PERCEPTIONS OF FEMALE ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN RUSSIA

Hkan Ylinenp & Maya Chechurina

AR 2000:45

Paper to be presented at 30th European Small Business Seminar in Ghent, September 2000.

PERCEPTIONS OF FEMALE ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN RUSSIA

Hkan Ylinenp
PhD, Associate Professor Lule University of Technology Dept. of Business Administration & Social Sciences; Small Business Academy SE-971 87 LULE, Sweden Phone +46-920-912 10 Fax +46-920-723 39 Email Hakan.Ylinenpaa@ies.luth.se

Maya Chechurina
PhD, Professor Murmansk Technical University Dept. of Management & Marketing 13, Sportivnaya str. 183010, MURMANSK, Russia Phone (815 2) 230 586 Interfax +47 78910234

ABSTRACT This paper aims at contributing to our rudimentary knowledge on entrepreneurship in postsocialistic countries, and more specifically investigates the conditions prevailing in Russia for female entrepreneurs starting privately owned and managed ventures. Building on both previous research in entrepreneurship and gender-based research, the paper applies theoretical frameworks emerging from research in Western economies on data depicting the present situation in post-socialistic Russia. Utilizing quantitative data (survey data from 670 respondents) as well as qualitative data (interviews with two focus groups of newly established and potential female entrepreneurs), the study investigates general attitudes towards women in business and the specific opportunities and problems female entrepreneurs are facing in todays Russia. The study concludes by comparing the situation for female entrepreneurs in Russia to women doing business in the former Western Hemisphere. Keywords: Self-employment, female entrepreneurship, Central & Eastern Europe, attitudes.

Paper to be presented at EFMD 30th Small Business Seminar in Ghent, Belgium, September 2000

INTRODUCTION Very little is known about the emerging entrepreneurship sector of former eastern economies such as Russia. In contrast to what we know about the entrepreneurs and the small business sector in most western countries our knowledge on the growing small business sector in transition economies is rudimentary, and previous studies on the SME sector in Russia has been characterized as rather anecdotal and parochial where only a few studies have used a rigorous scientific approach (Tkachev and Kolvereid ,1999, p. 270). The lack of knowledge on female entrepreneurs is especially apparent. Even if the constitution for the Russian Federation1 states that men and women have equal rights and, e.g., the same entitlements for doing a career in society, reality proves that Russian women have only very limited options to achieve a leading position in industry, politics or other spheres of social production. This glass ceiling serving as a barrier for female aspirations in social production together with a high rate of unemployment today attracts Russian women to the entrepreneurial sector, where starting new smaller firms serve the double purpose of both generating an additional family income and creating an arena for self-fulfillment. These entrepreneurial ambitions are in Russia then combined with the double female burden of also being the family person primarily responsible for unpaid housework and upbringing of the familys children (cf. Chechurina, 2000). This study aim at contributing to a better knowledge on the situation for Russian entrepreneurs and builds on recently collected data from one region in northwest Russia. The purpose of the paper is to examine how useful different theoretical perspectives on entrepreneurship in Western Europe are for analyzing the situation of Russian female entrepreneurs by addressing three different themes: ?? The general attitudes towards female entrepreneurship, ?? The perceived opportunities for start-up or development, ?? The perceived obstacles or barriers for business start-up or further business development. Addressing these questions, this exploratory paper first briefly gives a picture of the present situation referring to female entrepreneurship in Russia, and outlines different theoretical perspectives apparent in previous research on female entrepreneurship. After presenting the research methodology utilized in this study (a combination of a quantitative survey study and qualitative interviews based on focus groups of female entrepreneurs) we report on the results of the study. The paper is concluded by a discussion on the results thus emerging, underpinning our suggestions for future research. BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE Deriving from perestroika, laws such as the Russian law on individual enterprise in 1987 and the law on co-operatives in 1988 made way for entrepreneurial initiatives and new firm creation (Tkachev and Kolvereid 1999).2 During the first years of development towards market economy the emerging entrepreneurial sector in Russia by large may be characterized by what Ageev et al. (1995) labeled as speculative or even predatory entrepreneurship. The dominant mode of entrepreneurship was focusing on creating value and making profit from trade and financial operations, exploiting weaknesses in the states legislation and taxation system, and even utilizing illegal or unethical measures. Today this speculative entrepreneurship is balanced by a more pragmatic entrepreneurship, where entrepreneurs
1 2

The constitution for the Russian Federation of December 12, 1993, clauses 12 item 3. By entrepreneur and entrepreneurship we in this paper refer to people starting their own private and (normally) smaller firm and thus get self-employed. This does not necessarily involve innovation and creative destruction in a Schumpeterian meaning. By smaller firm or small and medium-sized firms we here generally refer to companies with less than 250 employees.

