Professional Documents
Culture Documents
New Venture Financing and Subsequent Business Grow
New Venture Financing and Subsequent Business Grow
net/publication/227937226
CITATIONS READS
290 4,639
3 authors:
E. Ljunggren
Nord University
46 PUBLICATIONS 1,467 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
GENRE- Overcoming the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Gender Divide: A Cross-Cultural Perspective View project
Special Issue of Small Business Economics: "Effectuation and entrepreneurship theory" View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Gry Agnete Alsos on 18 November 2017.
This study investigates the possible funding gap for women-owned compared with men-
owned new businesses. With longitudinal data from new businesses in Norway, gender
differences in funding perceptions and behaviors, as well as in actually obtained amounts
of funding, are explored. While there are few detected gender differences with respect to
funding perceptions and behavior, women obtain significantly less financial capital
to develop their new businesses. Moreover, the results indicate that the lower levels of
financial capital that women business founders achieve are associated with lower early
business growth compared with their male counterparts.
Introduction
Entrepreneurship is still a male-dominated activity in the twenty-first century. In spite
of growing rates of participation in new venture creation among women, particularly in
North America, women remain substantially underrepresented among entrepreneurs
in Western countries (Reynolds, Bygrave, Autio, Cox, & Hay, 2003). In the Nordic
countries, the share of women entrepreneurs has been stable and low (about 25%) for the
last decade (Kolvereid, Alsos, & Åmo, 2004; Ljunggren, 1998). Norway, though often
portrayed as a country where equality between the genders is well developed, exposes the
same tendencies.
Not only do women start businesses to a lesser degree than men, but the few who take
this step seem to achieve less growth in their businesses than their male counterparts
(Cliff, 1998). Research on potential differences between women and men entrepreneurs
look for explanations of these differences (see, e.g., Alsos & Ljunggren, 1998; Cliff, 1998;
Miskin & Rose, 1990; Rosa & Hamilton, 1994; Sonfield, Lussier, Corman, & McKinney,
2001). Results have been various, but in total, there seem to be more similarities than
Please send correspondence to: Gry Agnete Alsos, tel.: 47-75-51-76-21; e-mail: Gry.Alsos@nforsk.no.
Theoretical Framework
Gender
Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 3a
differences between the men- and women-controlled businesses when it came to profits or
total sales turnover.
With the previous discussion, the following hypotheses have been developed:
Hypothesis 3a: Women entrepreneurs experience less early growth in their new
businesses compared to men.
Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between gender and early business growth is medi-
ated by the level of financial capital.
The hypotheses are summarized in the research model in Figure 1. Gender is assumed
to have an impact on funding perceptions and behaviors of the entrepreneur, the level of
funding achieved, as well as the early growth of the new business. Further, the association
between gender and achieved funding is assumed to be mediated by the perceptions and
behaviors related to funding. Finally, the association between gender and early business
growth is assumed to be mediated by the level of business funding raised.
Method
In this study, two rounds of data collection were carried out at two different points in
time. In a mail survey in 2002, we gathered information (collected from the new business
founders) on the independent and control variables. Approximately 19 months later,
telephone interviews were conducted concerning information about the dependent vari-
ables, invested financial capital, and sales turnover.
In the first round of data collection, the sampling frame consisted of entries in a
Norwegian business register, the Norwegian Central Coordinating Register for Legal
Entities. This is a comprehensive register that coordinates information existing in other
government registers, including (1) the register of employers, (2) the register of business
enterprises, and (3) the value added tax register. Four legal forms were included in the
sampling frame: sole proprietorships, partnerships with mutual responsibility, partner-
ships with shared responsibility, and unlisted limited liability companies. According to
Statistics Norway (2004), 98.6% of the businesses enrolled in the register in 2002 chose
one of these four legal forms. All new businesses that entered the business register during
weeks 21–24, 2002 (time 1) were approached. The business register provided lists con-
taining information regarding the new businesses. These lists were received in four rounds
1 week after the businesses had registered. A structured questionnaire was sent to the
Measures
Early Business Growth. Sales turnover in the Norwegian currency (Norwegian krone
[NOK])2 was measured at the second round of data collection (time 2) and was used as
1. With regard to categorical variables, cross tabulation and chi-square tests were employed. With regard to
continuous variables, t-tests as well as nonparametric Mann–Whitney U-tests were employed.
