.2 47.1 47.7 47.7 44.8
Fishing 74.1 73.3 70.5 71.2 71.2 71.6
Mining 67.0 67.4 66.9 66.7 66.7 67.9
Manufacturing 51.8 53.4 52.4 52.2 52.2 51.4
Food products & beverages 48.3 47.2 44.9 43.0 43.0 43.9
Tobacco 80.7 78.8 74.6 72.6 72.6 71.4
Textiles 8.8 28.2 21.7 23.9 23.9 22.0
Clothing -3.6 -5.4 6.7 -3.1 -3.1 0.4
Leather & footwear 42.4 38.4 37.3 35.8 35.8 37.2
Wood products 75.4 75.3 72.9 73.5 73.5 72.5
Paper & paper products 49.9 48.9 48.2 48.2 48.2 48.9
Printing & publishing 49.9 48.5 49.3 46.0 46.0 49.4
Coke, rened petroleum products & nuclear fuel 72.5 71.8 73.0 74.0 74.0 73.1
Chemical products 63.1 69.3 62.3 60.2 60.2 60.3
Rubber & plastics products 48.0 49.9 46.8 54.0 54.0 47.7
Other non-metallic mineral products 58.2 55.5 55.5 57.3 57.3 53.5
Basic metals 64.2 52.3 51.0 59.8 59.8 43.7
Fabricated metal products 59.9 66.5 66.6 67.0 67.0 62.7
Machinery & equipment, n.e.c. 63.6 64.1 57.8 65.0 65.0 69.4
Ofce, accounting & computing machinery 67.2 68.0 66.4 67.4 67.4 67.7
Electrical machinery & apparatus, n.e.c. 58.5 56.2 56.5 57.5 57.5 53.5
Radio, TV & communications equipment 65.9 65.7 65.8 64.9 64.9 61.8
Medical, precision & optical instruments 71.2 70.2 68.9 68.4 68.4 68.0
Motor vehicles, trailers & semi-trailers 66.1 61.7 65.9 64.2 64.2 58.6
Other transports 70.3 70.3 70.7 70.0 70.0 70.1
Manufacturing & furniture, n.e.c. 59.5 59.4 57.8 52.0 52.0 53.9
Recycling 62.9 62.4 63.1 63.3 63.3 63.8
Energy 81.1 80.6 79.8 79.8 79.8 74.2
Constructions 80.2 81.3 81.2 82.5 82.5 81.9
Retail 41.5 41.5 41.2 40.7 40.7 40.6
Trade, carry repairing etc. 75.2 74.9 74.3 73.4 73.4 73.1
Wholesale trade 62.4 61.9 61.5 61.1 61.1 60.9
Retail trade 19.4 19.8 19.7 19.4 19.4 19.6
Hotel & restaurants 23.6 20.6 28.5 25.2 25.2 12.4
Transport, storage & communications 74.9 72.6 69.7 68.9 68.9 65.7
Financial intermediation 62.6 61.3 60.2 55.2 55.2 57.7
Real estate renting & business activities 31.4 42.4 31.1 49.0 49.0 50.5
Education 25.3 26.3 24.6 25.5 25.5 27.2
Health & social work services 12.5 9.0 11.9 8.9 8.9 10.9
Other public, social & personal services 6.5 12.0 6.0 5.3 5.3 6.0
Private households with employed persons 0.8 5.4 12.0 17.0 17.0 4.8
N.e.c. 47.6 50.3 45.6 38.5 38.5 45.9
Total 46.9 48.7 47.1 48.6 48.6 47.8
Source: Authors calculation on Infocamere data. The entrepreneurial gap is dened as the difference
between the number of male and female-run rms divided by the total number of rms.
19
Table 7: Failure rates by gender and year.
Years
F

M

F

M
H
0
:
F

M
= 0 > 0
2000 4.110 4.740 -0.630 0.040 0.980
2001 4.350 4.590 -0.240 0.442 0.779
2002 4.386 4.814 -0.428 0.169 0.915
2003 4.503 5.039 -0.536 0.096 0.952
2004 4.799 5.209 -0.410 0.215 0.892
2005 5.004 5.660 -0.656 0.064 0.968
All period 4.520 5.000 -0.480 0.000 1.000
Note: Failure rates are computed as the ratio of the number
of bankruptcies and the total number of rms. In the last two
columns p-values are reported.
Table 8: Failure rates by gender and economic activity.
Industry
F

