“Push” versus “pull” entrepreneurship: an ambiguous distinction?

By Chris Dawson, Andrew Henley. 2012

340 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to reassess whether individuals choose to become self‐employed for “pull” or “push” reasons, to discuss and describe ambiguities in this distinction, with focus on differences between men and women, and draw conclusions for further conceptual work.Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews current literature, from which specific hypotheses are developed. For illustration and evaluation secondary analysis is undertaken of an existing large‐scale data source available in UK Quarterly Labour Force Surveys over the period 1999‐2001.Findings – It was found that 86 per cent state only a single reason for self‐employment. Response patterns differ significantly between men and women. Independence is the most commonly cited motivation but 22 per cent of women cite family commitments. “Push” motivations may account for as much as 48 per cent depending on interpretation. Men who report two or more factors tend to combine “pull” factors, but women tend to combine “push” wit...

Subfields: Gender Studies, Management of Technology and Innovation, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/df41b48f3670c9f4175f7ff73d6e1431b8f2efcb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

  1. David Mauricio
  2. R. Fairlie
  3. E. Cabrera
  4. Frank M. Fossen

In Management of Technology and Innovation

  1. R. Fairlie
  2. Frank M. Fossen
  3. David Mauricio
  4. E. Cabrera
  5. Milena Nikolova
  6. Taehyun Ahn
  7. Alicia Robb
  8. William Darity

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

  1. David Mauricio
  2. R. Fairlie
  3. E. Cabrera
  4. Frank M. Fossen

Citations in the corpus