Risk Taking and Start-up Capital: Exploring Gender differences in Uganda, through an International Comparison
Loading...
Date
2011
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies
Abstract
This study sought to explain the gender differences with respect to risk taking behaviour and start-up capital in Uganda, comparing with other countries. The start-up capital of businesses run by females is ostensibly smaller than those run by males in Uganda and in any other country. A number of reasons have been forwarded to explain this variance. Some researchers have linked the size of start-up capital to the risk taking behaviour among other factors. However there is insufficient local or Ugandan empirical research into this difference, given that much of the empirical research are based on western data sets. Data for this study was from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2003. A causal research design was used to establish the relationship between risk taking attitude and start up capital. A comparative design was also employed to compare the findings of Uganda with other GEM countries, Chi-square tests, and a two way analysis of variances were used to analyse the data. There are gender differences with respect to risk taking behaviour across all countries under study. However, the gender gap is wider in other countries than Uganda. On the whole, Uganda women are less risk averse as compared to those in other countries. The start-up capital requirement of Ugandan men is more than their female counterparts. In addition, Ugandan men invested more personal start up capital when they are risk averse. Among other recommendations, policy makers should sensitise females about viability of business start ups and encourage women access to ownership of property.
Description
Keywords
Risk taking behaviour, start up capital, gender
Citation
Orobia, L., & Rooks, G. (2011). Risk taking and start-up capital: Exploring gender differences in Uganda, through an international comparison. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 3(2), 83-93.