Bureaucratic and Societal Determinants of Female-Led Microenterprises in India
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Gender and Performance
2.2. Gender Inequality, Social Norms, and Grammatical Genders
2.3. Corruption and Gender
3. Hypothesis Building
4. Data and Methods
5. Empirical Analysis
5.1. Descriptive Analysis
5.2. Some other Features of the Data
5.3. Empirical Results
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
VARIABLES | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Education3 | −0.1899 *** | −0.0714 | −0.0333 | −0.0407 | 0.0256 |
(0.06) | (0.06) | (0.06) | (0.08) | (0.08) | |
Education2 | −0.2223 *** | −0.1100 * | −0.0966 * | −0.0867 | −0.1058 ## |
(0.06) | (0.06) | (0.06) | (0.08) | (0.07) | |
Ln sales | −0.0142 | −0.0163 | −0.0053 | −0.0207 | −0.0072 |
(0.01) | (0.01) | (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.03) | |
Firm age | −0.0027 ## | −0.0000 | −0.0008 | −0.0003 | 0.0016 |
(0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
Manager experience | −0.0048 ** | −0.0013 | −0.0038 | −0.0016 | |
(0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | ||
Owner job | 0.1853 *** | 0.1305 *** | 0.1806 *** | 0.1134 ** | |
(0.04) | (0.03) | (0.05) | (0.05) | ||
GL2 | −0.0091 | 0.0570 | |||
(0.09) | (0.21) | ||||
GL3 | 0.0214 | −0.1147 | |||
(0.07) | (0.14) | ||||
GL4 | −0.1683 ** | −0.3160 ** | |||
(0.07) | (0.15) | ||||
Bribe | 0.1327 *** | 0.0792 # | |||
(0.05) | (0.05) | ||||
Observations | 586 | 562 | 562 | 219 | 219 |
1 | For details, see “Contribution of MSMEs to GDP, Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises”, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1744032, Release ID: 1744032), Posted On: 9 Auguest 2021 2:54 PM by PIB Delhi, accessed on 15 December 2022. |
2 | For details, see https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5, accessed on 10 December 2022. |
3 | For details, see “Khasis: India’s indigenous matrilineal society” https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20210328-why-some-indians-want-more-mens-rights, accessed on 7 December 2021. |
4 | Business PAN and GST number are unique documents mandatory for every tax-paying entity (businesses, suppliers, dealers etc.). |
5 | For further details, refer to World Bank Implementation Report India, 2022. |
6 | To our knowledge, a linguistic database for Indian languages does not exist. We come to the above conclusions on gender-in-language based on two approaches. Firstly, we gather the required information from list of languages by grammatical genders from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_type_of_grammatical_genders, accessed on 1 December 2022), Secondly, we conduct one-to-one interviews with native speakers and confirm the grammatical gender classifications. |
References
- Alatas, Vivi, Lisa Cameron, Ananish Chaudhuri, Nisvan Erkal, and Lata Gangadharan. 2009. Gender, culture, and corruption: Insights from an experimental analysis. Southern Economic Journal 75: 663–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allison, Lee, Yu Liu, Samuele Murtinu, and Zuobao Wei. 2023. Gender and firm performance around the world: The roles of finance, technology and labor. Journal of Business Research 154: 11322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkinson, Stanley M., Samantha Boyce Baird, and Melissa B. Frye. 2003. Do female mutual fund managers manage differently? Journal of Financial Research 26: 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bardasi, Elena, Shwetlena Sabarwal, and Katherine Terrell. 2011. How do female entrepreneurs perform? Evidence from three developing regions. Small Business Economics 37: 417–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bardhan, Pranab. 1997. Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues. Journal of Economic Literature 35: 1320–46. [Google Scholar]
- Basu, Kaushik. 2018. Markets and Manipulation: Time for a Paradigm Shift? Journal of Economic Literature 56: 185–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cesaroni, Francesca Maria, Maria Gabriella Pediconi, and Annalisa Sentuti. 2018. It’s always a women’s problem! Micro-entrepreneurs, work-family balance and economic crisis. Administrative Sciences 8: 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chacko, Elizabeth. 2003. Marriage, development, and the status of women in Kerala, India. Gender & Development 11: 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhuri, Kausik, Subhash Sasidharan, and Rajesh Seethamma Natarajan Raj. 2020. Gender, small firm ownership, and credit access: Some insights from India. Small Business Economics 54: 1165–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chiplunkar, Gaurav, and Pinelopi K. Goldberg. 2021. Aggregate Implications of Barriers to Female Entrepreneurship. No. w28486. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. [Google Scholar]
