Neo-liberalism translated into preconditions for women entrepreneurs – two contrasting cases

Malin Tillmar,Helene Ahl,Katarina Pettersson,Karin Berglund

doi:10.1108/jec-12-2020-0207

Abstract

PurposeContrasting two countries with different gender regimes and welfare states, Sweden and Tanzania, this paper aims to analyse how the institutional context affects the ways in which a neo-liberal reform agenda is translated into institutional changes and propose how such changes impact the preconditions for women’s entrepreneurship.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses document analysis and previous studies to describe and analyse the institutions and the institutional changes. This paper uses Scandinavian institutional theory as the interpretative framework.FindingsThis study proposes that: in well-developed welfare states with a high level of gender equality, consequences of neo-liberal agenda for the preconditions for women entrepreneurs are more likely to be negative than positive. In less developed states with a low level of gender equality, the gendered consequences of neo-liberal reforms may be mixed and the preconditions for women’s entrepreneurship more positive than negative. How neo-liberalism impacts preconditions for women entrepreneurs depend on the institutional framework in terms of a trustworthy women-friendly state and level of gender equality.Research limitations/implicationsThe study calls for bringing the effects on the gender of the neo-liberal primacy of market solutions out of the black box. Studying how women entrepreneurs perceive these effects necessitates qualitative ethnographic data.Originality/valueThis paper demonstrates why any discussion of the impact of political or economic reforms on women’s entrepreneurship must take a country’s specific institutional context into account. Further, previous studies on neo-liberalism have rarely taken an interest in Africa.

Highlights

On a broad level, this article analyses how institutional contexts affect the translation and implementation of ideas that travel globally (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996; Czarniawska and Sevon, 2005) such as neo-liberalism (Harvey, 2006)
In line with scholars who have pointed to the role of the institutional context in entrepreneurship studies (Ahl, 2006; Klyver et al, 2013; Thebaud, 2011; Welter and Smallbone, 2011; Dana et al, 2020), we demonstrate why any discussion of the impact of political or economic reforms must take into account the specific institutional context of the country, including formal and informal institutions such as gender norms, questions of governance, state policies and the economy
By contrasting a developed with a developing context and focussing our attention on the impact on women entrepreneurs, we contribute to the current research dialogue on whether women’s entrepreneurship as an instrument for economic growth is an instrument for increased gender equality (Ramadani et al, 2013; Ramadani et al, 2015b; Anggadwita et al, 2016; Mazonde and Carmichael, 2016)

Summary

Introduction

This article analyses how institutional contexts affect the translation and implementation of ideas that travel globally (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996; Czarniawska and Sevon, 2005) such as neo-liberalism (Harvey, 2006). In line with scholars who have pointed to the role of the institutional context in entrepreneurship studies (Ahl, 2006; Klyver et al, 2013; Thebaud, 2011; Welter and Smallbone, 2011; Dana et al, 2020), we demonstrate why any discussion of the impact of political or economic reforms must take into account the specific institutional context of the country, including formal and informal institutions such as gender norms, questions of governance, state policies and the economy. By contrasting a developed with a developing context and focussing our attention on the impact on women entrepreneurs, we contribute to the current research dialogue on whether women’s entrepreneurship as an instrument for economic growth is an instrument for increased gender equality (Ramadani et al, 2013; Ramadani et al, 2015b; Anggadwita et al, 2016; Mazonde and Carmichael, 2016)

Objectives

Methods

Conclusion