BARRIERS TO WOMEN’S MICRO AND SMALL-ENTERPRISE SUCCESS IN TURKEY





Şemsa Özar

International Policy Fellow, 2002
Center for Policy Studies, Central European University and Open Society Institute

Boğaziçi University, Department of Economics

September 2003

 




CONTENTS:

I. INTRODUCTION
II. DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY
III. MSE STUDIES IN TURKEY
IV. AN OVERVIEW OF ENTREPRENEURS BY GENDER IN TURKEY
V. RESEARCH FINDINGS
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
 




I. INTRODUCTION
 
    In the last three decades promotion of micro and small enterprises (MSEs) has been in the agenda of governmental and non-governmental institutions both in industrialized and developing countries as a consequence of increasing confidence in their potential to contribute to economic recovery and growth. Although these agendas have a number of features in common, basically they have different objectives. In the industrialized countries MSEs are associated with creating jobs, human-resource management, creativity and innovation, whereas in the developing countries they are usually promoted as a means of generating employment, alleviating poverty and promoting growth.

    Over the last two decades in the majority of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries the number of women-owned enterprises has been increasing significantly. “The latest OECD statistics (average for 1996-1997) show that the OECD average of female employers and workers (on their own account) as percentage of all employers and workers (on their own account) is 28.5%. But this average is composed of very diverse situations: 41% of entrepreneurs in Canada are women, 39% in the United States but only 6.2% in Turkey.” (OECD, 1999:5).

    Contrary to the situation in Turkey, evidence from other developing countries in Africa and Latin America indicate that large numbers of MSEs are owned and operated by women (Liedholm, 2002). The ease of entry and limited access to other enterprises and employment opportunities are seen as the major reasons behind the increasing number of women entrepreneurs in developing countries in the MSE sector (Singh et al, 2001).

    In countries where the share of women entrepreneurs is low generally governments take action for promoting women into business. Following a severe economic crisis, Korea, for example, has taken important steps to improve gender equality in the area of business. The Korean government not only  established a Commission “in order to improve rates of women’s business creation and to impact on the social-value system”, but as well passed an act on “Assisting Women Entrepreneurs” in 1999 (OECD, 1999:12).

    Thus, this study attempts to assess the factors and circumstances that generate the high percentage of gender inequality among MSE entrepreneurs in Turkey. However, the aim is not to question the importance and/or the role of MSEs vis-à-vis larger enterprises in the development process, but rather to explore the factors underlying the low participation of women in small business.

    In Turkey, until 1990s women’s entrepreneurship did not draw sufficient consideration both from government and women’s organizations. The recent economic crises and the consequent rise in unemployment might, to some extent, explain the growing interest in the MSEs in general and women entrepreneurship in particular, as an alternative to unemployment and poverty. Following the crisis of 2001, unemployment has grown rapidly reaching to 10% in total and 13% in the urban areas. Furthermore, the total labor force participation rate has fallen below 50%, indicating a high share of discouraged workers. The unemployment numbers for women have been even more discouraging. The female unemployment figures in the first half of 2003 in the urban areas reached to 17.5%.

    The objective of this study is to investigate the nature and scope of constraints and barriers women entrepreneurs face while starting and/or expanding their MSEs. The emphasis will be more on the specific problems of women entrepreneurs rather than problems faced both by women and men like high interest rates in the economy that impede the growth of the MSE sector.

    The MSEs encompass heterogeneous units ranging from one-person home-based worker, to high-tech units providing commodities or service. Hence the policy suggestions which will be drawn from this study will not only target “poor” women entrepreneurs, but also those with higher opportunities but with some “missing” factors that impede the success of their endeavor. Some women succeed in overcoming many of the constraints and establish successful businesses for themselves and their employees. Hence, this study will seek to identify not only the inhibiting but also facilitating factors faced by woman entrepreneurs.

    The paper aims as well to draw attention of the public authorities, the business community and civil initiatives to the need to expand women entrepreneurship by encouraging women to set up their own enterprises.