- Das, Maitreyi Bordia. 2006. Do Traditional Axes of Exclusion Affect Labor Market Outcomes in India? Social Development Papers, South Asia Series, Paper No. 97. Washington, DC: World Bank. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, Lewis, and Megan Reynolds. 2018. Gendered language and the educational gender gap. Economics Letters 168: 46–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Mel, Suresh, David McKenzie, and Christopher Woodruff. 2009. Are Women More Credit Constrained? Experimental Evidence on Gender and Microenterprise Returns. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1: 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deshpande, Ashwini, and Smriti Sharma. 2013. Entrepreneurship or survival? Caste and gender of small business in India. Economic and Political Weekly 48: 38–49. [Google Scholar]
- Dezso, Cristian L., and David Gaddis Ross. 2012. Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Management Journal 33: 1072–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dollar, David, Raymond Fisman, and Roberta Gatti. 2001. Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 46: 423–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esarey, Justin, and Gina Chirillo. 2013. Fairer sex” or purity myth? Corruption, gender, and institutional context. Politics & Gender 9: 361–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fairlie, Robert W., and Alicia M. Robb. 2009. Gender differences in business performance: Evidence from the Characteristics of Business Owners survey. Small Business Economics 33: 375–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fisman, Raymond, and Jakob Svensson. 2007. Are corruption and taxation really harmful to growth? Firm level evidence. Journal of Development Studies 83: 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gay, Victor, Estefania Santacreu-Vasut, and Amir Shoham. 2014. Language and Gender Economics. Working Paper. Hanover: Dartmouth. [Google Scholar]
- Hicks, Daniel L., Estefania Santacreu-Vasut, and Amir Shoham. 2015. Does mother tongue make for women’s work? Linguistics, household labor, and gender identity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 110: 19–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, Ritika. 2022. Gender diversity, gender norms and firm performance: Evidence from India. Economic Systems 46: 101006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, Nathan M., Quan Li, and Aminur Rahman. 2010. Understanding corruption and firm responses in cross-national firm-level surveys. Journal of International Business Studies 41: 1481–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jha, Chandan K., and Rafiqul Bhuyan. 2020. Do financial reforms promote entrepreneurship? Finance Research Letters 34: 101272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jha, Chandan K., and Bibhudutta Panda. 2017. Individualism and corruption: A cross-country analysis. Economic Papers: A Journal of Applied Economics and Policy 36: 60–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jha, Chandan K., and Sudipta Sarangi. 2018. Women and corruption: What positions must they hold to make a difference? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 151: 219–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jianakoplos, Nancy Ammon, and Alexandra Bernasek. 1998. Are women more risk averse? Economic Inquiry 36: 620–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, Johnnie E. V., and Philip L. Powell. 1994. Decision making, risk and gender: Are managers different? British Journal of Management 5: 123–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kapsos, Steven, Andrea Silbermann, and Evangelia Bourmpoula. 2014. Why is Female Labour Force Participation Declining so Sharply in India? Geneva: ILO. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, Sahrok, K. Praveen Parboteeah, and John B. Cullen. 2022. Social institutions approach to women’s firm ownership and firm bribery activity: A study of small-sized firms in emerging markets. Journal of Business Research 144: 1333–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahambare, Vidya. 2022. Indian Workforce in the 21st Century Patterns, Heterogeneities and Policy Priorities. Paper presented at International Workshop on The Political Economy of Industrialization in India: A Pro-Labour Perspective, IIT Madras, Chennai, India, April 13. [Google Scholar]
