Building back better through feminist entrepreneurship policy

被引:6
|
作者
Orser, Barbara [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ottawa, Telfer Sch Management, Ottawa, ON, Canada
关键词
Self-employment; Gender theory; Womens entrepreneurship; Feminist economics; WOMENS ENTREPRENEURSHIP; GENDER; BOUNDARIES;
D O I
10.1108/IJGE-05-2022-0089
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Purpose Most feminists policies are aspirational. Deficiencies include vague terms of what constitutes 'feminist' within policy, ambiguous investment criteria, lack of consultation and the use of the binary definition of gender negating gender-diverse people (Tiessen, 2019). The purpose of this study is to identify parameters that characterize feminist entrepreneurship policies and to advance recommendations to operationalize these policies. Design/methodology/approach The COVID-19 pandemic has unveiled fragilities in the socio-economic gains that women entrepreneurs have achieved. Gender-regression is, in part, the product of entrepreneurship policies that fail to recognize the nature and needs of women entrepreneurs. To inform recovery measures, this article considers two research questions: what are the parameters of feminist entrepreneurship policies? and how can parameters of feminist entrepreneurship policy be operationalized in pandemic recovery measures? To inform the questions, the study draws on the academic literature and thematic analysis of three collective feminist action plans to operationalize ten parameters that characterize feminist entrepreneurship policy. Findings Supplanting 'feminist' for women in the construction of entrepreneurship policies, without specifications of how parameters differ dilutes government's efforts to achieve gender quality and women's economic empowerment. To inform policy, recommendations of three feminist recovery policies clustered under seven themes: importance of addressing root causes of inequality; need to invest in social and economic outcomes; economic security; enhancing access to economic resources; investment in infrastructure; inclusive decision-making; and need for gender disaggregated data to inform policy. Differences in policy priorities between collective feminist recovery plans and the academic literature are reported. Research limitations/implications The parameters of feminist entrepreneurial policy require further interpretation and adaptation in different policy, cultural and geo-political contexts. Scholarly attention might focus on advisory processes that inform feminist policies, such as measures to address gender-regressive impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Research is also needed to understand the impacts of feminist policies on the lived experiences of diverse women entrepreneurs. Limitations: The study design did not incorporate viewpoints of policymakers or capture bureaucratic boundary patrolling practices that stymie feminist policies. Thematic analysis was limited to three feminist recovery plans from two countries. Practical implications Recommendations to operationalize feminist entrepreneurship policies in the context of pandemic recovery are described. Originality/value Ten parameters of feminist entrepreneurship policy are explored. The conceptual study also advances a framework of feminist entrepreneurship policy and considers boundary conditions for when and how the parameters are applicable.
引用
收藏
页码:468 / 488
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Building Back Better, Gender Equality, and Feminist Dilemmas
    Nazneen, Sohela
    Araujo, Susana
    [J]. IDS BULLETIN-INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, 2021, 52 (01): : 105 - 125
  • [2] Malaysian Entrepreneurship through 'Building Back Better' (BBB) Agenda in the Redevelopment of Banda Aceh
    Takim, Roshana
    Mohammad, Mohammad Fadhil
    Nawawi, Abdul Hadi
    [J]. 7TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUILDING RESILIENCE: USING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE TO INFORM POLICY AND PRACTICE IN DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, 2018, 212 : 324 - 331
  • [3] Building Back Better
    Mysak, Tania
    [J]. CANADIAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL PHARMACY, 2021, 74 (03): : 302 - 302
  • [4] Building back better
    Oakley, Tim
    [J]. Oakley, Tim, 1600, Chartered Association of Building Engineers (96): : 28 - 29
  • [5] Building back better?
    Michie, Jonathan
    Sheehan, Maura
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF APPLIED ECONOMICS, 2021, 35 (02) : 111 - 116
  • [6] Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration
    Dalgleish, Adam
    Girard, Patrick
    Davies, Maree J.
    [J]. INFORMAL LOGIC, 2017, 37 (04): : 351 - 369
  • [7] Building back better together
    Edge, Clare
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGIST, 2021, 34 : 90 - 91
  • [8] Governance for Building Back Better
    Mohmand, Shandana Khan
    Anderson, Colin
    Gallien, Max
    Harrison, Tom
    Joshi, Anuradha
    Loureiro, Miguel
    Mascagni, Giulia
    Occhiali, Giovanni
    van den Boogaard, Vanessa
    [J]. IDS BULLETIN-INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, 2021, 52 (01): : 163 - 179
  • [9] Building the market back better
    [J]. Highways, 2021, 90 (06): : 35 - 36
  • [10] Building international entrepreneurship through entrepreneurship capital perspective
    Jiao, Hao
    Robinson, Jeffrey A.
    [J]. AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, 2011, 5 (21): : 8458 - 8469