    Following Section I which introduces the aim of the paper, Section II presents the sources and methods of data collection. Section III gives a brief overview of MSE studies in Turkey. Section IV presents an overview of entrepreneurs in Turkey by gender. Section V evaluates the results of the research. Conclusions and policy proposals are offered in Section VI.


II. Data Collection and Methodology

The study is based on original data and information generated by using different methods of data collection:

1. A representative sample survey of MSEs  (2001) for Turkey. The survey is national in coverage and is based on a complete enumeration of all enterprises in the sampling areas chosen by stratified random sampling technique. The universe of enterprises covered in the survey include all enterprises engaging up to 50 people excluding agricultural and non-market activities, illegal activities, production for own-use, mobile vendors, domestic services, professional services (except ICT). The survey involves listing of all enterprises through door-to-door canvassing and interviewing of a sample of 5 000 entrepreneurs. 24 522 men and 1 106 women entrepreneurs were found in the listing process.

2. 30 in-depth field interviews with women entrepreneurs. The interviews are conducted in cities where the density of women-owned enterprises varies in number and nature. The interview sites include 9 cities in various geographical regions of Turkey: Bursa, Çorum, Diyarbakır, Erzurum, İstanbul, İzmir, İzmit, Mardin and Trabzon. Bursa, İstanbul and İzmir were selected because they are the most industrialized and large cities which have attracted substantial internal migration. Diyarbakır and Mardin were selected because they are in southeastern Turkey where the per capita income is the lowest in Turkey. İzmit was selected because after the major earthquake in 1999 a number of NGOs started to work in the area targeting women. Çorum, Erzurum and Trabzon were selected to represent central, east and north parts of Turkey. Erzurum, particularly, is a traditional and conservative city with very limited employment opportunities. Participants were identified with the aid of the sample survey indicated above and with the help received from women’s centers, civic groups and MSE owners. The criteria for selection as a participant include such dimensions as the size of the enterprise, sectoral affiliation, the geographical region in which the enterprise is located and the characteristics of the entrepreneur such as age, educational background, marital status and the number of children.

    Examination of the literature on MSEs contributed to the identification of themes for the guidelines used during the interviews. Information is drawn from the content analysis of the tape-recorded interviews.

    Issues explored with women entrepreneurs include their familial, socio-demographic, and economic background, the factors that facilitated or inhibited their decision to become an entrepreneur, their experiences of entrepreneurship and the particular issues that confront them as women in business. Attention is given not only to economic factors but also to constraints of non-economic factors, especially the diverse dimensions of patriarchy.

3. Interviews are also conducted with the representatives of women’s centers, state offices, public and professional organizations that are active in the area of MSEs, such as KOSGEB (Small and Medium Industry Development Organization), KUGEM (Small Enterprise Development Centers), KSSGM (Directorate General on the Status and Problems of Women), TOBB (The Union of Chambers of Commerce, Industry), TESK (Confederation of Turkish Tradesperson and Artisans), TOSYÖV (Turkish Foundation for Small and Medium Business) in order to identify their involvement in promoting women’s MSEs and İzmit Toplumsal ve Ekonomik Gelişim İçin Kadın Merkezi (Izmit Women’s Center for Social and Economic Development, closed), KADAV (Women’s Solidarity Foundation, Istanbul), KAMER (Women’s Center, Diyarbakir,), KEDV (Foundation for the Support of Women's Work), Maya Microcredit Program, TKV (Turkish Development Foundation, Diyarbakır and Mardin), GAP-GİDEM (Entrepreneur Support and Guidance Centers, Diyarbakir and Mardin), CATOM (Multi Purpose Community Centers, Mardin), public and private organizations which are involved in supporting women entrepreneurs of MSEs.

4. A one-day workshop with the representatives of women’s organizations and public organizations which are operational in enterprise development and microfinance for women.

    On the one hand, it is exceptionally difficult to extract gender differences and experiences of discrimination by using only quantitative techniques and on the other hand, the inherent problems of qualitative techniques, in particular personal interviews, are well-known. Thus, the study aims to utilize both quantitative and qualitative data and information in a complementary way.