work hard to create the industrial base for business development (ibid, p. 371). The representation of small businesses in Russia, especially in the manufacturing sector, used to be negligible and sometimes referred to as the Socialist Black Hole (Vahcic and Petrin, 1989). This situation is now however changing. From a very low level, the number of SMEs in Russia is increasing. According to Tkachev and Kolvereid (1999), 437,000 small and medium-sized firms were registered in October 1992. In January 1995 the number of firms have increased to 1,380,000 (Tomilov and Kroopanin 1996) employing, in January 1996, 8.9 million people or 15% of the total workforce in Russia (Vilenskii et al. 1996). Contextual ambiguities for entrepreneurship in Russia and other post-socialistic economies As noted by Tkachev and Kolvereid (1999), little is known about Russian entrepreneurship. In a study of 32 Russian entrepreneurs, Ageev et al. (1995) however described them as typically male, married, aged 34, holding high school or college degrees, and operating their first venture. 56 per cent were operating a service business while the remaining 44 per cent were manufacturers, and the entrepreneurs typically had started their businesses based on own savings and personal assets rather than supported by b ank loans or other external venture capital. The motives for starting businesses varied, but as a primary motive and driving force most frequently depicted search of job satisfaction, desiring independence, economic necessity and an occurring opportunity. When comparing personality traits to entrepreneurs in the U.S. Ageev et al. concluded that personality traits exhibited by the Russian entrepreneurs were similar to those of entrepreneurs in the U.S., but also that their business activity and business mentality have been strongly influenced by the countrys historic heritage (state-centered state, multi-cultural society, and weak middle class), the communist ideology, and the absence of reliable business laws (p. 375). As pointed out also by Utsch et al. (1999), the historic heritage of being a post-socialist country means that people starting businesses have no experience, little knowledge, and no role models for entrepreneurship (p. 39). One of the few studies made on female entrepreneurship in former eastern economies refers to female entrepreneurs in Poland. Based on a survey of 110 male and 40 female entrepreneurs, Zapalska (1997) reports on motives for becoming an entrepreneur in Poland, where data were based on a telephone survey of entrepreneurs from the three largest urban settings in Poland. Depicting most of the factors reported in previous studies on entrepreneurial motives in the West Zapalska however noted, women stated more frequently that they strongly disliked their previous bosses and they felt that they could do a better job than their previous supervisors, whose careers had developed during the communist regime. This achievement motive led them to seek out situations which challenged their skills, allowed them to perform better, to gain confidence, and to succeed professionally (p. 77). In a recent study of female entrepreneurship in the region of Novosibirsk in Russia, reported by Sharnina (1999), 37 female entrepreneurs operating trade businesses, bakeries, textile and leather manufacturing firms were surveyed. The female respondents reported a number of different reasons for starting a business of their own, such as providing a proper life for themselves and their families (depicted by 96% of respondents), economic necessity to receive an income (50%), a desire for independence (27%), building a future for the children (19%), releasing personal ambitions (12%), or to be useful to the society (8%).3 In the same study these Russian female entrepreneurs were asked also to state what problems or difficulties related to their businesses that were most eminent. Most significant problems thus
3

Female motives for starting a business, reported by Sharnina 1999 (%; n = 37. Novosibirsk region, Russia; a study supported by RSS OSI/HESP). Since the respondents could indicate more than one alternative, the percentage exceeds 100%.

depicted were a limited market demand for products and services (noted by 75% of all respondents), lack of internal funding for development (46%), unfavorable labor conditions (43%), high taxes (39%), severe market competition (36%), difficulties in cooperating with local authorities and taxation inspectors (29%), insufficient knowledge in legislation (21%), high costs for trading licenses etc. (14%), and high location rents (11%). Despite these problems perceived by the female entrepreneurs themselves, the general attitude held towards women entrepreneurs among fellow Russians in this specific region generally seems to be very positive. 67 per cent hence express an overall positive attitude towards female entrepreneurs, while only 14% are being negative (ibid.). By a tradition stemming from the socialist period, Russian men and women have been regarded as equals, where equal work should render equal pay. The constitutions article 35 however also states womens responsibilities for the reproductive sphere: the rights and obligations of Russian women as mothers. This double burden to contribute to both the productive and reproductive sector, often referred to as a characteristic of women also in Western economies, is further underlined by the following statistics comparing Russia to their neighbor Finland and to the U.S. Table 1: Time use of women and med in selected countries (No. of hours per week; Source United Nations, 1995)
Form USSR (1986) Paid work women Paid work men Unpaid work women Unpaid work men Total working hrs women Total working hrs men Personal care + free time women Personal care + free time men 38.5 49 30.1 16.1 68.6 65.1 Finland (1987) 23.1 31.7 24.4 12.6 47.5 44.3 USA (1986) 24.5 41.3 31.9 18.1 56.4 59.5

99 103

115.3 119.2

112 109

It should be noted that the statistics, presented by the UN in 1995, depict the situation in selected countries in mid 80s, and for Russia also includes independent states previously inside the USSR. We have however no reason to believe that these figures do not reflect the situation also in the present Russia, neither that the situation has changed in any dramatic way during recent years. For the sake of comparison we will therefore use this specific data to compare the situation in the three selected countries. Evident from Table 1 is thus that both men and women in Russia generally have longer working hours than in both the U.S. and, especially, in Finland. For Russian women, a higher total number of working hours to a large extent stems from more hours of paid work per week as compared to women in Finland and the U.S. This implicates that Russian women, when compared to women in the two other countries, have less free time for personal care, personal development or other activities not related to social production or housework. When comparing the balance between women and men in selected countries it is obvious that women in Russia and Finland work more hours than men (105% and 107% respectively), while women in the US work less (95% of total working hours of men). In general, however, there are only minor gender-related differences when comparing total working hours in all three countries. When on the other hand paid and unpaid work is depicted separately, more significant differences between women and men occur. Women in
5

