Policy Research Working Paper 10804
Household Business Performance in Ghana
The Role of Personality Traits and Gender Role Attitudes
Nkechi S. Owoo
Akuffo Amankwah
Pauline Castaing
Amparo Palacios-Lopez
Development Economics A verified reproducibility package for this paper is
Development Data Group available at http://reproducibility.worldbank.org,
June 2024 click here for direct access.
Policy Research Working Paper 10804
Abstract
The informal sector contributes significantly to the total are positively correlated with women-owned business per-
output and employment of low-income countries. While formance include business registration, separating expenses
women-owned businesses feature strongly in these infor- for home and business purposes, ownership of a business
mal environments, they are generally characterized by low bank account, use of social media, as well as urban location
productivity. This paper explores how household business of the business. For men-owned businesses, the results show
performance may be influenced by owners’ personal- that those that are located in traditional markets, have bank
ity traits and their attitudes toward gender roles. Using accounts, and use literate employees in their operations
multi-topic household survey data collected in two regions tend to perform better. The findings imply that policies that
of Ghana, the results show that among female business aim to boost women-owned business performance need
owners, being organized is an important determinant of to consider the main barriers, especially attitudes toward
business success, while among male business owners, power gender roles, that may determine how businesses operate
motivation and tenacity are important factors. However, in these settings. The results also suggest the importance of
increasing traditionalism tends to dampen the effects of soft skills to boost business performance among men- and
these personality traits for both genders. Other factors that women-owned businesses.
This paper is a product of the Development Data Group, Development Economics. It is part of a larger effort by the
World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around
the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/prwp. The authors
may be contacted at aamankwah@worldbank.org. A verified reproducibility package for this paper is available at http://
reproducibility.worldbank.org, click here for direct access.
RESEA
CY
LI R
CH
PO
TRANSPARENT
ANALYSIS
S
W
R
R E
O
KI P
NG PA
The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development
issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the
names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those
of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and
its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.
Produced by the Research Support Team
Household Business Performance in Ghana: The Role of Personality Traits and Gender
Role Attitudes
Nkechi S. Owoo1, Akuffo Amankwah2, Pauline Castaing2, Amparo Palacios-Lopez2
1
Department of Economics, University of Ghana; 2Living Standards Measurement Study,
World Bank;
Keywords: business performance; informal businesses; gender norms; personality
traits; Ghana.
WB Thematic Area: Jobs Strategies; Gender and Economic Empowerment
1. Introduction
The rapidly expanding informal sector in most low-income countries (LICs) has led to a
burgeoning interest in the determinants of its performance in particular, and contributions to
economic growth, more generally. The potential contribution of the informal sector has
received less policy attention in the past largely due to the modernization theory, which posited
that as a result of underproduction and backwardness, it would eventually disappear with the
growth and development of a nation (Geertz, 1963). This notion is yet to materialize and in a
number of LICs, the informal economy continues to grow stronger and contribute immensely
to overall economic growth. In Ghana and in many parts of the LICs, small businesses have
been acknowledged as an important engine of economic growth (Knoor, 2011; Madichie and
Gallant, 2012).
Over the past two decades, the literature on female entrepreneurship and women-owned
businesses, particularly in LICs, has been growing (De Vita et al., 2014), generating interest
on how to boost their performance and expansion. While determining factors have typically
featured economic elements such as education, access to credit and other infrastructures (Abor
and Quartey, 2010; Owoo et al., 2019; Jennings and Brush, 2013; Welter and Smallbone, 2011;
Akehurst et al., 2012), there is a growing awareness that women entrepreneurial initiatives are
rooted in a complex cultural environment (Brush et al., 2018; Bullough et al., 2022). Indeed,
culture and underlying gender norms can play a pivotal role in the success or failure of informal
businesses (Anambane and Adom 2019; Khandelwal and Sehgal 2018). Additionally, barriers
and constraints experienced by women entrepreneurs often tend to be gender specific and stem
from cultural values, norms, and customs (Anambane and Adom 2019; Khandelwal and Sehgal
2018). For instance, Wang et al (2020) find that women entrepreneurs with traditional gender
norms find it more difficult to seek and access external financing for their businesses.
2
There are, however, other arguments in favor of a more complementary relationship
between traditional norms and the performance of women’s businesses (Newburry et al. 2008;
Ruderman et al. 2002). Individual qualities such as being nurturing, cooperative, affectionate,
caring, empathetic, diplomatic, among others, may place women in advantageous positions to
build good business teams and attain entrepreneurial success (Eagly and Carli 2003; Ruderman
et al. 2002).
While a myriad of recent studies has focused on understanding determinants of women-
owned business growth and gender-differences in enterprise performance, studies exploring
the connections between women business growth and gender role attitudes and personality
traits are limited (Gundry et al., 2002; Yadav and Unni, 2016), with no such study on Ghana.