    The MSEs that are investigated in this research include the enterprises of own-account workers and of employers with up to 50 employees performing in the manufacturing, trade and the service sectors. For the purpose of this study the entrepreneur is defined as “one who takes an active role in the decision making and risk taking of a business in which s/he has majority ownership” (Moore and Buttner, 1997:13). Women working in their homes on their own-account are considered as entrepreneurs.

    Inevitably, a selective set of data and information gathered from above-mentioned sources will be used in the limits of this paper. This paper aims to give a general presentation of the findings focusing particularly on the motivations for starting business, main sources of capital, institutional support and previous work status.



III. MSE STUDIES IN TURKEY

    Most of the studies on MSEs and SMEs (Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises) in Turkey have concentrated specifically on the manufacturing sector and on their role in the industrialization process and economic growth. As a result, the focus has been on technologies, productivity, research and development, marketing and competitiveness (Aktan 1998; Çınar et al, 1987; Kaytaz, 1995; Kuruüzüm 1998; Taymaz, 1997).

    The growing interest on women entrepreneurs in the recent years, however, has not yet generated intensive research on the factors that impede their entrance in the MSE sector.  First studies on women entrepreneurs in Turkey have been published in the beginning of 1990s. While studies on MSEs without a gender perspective concentrated on the issues related to the performance of the business, research on women entrepreneurs focused primarily on the descriptive characteristics of the entrepreneur, particularly their role attitudes in the enterprise and in the family, that is, their relations with their employees, business colleagues and with their family members (Çelebi, 1997; Çelebi et al, 1993; KOSGEB, 2000). Very few studies intended to identify the problems and further provided proposals and programs to facilitate and promote entrepreneurship among women (DGSPW, 1993 and1996).    
Previous studies either suffer from the absence of a “control” group – a corresponding group of men entrepreneurs in order to compare experiences of women entrepreneurs or rely heavily on small sample surveys that are not representative of Turkey.


IV. AN OVERVIEW OF ENTREPRENEURS BY GENDER IN TURKEY

    This section will briefly summarize the trends in the share of women and men entrepreneurs in total employment during the period 1988-2002. Also, the distribution of entrepreneurs by gender according to the size and sector of the enterprise will be presented.

    The official statistics show that the number of women entrepreneurs  increased from 371 000 to 747 000 between 1988-2002, which accounts for a rise of  101%, whereas male entrepreneurs increased from 4 852 000 to 5 177 000 indicating an increase of  7%. An analysis of the situation in the urban areas however, show that in the same period, the increase in the number of women entrepreneurs was from 127 000 to 211 000 with a rate of 66%, whereas men entrepreneurs increased from 1 783 000 to 2 300 000 with a rate of 33%. The dramatic rise observed in women entrepreneurs in the rural areas seems to be an outcome of the transformation experienced in the agricultural sector. As Özbay (1994:13) puts it: “rural marginalization results in the feminization of agriculture in Turkey”.

    Even though the number of women entrepreneurs is growing at a faster rate than men entrepreneurs still the share of women entrepreneurs in total is 14% and this share drops to 8% in the urban areas. These figures, however, should be evaluated in caution. First, it is more likely that some activities carried out primarily by women are not acknowledged by the official statistics and thus, women’s participation might be reflected to statistics misleadingly low (Özbay, 1994; Charmes, 1999). On the other hand, it is well-known that a notable number of enterprises are registered legally as owned by women, whereas in essence run by men.

    The share of women entrepreneurs (employer+own-account) as a percentage of women employment in general shows that there is an extremely lower probability for women than for men of becoming an entrepreneur. The share of women entrepreneurs represent only 13.1% of the women workforce compared to  35.4% for men. Women are primarily concentrated in the own-account category making up 92% of women entrepreneurs, whereas this figure is only 79% among men entrepreneurs.  

Figure 1. Distribution of entrepreneurs by size of the enterprise and gender (2001)


Source: Results of the MSE survey listing.



    Figure 1 reflects the overwhelming imbalance between women and men entrepreneurs. Furthermore, it shows that women are relatively more concentrated in own-account enterprises and their share decrease with growing size.

    It is well-documented that in the labor market, as employees or employers, women and men tend to concentrate in different sectors. Mead and Liedholm (1998: 64) points out that in the developing countries while men’s enterprises are more evenly distributed and over a wider range of activities, women’s MSEs are usually confined to a narrow range of activities such as knitting, sewing, catering and retail trading.