Russia, Finland and the U.S. hence work 79%, 73% and 59% of the average paid working ours for men in their countries. Even larger gender-related differences occur when comparing the national balances of unpaid work, where women in all studied countries bear the main responsibility for unpaid work such as housework and upbringing of children. In Russia women invest 187% of the time invested in unpaid work by men. In Finland and the U.S., corresponding figures are 194% and 176% respectively. The double burden of Russian women implicates that women do not progress in their careers at an equal rate to men. According to Pilkington (1992) this is manifested by the absence of women in top management positions and an unequal proportion of women involved in manual and often low-qualified work, and has similar to many other countries underpinned an ongoing discussion on how these dysfunctions properly should be addressed. The double burden of Russian women has however also been addressed from another perspective. Due to lower birth rates and raising divorce rates a public debate on demographic issues from time to time occurred from the 70s and onwards. This issue was further addressed during the Perestroika period, e.g. when President Gorbachev to the costs of emancipation (izderzhki emantsipatsii) referred problems such as juvenile delinquency, poor labor discipline and immorality (Pilkington 1992). According to the President, these problems were due to women taking part in social production at a degree and at the expense of their everyday duties at home housework, the upbringing of children and the creation of a good family atmosphere (Gorbachev 1987, cited in Pilkington 1992). During recent years, therefore, the return of women to the home is widely perceived as an ideal worth striving for (Waters and Posadskaya, 1995, p. 355), where women tend to look at the private sphere for self-fulfillment (Pilkington 1992, p. 201). The context in which Russian female entrepreneurship is employed may accordingly be characterized as somewhat paradoxical: At the same time as entrepreneurship for many Russian women serves as a way out of glass ceiling barriers in social production and an arena for self-fulfillment, the Russian society is characterized by a trend where women are reminded of their everyday duties at home. This ambiguous situation also constitutes the context in which empirical data for this paper were collected. A frame of reference for the study Previous research on female entrepreneurship conducted in Western Europe and the U.S. indicates that women business owners are more similar to than different from men across psychological and demographic dimensions (van Auken et al 1994). Dominating motives for starting a business among both men and women are hence a preference for independence, a need for achievement, and search for job satisfaction (Holmquist and Sundin 1990; Longstreth, Stafford and Mauldin 1987; Chaganti 1986; Goffee and Scase 1985; Schwartz 1976; Schrier 1975). Birley et al (1987), examining the differences between female and male entrepreneurs from a training perspective, moreover found that both womens and mens past experience helped in providing managerial skills in the start-up stage. Several studies have however revealed significant differences relating to gender. Female owner-managers thus have more trouble getting access to capital (Brush 1992; Collerette and Aubry 1990), probably because of lack of confidence shown by banks, suppliers and clients (Loscocco et al 1991; Lee-Gosselin and Grise 1990; Schwartz 1976). Previous studies also show that female entrepreneurs start businesses with less capital than men (Brush and Hisrich 1987). As Brush (1997) points out, this disparity may be explained by sector differences, since women are more likely to start businesses in service areas that require less capital investment. Some previous evidence however suggests women are outside the financial network where a less extensive network may limit access to information, guidance and capital (Aldrich, 1989), which in turn delimits the arena for female entrepreneurship. Women also find it more difficult to receive business training (Lee-Gosselin and Grise 1990, Hisrich
6

and Brush 1984) and have more trouble attracting qualified labor (cf. also van Auken et al 1994, or Kolvereid, Shane and Westhead 1993). For single women in particular, obligations towards children have been found to constitute an important driving force to start a business (Gillis 1984). Being primarily responsible for taking care of children, however, generally seems to serve an obstacle for women growing their businesses (Powell 1993). The differences noted above may be referred to either a situational (structural) or a dispositional perspective (related to work, family or social life) that affects womens ability to start and grow businesses (Liou and Aldrich 1995; Carter et al 1995). In the feminist literature, these two perspectives are referred to as liberal feminism (situational perspective) and social feminism (dispositional perspective; cf. Brush 1997). Referring to job and gender models in sociology of work (Feldberg and Glenn 1979), Loscocco et al (1991) further related job models to a structural-feminist strand of the gender model, which focuses on industry and business characteristics. Traditional gender models were on the other hand suggested to relate to the more individually focused strand of research, addressing human capital, personal attitudes and family situation (cf. also Kovalainen 1995). Following suggestions from Loscocco et al, there seems to be a obvious need to use integrated theoretical models that recognize the influence from both personal/dispositional and structural/situational factors on female entrepreneurship. This integrated reasoning constitutes an important part of this studys theoretical framework. Referring to that we here will investigate female entrepreneurship in a postsocialistic economy specifically addresses the need to recognize the specific conditions prevailing in an economy under transition and the contextual and historical heritage it involves. As Ageev et al (1995) further underline, an analysis of the genesis of entrepreneurship in a market economy indicates its multi-dimensional nature and the relationship between the content of entrepreneurship and the historical conditions of economic growth (p. 366). This includes whether the societal context where business venturing is embedded is favoring or not favoring different kinds of entrepreneurship. Previous research in entrepreneurship thus often underlines the importance of a positive climate stimulating business start-ups and innovation as well as the importance of role models (Tkachev and Kolvereid 1999; Utsch et al 1999; Ylinenp 1998). In our theoretical framework we hence regard it as important also to recognize contextual factors such as publicly held attitudes toward (female) entrepreneurship in the specific environment. In the next section we report on the specific methodology utilized in this paper. METHOD The empirical part of this study is based on data from Murmansk region in Northwestern Russia. Referring to the studys research questions, a combination of a quantitative and a qualitative approach was utilized to collect and analyze the data. Quantitative study: To collect data on general attitudes and to identify public stereotypes towards female entrepreneurship, we used an express survey of an age-and-gender quota sample of adult inhabitants in Murmansk (n = 670, of which 48% were men and 52% were women). Data collection was made on the 11th and 12th of December 1999, and was based on a form containing both structured and open questions. The form, besides the respondents sex, age and present occupation, depicted the following themes: 1. General attitudes towards female entrepreneurship 2. Reasons for becoming a female entrepreneur 3. Suitable fields for female entrepreneurship 4. Obstacles towards female entrepreneurship Processing and analyses of the empirical data were based on conventional statistical analyses depicting descriptive data, interrelations, inter-influences and typological