This paper explores the drivers of gender differences in small business performance in Ghana,
with a focus on how individual gender role attitudes and personality traits affect these
outcomes. First, we explore differences in enterprise performance among formal and informal
(registered and unregistered) businesses, and between male- and female-owned businesses in
Ghana. Second, we perform a taxonomy of male- and female-owned formal and informal
business performance with a focus on the type (paid vs unpaid) and number of workers
employed in each type of enterprise.
Third, using regression analyses, we examine the determinants of business performance
in the absence of personality traits and gender role attitudes. Fourth, we explore the effect of
gender role attitudes and personality traits on these performance indicators, both with and
without household, individual and geographic controls. This allows for using personality
groups to test the importance of non-cognitive skills on small business performance in Ghana.
Finally, we examine the interaction effects of gender role attitudes and personality traits on
business performance indicators, controlling for household, individual and geographic factors.
3
Ghana provides an interesting context for this study. According to the Ghana 2022
Annual Household and Income and Expenditure Survey (AHIES, 2022), eight of every ten
individuals 15 years and older are employed in the informal sector, with females having
relatively higher proportions (about 88%) compared to males (about 80%). In addition, Ghana
records one of the highest rates of female entrepreneurship in the world, with over 70% of
small and medium enterprises (SMEs) owned and operated by women. According to Amu
(2006), women manage over 80% of all small informal businesses in Ghana.
Despite the influences of Western cultures, higher education and international
exposure, Ghana is still predominantly patriarchal and there are distinct roles for men and
women, with women expected to marry, bear children, keep the home tidy, care for young
children and the elderly; men are chiefly expected to work, earn, and provide for family needs
(IDS, 2016; Amoakohene, 2004; Sikweyiya et al., 2020). Studies show that although Ghanaian
women are impressively engaged in this small business space, they often have worse
entrepreneurial outcomes than their male counterparts (Fafchamps et al., 2011), a
characteristics common in other LICs (Aterido and Hallward-Driemeier, 2011; Bardasi et al.,
2011). Reasons for this unequal performance typically include women’s low level of human
capital, low capital stock, higher concentration in low-performing activities, and limited ability
to access financial services (Aterido et al., 2011; Mead and Liedholm, 1998; Bardasi et al.,
2011).
The paper uses a mix of descriptive and econometric analyses. Empirical analyses
involve the use of ordinary least squares regression models to determine the associations
between gender role attitudes and personality traits on men and women’s businesses in Ghana.
We find that while personality traits are significantly and positively associated with business
performance, the additional effect of being traditional serves to negate or reverse these findings
among both men and women. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: In Section
4
2, we present a review of relevant literature. Section 3 presents the data used in the analyses,
describes the main study variables, as well as provides descriptive statistics of these variables.
Section 4 presents the empirical approach and discusses the main regression results, while
Section 5 provides concluding remarks, with associated policy applications of the study.
2. Literature review
Gender norms can be described as generally perceived ways on how women and men should
act and/or function in society. They are the behaviors, attitudes, and actions that a community
prescribes as appropriate or inappropriate for men and women, according to set societal roles,
cultural norms and traditions. They can also be described as the social rules and expectations
that keep the gender system intact (Cislaghi and Heise, 2019). These are often internalized at
an early age and can culminate in gender stereotyping later on (Cherie Blair Foundation for
Women (CBFW, 2021)). Although some norms may be positive, others can encourage
inequalities, with negative implications for various social and economic outcomes. For
instance, norms that promote “double work duty” among young women reduce opportunities
for their human capital development, given their culturally assigned domestic duties.
There are certain norms surrounding business engagement as well. Research indicates
that entrepreneurship has generally been considered as a predominantly male activity (Bird and
Brush, 2002; Bruni et al., 2004), which oftentimes discourages women’s entry into this space.
According to CBFW (2021), 35% of women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)
that experienced gender stereotypes in childhood feel incapable of running their own
businesses. In addition, 70% of the women reported that gender norms and stereotypes had
negative implications for their business performance and how seriously they are taken as
business people.
5
Other studies found supporting evidence that gender role expectations make business
accomplishments harder for women, especially through lower access to business capital and
fewer social networks (Gupta et al. 2019; Mitra and Basit 2019). In the CBFW (2021) report,
half of the women entrepreneurs surveyed reported that family members and friends
encouraged them to devote more effort to domestic and care work in their homes. Where
women do run their own businesses, they often align with societal expectations that these
should be small-scale and entail minimal risk (Adom, 2015; Croson and Gneezy, 2009).
In Madagascar, Nordman and Vaillant (2014) investigated whether gender-
differentiated allocations of time within the household, based on gender norms, cause women
to allocate their time sub-optimally to their businesses. They found that particularly for home-
based businesses, domestic chores negatively affect business efficiency. Another notable
exception is a recent work by Anambane and Adom (2019) which explores the role of culture
and gender stereotypes on growth of women operated businesses in Ghana. Using qualitative
data from 20 women entrepreneurs from the Upper East region of the country, the authors find
that entry into entrepreneurship as well as the kinds of businesses pursued are affected by
gender stereotypes. Gender stereotyping influences the size and sectors of women’s businesses,
with women operating small businesses in low value-added sectors like retail and services. The
authors explain this as a cultural expectation of women showing modesty and humility in all
endeavors, including business. It should be noted, however, that entry into other sectors like
manufacturing may likely be affected by underlying skill sets and financial capabilities.