Figure 2. Distribution of entrepreneurs by sector and gender (2001)


Source: Results of the MSE survey listing.


Figure 2 indicates that women entrepreneurs in Turkey are relatively more concentrated in farming, finance and insurance, real estate, and social services.


V. RESEARCH FINDINGS

    In this section, data from the survey questionnaires will be used along with the analysis of experiences of women entrepreneurs from in-depth interviews. The informants of both the representative sample survey and in-depth interviews were entrepreneurs themselves, that is, those were the women and men that were successful in creating a business. Hence, the additional problems faced by those who have failed are, in fact, missing in our exploration. First, we will look at the motivations for starting up a business.

Motivations for starting a business

    23.6% of women reported that they were continuing their family business. This suggests that almost one-fourth of women entrepreneurs were not the original initiators of their present business. About 18% started their present business because of fitting qualification they were possessing. However, further survey results, as well as in-depth interviews show that this response does not necessarily mean that women possess diverse qualifications. Most of those qualifications were gained in the domestic sphere contrary to the men’s qualifications that were gained outside the home. 26.4% of men compared to 14.2% of women said that they possess appropriate experiences for their business.


Table 1. Main reason for starting the present business
 

	Women	%	Men	%
Family business	53	23.6	602	16.5
Fits qualifications	41	18.2	539	14.8
To improve living conditions	39	17.3	397	10.9
Has experience	32	14.2	963	26.4
Only option available	23	10.2	329	9.0
Reasonable capital requirements	9	4.0	183	5.0
Desire to set up a new business	9	4.0	399	10.9
I wanted to start a business	7	3.1	73	2.0
Other	12	5.3	166	4.5
Total	225	100.0	3 651	100.0

Source: Results of the sample survey.



    Evidence suggests that family environment plays an important role in women’s decision to become an entrepreneur.  Jones (1993:33) finds that “[d]aughters’ perception of what they can do or achieve relates to what they see parents doing and to what they themselves have been allowed or encouraged to do in their family of origin”. Women often reported that role models in the family and/or encouragement by the family members have played a significant role in their decision to enter the business life.

    “Improving living conditions” was cited by 17.3% of women. Women often enter business because of economic necessity to escape from unemployment or poverty. For some, the loss or absence of male members of the family to presume the breadwinner role is also an important factor that triggers entrance to business. For others making a living after a divorce appears to be an essential reason to enter business.

    Some women switch to self-employment to avoid strict and long-working hours in waged work. Their intention is usually to create businesses that allow flexibility to balance work and family.

    Some resort to self-employment as a reaction to continuing discrimination in the labor market.  For others, limited employment opportunities in wage employment provide additional incentives for starting their own business.   Some women cited that lack of necessary education and skills for formal sector jobs forced them into business. For some cases it was a reaction to continuing discrimination in the formal labor market.

    Some women intend to choose self-employment although their earnings are higher in wage employment. Educated women were most likely to cite desire for personal autonomy, a greater degree of independence or self-fulfillment as nonpecuniary benefits of self-employment.

    Moore and Buttner (1997) also found that “nonpecuniary benefits of self-employment lead to a utility premium in running one's own business in excess of the value placed on the loss of income, which is especially relevant in the case of women entrepreneurs”

Access to capital

    Throughout the world access to credit is identified as a major barrier to entry into business both for women and men. Furthermore, while the vast majority of the assets in the world are owned by men, predictably women have very limited access to capital and collateral.

    Our findings show that very few entrepreneurs relied on bank loans at the start-up. Both women and men seem to depend heavily on personal savings. Only 0.9% of women interviewed reported that they obtained credit from formal sources.


Table 2. Main source of initial capital

	Women	%	Men	%
Own savings	154	68.4	2 618	71.7
Inheritance	26	11.6	329	9.0
Informal loan	14	6.2	320	8.8
Liquidation of assets	12	5.3	237	6.5
No need for capital	9	4.0	14	0.4
Formal loan	2	0.9	75	2.1
Own remittances	1	0.4	33	0.9
Others remittances	-	-	3	0.1
Other	3	1.3	16	0.4
No response	4	1.8	6	0.2
Total	225	100.0	3 651	100.0

Source: Results of the sample survey.