categorization. Computer processing of the empirical data started from restructuring the empirical sample into sub-samples using multiple random extractions, and was performed by the RAZUM Sociological and Science Research Center in Murmansk utilizing the PSI authorized statistical program software. All statistical characteristics and interrelations reported here have been proven to be stable and significant on the 5% level. Qualitative study: Preliminary data from the quantitative survey was then used as input to a qualitative discussion on perceived opportunities and obstacles related to female entrepreneurship with two different focus groups of women operating or intending to operate a firm of their own. These workshops with the two focus groups were conducted on December 27th and December 28th 1999 respectively, each lasting for approximately two hours. The themes addressed during workshops with the two focus groups were the following: 1. General/public attitudes towards female entrepreneurship 2. Personal motives to become an entrepreneur 3. Fields and development strategies for female businesses 4. Skills requirements 5. Success factors for female entrepreneurship 6. Barriers to business start-up 7. Motives for continued entrepreneurship 8. Differences between male and female entrepreneurship Both focus groups represented women operating their own private businesses and women intending to start businesses of their own, and contained five (2 + 3 respectively) operating female entrepreneurs and six intending to start a business (4 + 2 respectively). The total number of operating or potential female entrepreneurs contributing to our qualitative data hence amounted to eleven respondents aged 31 to 51, generally well educated and representing both married women (n = 8) and singles (n = 3). All women took part in a oneyear vocational training program in entrepreneurship organized by CENTEK (the international training and development center of Lule University of Technology in Sweden) and the Technical University of Murmansk, Russia. The training program was financed by SIDA, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. Brief data on the women participating in the two focus groups are depicted below. Table 2: Some data on the respondents in focus groups Respondent Age Line of business

Owner-managers already operating a smaller business: A 51 Flower decorations, designing business cards B 36 Launderette (incl. dry-cleaning) C 35 Kitchen cabinet manufacturer (by order) D 35 Caf with Russian cuisine E 39 Interior (office) designer Women intending to start a privately owned business: F 48 Public Relations G 40 Import of fish products H 31 Carpet & rug cleaning I 41 Beauty salon J 34 Sports school K 36 Interior decorator & designer The free-flowing and interactive discussions during the workshops with the two focus groups were moderated by one of the authors (Chechurina), and data collected were noted and
8

transcribed by the moderator and one research assistant. The results of the qualitative study were then summarized following the defined themes and other themes emerging from the discussion. In the following section we report on the results of the quantitative and qualitative study, referring to the research questions for this specific paper. RESULTS General attitudes and start-up motives The results from the quantitative survey of 670 respondents revealed that two thirds (64%) held a generally positive attitude towards female entrepreneurship, while 27% were negative and the remaining 8% were neutral or without a personal view on this matter. Analyses of sub-samples revealed that women in active ages (16-60 years) represented the group most in favor of female entrepreneurship. Sub-groups being most negative or hesitating towards women in business were male workers and military servants as well as pensioners representing both sexes. From the answers to open questions on this theme it was found that respondents in favor of female entrepreneurship often supported their opinion by arguments related to the entrepreneurs personal achievement motives (e.g. if they feel they should, then why not?), their financial motives (to earn more and to provide a good life for their families), as well as motives expressing search for independence (to have an independent position in the society). Such motives were noted for 148, 74 and 64 respondents respectively. Other frequent arguments put forward from respondents supporting women in business were that women are more capable and practical, and take on more responsibility than men, which was noted by 54 respondents. People negative towards female entrepreneurship generally as answers to the open question advocated traditional gender-based arguments (in total 101 answers pointed in this direction). Out of the whole sample, 15% emphasized that it was a male responsibility to earn the money a family needs (its not a womans business; a woman is to weak and to emotional). 11% moreover underlined that it was a primary female obligation to take care of her family (let a woman sit at home, bring up her children and do the house-keeping). When confronting the two focus groups to the results from the survey study, several female entrepreneurs/potential entrepreneurs pointed to the fact that women in business still is quite a recent and exotic phenomenon, and that people need time to get used to the idea. Still, a majority already seems to favor women in business. Several women supported the argument given in the survey that women should do business as they are better in finishing things, are more patient and more thorough in what they are doing. Others pointed at being an entrepreneur gives a woman respect for her person, and reduces the risk of her husband blaming her of not taking proper care of home and children. Similar to the results from the above-referred study of Polish female entrepreneurs (Zapalska 1997), some women in the focus groups claimed that in Russia quality of work is not rewarded, only the position people have. Since positions normally are inherited from the former economic structure (i.e. male bosses are still bosses), women often perceive a glass ceiling as employees. A way out of this situation is therefore to start a private business. To conclude, the public opinion toward women doing business is generally very positive according to our results and, moreover, in overall correspondence to the results from Novosibirsk region earlier reviewed. Comparing to this study the main difference revealed is a larger share opposing the idea of female entrepreneurship. As our analysis revealed this might be referred to a critical attitude held by male military servants and workers, as well as by elderly people of both sexes. Considering that Murmansk region, despite recent years of restructuring of military services, still hosts a significant part of the national defense, this