M

F

M
H
0
:
F

M
= 0 > 0
Agricultural, hunting & forestry 2.638 3.298 -0.660 0.008 0.996
Fishing 4.108 4.081 0.027 0.970 0.485
Mining & quarrying 8.361 7.232 1.128 0.264 0.132
Manufacturing 7.696 8.615 -0.919 0.073 0.964
Electricity, gas & water 2.013 2.093 -0.081 0.880 0.560
Construction 7.596 6.556 1.040 0.005 0.002
Wholesale & retail trade 6.944 7.921 -0.977 0.035 0.982
Hotel & restaurants 4.466 5.810 -1.344 0.000 1.000
Transport, storage & communications 5.359 5.367 -0.008 0.980 0.510
Financial intermediation 2.747 2.577 0.170 0.477 0.238
Real estate, renting & business activities 3.117 3.696 -0.579 0.065 0.968
Education 2.206 2.399 -0.193 0.400 0.800
Health & social work services 1.728 2.423 -0.695 0.000 1.000
Other public, social & personal services 2.345 3.596 -1.251 0.000 1.000
Private households with employed persons 3.606 6.610 -3.004 0.097 0.951
N.e.c. 7.091 8.785 -1.694 0.016 0.992
Note: Averages over the period 2000-2005. Failure rates are computed as the ratio of the number of
bankruptcies and the total number of rms. In the last two columns p-values are reported.
20
Table 9: Failure rates by gender and industry.
Industry
F

M

F

M
H
0
:
F

M
= 0 > 0
Manufacturing
Food products & beverages 5.034 6.307 -1.272 0.001 1.000
Tobacco 8.627 8.022 0.605 0.808 0.404
Textiles 6.339 12.829 -6.490 0.000 1.000
Clothing 10.222 18.535 -8.313 0.000 1.000
Leather & footwear 13.526 15.737 -2.211 0.024 0.988
Wood products 8.052 8.526 -0.473 0.429 0.786
Paper & paper products 8.091 8.786 -0.695 0.426 0.787
Printing & publishing 3.924 5.703 -1.779 0.000 1.000
Coke, rened petroleum products & nuclear fuel 5.893 9.149 -3.256 0.025 0.987
Chemical products 10.454 9.442 1.012 0.249 0.125
Rubber & plastics products 8.728 10.823 -2.096 0.023 0.989
Other non-metallic mineral products 7.337 10.627 -3.291 0.000 1.000
Basic metals 8.868 9.106 -0.238 0.784 0.608
Fabricated metal products 7.445 7.415 0.030 0.951 0.475
Machinery & equipment, n.e.c. 6.944 6.855 0.089 0.868 0.434
Ofce, accounting & computing machinery 5.056 5.969 -0.913 0.315 0.842
Electrical machinery & apparatus, n.e.c. 5.332 7.136 -1.804 0.000 1.000
Radio, TV & communications equipment 6.089 6.192 -0.102 0.872 0.564
Medical, precision & optical instruments 3.699 4.066 -0.367 0.397 0.802
Motor vehicles, trailers & semi-trailers 8.821 8.791 0.030 0.978 0.489
Other transports 7.371 6.850 0.522 0.467 0.234
Manufacturing & furniture, n.e.c. 6.194 8.229 -2.035 0.000 1.000
Recycling 4.301 3.201 1.101 0.097 0.048
Retail
Trade, carry & repairing 5.804 4.445 1.359 0.001 0.001
Wholesale trade 7.577 7.844 -0.267 0.404 0.798
Retail trade 5.212 7.155 -1.943 0.000 1.000
Note: Averages over the period 2000-2005. Failure rates are computed as the ratio of the number of
bankruptcies and the total number of rms. In the last two columns p-values are reported.
21
Table 10: Failure rates by gender and region.
Regions
F