2. 1 NOK = $0.15.
Financial Capital. The respondents were at both times of data collection asked to state
the amount of currently invested financial capital (debt + equity) in the new business
(NOK). Adding these constitute the measures of total financial capital at times 1
(at registration) and 2 (19 months after). Both variables were highly skewed. They
were transformed by taking the logarithm of each response after adding a constant of
10.000.
Control Aversion. This was measured using three items inspired by Berggren, Olofson,
and Silver (2000): “New owners are favorable for the business”; “new owners renew and
develop the business”; and “the business prefers debts to external equity.” The items were
measured using a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neither agree nor
disagree, and 7 = strongly agree. The scores on the two first variables were reversed. The
three items were then averaged. Cronbach’s alpha = .622.
Perceived Requirements Funding. This was measured using nine items, the four first
items dealing with perceived requirements from banks, and the remaining five items
concerning requirements from equity suppliers: “Banks and other lenders make too strict
demands regarding security in form of mortgage/guarantees”; “banks and other lenders
make too strict judgments regarding risk”; “banks and other lenders demand too high rates
of interest”; “banks and other lenders make too strong demands regarding equity rate”;
“equity suppliers make too strict judgments regarding risk”; “equity suppliers make too
strict demands regarding profitability”; “equity suppliers focus too strongly on future sales
opportunities for equity shares”; “equity suppliers make too high demands for dividend”;
and “equity suppliers make too high demands regarding owners’ share in proportion to
invested capital.” The items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale where
1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, and 7 = strongly agree. The nine
items were averaged. Cronbach’s alpha = .895.
Initiating Investors Relationships. These were measured using four items: “be able to
obtain sufficient funds for the founding,” “develop and maintain favorable relationships
with potential investors,” “develop relationships with key people who are connected to
capital sources,” and “identify potential sources of funding for investments.” The latter
three were adapted from De Noble, Jung, and Ehrlich (1999), while the first is new.
Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of confidence in performing the tasks
successfully on an 11-point scale, where 0 = no confidence at all, 5 = some confidence,
and 10 = complete confidence. Cronbach’s alpha = .912.
Perceived Environmental Munificence. This was measured using four items: “The busi-
ness’ industry may in general be characterized by high growth”; “banks and other sup-
pliers of loan capital are generally very interested in financing businesses like mine”;
“investors are generally very interested in financing businesses like mine”; and “in
general, investors would quite easily understand the technology used in my business.” The
first three were constructed based on Brown and Kirchhoff (1997), while the fourth is new.
The items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree,
4 = neither agree nor disagree, and 7 = strongly agree. The four items were averaged.
Cronbach’s alpha = .734.
Control Variables. Capital need, de novo start-up, start-up team, perceived environmental
dynamism, and industry (service) were used as control variables. To measure capital need,
the respondents were asked to state the amount of capital needed in the development of the
business during the first year after registration. The variable was highly skewed. There-
fore, it was transformed by taking the logarithm of each response after adding a constant
of 10.000. The respondents were asked to state whether the business was started from
scratch (value 1), or whether it was acquired, inherited, or otherwise a continuance of a
prior business (value 0) to indicate de novo businesses. The respondents were asked to
state whether they alone were responsible for the founding of the business (value 0), or
whether they started it with other partners (value 1), to measure the existence of a start-up
team. Perceived environmental dynamism was measured using four items: “The rate at
which products/services are getting obsolete in the industry is very slow”; “actions of
competitors are quite easy to predict”; “demand and consumer’s tastes are fairly easy to
forecast”; and “the product/service technology is not subject to very much change and is
well established.” The items were adopted from Miller and Friesen (1982). The items were
measured using a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neither agree nor
disagree, and 7 = strongly agree. The four items were reversed and averaged. Cronbach’s
alpha = .623. Industry was operationalized as a dummy variable where businesses in the
service sector were denoted a value of “1” otherwise “0.”
In Table 1, descriptive statistics, correlations, and Variance Inflation Factor values
(VIF values) for the included variables are shown. Although the VIF values do not indicate
that multicollinearity will seriously distort the regression model, inspection of the corre-
lation matrix reveals that capital at registration is positively and significantly associated
with capital at time 2 (r = .71, statistically significant at the .01 level). Hence, this potential
problem needs to be considered when testing hypothesis 3b.