result may be due to a local over-representation of military servants holding traditional and more conservative values towards women working outside their home. One may question, though, whether this positive attitude towards female entrepreneurship reflects a genuine interest and support for women being in business, or if this may be regarded as reflecting effects of structural changes in the economy. Alluding to the situation in Sweden, ongoing restructuring and rationalization among larger companies in the country seem to have fostered a more positive attitude towards smaller businesses, innovation and entrepreneurship (Ylinenp 1998). To what degree this reflects a genuine interest for small firms and entrepreneurship per se is however a question under continuous debate, not least among small business entrepreneurs themselves. They hence suspect the newly awakened interest for small firm entrepreneurship to be an enforced and not very deeply rooted understanding: Lacking alternatives, we must at least for the moment - rely on small firms. Although our results basically may be regarded as unexpectedly positive results for the Russian or at least the specific regional economy, and also are supported by similar results from another region in Russia (Novosibirsk), we are hence a bit suspicious regarding the validity of our results in this specific respect. Support for this critical attitude was moreover indicated by comments given by respondents both in our survey and in our focus groups. In the survey study a very frequent comment given together with a positive answer was represented by If there is a will, why not let them do it. Female respondents in the survey study also quite frequently (27 respondents) stated that female entrepreneurship is a way to live nowadays, we have to do it because it is hard to find a job. In the focus groups some respondents described this as situational circum-stances, where women have nothing to lose. Together with the glass ceiling argument referred to above, this may indicate that a substantial degree of the positive attitudes revealed towards female entrepreneurship more stems from a lack of alternatives due to reconstruction of the economy than from a genuine interest in, and support for, women in business per se. Perceived opportunities and driving forces to female entrepreneurship According to survey respondents the most suitable and promising fields for female entrepreneurship are trade (indicated by 28%), financial services (20%), services traditionally performed by the public sector beyond education and health care (19%), e ducational services (18%), and health care services (16%). Service sectors of the economy hence dominate in a marked way. Only nine per cent of the respondents indicated manufacturing as a suitable line of business. It may be noted that sub-groups most in favor of female entrepreneurship were significantly over-represented as respondents advocating female entrepreneurship in the financial sector that, at least from a power-based perspective, is a male domain in Russia. When confronted to the specific question why women become entrepreneurs in Russia, the most frequent motives were depicted by our survey results: according to Table 3. Separating the depicted motives in (i) tangible and (ii) intangible driving forces and motives reveals that motives related to search for better standard of living (now or in the future), to earn more money, and to avoid poverty were perceived to be significant driving forces by 60 per cent of the survey respondents. An almost equal part of respondents (59%) pointed at personal and individual driving forces such as independence motives, a strive for realizing personal talents and capabilities, and a wish to gain authority and respect in the society. This mix of different, both tangible and intangible motives, is well in line with previous international research in the field of female entrepreneurship.4 The independence-seeking motive, which by Hisrich and Brush (1986) and Lee-Gosselin and Grise (1990) was found to be the primary motive for women to enter business, thus seem to have a high relevance also in Russia.
4

See Maysami and Goby (1999) for a recent review on female business research

10

Table 3: Survey results depicting motives for women to start their own businesses (Survey of 670 citizens of Murmansk region, Russia, December 1999)5
To achieve or maintain an independent form of living To provide a higher standard of living To realize personal talents or capabilities To avoid poverty To gain authority and respect in the society To earn more money To secure personal standard of living when getting older To use personal time and funding available To be useful to society and to other people 29% 25% 16 % 14% 14% 11% 10% 7% 4%

The way in which the specific response alternative depicting autonomy was formulated in our structured form, however, also allows for an alternative interpretation. Instead of depicting independence in an intangible sense related to locus of control motives, independence could refer to being independent from an economic or material point of view (cf. Kovalainen, 1995, pp. 73-74). Adopting this latter interpretation facilitates a quite different interpretation of our results. Instead of a balance between tangible and intangible driving forces and motives, our results would indicate that motives related to material factors by far seem to be most significant, as they are depicted by 89 per cent of our survey respondents. Motives more related to individual and intangible driving forces were with this interpretation perceived to be significant by only 30 per cent of the respondents. Recognizing that the present economic situation for many Russians involve significant economic problems as well as the challenge to catch up with Western economies in terms of material standard of living, surely seems to support such an interpretation. Such an understanding is moreover supported by the results previously reported in this paper referring to entrepreneurial motives in Novosibirsk region in Russia (Sharnina 1999). More altruistic motives such as to be useful to society and other people were on the other hand perceived to be important by only four per cent of the respondents. Overall on this question, no significant (p<0.05) differences across sub-groups were detected. The results reported above hence refer to factors that samples of ordinary Russians believe are motives or driving-forces for women starting businesses. As reflecting general attitudes and providing information on the general conditions for conducting (female) entrepreneurship in the factual context, results such as these contribute interesting information. One may question, however, whether all respondents really are qualified to have a judgment on issues that may lie far from their own personal experience or knowledge, and specifically whether the data reported here are valid and reliable to reflect how female entrepreneurs themselves perceive opportunities, motives and driving forces. In this respect, data from our focus groups should give more reliable and valid data. Do women, operating as entrepreneurs or intending to start a business, then agree or disagree on the survey results? Regarding suitable fields for female entrepreneurship, the women in our focus groups generally underlined the importance of having previous knowledge and experience in the field where the business is established - Its easier to do what you know and what you can. The focus groups consequently agreed with the survey data results on which sectors that are most suitable and promising for female entrepreneurship. Similar to the results from a Polish study (Zapalska, 1997), they specifically pointed at intellectual services such as design, Internet agencies, translation agencies, employment agencies and educational services. As noted by our focus groups, these mainly service-based sectors allow for women to use their (as
5

Since respondents could indicate more than one alternative the percentage exceeds 100.