- Mauro, Paolo. 1995. Corruption and Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110: 681–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Méon, Pierre-Guillaume, and Khalid Sekkat. 2005. Does corruption grease or sand the wheels of growth? Public Choice 122: 69–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muravyev, Alexander, Oleksandr Talavera, and Dorothea Schafer. 2009. Entrepreneurs’ gender and financial constraints: Evidence from international data. Journal of Comparative Economics 37: 270–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ojediran, Funmi, and Alistair Anderson. 2020. Women’s entrepreneurship in the global south: Empowering and emancipating? Administrative Sciences 10: 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Persson, Anna, Bo Rothstein, and Jan Teorell. 2013. Why Anticorruption Reforms Fail—Systemic Corruption as a Collective Action Problem. Governance 26: 449–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santacreu-Vasut, Estefania, Amir Shoham, and Victor Gay. 2013. Do female/male distinctions in language matter? Evidence from gender political quotas. Applied Economics Letters 20: 495–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shoham, Amir, and Sang Mook Lee. 2018. The causal impact of grammatical gender marking on gender wage inequality and country income inequality. Business & Society 57: 1216–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swamy, Anand, Stephen Knack, Young Lee, and Omar Azfar. 2002. Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics 64: 25–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Treisman, Daniel. 2000. The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics 76: 399–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Triesman, Daniel. 2007. What Have We Learned About the Causes of Corruption After Ten Years of Cross-National Research. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 211–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vial, Virginie, and Julien Hanoteau. 2010. Corruption, manufacturing plant growth, and the Asian paradox: Indonesian evidence. World Development 38: 693–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Yuanyuan, and Jing You. 2012. Corruption and firm growth: Evidence from China. China Economic Review 23: 415–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wellalage, Nirosha Hewa, Stuart Locke, and Helen Samujh. 2019. Corruption, gender and credit constraints: Evidence from South Asian SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics 159: 267–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Kevin Zheng, Kui Wang, Dean Xu, and En Xie. 2022. Drinking poison to quench thirst: Does bribery foster firm performance in China? Journal of Business Research 147: 505–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cities | States | Major Spoken Language | GL Score | Dummy Variables |
---|---|---|---|---|
Varanasi | Uttar Pradesh | Hindi | 4 | GL4 |
Sehore | Madhya Pradesh | Hindi | 4 | GL4 |
Jaipur | Rajasthan | Hindi | 4 | GL4 |
Ludhiana | Punjab | Punjabi | 4 | GL4 |
Surat | Gujarat | Gujarati | 3 | GL3 |
Hyderabad | Telangana | Telugu | 3 | GL3 |
Mumbai | Maharashtra | Marathi | 3 | GL3 |
Kochi | Kerala | Malayalam | 2 | GL2 |
Tezpur | Assam | Assamese | 1 | GL1 |
Variables | Description | Observations | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
female | Dummy variable taking value 1 if firm has a female owner or top manager | 998 | 0.13 | 0.34 | 0 | 1 |
GL scores | Grammatical genders in language scores (refer Table 1) | 998 | 3.10 | 1.01 | 1 | 4 |
bribe | Dummy variable taking value 1 if firm was requested a bribe payment | 347 | 0.33 | 0.47 | 0 | 1 |
bribe avIR | Industry-region average bribe values | 697 | 0.31 | 0.40 | 0 | 1 |
ln sales | Log of sales in previous financial year | 976 | 13.91 | 1.04 | 10.46 | 17.73 |
Education dummy3 | Dummy variable taking value 1 if owner has a bachelor’s degree or a diploma. | 998 | 0.48 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
Education dummy2 | Dummy variable taking value 1 if owner has completed primary or secondary schooling | 998 | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
Education dummy1 | Dummy variable taking value 1 if owner has no schooling or incomplete primary schooling | 998 | 0.07 | 0.26 | 0 | 1 |
firm age | 2021-year operations begun | 957 | 12.97 | 9.56 | 1 | 67 |
manager experience | No. of years of experience top manager has | 955 | 12.23 | 9.21 | 1 | 50 |
owner job | Dummy variable taking value 1 if owner has a full-time job with wage | 996 | 0.10 | 0.29 | 0 | 1 |
financially constrained | Dummy variable taking value 1 if the firm is financially constrained | 998 | 0.65 | 0.48 | 0 | 1 |