In addition to the effects of gender and social norms, there is a growing body of
economics literature on the role of personal initiative on business outcomes (Dal Bo et al.,
2013; Callen et al., 2015), a subject that has been explored for much longer in the field of
industrial psychology. Burger (2010) defines personality traits as characteristics originating
from within a person that define their individuality. Zhao (2022) found personality - income
6
correlations using data on Chinese start-ups. Hu et al. (2019) also find that relationship-oriented
personal initiative increased entrepreneurial intentions. According to Frese (1997), although
not identical, personal initiative and entrepreneurship are related and both imply the use of
constructive, creative and active strategies to overcome challenges in cases where they occur.
This suggests an empirical connection between personal initiative and entrepreneurial
performance. Indeed, recent work by Amankwah et al. (2024) highlights the important role
played by both gender role attitudes and personality traits in shaping individuals' decisions on
labor market participation and employment choices. Crucially, the authors establish that the
effects of personality traits tend to be mitigated or even reversed in the presence of greater
traditionalism.
3. Data and descriptive statistics
3.1. Data
Data from the 2022 Ghana Informal Sector Measurement Study (GISMS) was used for the
analyses in this paper. The GISMS is a multi-topic household survey with detailed information
on household ownership of non-farm enterprises and other household, individual (including
personality traits and gender role attitudes), and geographic characteristics. The GISMS
adopted a list-based, multi-stage sampling approach to select respondents from two regions in
Ghana – Ashanti and Northern. In the Ashanti region, the Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly and
six surrounding municipalities were purposively selected, while in the Northern region, the
Tamale Metropolitan Assembly and all districts that are within 40 kilometers from the center
of Tamale were also purposively selected. Following the purposive selection of the districts,
municipalities and metropolitan areas, 67 Enumeration Areas (EAs) were selected at random
(using probability proportional to size (PPS)) in each region in the first stage. A full household
7
listing exercise was then conducted in each of the randomly selected EAs, followed by the
systematic random selection of 15 households (2,010 in total) to be included in the main survey.
Of the 2,010 households interviewed, 1,156 of them owned and operated non-farm enterprises,
with about 1 – 4 enterprises per household. This gave a total of 1,180 non-farm enterprises.
The GISMS also randomly selected up to four adults 15 years old or older in each
household to provide information on personality traits and gender role attitutes, with a total of
2,652 individuals responding. Given the specific objective of examining the linkage between
personality traits, gender role attitudes and business performance, we restricted the sample
further to only those businesses that the owner also provided all needed information on
personality traits and gender role attitudes. This led to an analytical sample of 861 businesses,
which is used for most of the analyses.
3.2. Definition and construction of main variables
Table 1 shows the definitions and construction of variables used in the analyses. We measure
business performance in two ways: labor productivity (measured as ratio of total revenue/sale
to total number of workers, including household workers) (Martins, 2021); and profits in the
last month of operation (McKenzie, 2017). Each outcome variable was winsorized at the top
1% to deal with outliers. Although it may be argued that neither of these measures, taken alone,
represents a perfect, universally agreed upon measure of small business success, together, they
provide a fairly broad picture of business performance.
The main explanatory variables of interest are the measures of business owners gender
role attitudes and personality traits, which were administered to upto four randomly selected
men and women in each household. Five Likert scale response options were used – strongly
disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree. The gender role attitudes index was
constructed in four steps. First, all responses were recoded so that higher values correspond to
8
more traditional beliefs. Second, z-scores were generated for each variable entering the index
using the mean and standard deviation of that variable. Third, means of z-scores were
generated, followed by an index using the means of these z-scores. Finally, the index was
standardized to take a value between 0 and 100 for the gender role attitudes, with higher z
scores indicative of more traditional inclinations.
Following Laajaj and Macours (2017), nine personality groups were constructed using
5-point Likert scale responses to 28 questions on personality traits. Each personality group is
a simple average of all related traits. See Table 1 for the personality traits questions that fall
under each personality group.
3.3. Descriptive results
Table 2 provides descriptive statistics of the outcome, main explanatory and control variables,
both for the pooled and the gender-disaggregated sample. The table shows that on average,
men-owned businesses appear to be significantly more productive than women-owned
businesses; men-owned businesses generate monthly revenues averaging Gh¢2,355 per
worker, compared to Gh¢1,515 for women-owned businesses. In addition, men-owned
businesses make about Gh¢738 more monthly profits than women-owned businesses.