11

compared to men) comparative strengths in being more long-term, relations-oriented, thorough, tactful and charming. Several women in the focus groups however also saw a potential for women doing business in typical male spheres such as petrol stations, oil and gas industries, or metal industries. Recognizing the more substantial starting capital needed in these lines of business, one focus group claimed this to be most likely when a woman has a reliable back-up represented by a husband with financial resources or another kind of solid sponsor. Coming down to individual motives and driving-forces, the focus groups generally underlined the importance of both tangible and intangible driving forces. Motives such as to earn as much as possible and to receive profits as attributes of independence were hence balanced by more personal and intangible motives: a way to personal growth, realization of individual potentials and talents, to be one owns boss, or to broaden horizons. Also more altruistic motives were mentioned in both focus groups in terms e.g. a will to change the economic principles of the society. To conclude, our results indicate that female entrepreneurship in Russia first and foremost addresses the service sectors of the economy. In this respect Russia is not different from most other economies (cf. e.g. Kovalainen 1995). When it comes to personal motives and driving forces, however, our results indicate that tangible or material motives are more apparent. As noticed by Lee-Gosselin and Grise (1990), women in Western economies start businesses due to a desire for recognition by others, the desire to put ones knowledge and skills to use, or the desire to be independent and have control over ones life ( ibid., p. 432). This kind of reasoning was evident also in our data from Russia, but was to a more significant degree balanced by material and pure economic motives: the strive for an income or the search for financial rewards. Following Maslow and his classic hierarchy of needs6 , this is however not unexpected. In an economy under transition exposing the ordinary Russian to new economic and financial problems, challenges and rules of the game, people are expected to put higher priority on basic needs (such as an acceptable standard of living). Perceived obstacles or barriers to female entrepreneurship From the quantitative study obstacles perceived to serve as barriers to female entrepreneurship emerging as being most significant are depicted in Table 4. Returning to our previous distinction between personal/dispositional and structural/situational factors (Brush 1997, Liou and Aldrich 1995), barriers such as personal traits, lack of qualification and personal motives could be referred to be personal or dispositional factors. These factors were perceived to constitute significant barriers to female entrepreneurship by 45 per cent of all respondents in the survey study. On the other hand, factors related to structural or situational factors were perceived to be even more important barriers, and were noted by in total 71 per cent of all respondents. Financial and economic factors (inflation) were here perceived to be significant barriers by 27 per cent of respondents, while factors more related to the prevailing infrastructure of the Russian society (such as laws, tax systems, political stability, criminality and corruption) were perceived as significant obstacles for women to start businesses by as much as 44 per cent of the survey respondents. When analyzing the results by comparing the answers from different sub-groups, it was obvious that male respondents mostly pointed at womens personal traits (such as lack of risktaking propensity or lack of aggressiveness). Female respondents on the other hand to a significantly higher degree pointed at external and structural factors, such as lack of start-up capital.

See Maslow, A.H. (1943), A theory of human motivation.

12

Table 4: Survey results depicting barriers for women to start their own businesses (Survey of 670 citizens of Murmansk region, Russia, December 1999)7
Personal traits of women (such as risk-taking propensity, degree of aggressiveness)27 % Lack of start-up capital 24 % Prevailing business laws and tax system 18 % Degree of actual stability in the society 13 % Lack of personal qualification and education 10 % Lack of personal motives for starting a business 8% Corruption among authorities 7% Criminal blackmailing and mafia 6% Inflation rate 3%

Similar to the question on motives and driving forces, the results reported above refer to factors that the sample of ordinary Russians believes are significant. Even more interesting, though, is whether women operating as entrepreneurs or intending to start a business agree or disagree on the list of depicted obstacles for female entrepreneurship in Russia. When discussing obstacles and barriers to female entrepreneurship with the women in our focus groups, most respondents pointed at structural and situational factors (rather than personal or dispositional factors) serving as barriers to female entrepreneurship. Factors mentioned in this specific respect were the present economic and legislative situation in Russia (after the crisis of 17th of August it has hardly been possible to do any business at all), the criminalization of specific lines of businesses in Russia and the tradition of bribes and presents (a Russian norm supported by entrepreneurs themselves), problems to find and recruit qualified and trained staff (it is hard to find people who fulfill the requirements of an entrepreneur), and the stereotypic Russian view on women doing business. Several respondents pointed at the fact that business life in Russia is a male sphere, sometimes characterized by tough male rules for doing business. For women to succeed in such an environment requires a specific degree of personal maturity, where losing exaltation and naivet towards life, broadening personal mind and frameworks, be willing to learn, and building a high degree of selfconfidence are essential steps towards becoming an entrepreneur. One factor specifically clarified was that self-confidence did not imply that the entrepreneur herself had to be engaged in and actually perform all critical activities within a firm. Building on the understanding that women generally take more responsibility than men, many women in the focus groups hence underlined that the back-side of the coin is a willingness to take to much responsibility, which serves as a barrier both to starting and expanding a business. To conclude, the women in our focus groups agreed on and underlined the importance of most of the structural factors depicted by our survey data as barriers for women to start businesses in Russia. Interesting is however that only a few of the focus group respondents specifically commented on or referred to problems in getting access to start-up capital as a barrier, which in a similar study of female entrepreneurs in the U.S. was found to constitute a major problem for women starting businesses (Brush 1997). On the other hand problems related to the turbulent conditions characterizing an economy under transition, such as unstable laws and tax regulations, corruption and Mafia, according to our data constitute significant obstacles for Russian entrepreneurs. This underpins our understanding that financial restrictions do not per se represent less of a significant barrier, but instead is balanced by other obstacles characterizing a transition economy. Our focus groups eventually also confirmed that individual or dispositional barriers to female entrepreneurship are significant also in Russia, and specifically indicated that taking to much responsibility
7

Since respondents could indicate more than one alternative the percentage exceeds 100.