    Informants were also asked whether they borrowed loans during the last 12 months. It seems that only around 10% of both women and men entrepreneurs used formal bank credit as a source of finance, a percentage substantially higher than those who had used formal loans as start-up capital. It appears that at start-up access to capital is more limited, most probably because of lack of collateral than in later stages of the business. Many women reported that either they were unwilling (usually because of high risks) or were not allowed to use family assets as collateral. Many women during the interviews mentioned that lack of adequate financing is a problem for their business, however applying for loans has never been their number one priority. High interest rates, need for little funding, lack of knowledge about application procedures were cited as the most important reasons for not applying for a loan.


Table 3. Enterprise had access to financial services during the last 12 months?

	Women	%	Men	%
No	172	76.4	2 618	71.7
Yes	53	23.6	1 033	28.3
Bank	26	11.6	390	10.7
Family and relatives	13	5.8	233	6.4
Friends	8	3.6	306	8.4
Domestic NGO	5	2.2	62	1.7
Development Fund	1	0.4	4	0.1
Other	-	37	37	1.0
Total	225	100.0	3 651	100.0

Source: Results of the sample survey.


    In general, banks consider loans to the MSE sector too costly and without collateral too risky. And a great majority of women lack assets necessary for collateral requirements. A study on women business owners in France also reports that “…the only overt discrimination found against women was a higher demand for collateral requirement” (Orhan, 2001:100).

    In countries like India and Bangladesh, initiatives exist for providing alternative sources of credit for women entrepreneurs.   Those institutions give micro credits to women without asking for collateral. “SEWA has set up a bank of its own. The majority of SEWA loans are unsecured, supported by a reference person and investigation into the background of the applicant.” (Reddy, 1998: 254).

    In the last three decades micro credit programs have become one of the key strategies for addressing difficulties women face in obtaining credit both from formal and informal sources. There is an extensive debate on the success of these programs and their role in increasing women’s income levels and control over income (Mayoux, 1995; UNIFEM, 2000).

    For some programs the major goal has been the financial sustainability and as such, the assessment of the programs has been centered on “repayment rate”. Others have focused more on social impacts and empowerment of women rather than economic outcomes. That is why Kabeer (2001:83) warns about “…the danger of overloading microfinance organization with empowerment-related goals to the extent that their ability to deliver effective and sustainable financial services is likely to be seriously undermined. This point is made more generally by Rutherford (2000) who suggests that many NGOs promoting micro credit in the South Asian context have failed to develop effective financial services for the poor “because they are not primarily interested in financial services but in much wider social issues” (p.9)”.

    There are also concerns that micro enterprise organizations designed to enhance women’s productive role would reinforce the segregated nature of the business world (Ehlers and Main, 1998).

    In Turkey, public policy and NGOs interest in micro credit programs is relatively recent and thus far immature. The women NGOs that initiated micro credit programs in the earthquake region and in the southeastern Turkey have concerns about the role of credit in helping to enhance the women’s status in the existing patriarchal system. The recent challenge they face is the evaluation of the success/failure criteria of micro credit programs and how to reconcile the needs, rules and demands of the market with their aims to empower women, so that they are able to challenge the social structure and relations working against them.

Institutional environment

    The representatives of the public and professional organizations interviewed that target the promotion of MSEs as an appropriate strategy for national development explicitly target men, better-off firms and certain sectors like manufacturing where men predominate.  Almost all of these organizations recognize the importance of increasing women’s share in self-employment. However, there is a huge gap between rhetoric and action. They seem to have limited understanding of women’s position in the labor market in general and in business in particular. The extent of their commitment to the issue of women entrepreneurs is well documented in their publications. In a meeting on “Women Entrepreneurs in Turkey” organized by the Turkish Research Institute of Tradesperson-Artisan and Small Industry (Confederation of Tradesperson and Artisans) in 1993, a participant says that “people sitting around this table are nonetheless having advantaged positions in Turkey.  It would be misleading to expect from us to express the difficulties the small entrepreneurs face” (TES-AR, 1993:123).