Male business owners appear to hold more traditional views than their female
counterparts, consistent with Larsen and Long (1988) and Brewster and Padavic (2000). We
also observed from the table that there are no significant differences between men and women
with respect to impulsiveness, good organisation, power motivation, tenacity and high
achieving capabilities. Male business owners however appear to have greater work centrality,
locus of control and optimism, compared to their female counterparts, while women business
owners tend to have greater polychronicity, compared to men.
9
Looking further at the gender-disaggregated results, we see that men make up a third
of business owners in the sample. The average age of business owners was 41 years, with
women being almost two years older than men, generally. About 87% of men and women
business owners have had at least a senior secondary school education, while significantly
higher number of employees of male-owned businesses are literate. Although a majority of
business owners in the sample are married, we observe that more women-business owners are
either single, separated, widowed or divorced. A substantial proportion of women business
owners are from poor households, lending credence to the general view that the main
motivation for women engaging in non-farm family business activities in LICs, including
Ghana, is a need to survive (Benzing and Chu, 2009; Jamali, 2009; UNIDO, 2001).
We see further from Table 2 that, about 29% of all businesses have been formalized
(i.e., either registered with the Registrar General Department, Department of Cooperatives,
District Assemblies, or the Ghana Revenue Authority), with a higher proportion being men-
owned businesses (42%). On average, the sampled businesses have been operating for 9 years,
with more than 40% of them operating from home, a characteristics more common with
women-owned businesses. In addition, more than 20% of the businesses are mobile, with no
fixed location of operation.
A substantial share of the business owners have separate accounts devoted to their
busineses, a critical indicator for business formalization. About 42% of male and 21% of
female business owners have opened independent bank accounts for their businesses. More
male (44%) than female business owners (21%) have had prior experience working as
apprentices in the same line of work as their current businesses.
The adoption of social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, TikTok, etc. for
business operation is less prevalent in the study area. The data shows that only 27% of
businesses use social media in their operations, with a significantly lower proportion of use
10
among women-owned businesses (19%). Membership of business associations/cooperatives is
less common among the sampled businesses, with only 5% and 11% of women- and men-
owned businesses, respectively, belonging to associations. The data also shows that 32% of
businesses serve as subsistence provision to household members; this practice is more
prevalent in women-owned businesses (39%).
Table 3 presents the same set of controls by registration status of businesses in the study
area. Registered businesses are considered formal, and informal if otherwise. The results show
that formally registered businesses appear to perform significantly better than informal types.
Although there are no differences in gender role attitudes held by owners of formal and
informal businesses, informal business owners appear to have more positive personality traits
with significantly higher locus of control. Formal busineses appear to be headed more by males
(50%) than informal businesses, and owners of registered businesses are generally more
educated, with more literate employees.
Business owners who have registered their businesses are more likely to have wealthier
backgrounds and appear to have also been in business longer. Unregistered businesses are more
likely home-based or mobile, while more registered businesses are found in commercial or
industrial areas, by the road or at some other fixed location. A higher proportion of formal
businesses have separate expenses for home and business, and operate separate business bank
accounts. A significantly larger proportion of registered businesses have access to credit, and
owners report having past or current training as apprentices. We also observe a substantial
proportion of formal business owners use social media in their operations, as well as belonging
to business associations. Registered businesses are more prevalent in urban, compared to rural
areas, and are also more predominant in the Ashanti, compared to the Northern region.
11
3.5. Taxonomy of formal and informal business performance
This section provides descriptive statistics on formal and informal businesses in the
sample by the type (paid vs unpaid) and number of workers employed, including the gender of
the owners. Figure 1 shows the number and types of employees hired to work in men- and
women-owned informal businesses. A higher percentage of women-owned informal businesses
have no paid workers (90%), compared to men-owned businesses (77%). Five percent of
women-owned informal businesses have one paid employee, with a similar proportion having
at least 2 paid workers, compared to 15% for men-owned informal businesses with 2 or more
paid workers.
The figure also shows a greater use of unpaid workers among women-owned informal
businesses. For instance, 16% of women-owned informal businesses use one unpaid worker,
compared to 10% for men-owned businesses. In summary, majority (69%) of informal
businesses do not hire any employees at all. The situation with formal businesses is different
than what is observed among informal businesses. Formal businesses, across ownerships, use
more employees – both paid and unpaid. Women-owned formal businesses lag behind in the
hiring of paid employees.
Figures 2 and 3 show informal and formal business performance indicators for male-
and female- owned businesses by paid and unpaid workers. In Figure 2, we see that informal
businesses with paid employees perform better as measured by the firms’ total monthly profits.
In summary, paid workers appear to be correlated with better business performance across both
men- and women-owned businesses.
In Figure 3, similar statistics are presented for formal businesses. Here, business
outcomes are better among formal businesses, compared to the situation with informal
businesses. The t-tests show that formal businesses have significantly higher revenues per
12
worker and profits (see Table 3). Gender differences in business performance are also observed.
Although men-owned formal businesses have better total sales with zero or one paid employee,
women-owned businesses do better with two or more paid employees. In addition, men-owned
formal business profits are generally higher than women-owned formal businesses’, but among
both groups, profits increase with the use of more paid workers.