13

(implying a lower ability to delegate work tasks and responsibility) could serve as a barrier for women to start a new or, maybe more important, to develop an existing business. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This paper has elaborated on general attitudes towards female entrepreneurship in Russia and the opportunities and obstacles that are related to starting and operating a s maller business in Russia of today. Building on a combination of quantitative and qualitative data we have reported a generally positive attitude toward women in business. We have however also questioned whether this attitude stems from a general attitude in favor of female entrepreneurship per se or if this more could be understood to reflect a prevailing economic situation in an economy under transition from state control towards market economy. Regarding opportunities and driving forces for women to enter and operate in the business sector, our results reveal several similarities with previous research on female entrepreneurship in the West. Service sectors of the economy dominate in a marked way, and individual motives for entering the business sector are represented by a mix of tangible and intangible motives and driving forces. Tangible motives such as a search for an income or striving for financial rewards were however found to be even more important than previously revealed in research on female entrepreneurs from Western economies, indicating that female entrepreneurs in Russia are being motivated by traditionally male driving forces (c.f. Maysami and Goby 1999, or Hisrich and Brush 1986). Our understanding and the suggested interpretation put forward in this paper is, however, that this (again) reflects a present and for many Russians problematic economic situation where the ambition to secure an acceptable standard of living is a high-priority issue. Also regarding barriers or obstacles to female entrepreneurship several similarities with previous research on female entrepreneurship in Western economies were depicted. Both situational obstacles (such as prevailing laws and tax systems) and dispositional obstacles (such as a male business culture or l ack of self-confidence) were hence depicted by our data. Compared to most other studies in the field, structural and situational factors however seem to constitute even higher barriers to female entrepreneurship in Russia. These barriers to a large extent involve problems related to the transition-economy situation, such as unstable laws and tax regulations, corruption among authorities, criminal blackmailing and a general turbulent social situation in the society. These problems however address not only female entrepreneurs, but constitute general problems for males and females starting or intending to start their own businesses in Russia. Arriving at the conclusion that problems and barriers occurring on the route to entrepreneurship as well as motives and driving forces to a high degree refers to both female and male entrepreneurs should not hide the fact that there are important differences. From the view of a society as a gender system (Kovalainen 1995) our data suggest that a male structure in Russian working life and society serves as a glass ceiling for female ambitions, but also as an important push factor to start a privately owned and managed firm (c.f. van Auken et al 1994, or Goffee and Scase 1985). Similar our data indicates that entering the business sector for a woman involves both getting personal respect and counteracting situations where the woman is blamed for not taking sufficient care of family and household. In a society characterized by having a public as well as a private patriarchal system (Walby 1990), female entrepreneurship thus may serve as a way out from patriarchic structures in both working life and family. The results emerging from both our quantitative survey and our qualitative data that structural obstacles represent more significant barriers to female entrepreneurship in Russia than in other countries do moreover not per se implicate that they in fact serve as equally high barriers for men and women. As suggested by Kolvereid et al (1993), men and women may be understood to perceive their environment in a similar way, but tend to evaluate it differently (p. 49). Following this kind of reasoning the
14

significant barriers to entrepreneurship related to conditions prevailing in the transitioning Russian society could thus serve as more severe obstacles for female Russian entrepreneurs, as compared to their male colleagues. Validating this suggestion, however, requires more research including data from both male and female entrepreneurs. As Ageev et al (1995) point out entrepreneurship in a society is exercised in a context where economic, societal and political conditions and its historical heritage are embedded, indicating e.g. that a more collectivist orientation could be expected among Russian entrepreneurs. Our data however indicate that such an orientation only has very limited relevance. Women in our focus groups thus generally expressed individual motives and driving forces to enter the business sector, and our survey data of 670 randomly selected adult Russians indicated that only four per cent believed that being useful to society and to other people or other altruistic reasons were important motives to start a business. Still we believe it to be of utmost importance for future research to recognize the factual and historical context for entrepreneurship in Russia and other transition economies. One intriguing field is the importance of role models and family traditions in entrepreneurship (c.f. Utsch et al 1999), which in a post-socialist economy per definition are very different from traditional market economies. Does this in fact implicate that there are no role models and that the past behavior of families has no relevance? In the feminist strand of research, patriarchal structures in society are often regarded as arising from within the economy and purely interconnected with capitalism. As Kovalainen (1995) points out and is further underlined by this study, such an understanding is problematic. The post-socialistic Russia may e.g. be characterized as a society with distinct patriarchal features and traditions. How these affect the ambitions and strategies for women entering the business sector is then a question that should attract more research interest for the future. It should eventually be noted that, in spite of the title of this paper, our empirical data only refers to the situation in one of Russias many regions (the Murmansk region in Northwestern Russia). Although we in this paper have tried to relate our data to similar data from another Russian region, the empirical base is far to circumscribe to allow any generalization to Russia as a whole. Future research is thus required, where especially research building on a broader base of data from Russian women in business is needed. Hopefully this study has contributed results and research approaches stimulating such further research on this important issue.
Acknowledgements We acknowledge the support we have received from the training and development foundation CENTEK at Lule University of Technology, as well as the valuable comments and suggestions we received from Dr. Lilja Mosesdottir at Lule University of Technology on a previous version of this paper. REFERENCES
Ageev, A.I., Gratchev, M.V. and R.D. Hisrich (1995). Entrepreneurship in the Soviet Union and Post-Socialist Russia. Small Business Economics, 7, pp. 365-376. Aldrich, H. (1989). Networking among women entrepreneurs. In Hagan, O., Rivchun, C. and D. Sexton (eds.); WomenOwned Businesses. New York: Praeger, pp. 103-132. Birley, S., Moss, C. and P. Saunders (1987). Do women entrepreneurs require different training? American Journal of Small Business, Summer, pp. 27-35. Brush, C.G. (1992). Research on women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16:4, pp. 5-30. Brush, C.G. (1997). Women-owned businesses: Obstacles and opportunities. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 2, 1, pp. 1-24. Brush, C.G. and Hisrich, R.D. (1987). Women entrepreneurs: A longitudinal study. In Churchill, N.C., Hornaday, J.A., Kirchoff, B.A., Krasner, O.J. and K.H. Vesper (eds.); Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 187-199.