Results
Bivariate t-tests were used to explore potential differences between male and female
entrepreneurs when it comes to funding perceptions and behavior (Table 2). No statisti-
cally significant differences were detected related to men and women’s perception of
environmental dynamism, control aversion, perception of the requirements of banks and
equity suppliers, their investor relations, nor their perception of entrepreneurial munifi-
cence in the environment. Moreover, there were no significant differences between the
genders regarding the extent to which they applied for loans or external equity.
However, the results in Table 2 show that there are statistically significant differences
between the amount of financial capital female and male entrepreneurs use at start-up.
Women have achieved significantly lower amounts of total financial capital both at the
time of registration (time 1) and 19 months later (time 2). These results appear in spite of
no significant difference when it comes to the amount of financial capital they report that
they need to develop the business. These results support hypothesis 1. However, there is
no support for hypothesis 2a.
September, 2006
Descriptive Statistics: Mean, Standard Deviation, Correlations, and Variance Inflation Factor Values (VIF Values)
677
Table 2
A linear regression model was used to test hypothesis 2b, which suggested that the
relationship between gender and the raised amount of financial capital is mediated by the
entrepreneur’s funding perceptions and behavior (Table 3).
Model 1 includes control variables and gender to explain the amount of financial
capital raised at time 2. The model is statistically significant with an adjusted R2 of .197.
The perceived environmental dynamism variable was not significantly associated with the
dependent variable. Reported capital need, de novo businesses, the presence of a start-up
team, and industry are all statistically significant in the model, indicating as expected that
higher amounts of capital are raised by acquisitive entries, team starts, in situations where
the capital need is higher, and in industries other than the service sector. Further, women
raise significantly lower amounts of financial capital than men.
In model 2, the measures of funding perceptions and behavior were included, increas-
ing the adjusted R2 to .280. The only additional variable, which showed a significant effect
in the model, was the extent to which the entrepreneurs had applied for funding (loans and
equity). The number of applications for loans and equity is associated with the amount of
capital obtained, indicating that a higher level of activity in funding pays off. Neverthe-
less, gender is still strongly significant in the model. The result that women are able to
obtain less financial capital than men holds also when controlling for funding perceptions
and behavior. These results give no support for our hypothesis 2b, while hypothesis 1
receives support also in the multivariate analysis.
Are differences in obtained financial capital associated with differences in early
business growth? A hierarchical linear regression procedure was used to test hypotheses
3a and 3b. The results are reported in Table 4.
Model 1 includes control variables and gender as independent variables, and sales
turnover 19 months after registration (ln) as the dependent variable, resulting in a sig-
nificant model with an adjusted R2 of .152. All control variables except perceived envi-
ronmental dynamism are statistically significant in the model, however, with capital need
and industry only at the .1 level. Higher capital need, acquisitive entries, team starts, and
Model 1 Model 2
Control variables
Capital need .254*** .129***
De novo -.182*** -.124***
Start-up team .178*** .088*
Perceived environmental -.038 -.026
dynamism
Industry (service) -.162*** -.140***
Gender
Women -.127*** -.151***
Funding perceptions and behaviour
Control aversion .036
Perceived requirements .000
funding
Investor relationships .034
Perceived environmental -.010
munificence
Applied funding .336***
Model characteristics
F-value 15.694*** 13.675***
R2 .211 .302
Adjusted R2 .197 .280
D R2 .091
D F-value 9.094***
businesses in sectors other than service are associated with higher early business growth.
Moreover, women’s businesses obtain significantly lower sales turnover than men’s busi-
nesses. In the second model, we included the amount of financial capital obtained by the
time of registration, increasing the adjusted R2 to .264. The amount of financial capital at
the time of business registration is strongly associated with sales turnover 19 months
later. Moreover, the inclusion of this variable reduces the impact of gender in the model.
In the third model, the amount of obtained capital at time 2 is added to the model,
increasing the adjusted R2 to .368. This variable is highly significant in the model, which
strengthens the finding from model 2. Because of correlation between the amounts of
financial capital at the two points in time, the impact of financial capital at time of
registration is weakened in this model. Interestingly, the impact of gender is no longer
significant in this model.3 These findings indicate that when controlling for the level of
3. As noted earlier, the correlation between financial capital at the time of registration and financial capital at
time 2 is high (r = 0.71). In order to explore whether collinearity distorts the results, a regression analysis was
performed in which the variable “financial capital at time of registration” was excluded from the analysis.