The results in Figure 2 and 3 show, in general, that business performance tend to
improve for both male and female business owners with more paid employees. The situation is
different with the number of unpaid workers. Business performance is lower among women-
owned businesses, who tend to patronise unpaid workers. For men-owned businesses, however,
although total revenue increases slightly with the use of more unpaid staff, profits generally
tend to decline.
4. Economertric approach and results
4.1. Estimation strategy
The ordinary least squares (OLS) estimator is employed to estimate the following five
regression models.
������������������������ = ������������ + ������������������������ ������������ + ������������������������ (1)
������������������������ = ������������ + ������������������������ ������������ + ������������������������ (2)
������������������������ = ������������ + ������������������������ ������������ + ������������������������ ������������ + ������������������������ (3)
������������������������ = ������������ + ������������������������ ������������ + ������������������������ ������������ + ������������������������ ������������ + ������������������������ (4)
������������������������ = ������������ + ������������������������ ������������ + ������������������������ ������������ + ������������������������������������ ������������ + ������������������������ ������������ + ������������������������ (5)
where ������������������������ is a measure of business performance (labor productivity and profit); ������������������������ refers
to household, geographic, business and owner characteristics; ������������������������ refers to gender role attitudes;
13
������������������������ refers to personality traits; and ������������������������������������ is the interaction between personality traits and gender
role attitudes. ������������ , ������������ , ������������, ������������, ������������ are parameters to be estimated, while ������������������������ is the error term. Each
specification is estimated for the pooled sample first, and then separately for men- and women-
owned business samples.
In the first specification, we estimate the drivers of business performance without
gender role attitudes and personality group. The second specification is a naïve model
exploring the effect of gender role attitudes on business performance, while the third equation
includes household, geographic, business and owner characteristics to the second model. In
equation 4, we include both gender role attitudes and personality groups as well as the other
controls identified in specification 3. Finally in equation 5, we include interactions of gender
roles and personality groups to equation 4.
Although studies of this nature usually require considering endogeneity caused by
potential reverse causality (between business performance indicators, and personality traits and
gender norms), this is not necessarily the case for the present study. This is because individual
gender role attitudes and personality traits are shaped earlier in a person’s life prior to the
decision to enter into business and the realization of these performance outcomes (Platt and
Polavieja, 2016). Although not unalterable, most individuals’ gender role attitudes remain
remarkably constant through life (Schober and Scott 2012). Given these arguments, it is
reasonable to assume that an individual’s gender role attitude and inherent personality traits
affect business outcomes and not the other way round. That notwithstanding, we conduct
robustness checks using the average gender role attitudes of enumeration area, instead of the
individual norms, and find that results are largely unchanged. 1
1
These results are not presented here but are available upon request.
14
4.2. Empirical results
This section presents the empirical results from the linear regression models. Following the
empirical approach above, we first run regression models using only household, geographic,
business and owner characteristics as covariates to understand the drivers of business
performance in the absence of gender role attitudes and personality traits (Table 4). We then
proceed to estimate six different models (Tables 5 to 10) based on the specifications in the
equations above for the two business performance indicators (labor productivity and profits).
In each of Tables 5 to 10, we first present the naïve regression that examines the effects of
gender role attitudes alone on performance indicators. Second, we examine the effects of
gender role attitudes on these performance indicators after controlling for other covariates.
Next, we present results that includes personality traits as covariates. Finally in models 4-12,
the full set of controls are included, as well as simultaneous interactions of gender role attitudes
with each of the nine (9) personality group variables.
4.2.1. Drivers of business performance: Household, business and owner characteristics
Regressions of the determinants of the two business performance indicators are presented in
Table 4, separately for the full sample and the gender-disaggregated business owner sample.
The importance of demographic factors such as gender, age and education of business owner
on business performance in Table 4 is consistent with other prior studies (Islam et al., 2011;
Littunen & Virtanen, 2006; Unger et al., 2009; Essel et al., 2019). Age is positively associated
with business performance, although the relationship is generally non-linear (Kristiansen et al.,
2003). Consistent with existing research, we see from the full sample that women-owned
businesses perform worse than men-owned businesses across the two business performance
indicators, all things being equal (Fairlie and Robb, 2009; Essel et al., 2019).
15
Businesses owned by persons in poor households tend to perform significantly lower
than those owned by non-poor households. Businesses that have been operating for a longer
period of time appear to perform better, though the effect is not statistically significant The
location of a business appears to be critical for its performance and consistent with Owoo et al.
(2019). Excluding home-based businesses as the reference category, businesses located in
traditional market centres, are significantly positively associated with higher productivity and
profits, both in the full and the gender-disaggregated results. Other studies have, however,
found that women-owned home-based businesses are more productive due to greater flexibility
in dealing with childcare and domestic responsibilities (Collins-Dodd et al., 2004).