Table 4. Belongs to a business association?

	Women	%	Men	%
None	120	53.3	753	20.6
Chamber of Commerce	48	21.3	1 146	31.4
Specialized Federation of Industries	47	20.9	1 354	37.1
Vocational Associations	9	4.0	275	7.5
Assoc. of Tradespersons and Artisans	5	2.2	197	5.4
Chamber of Industry	2	0.9	45	1.2
Vocational Unions	-	-	7	0.2
Cooperatives	-	-	6	0.2
Other	-	-	9	0.2
No response	-	-	3	0.1
Total	225	100.0	3 651	100.0

      
Source: Results of the sample survey.



    Table 4 shows that over half of the women entrepreneurs have no affiliation with a professional institution, whereas this figure is only 20.6% for men. Women often reported that they receive no support from the business association they belong and the relationship is generally limited to the payment of regular membership fees.

    Çelebi (1997) also found out that women entrepreneurs of small enterprises in the tourism sector in Turkey have not received any support from governmental or non-governmental institutions of any kind. She argues that the governmental institutions give support, if any, to those women that are in production like weaving rugs or making embroidery, and ignore the problems of women working in the trade and the service sector (Çelebi, 1997:60).

Legal and regulatory framework

    Many MSE entrepreneurs, men and women, would like to expand their business but were reluctant to do so because of the restrictive legal and regulatory frameworks operated by the governments.

    The existing structure of bureaucracy negatively affects the MSEs operations since their entrance into the market.  “To establish a small or medium-scale firm, depending upon the type of production and sector, it is necessary to apply 60 public institutions and complete different kind of paper work” (TUSIAD, 1987:48) (Appendix 2, Table 1) It is clear that one needs time and knowledge to complete all the process which is complicated and difficult, to finish alone without help (Appendix 2, Table 2).

    Even to by-pass legal and regulatory procedures requires relations with informal networks. However, while women are more likely to have primary responsibility for domestic responsibilities, women’s social networks are frequently a function of their children and they are often excluded from informal business networks. On the other hand, social networks among women often provide opportunities to set up a business, particularly in areas where women dominate. For example, in relatively conservative neighborhoods and cities hair dressers for women are exclusively owned by women.

Cultural and social environment

    Social discrimination against women has its roots not only in the patriarchal relations within the family or the pressure of the social environment, but also in the functioning of the labour market, itself a sexist institution (Özar, 2000). Refusal of permission to work outside the home should not be seen merely as the result of a cultural conservatism independent of the structure of the labor market, since in such decisions the sexist nature of the labor market itself plays an important part. Long working hours ruling in the labour market, associated with considerable time spent for commuting in big cities are not compatible with the domestic responsibilities which are generally considered to be a woman’s duty (Eyüboğlu, Özar and Tufan-Tanrıöver, 2000, Özar, 2002).

    Survey results reflect the fact that there are substantial gender differences in marital status of the entrepreneurs. Only 69% of women were married whereas this figure reaches to 85% for men. 10% per cent of women were divorced or widowed compared to only 2% of men.



Figure 3. Women/Men Entrepreneurs by Marital Status



   
           

    As shown in Table 5, only 27% of women reported that they needed permission before starting their business. Obviously, this data should be evaluated with caution, because it does not give any information about those that were refused to have permission for going into business.

    Some aspects of culture may be constraining while others can be enabling. Many women, on the other hand, reported that familial support has been very important for their success in business. Mothers usually care for children whereas fathers and husbands provide help in the business activities. Small shop owners and home-based workers often receive help from their children.


Table 5. Needs permission to be in business from household?

	Women	%
No	143	73.0
Yes	53	27.0
Husband	33	16.8
Father	14	7.1
Brother	2	1.0
Mother	1	0.5
Mother in law	2	1.0
Other	1	0.5
Total	196	100.0

      
Source: Results of the sample survey.