While not reported in Table 4, the results obtained from the analysis were practically identical with those
reported in model 3. The only differences with regard to statistical significance levels refer to the control
Control variables
Capital need .092* .003 -.060
De novo -.226*** -.121** -.113**
Start-up team .192*** .101** .092*
Perceived environmental -.069 -0.41 -.017
dynamism
Industry (service) -.098* -.042 .007
Gender
Women -.130** -.088* -.050
Received financial capital
Financial capital at registration .393*** .092
Financial capital time 2 .478***
Model characteristics
F-value 10.718*** 17.715*** 24.776***
R2 .167 .280 .384
Adjusted R2 .152 .264 .368
D R2 .113 .104
D F-value 49.872*** 53.713***
financial capital achieved, there is no statistical significant differences between men and
women founders with respect to the early growth in sales turnover for their new busi-
nesses. Hence, hypotheses 3a and 3b are both supported from our findings.
Several studies have provided evidence that women-led ventures grow less than
men-led ventures (Chaganti & Parasuraman, 1996; Cliff, 1998). This is also supported by
this study. The Diana group asserted that “There is a substantial funding gap that limits
women’s opportunities to grow their ventures aggressively and to lead high-value firms”
(Brush et al., 2002, p. 1). This study has investigated funding behavior and obtained
funding among men and women business founders, and how this is associated with early
growth of newly founded businesses. The results support the Diana group’s claim. The
findings indicate that gender makes an important difference when it comes to the amount
of loan and equity capital raised to develop the new business. The effect of gender remains
strong also when controlled for potential differences in funding perceptions and behavior.
In fact, we detect few differences between men and women when it comes to their
variables. That is, the control variable de novo reached a 0.01 level of statistical significance, and the variable
“start-up team” reached a 0.05 level of statistical significance.
Ahl, H.J. (2002). The making of the female entrepreneur: A discourse analysis of research texts on women’s
entrepreneurship. JIBS Dissertation Series No. 015, Jönköping, Sweden: Jönköping University.
Alsos, G.A. & Ljunggren, E. (1998). Does the business start-up process differ by gender? A longitudinal study
of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 6(4), 347–367.
Alsos, G.A., Ljunggren, E., & Pettersen, L.T. (2002). Kvinners entreprenørskap—med offentlig pådriv? In
N.G. Berg & L. Foss (Eds.), Entreprenørskap: Kjønn livsløp og sted (pp. 244–264). Oslo, Norway:
Abstrakt.
Berg, N.G. (1997). Gender, place and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 9(3),
259–268.
Berggren, B., Olofson, C., & Silver, L. (2000). Control aversion and the search for external financing in
Swedish SMEs. Small Business Economics, 15(3), 233–242.
Bird, B. & Brush, C. (2002). A gendered perspective on organizational creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 26(3), 41–65.
Bø, T.P. (2004). Høy yrkesdeltakelse blant kvinner i Norden. Samfunnsspeilet, Oslo, Norway: Statistics
Norway. Available at http://www.ssb.no/vis/samfunnsspeilet/utg/200401/03/art-2004-03-04-01.html,
accessed 18 August 2004.
Borch, O.J., Isaksen, E.J., Jenssen, S.A., Kolvereid, L., Sørheim, R., & Widding, L.Ø. (2002). Kapitalmarked
for nyetablerte bedrifter—en studie av etterspørsels- og tilbudssiden (KPB-report 1/2002). Bodø, Norway:
Bodø Graduate School of Business.
Brown, T.E. & Kirchhoff, B.A. (1997). The effects of resource availability and entrepreneurial orientation
on firm growth. In P.D. Reynolds, W.D. Bygrave, N.M. Carter, P. Davidsson, W.B. Gartner, C.M. Mason,
& P.P. McDougal (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 32–46). Wellesley, MA: Babson
College.
Brush, C.G., Carter, N.M., Gatewood, E.J., Greene, P.G., & Hart, M.M. (2001). An investigation of women-led
firms and venture capital investment. Report to the US Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy and
National Women’s Business Council. Available at http://www.esbri.se/SBA_report.html.