In women-owned businesses, the ability to keep business and home expenses separate
is significantly associated with higher revenues and profits. Ownership of a business bank
account is also positively associated with better business performance for both men- and
women-owned businesses. Interestingly, while having literate employees is associated with
lower labor productivity for men- and women-owned businesses, it is associated with high
profits, particularly among men-owned businesses, corroborating findings of Okafor (2017)
and Adewuyi and Emmanuel (2019).
The use of social media is observed to be particularly important in women-owned
businesses and shows positive, though marginally significant, associations with profits (Jones
et al., 2015). Belonging to a business association, particularly for female business owners, is
negatively associated with higher productivity and profits. This may be due to activities by
these associations that are not directly connected with business growth. Businesses in which
household members consume their products are associated with better revenue and profits,
compared to those otherwise. This may suggest that own use of products helps business owners
to improve on and refine the quality of their products and services. Among women-owned
businesses, formalization is particularly important they are characterized by higher
16
productivity and profits, compared to those that are not registered. With respect to geographic
controls, businesses located in urban areas perform better than those in rural areas, especially
those owned by women.
4.2.2. Drivers of business performance: Effects of gender role attitudes and personality
traits
The effect of gender role attitudes and personality traits on labor productivity and profits of the
pooled sample are presented in Tables 5 and 8 respectively. In the naïve specifications, being
more traditional appears to hurts business performance. The negative effect is retained even
after the inclusion of controls, as well as personality traits. In Table 5, results from the
interactions between traditionalism and personality traits indicate that among less traditional
individuals, traits such as work centrality (5), power motivation (10) and being organized (11)
are positively associated with labor productivity, while polychronicity (7) has a negative
significant effect on same. The additional effect of being more traditional, however, removes
the significant effects of work centrality, being organized as well as polychronicty, and reverses
the effects of power motivation. In Table 8, among less traditional individuals, power
motivation and polychronicity are associated with higher and lower firm profits, respectively,
although the interaction with gender role attitudes tends to render them insignificant.
The effects of gender role attitudes and personality traits on productivity and profits on
women-owned businesses are presented in Tables 6 and 9. In the naïve specifications, the
results show that being more traditional reduces business performance. The negative effect is
retained even after controlling for household, geographic location, business and owner
characteristics, including personality traits (3). In Table 6, we see, however, that among women
owners who are less traditional, being organized increases their business productivity, although
traditionalism tends to negate this effect (11). We learn additionally that a female business
17
owner who is organized tends to obtain higher profits. In the presence of increasing
traditionalism, however, these traits become less relevant for profit maximization (11).
In Tables 7 and 10, we present the drivers of men-owned business performance,
including the effect of gender role attitudes and personality traits. The analyses show some
interesting results compared to the pooled and women-owned business sample results
discussed earlier. Whereas the naïve regression result (1) show that being more traditional
reduces business performance across all indicators, the inclusion of household, geographic
location, and individual characteristics, including personality traits, renders this variable less
important in explaining men-owned business performance (3). From the productivity function,
we see that power motivation is associated with higher business revenue per worker for men
owners. The interaction with gender role attitudes, however, make this trait irrelevant for a
potential positive shift in labor productivity (Table 7).
We also observe negative relationship between tenacity and profits, though in the
presence of traditionalism, this trait’s impact reverses, which is not surprising since tenacious
individuals would be more conservative. In addition, power motivation increases profits of
men-owned businesses, but only if the owner is less traditional.
In summary, the results indicate that traditionalism is an important determinant of
business performance among men- and women-owned small businesses in Ghana. Among
women-owned businesses, the negative effects of increasing traditionalism are retained even
when other individual, households, business and geographical factors are controlled for.
Among men-owned businesses, initially observed negative effects of traditionalism on
business performance become less relevant once other variables are controlled for. We also
find being organized is an important determinant of women-owned business performance,
particularly when the owner does not possess traditional inclinations. Traditionalism, however,
tends to either reverse or mask the relevance of this traits in determining women-owned
18
business performance. Among men-owned businesses, personality traits such as power
motivation and tenacity are important determinants of business performance. Consistent with
what is observed for women-owned businesses, traditionalism tends to either cancel or reverse
these effects. The effects of other individual, business and geographical variables are consistent
with what was discussed from Table 4.
5. Conclusions and implications
The paper uses multi-topic household survey data from two regions in Ghana to examine the
drivers of men- and women-owned business performance, with special focus on personality
traits and gender role attitudes. This is achieved by employing both descriptive and
econometric analytical procedures. The econometric approach employs linear regression
models to examine the determinants of business performance using two indicators – labor
productivity and profits.