M

F

M
H
0
:
F

M
= 0 > 0
Abruzzo 4.631 4.172 0.459 0.368 0.184
Basilicata 4.256 5.730 -1.474 0.023 0.989
Calabria 3.454 3.892 -0.439 0.184 0.908
Campania 4.687 6.192 -1.504 0.001 1.000
Emilia-Romagna 3.583 3.371 0.212 0.664 0.332
Friuli Venezia Giulia 4.276 6.178 -1.901 0.000 1.000
Lazio 3.348 5.706 -2.359 0.000 1.000
Liguria 4.864 4.518 0.346 0.415 0.208
Lombardia 5.070 4.495 0.575 0.239 0.119
Marche 3.680 4.357 -0.677 0.111 0.944
Molise 5.665 4.416 1.249 0.094 0.047
Piemonte 3.328 3.287 0.040 0.883 0.441
Puglia 5.569 6.295 -0.726 0.183 0.909
Sardegna 5.582 4.908 0.674 0.426 0.213
Sicilia 5.789 7.247 -1.458 0.054 0.973
Toscana 6.324 5.469 0.855 0.280 0.140
Trentino Alto-Adige 2.237 3.337 -1.100 0.003 0.999
Umbria 4.232 4.430 -0.198 0.409 0.796
Valle dAosta 4.004 5.838 -1.834 0.059 0.970
Veneto 5.629 5.999 -0.369 0.600 0.700
Note: Averages over the period 2000-2005. Failure rates are computed as the
ratio of the number of bankruptcies and the total number of rms. In the last
two columns p-values are reported.
Table 11: Failure rates by gender and legal form.
Legal form
F

M

F

M
H
0
:
F

M
= 0 > 0
Corporations 7.304 8.067 -0.763 0.002 0.999
Sole proprietorships 3.624 3.531 0.093 0.769 0.385
Partnerships 3.678 4.133 -0.455 0.003 0.999
Other legal forms 3.512 4.346 -0.834 0.003 0.998
Note: Averages over the period 2000-2005. Failure rates are computed as the
ratio of the number of bankruptcies and the total number of rms. In the last
two columns p-values are reported.
22
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
:
L
a
b
o
r
f
o
r
c
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
w
o
m
e
n
(
1
9
9
5
,
2
0
0
0
&
2
0
0
4
)
.
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
c e l a n d
S w e d e n
D e n m a r k
N o r w a y
S w i t z e r l a n d
C a n a d a
F i n l a n d
N e w Z e a l a n d
U n i t e d K i n g d o m
N e t h e r l a n d s
U n i t e d S t a t e s
P o r t u g a l
A u s t r a l i a
G e r m a n y
F r a n c e
A u s t r i a
S l o v a k R e p u b l i c
E U 1 5
E U 2 5
C z e c h R e p u b l i c
J a p a n
T o t a l O E C D
P o l a n d
r e l a n d
O E C D E u r o p e
B e l g i u m
S p a i n
L u x e m b o u r g
G r e e c e
H u n g a r y
K o r e a
t a l y
M e x i c o
T u r k e y
1
9
9
5
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
4
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
O
E
C
D
d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
o
n
L
a
b
o
r
F
o
r
c
e
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
(
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
U
R
L
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
x
.
d
o
i
.
o
r
g
/
1
0
.
1
7
8
7
/
0
7
7
5
1
4
1
0
7
4
6
4
)
.
C
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
a
r
e
s
o
r
t
e
d
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
i
n
2
0
0
4
.
23
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
:
W
o
m
e
n
a
n
d
m
e
n
s
e
l
f
-
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d
i
n
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
O
E
C
D
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
,
2
0
0
2
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
O
E
C
D
d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
o
n
L
a
b
o
r
F
o
r
c
e
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
.
24
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
:
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
T
E
A
)
I
n
d
e
x
,
m
a
l
e
s
a
n
d
f
e
m
a
l
e
s
(
2
0
0
4
)
.
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
P e r u
U g a n d a
E q u a d o r
J o r d a n
N e w Z e a l a n d
B r a z i l
A u s t r a l i a
U S
c e l a n d
A r g e n t i n a
C a n a d a
S o u t h A f r i c a
r e l a n d
P o l a n d
s r a e l
U K
F r a n c e
P o r t u g a l
H u n g a r y
N o r w a y
S i n g a p o r e
D e n m a r k
F i n l a n d
G e r m a n y
N e t h e r l a n d s
G r e e c e
S p a i n
t a l y
S w e d e n
B e l g i u m
C r o a t i a
H o n g K o n g
S l o v e n i a
J a p a n
T
E
A

n
d
e
x

-

F
e
m
a
l
e
s
T
E
A

n
d
e
x

-

M
a
l
e
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
G
E
M
,
G
l
o
b
a
l
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
h
i
p
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
.
C
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
a
r
e
s
o
r
t
e
d
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
T
E
A
i
n
d
e
x
.
25