Brush, C.G., Carter, N.M., Gatewood, E.J., Greene, P.G., & Hart, M.M. (2002). The Diana Project: Women
business owners and equity capital: The myths dispelled. Kansas City, MI: Kauffman Centre for Entrepre-
neurial Leadership.
Brush, C.G., Carter, N.M., Gatewood, E.J., Greene, P.G., & Hart, M.M. (2004). Gatekeepers of venture
growth. Kansas City, MI: Kauffman Foundation.
Brush, C.G. & Chaganti, R. (1999). Businesses without glamour? An analysis of resources on performance by
size and age in small service and retail firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 14(3), 233–257.
Buttner, E.H. & Rosen, B. (1992). Rejection in the loan application process: Male and female entrepreneurs
perceptions and subsequent intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 30(1), 58–65.
Carter, S. (2000). Gender and enterprise. In S. Carter & D. Jones-Evans (Eds.), Enterprise and small business:
Principles, practice and policy (pp. 166–181). London: Prentice Hall.
Carter, N., & Kolvereid, L. (1997, April). Women starting new businesses: The experience in Norway and the
US. Paper presented at the OECD Conference on Women Entrepreneurs in SMEs, Paris.
Carter, S. & Rosa, P. (1998). The financing of male and female owned businesses. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 10(3), 225–241.
Carter, S., Shaw, E., Wilson, F., & Lam, W. (2006). Gender, entrepreneurship and business finance: Investi-
gating the relationship between banks and entrepreneurs in the UK. In C.G. Brush, N.M. Carter, E.J.
Gatewood, P.G. Greene, & M.M. Hart (Eds.), Growth-oriented women entrepreneurs and their businesses—A
global research perspective (pp. 373–392). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Chaganti, R. & Parasuraman, S. (1996). A study of the impact of gender on business performance and
management patterns in small business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(2), 73–75.
Cliff, J. (1998). Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationship between attitudes towards growth, gender, and
business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(6), 523–542.
Cooper, A.C. & Dunkelberg, W.C. (1986). Entrepreneurship and paths to business ownership. Strategic
Management Journal, 7(1), 53–68.
Cooper, A.C., Gimeno-Gascon, F.J., & Woo, C.Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of
new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371–395.
De Noble, A.F., Jung, D., & Ehrlich, S.B. (1999). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The development of a measure
and its relation to entrepreneurial action. In P.D. Reynolds, W.D. Bygrave, S. Manigart, C.M. Mason, G.D.
Meyer, H.J. Sapienza, & K.G. Shaver (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 73–87). Wellesley,
MA: Babson College.
Fabowale, L., Orser, B., & Riding, A. (1995). Gender, structural factors, and credit terms between Canadian
small businesses and financial institutions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(4), 41–65.
Fay, M. & Williams, L. (1993). Gender bias and the availability of business loans. Journal of Business
Venturing, 8(4), 363–376.
Foss, L. & Ljunggren, E. (2006). Women’s entrepreneurship in Norway: Recent trends and future challenges.
In C.G. Brush, N.M. Carter, E.J. Gatewood, P.G. Greene, & M.M. Hart (Eds.), Growth-oriented women
entrepreneurs and their businesses—A global research perspective (pp. 154–183). Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar.
Gatewood, E.J., Carter, N.M., Brush, C.G., Greene, P.G., & Hart, M.M. (Eds.). (2003). Women entrepreneurs,
their ventures, and their venture capital industry. An annotated bibliography. Stockholm: ESBRI.
Greene, P.G., Brush, C.G., Hart, M.M., & Saparito, P. (2001). Patterns of venture capital funding: Is gender
a factor? Venture Capital, 3(1), 63–83.
Innovation Norway. (2005). Women towards ownership in business and agriculture. International Report.
Oslo, Norway: Innovation Norway.
Isaksen, E.J. (2003). Growth intentions among Norwegian business founders: Desirability and feasibility of
business growth. Paper presented at the 17th Nordic Conference on Business Studies, Reykjavik, August
14–16.
Isaksen, E.J. & Kolvereid, L. (2005). Growth objectives in Norwegian start-up businesses. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 2(1), 17–26.
Jarvis, S. (2000). Finance and the small firm. In S. Carter & D. Jones-Evans (Eds.), Enterprise and small
business: Principles, practice and policy (pp. 337–353). London: Prentice Hall.
