IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v13y2023i3p68-d1081962.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bureaucratic and Societal Determinants of Female-Led Microenterprises in India

Author

Listed:
  • Devlina

    (Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, Tamil Nadu, India)

  • Santosh Kumar Sahu

    (Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, Tamil Nadu, India)

Abstract

This study examines the barriers to female entrepreneurship in India’s microenterprise sector through society and bureaucracy. The study uses grammatical genders in languages to capture the societal attitudes towards female entrepreneurship. Using a probit model, it was found that states where the spoken language is two-gendered, have poor representations of women in entrepreneurial positions compared with states with languages that are multi-gender or no gender. It is further argued that these societal attitudes also reflect through people in power, such as bureaucrats, credit managers, bankers, etc., which affects female entrepreneurship. The paper finds empirical evidence for the grease-the-wheel hypothesis, i.e., in the presence of a discriminating inefficient business ecosystem, women entrepreneurs use non-market strategies such as corruption to alter decisions in their favour. Thus, an effort to reduce corruption at an immature stage, when these societal institutions have not yet developed, might cause more harm than benefit.

Suggested Citation

  • Devlina & Santosh Kumar Sahu, 2023. "Bureaucratic and Societal Determinants of Female-Led Microenterprises in India," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:13:y:2023:i:3:p:68-:d:1081962
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/13/3/68/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/13/3/68/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vivi Alatas & Lisa Cameron & Ananish Chaudhuri & Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan, 2009. "Gender, Culture, and Corruption: Insights from an Experimental Analysis," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 663-680, January.
    2. Kim, Sahrok & Praveen Parboteeah, K. & Cullen, John B. & Jeong, Nara, 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, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1333-1349.
    3. Kaushik Basu, 2018. "Markets and Manipulation: Time for a Paradigm Shift?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(1), pages 185-205, March.
    4. Hicks, Daniel L. & Santacreu-Vasut, Estefania & Shoham, Amir, 2015. "Does mother tongue make for women's work? Linguistics, household labor, and gender identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 19-44.
    5. Treisman, Daniel, 2000. "The causes of corruption: a cross-national study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 399-457, June.
    6. Nirosha Hewa Wellalage & Stuart Locke & Helen Samujh, 2019. "Corruption, Gender and Credit Constraints: Evidence from South Asian SMEs," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 267-280, September.
    7. Vivi Alatas & Lisa Cameron & Ananish Chaudhuri & Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan, 2009. "Gender, Culture, and Corruption: Insights from an Experimental Analysis," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 663-680, January.
    8. Wang, Yuanyuan & You, Jing, 2012. "Corruption and firm growth: Evidence from China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 415-433.
    9. Davis, Lewis & Reynolds, Megan, 2018. "Gendered language and the educational gender gap," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 46-48.
    10. Chandan Jha & Bibhudutta Panda, 2017. "Individualism and Corruption: A Cross-Country Analysis," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 36(1), pages 60-74, March.
    11. Cristian L. Dezsö & David Gaddis Ross, 2012. "Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(9), pages 1072-1089, September.
    12. Paolo Mauro, 1995. "Corruption and Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 681-712.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olayinka Oyekola & Martha A. Omolo & Olapeju C. Ogunmokun, 2023. "Are majority-female-owned firms more susceptible to bribery solicitations?," Discussion Papers 2311, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    2. Jha, Chandan Kumar & Sarangi, Sudipta, 2018. "Women and corruption: What positions must they hold to make a difference?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 219-233.
    3. Armand, Alex & Coutts, Alexander & Vicente, Pedro C. & Vilela, Inês, 2023. "Measuring corruption in the field using behavioral games," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    4. Kanti Pertiwi, 2018. "Contextualizing Corruption: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach to Studying Corruption in Organizations," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-19, April.
    5. Kim, Sahrok & Praveen Parboteeah, K. & Cullen, John B. & Jeong, Nara, 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, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1333-1349.
    6. Audretsch, David B. & Belitski, Maksim & Chowdhury, Farzana & Desai, Sameeksha, 2022. "CEO gender, institutional context and firm exports," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(5).
    7. Abbink, Klaus & Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Gangadharan, Lata & Jain, Tarun, 2014. "Letting the briber go free: An experiment on mitigating harassment bribes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 17-28.
    8. Meghna Dutta, 2018. "Globalisation, Corruption and Women Empowerment," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 37(3), pages 327-343, September.
    9. Alice Guerra & Tatyana Zhuravleva, 2022. "Do women always behave as corruption cleaners?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 173-192, April.
    10. Priya, Pragati & Sharma, Chandan, 2023. "Reinforcing the effects of corruption and financial constraints on firm performance: Normal versus crisis period in developing economies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    11. Goel, Rajeev K. & Nelson, Michael A., 2023. "Women’s political empowerment: Influence of women in legislative versus executive branches in the fight against corruption," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 139-159.
    12. van Veldhuizen, R., 2013. "The influence of wages on public officials’ corruptibility: A laboratory investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 341-356.
    13. Frank Björn & Li Sha & Bühren Christoph & Qin Haiying, 2015. "Group Decision Making in a Corruption Experiment: China and Germany Compared," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 235(2), pages 207-227, April.
    14. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Radoniqi, Fatos, 2023. "Republic of beliefs: An experimental investigation✰," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 30-43.
    15. Jean-Christophe Statnik & Thi-Le-Giang Vu & Laurent Weill, 2023. "Does Corruption Discourage More Female Entrepreneurs from Applying for Credit?," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 65(1), pages 1-28, March.
    16. Tran, Quoc Trung, 2020. "Corruption, agency costs and dividend policy: International evidence," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 325-334.
    17. Yu Yan & Shusen Qi, 2021. "I Know What I Need: Optimization of Bribery," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(2), pages 311-332, November.
    18. Tran, Quoc Trung, 2020. "Corruption and corporate cash holdings: international evidence," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    19. Forson, Joseph Ato, 2014. "A “Recursive Framework” of Corruption and Development: Comparison between Economic and Sustainable outcomes," MPRA Paper 102211, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Nov 2016.
    20. Dmitry Ryvkin & Danila Serra, 2019. "Is More Competition Always Better? An Experimental Study Of Extortionary Corruption," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 50-72, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:13:y:2023:i:3:p:68-:d:1081962. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.