    Socially-oriented women’s NGOs have often complained about women tending to choose professions that are usually extensions of their domestic work. This tendency helps to reproduce the existing occupational segregation in the labor market. There appears to be few women who prefer non-traditional businesses. In order to analyze the background of these preferences, we looked at the past working experience of the entrepreneurs.

    As Figure 4 shows almost 50% of the women entrepreneurs were “out of the labor force” before starting up their business whereas more than 80% of men were “economically active”.


Figure 4. Previous Employment Status


Source: Results of the sample survey.


    These findings indicate that men usually enter entrepreneurship after accumulating skills and capital whereas women have less market connections from previous status.

    Figure 5 reflects the fact that 78% of those women who were “out of the labor force” were homemakers.



Figure 5. Status of women that were out of the labour force before setting up an enterprise


Source: Results of the sample survey.


    This situation obviously affects the choices of women entrepreneurs. They usually tend to draw on existing knowledge and skills such as food processing, weaving, making embroidery, knitting and sewing. Trading is also an important activity preferred by women because it is performed usually at a place close to home (Figure 6).

Table 6. Sectoral distribution of enterprises set up by housewives

	Women	%
Manufacturing	48	57.8
Food processing	28	33.7
Textile	13	15.7
Readyware	2	2.4
Other	5	6.0
Construction	1	1.2
Trade	30	36.1
Textile	8	9.6
Food products	5	6.0
Houseware	4	4.8
Other	13	15.7
Hotels and restaurants	3	3.6
Personal services	1	1.2
Total	83	100.0

Source: Results of the sample survey.


    Women prefer these businesses because they offer easy entry and does not require extensive capital or business background, neither of which they possess. Even with higher education and additional marketable skills women are more likely than men to engage in activities that are extension of their domestic roles. Particularly in small city environments where it is further difficult to find other income earning opportunities, handicrafts, such as sewing, embroidery which are normally considered as being female activities and usually performed in the home are a way of earning incomes.

VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS

    This research has identified a number of serious barriers that women entrepreneurs face while starting and/or expanding their MSEs.  The intentions of women to enter business are diverse as well as the obstacles they encounter.

    Governmental, non-governmental and professional support mechanisms and affirmative action programs are almost non-existent in Turkey. There are a Very few women’s organizations and development agencies, with limited budgets and personnel, are active in the area enhance the entrepreneurial potential of women. Thus, there is an urgent need for raising awareness and taking action against the immense imbalance in terms of numbers, occupations and opportunities between women and men entrepreneurs of MSEs. 

    Training programs for skill diversification, entrepreneurial education for girls and women, facilitating access to capital by transforming institutional and regulatory norms and practices, encouraging the formation of association and networks of women entrepreneurs are all necessary steps to be taken.

    Social structures and relations, on the other hand, affect the status of women both in the society and in the economy. Hence, there is a need for multi-faceted strategies addressing financial, economic and social dimensions of the problem.


References


 
APPENDIX 1.


Table 1. Female Employment by Status (thousands)
                                    Employer                           Own-account                           Total employment*
Year                Total    %**    Urban    %***     Total    %    Urban    %                Total    Urban
1988                13        0        10        1                358    7    117        11                5 000    1 081
1989                14        0        11        1                443    8    125        11                5 674    1 159
1990                22        0        14        1                492    9    132        11                5 637    1 204
1991                22        0        19        2                479    8    109        9                  5 749    1 171
1992                27        0        24        2                614    11    150        11                5 598    1 374
1993                24        1        23        2                379    8    118        9                    4 596    1 277
1994                25        0        21        1                573    10    163        11                5 561    1 520
1995                39        1        33        2                476    8    157        10                5 660    1 566
1996                39        1        32        2                449    8    112        7                    5 790    1 595
1997                45        1        36        2                509    9    138        8                    5 475    1 707
1998                45        1        40        2                480    8    120        7                    5 729    1 780
1999                38        1        35        2                547    9    171        9                    6 157    1 942
2000                42        1        36        2                635    12    169        8                    5 403    2 022
2001                38        1        32        2                701    13    183        9                    5 463    2 002
2002                59        1        45        2                688    12    166        7                    5 672    2 232

Source: SIS, Household Labour Force Surveys, www.die.gov.tr
*Total employment includes regular and casual employees, own account workers, employers and unpaid family workers.
** As a percentage of total female employment.
*** As a percentage of total female employment in urban areas.