15

Carter, N., Williams, M. and P.D. Reynolds (1995). Discontinuance among new firms in retail: The influence of initial resources, strategy and gender. Working paper, Marquette University. Chaganti, R. (1986). Management in women-owned enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 24, 4, pp. 18-29. Chechurina, M. (2000). Womens entrepreneurship development in the Murmansk region. Presentation of the international conference Womens life in the Barents region, Murmansk, April 11-12. Collerette, P. and Aubry, P. (1990). Socio-economic evolution of women business owners in Quebec. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 2, pp. 417-422. Feldberg, R.L. and Glenn, E.N. (1979). Male and female: Job versus gender models in the sociology of work. Social Problems, 26, pp. 525-535. Gillis, P. (1984). Entrepreneurial Mothers. New York: Rawson Assoc. Goffee, R. and Scase, R. (1985). Women in Charge: The Experience of Female Entrepreneurs. London: George Allen & Unwin. Hisrich, R.D. and Brush, C.G. (1984). The woman entrepreneur: Management skills and business problems. Journal of Small Business Management, 22, pp. 30-37. Hisrich, R.D. and Brush, C.G. (1986). The Woman Entrepreneur: Starting, financing, and managing a successful new business. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Holmquist, C. and Sundin, E. (1990). Whats special about highly educated women entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 2, pp. 181-193. Kolvereid, L., Shane, S. and P. Westhead (1993). Is it equally difficult for female entrepreneurs to start businesses in all countries? Journal of Small Business Management, Oct., pp. 42-51. Korel, L. (1998). Business lady new opportunities or new limitations?. EKO, 7, pp. 124-135 (in Russian). Kovalainen, A. (1995). At the Margins of the Economy. Womens Self-Employment in Finland, 1960-1990. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate Publishing. Lee-Gosselin, H. and Grise, J. (1990). Are women-owners challenging our definitions of entrepreneurship? An in-depth survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 4-5, pp. 423-433. Liou, N. and Aldrich, H. (1995). Women entrepreneurs: Is there a gender-based relational competence? Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Meeting, August, Washington D.C. Longstreth, M., Stafford, K. and T. Mauldin (1987). Self-employed women and their families: Time use and socio-economic characteristics. Journal of Small Business Management, 25, 3, pp. 30-37. Loscocco, K.A., Robinson, J., Hall, R. and J.K. Allen (1991). Gender and small business success: An inquiry into womens relative disadvantage. Social Forces, 70, 1, pp. 65-85. Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 4, pp. 370-396. Maysami C. R. and Goby, V.P. (1999). Female business owners in Singapore and elsewhere: A review of studies. Journal of Small Business Management, April, pp. 96-105. Pilkington, H. (1992). Russia and the former Soviet republics. Behind the mask of Soviet unity: realities of womens lives. In Corrin, C. (ed.), Superwomen and the Double Burden. Womens experience of change in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. London: Scarlet Press. Powell, G.N. (1993). Women and Men in Management. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publ. Schwartz, E.B. (1976). Entrepreneurship, a new female frontier. Journal of Contemporary Business, 5, pp. 47-76. Sharnina, O. (1999). A year from the life of countryside entrepreneurs. EKO, 7, pp. 152-164 (in Russian). Tkachev, A. and Kolvereid, L. (1999). Self-employment intentions among Russian students. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 11, pp. 269-280. Tomilov, V.V. and Kroopanin, A.A. (1996). Economico-organizacionnye osnovy predprini-matelstva. S:t Petersburg: Izdatelstvo SPbUEF (referred by Tkachev & Kolvereid, 1999). United Nations (UN, 1995). The Worlds Women 1995. Trends and Statistics. New York: United Nations Social Statistics and Indicators, Series K, No. 12. Utsch, A., Rauch, A., Rothfuss, R. and M. Frese (1999). Who becomes a small scale entrepreneur in a post-socialist environment: On the differences between entrepreneurs and managers in East Germany. Journal of Small Business Management, July, pp. 31-42. Vahcic, A. and Petrin, T. (1989). Financial systems for restructuring the Yugoslav economy. In Kessides, C., King, T., Nuti, M. and C. Sokil (eds.); Financial Reforms in Socialist Economies. EDI of the World Bank and European Univ. Inst., Florence. Walby, S. (1990). Theorising Patriarchy. Oxford: Blackwell. Van Auken, H.E., Rittenburg, T.L., Doran, B.M. and H. Shu-Fang (1994). An empirical analysis of advertising by women entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, July, pp. 10-28. Waters, E. and Posadskaya, A. (1995). Democracy without women is no democracy: Womens struggles in postcommunist Russia. In Basu, A. (ed.), The Challenge of Local Feminisms. Womens movements in global perspective. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press, Inc. Vilenskii, A., Blinov, A., Kolesnikov, A. and L. Kolesnikova (1996). Malyi biznes: trudnosti rosta, Voprosoy ekonomiki, 9 (July), pp. 30-87 (referred by Tkachev & Kolvereid, 1999). Ylinenpaa, H. (1998). Measures to overcome barriers to innovation in Sweden fits and misfits. Paper presented at European Small Business Seminar in Vienna, Austria, Sep. Zapalska, A. (1997). A profile of women entrepreneurs and enterprises in Poland. Journal of Small Business Management, October, pp. 76-82.

16