A taxonomy of men-owned businesses and women-owned businesses showed that
although the use of paid employees is correlated with better business performance, the hiring
of this category of workers is higher among men-owned businesses, while women-owned
businesses tend to use more unpaid workers. The empirical results in general show that the
main business owners’ characteristics that are important for enterprise success are age, gender
and household poverty status. Enterprise-related factors include the registration status of firms,
business tenure, location, the separation of business and domestic expenses, ownership of a
business bank account, literacy of employees, use of social media, as well as urban location of
the business. The results indicate that characteristics of business performance vary for men and
women. Home-based businesses, particularly for women-owned businesses, have negative
implications for business performance. Thus, cost restrictions to traditional markets and
19
commercial spaces should be addressed. The empirical results show further that both
personality traits and gender role attitudes are vital in explaining business performance. Among
the women-owned business sample, personality traits, such as being organized, are important
determinants, while among men-owned businesses, traits like power motivation and tenacity
are important drivers of business performance. Interactions of gender role attitudes and
personality traits, however, make some of these traits lose their significant effects, or reverses
the effects.
Policies that aim to increase the performance of women-owned businesses need to
consider what the main barriers are, especially the “social norms” that may determine how
women operate in these settings. The results provide evidence of the important role of soft-
skills or personal initiative training to boost business performance among male and female
business owners. For example, the government may provide more accessible and affordable
childcare programs that make it easier to balance domestic and business responsibilities,
allowing them to operate outside the home where profits and revenues are higher. We also find
that while business registration is consistently related with better business performance, only a
third of businesses are formalized, suggesting that barriers to business registration should be
removed. Finally, social media also appears to have beneficial links with business performance,
indicating the need to develop reliable and affordable internet infrastructure and services across
the country.
References
Abor, J, and Quartey, P (2010). Issues in SMEs in Ghana and South Africa International
Research. Journal of Finance and Economics, 39, 218–228.
Adewuyi, A. O., and Emmanuel, Z. (2019). The role of Corruption in Mediating the Effect of
Electricity Outages on Firm Performance: Evidence from Nigeria. MPRA Working Paper
Series.
20
Akehurst, G., Simarro, E. and Mas-Tur, A. (2012). Women entrepreneurship in small service
firms: motivations, barriers and performance. The Service Industries Journal, 32(15),
2489-2505.
Amankwah, A., Castaing, P., Owoo, NS., Palacios-Lopez, A. (2024). Labor Market
Participation and Employment Choice in Ghana: Do Individual Personality Traits and
Gender Role Attitudes Matter?. Policy Research Working Papers, 10664, World Bank.
AHIES (2022) Ghana Annual Household Income and Expenditure Survey- Quarterly Labor
Force report. Ghana Statistical Service (2022)
https://www.statsghana.gov.gh/gssmain/fileUpload/pressrelease/AHIES%202022%20Q1
%20and%20Q2%20Labor%20Force%20Report.pdf
Amoakohene MI. (2004). Violence against women in Ghana: a look at women's perceptions
and review of policy and social responses. Social Science and Medicine, 59(11), 2373–85.
Amu, JN (2000). The role of women in the Ghanaian Economy, Accra, Ghana.
[library.fes.de/pdffiles/bueros/ghana/02990.pdf].
Anambane, G., and Adom, K. (2019). Assessing the role of culture in female entrepreneurship
in contemporary Sub-Saharan society: insights from Nabadam district of Ghana. Journal
of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 23(3). https://doi.
org/10.1142/S1084946718500176.
Aterido, R. and Hallward-Driemeier, M. (2011). Whose Business is it Anyway? Small Business
Economics, 37(4), 443-464.
Aterido, R., Beck, T. and Iacovone, L. (2011) Gender and Finance in Sub-Saharan Africa: are
Women Disadvantaged? Policy Research Working Paper Series 5571, World Bank.
Bardasi, E., Sabarwal, S. and Terrell, K. (2011). How do Female Entrepreneurs Perform?
Evidence from Three Developing Regions. Small Business Economics, 37(4), 417-441.
Benzing, C., and Chu, HM. (2009). A comparison of the motivations of small business owners
in Africa. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 16(1), 60–77.
Bird, B. and Brush, C. (2002). A gendered perspective on organizational creation.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), 41-65.
Brewster, K. L., and Padavic, I. (2000). Change in gender-ideology, 1977–1996: the
contributions of intracohort change and population turnover. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 62, 477–487. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00477.x
Bruni, A., Gherardi, S. and Poggio, B. (2004), “Entrepreneur-Mentality, gender and the study
of women entrepreneurs”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(3), 256-
268.
Brush, C., Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T., and Welter, F. (2018). A gendered look at
entrepreneurship ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 52(3), 393–408. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11187-018-9992-9.
Brush, C. G., Edelman, L. F., and Manolova, T. (2002). The impact of resources on small firm
internationalization. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 13(1), 1–17.
Bullough, A., Guelich U., Manolova, T. S. and Schjoedt, L. (2022). Women’s entrepreneurship
and culture: gender role expectations and identities, societal culture, and the
entrepreneurial environment. Small Business Economics, 58, 985-996.
Burger, J. M. (2010). Personality. Wadsworth Publishing: Belmont, CA
21
Callen, M., S. Gulzar, A. Hasanain, Y. Khan, and A. Rezaee (2015). Personalities and Public
Sector Performance: Evidence from a Health Experiment in Pakistan. NBER working
paper 21180.