Cities | Percentage of Firms in Total | Firms with Female Entrepreneurs (%) | Percentage of Firms Paid at Least one Bribe a | Percentage of Households Faced Corruption b | No. of Reported Cases of Corruption per 10 Lakh Population c |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hyderabad | 10.82 | 73.15 | 56.48 | 74 | 2.23 |
Kochi | 10.02 | 17.00 | 4.00 | 4 | 0.00 |
Tezpur | 12.32 | 11.38 | 14.63 | 18 | 0.04 |
Mumbai | 11.32 | 7.96 | 4.42 | 57 | 0.51 |
Surat | 11.32 | 4.42 | 7.08 | 37 | 3.65 |
Sehore | 12.22 | 3.28 | 13.11 | 23 | 0.04 |
Varanasi | 10.22 | 1.96 | 0.00 | 19 | 2.22 |
Jaipur | 10.72 | 0.93 | 1.87 | 14 | 2.36 |
Ludhiana | 11.02 | 0.00 | 0.91 | 42 | 2.86 |
Total | 100 | 13.13 | 11.52 | 31 | 3.09 |
Percentage of Firms Responding to the Bribe Demand Questions | ||
---|---|---|
How much of an Obstacle is Corruption | Male Entrepreneurs | Female Entrepreneurs |
No obstacle | 38.70 | 46.81 |
Minor obstacle | 30.24 | 67.92 |
Moderate obstacle | 23.39 | 60.00 |
Major obstacle | 23.21 | 57.14 |
Very severe obstacle | 24.00 | 50.00 |
Average | 31.26 | 58.02 |
Description | Male Entrepreneurs (Percentage) | Female Entrepreneurs (Percentage) |
---|---|---|
Firms in Manufacturing | 30 | 32 |
Firms in Retail | 52.8 | 50.4 |
Firms in Services | 17.2 | 17.6 |
Owners also have a full-time salaried job | 6.4 | 44.5 |
Owners have a diploma (technical/non-technical) or a bachelors’ degree | 50.1 | 28.2 |
Owners do not have any education or have an incomplete primary education | 4.5 | 35.3 |
VARIABLES | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Education3 | −0.1065 ** | −0.0376 | −0.0194 | −0.0512 | −0.0169 | −0.0162 |
(0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.07) | (0.07) | (0.07) | |
Education2 | −0.1201 *** | −0.0593 ## | −0.0550 ## | −0.0735 | −0.0800 | −0.0745 |
(0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.07) | (0.06) | (0.06) | |
Ln sales | 0.0001 | −0.0014 | −0.0061 | −0.0122 | −0.0098 | −0.0117 |
(0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.02) | |
Firm age | −0.0028 ** | −0.0006 | 0.0001 | 0.0009 | 0.0027 | 0.0027 |
(0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
Manager experience | −0.0038 *** | −0.0006 | −0.0032 | −0.0004 | −0.0003 | |
(0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | ||
Owner job | 0.1615 *** | 0.1041 *** | 0.1627 *** | 0.1029 ** | 0.1025 ** | |
(0.03) | (0.03) | (0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | ||
GL2 | 0.0697 | 0.1049 | 0.1127 | |||
(0.06) | (0.14) | (0.14) | ||||
GL3 | 0.1054 *** | −0.0300 | −0.0262 | |||
(0.04) | (0.09) | (0.09) | ||||
GL4 | −0.0801 ** | −0.1884 * | −0.1813 * | |||
(0.04) | (0.10) | (0.10) | ||||
Bribe | 0.1215 *** | 0.0821 ** | 0.0784 ** | |||
(0.04) | (0.04) | (0.04) | ||||
Financially constrained | 0.0269 | |||||
(0.05) | ||||||
Observations | 935 | 894 | 894 | 295 | 295 | 295 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | |
---|---|---|---|
Variables | Margins | Margins | Margins |
Education3 | 0.0259 | 0.0244 | 0.0190 |
(0.05) | (0.05) | (0.05) | |
Education2 | 0.0026 | −0.0184 | −0.0187 |
(0.05) | (0.05) | (0.05) | |
Ln sales | 0.0035 | 0.0033 | −0.0000 |
(0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
Firm age | 0.0012 | 0.0014 | 0.0015 |
(0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
Manager experience | −0.0039 * | −0.0010 | −0.0012 |
(0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
Owner job | 0.1407 *** | 0.1097 *** | 0.1013 *** |
(0.03) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
GL4 dummy | −0.1596 *** | −0.1544 *** | |
(0.04) | (0.04) | ||
Bribe avIR | 0.1579 *** | 0.0973 *** | 0.0927 *** |
(0.03) | (0.03) | (0.03) | |
Financially constrained | 0.0506 * | ||
(0.03) | |||
Observations | 613 | 613 | 613 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Devlina; Sahu, S.K. Bureaucratic and Societal Determinants of Female-Led Microenterprises in India. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13030068
Devlina, Sahu SK. Bureaucratic and Societal Determinants of Female-Led Microenterprises in India. Administrative Sciences. 2023; 13(3):68. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13030068
Chicago/Turabian StyleDevlina, and Santosh Kumar Sahu. 2023. "Bureaucratic and Societal Determinants of Female-Led Microenterprises in India" Administrative Sciences 13, no. 3: 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13030068
APA StyleDevlina, & Sahu, S. K. (2023). Bureaucratic and Societal Determinants of Female-Led Microenterprises in India. Administrative Sciences, 13(3), 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13030068