Jensen, R.S. (2005). Women towards ownership in business and agriculture. National Report. Oslo, Norway:
Innovation Norway.
Kolvereid, L. (1992). Growth aspirations among Norwegian entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing,
7(3), 209–222.
Kolvereid, L., Alsos, G.A., & Åmo, B.W. (2004). Entreprenørskap i Norge, global entrepreneurship monitor.
Bodø: Bodø Graduate School of Business.
Landström, H. & Johannisson, B. (2001). Theoretical foundations of Swedish entrepreneurship and small-
business research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17(3), 225–248.
Ljunggren, E.C. (1998). The new business formation process: Why are there so few women entrepreneurs in
Norway? Unpublished licentiate thesis, Umeå Universitet, Umeå.
Ljunggren, E., & Foss, L. (2004). Women’s entrepreneurship in Norway: The need of and access to new
venture capital. Paper presented at the 13th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research, Tromsø, June
10–12.
Marlow, S. (2002). Self employed women: A part of, or apart from, feminist theory? Entrepreneurship and
Innovation, 2(2), 83–91.
Marlow, S. & Patton, D. (2005). All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 29(6), 717–735.
Mason, C.M. & Harrison, R. (1999). Venture capital: Rationale, aims and scope. Venture Capital, 1(1), 1–46.
Miller, D. & Friesen, P.H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of
strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3(1), 1–25.
Miskin, V. & Rose, J. (1990). Women entrepreneurs: Factors related to success. In N.C. Churchill, W.D.
Bygrave, J.A. Hornaday, D.F. Muzyka, K.H. Vesper, & W.E. Wetzel Jr. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship
research (pp. 27–38). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Nykvist, J. (2005). Entrepreneurship and liquidity constraints: Evidence from Sweden. (Working paper no.
2005:21). Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.
OECD. (2004). Women’s entrepreneurship: Issues and policies. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development.
Reynolds, P.D., Bygrave, W.D., Autio, E., Cox, L., & Hay, M. (2003). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2003
Executive Report. London: London Business School.
Riding, A. & Swift, C.S. (1990). Women business owners and terms of credit: Some empirical findings of the
Canadian experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(5), 327–340.
Rosa, P. & Hamilton, D. (1994). Gender and ownership in UK small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 18(3), 11–27.
Sonfield, M., Lussier, R., Corman, J., & McKinney, M. (2001). Gender comparisons in strategic decision-
making: An empirical analysis of the entrepreneurial strategy matrix. Journal of Small Business Management,
39(2), 165–173.
Spilling, O.R. (2004). Women entrepreneurship, management and ownership in Norway 2004: A statistical
update. Oslo, Norway: NIFU STEP.
Storey, D.J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London: Routledge.
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinct domain of entrepreneurship research. In J.A. Katz (Ed.), Advances in
entrepreneurship research: Firm emergence and growth (pp. 119–138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Verheul, I. & Thurik, R. (2001). Start-up capital: Does gender matter? Small Business Economics, 16(4),
329–345.
Watson, J. (2002). Comparing the performance of male and female controlled businesses: Relating outputs to
inputs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), 91–100.
Welter, F. (2001). Who wants to grow? Growth intentions and growth profiles of (nascent) entrepreneurs in
Germany. In W.D. Bygrave, E. Autio, C.G. Brush, P. Davidsson, P.G. Greene, P.D. Reynolds, & H.J. Sapienza
(Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 91–100). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Welter, F. (2006). Women entrepreneurship in Germany: State of the art, progress and open questions. In C.G.
Brush, N.M. Carter, E.J. Gatewood, P.G. Greene, & M.M. Hart (Eds.), Growth-oriented women entrepreneurs
and their businesses—A global research perspective (pp. 128–153). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Wiklund, J. (1998). Small firm growth and performance. PhD dissertation, Jönköping University (JIBS
Dissertation Series No. 003), Jönköping.
Gry Agnete Alsos is senior researcher at the Nordland Research Institute, N-8049 Bodø, Norway.
Espen John Isaksen is associate professor at the Bodø Graduate School of Business, N-8049 Bodø, Norway.
Elisabet Ljunggren is senior researcher at the Nordland Research Institute, N-8049 Bodø, Norway
An earlier version was presented at the 2005 Babson Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference and
appears in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2005. We acknowledge constructive and helpful comments
from two blind reviewers as well as the special issue editors.