Table 2. Male Employment by Status (thousands)
  
                              Employer                                    Own-account                            Total employment*
Year                Total    %**    Urban    %***        Total    %    Urban    %                Total            Urban
1988                616        5       476        8               4 236    34    1 307    21            12 520        6 154
1989                613        5       506        8                4 425    35    1 329    21            12 548        6 201
1990                810        6        647    10                4 409    34    1 295    20            12 901        6 511
1991                945        7        764    11                4 355    33    1 280    19            13 273    6 739
1992                1015        8        859    12            4 290    32        1 291    18            13 487    7 065
1993                1066        8        889    12            4 162    31        1 251    18            13 451    7 142
1994                1069        8        898    12            4 321    31        1 325    18            13 840    7 462
1995                1069        8        879    11            4 472    31        1 339    17            14 233    7 696
1996                1121        8        948    12            4 351    30        1 304    16            14 596    7 963
1997                1074        7        883    11            4 514    30        1 410    17            14 886    8 252
1998                1220        8        1 015 12            4 475    30        1 356    16            15 143    8 520
1999                1055        7        900    10            4 603    30        1 435    17            15 257    8 643
2000                1056        7        873    10            4 405    29        1 547    17            15 176    8 991
2001                1102        7        905    10            4 300    29        1 468    16            14 904    8 951
2002                1110        8        906    10            4 067    28        1 394    16            14 615    8 847

Source: SIS, Household Labour Force Surveys, www.die.gov.tr
*Total employment includes regular and casual employees, own-account workers, employers and unpaid family workers.
** As a percentage of total male employment.
*** As a percentage of total male employment in urban areas.





APPENDIX 2.

Table 1. Institutions to be applied by the entrepreneur

Institutions                                        Number of paper work       % of total paperwork
Elected Head of the Neighbourhood (muhtar)     2                                         3.4
Notary                                                                3                                         5
Municipality                                                        13                                        18
Ministry of Agriculture and Villages                     1                                            2
Ministry of Health and Public Funds                    3                                            5
Ministry of Public Works and Construction        1                                            2
Ministry of Industry and Trade                            2                                        3.4
Ministry of Culture and Tourism                        1                                             2
Ministry of Social Security and Employment        4                                            7
Ministry of Transportation                                    1                                            2
Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy           5                                            9
Ministry of National Defence                             1                                                2
General Office of Army                                    1                                                2
State Planning Organization                                2                                            3.4
General Office of Motorways                             1                                            2
State Water Institution                                        1                                            2
Mayor’s Office                                                    4                                            7
Occupational Related Institutions                        1                                            2
Tradesman and Registrar’s Office                        2                                            3.4
Municipal Health and Security Office                    1                                            2
Trade Registration Office                                    2                                            3.4
Trade Chambers                                                1                                            2
Tax Bureau                                                        3                                            5
Social Security Organization for the wage-earners (SSK) 2                            3.4
Social Security Organization for the self-employed
(Bağ-Kur)                                                            1                                        2
Total                                                                    60                                    100.0

Source: TÜSİAD, 1987:53.





Table 2. Most Time Consuming Bureaucratic Obligations

Name of the process                        Duration of time loss                    Average lost days
Value added tax rebate                     from 1 weeks to 3 years                    320
Taking license from municipality        from 1 month to 5 years                    402
Courts                                                from 1 to 3 year                                371
Application for export incentives         from 6 months to 8 months                150
Trade Registration                            from 3 days to 3 months   
Customs declarations                         from 3 days to 1 weeks                        4
Tax pay process                                1 day to 5 days                                    1
Export transactions                                    1 week                                        -
Import transactions                                    15 days                                        -
Capacity report                                            45 days                                     -
Trade Courts                                                15 days                                    -
Statistics                                                        15 days                                   -
Social Security Institution (SSK)                    1-2 days                                    -
Labor Health Control                                    1 day                                        -
Banks                                                            0,5 day                                    -


Source: MÜSİAD, 1997:62.


Back to My Home Page