CBFW. (2021). Gender Stereotypes and their Impact on Women Entrepreneurs Survey Report
Exploring the Experiences of Women Entrepreneurs in Low and Middle Income
Countries, The Cherie Blair Foundation for Women, November, 2021:
https://cherieblairfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Gender-Stereotypes-and-
Their-Impact-on-Women-Entrepreneurs-2021.pdf
Cislaghi, B. and Heise, L. (2019). Gender norms and social norms: differences, similarities and
why they matter in prevention science. Sociology of Health and Illness,
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13008
Collins-Dodd, C., Cordon, I. M., andand Smart, C. (2004). Further evidence on the role of
gender in financial performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(4), 395-417.
Croson, R. and Gneezy, U. (2009), Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic
literature, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 448-474
Dal Bo, E., Finan, F. andand Rossi M.A. (2013). Strengthening State Capabilities: The Role of
Financial Incentives in the Call to Public Service. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
128(3), 1169-1218
De Vita, L., Mari, M., and Poggesi S. (2014). Women entrepreneurs in and from developing
countries: Evidence from the literature. European Management Journal, 32, 451–460.
Eagly, AH., andand Carli, LL. (2003). Finding gender advantage and disadvantage: systematic
research integration is the solution. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 851.
Essel, B.K.C., Adams, F. andand Amankwah, K. Effect of entrepreneur, firm, and institutional
characteristics on small-scale firm performance in Ghana. Journal of Global
Entrepreneurship Research 9, 55 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0178-y
Fairlie, RW., and Robb, A.M. (2009). Gender differences in business performance: evidence
from the Characteristics of Business Owners survey. Small Business Economics, 33, 375–
395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9207-5
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., and Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal
initiative: Operationlization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139–161.
Geertz, C. (1963). Old Societies and New States: the Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa,
Free Press, Glencoe, Il.
Gundry, L.K., Ben-Yoseph, M. and Posig, M. (2002). The status of women’s entrepreneurship:
pathways to future entrepreneurship development and education. New England Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 4.
Gupta, V. K., Wieland, A. M., and Turban, D. B. (2019). Gender characterizations in
entrepreneurship: a multi-level investiga- tion of sex-role stereotypes about high-growth,
commercial, and social entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(1),
131–153. https://doi.org/10.1111 /jsbm.12495.
IDS (2016). Domestic Violence in Ghana: Incidence, Attitudes, Determinants and
Consequences. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Ghana Statistical
Services (GSS) and Associates.
22
Islam, M. A., Khan, M. A., Obaidullah, A. Z. M., and Alam, M. S. (2011). Effect of
entrepreneur and firm characteristics on the business success of small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) in Bangladesh. International Journal of Business and Management,
6(3), 289–299.
Jamali, D (2009). Constraints and opportunities facing women entrepreneurs in developing
countries: A relational perspective. Gender in Management: An international Journal,
24(4), 232–251.
Jennings, J. E., and Brush, C. G. (2013). Research on women entrepreneurs: Challenges to (and
from) the broader entre- preneurship literature? The Academy of Management Annals,
71(1), 663–715
Jones, N., Borgman, R. and Ulusoy, E. (2015). Impact of social media on small businesses.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 22(4), 611-632.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-09-2013-0133
Khandelwal, P., and Sehgal, A. (2018). Exploring work-family interface for Indian women
entrepreneurs. Gender in Management, 33(3), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM- 04-
2016-0075.
Kristiansen, S., Furuholf, B., and Walid, F. (2003). Internet café entrepreneurs: Pioneers in
information dissemination in Idonesia. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation, 4(4), 251-263.
Laajaj, Rachid and Karen Macours. 2017. Measuring Skills in Developing Countries. Policy
Research Working Paper 8000, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Larsen, K. S., and Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward sex-roles: traditional or egalitarian? Sex
Roles, 19, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/BF00292459
Littunen, H., and Virtanen, M. (2006). Differentiating growing ventures from non-growth
firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Management, 2(1), 93–109
Springer.
Madichie, N.O. and Gallant, M. (2012). Broken silence: a commentary on women’s
entrepreneurship in the United Arab Emirates. The International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 13(2), 81-92.
Martins, P. S. (2021). Employee Training and Firm Performance: Evidence from ESF Grant
Applications. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 14153
McKenzie, D. (2017). Identifying and spurring high-growth entrepreneurship: Experimental
evidence from a business plan competition. American Economic Review, 107 (8), 2278–
2307.
Mead, D.C. and Liedholm, C. (1998) The Dynamics of Micro and Small Enterprises in
Developing Countries. World Development, 26(1), 61-74.
Mitra, J., and Basit, A. (2019). Personal networks and growth aspirations: a case study of
second-generation, Muslim, fe- male entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00211-3.
Newburry, W., Belkin, L. Y., and Ansari, P. (2008). Perceived career opportunities from
globalization: globalization capa- bilities and attitudes towards women in Iran and the US.
Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 814–832.
Okafor, G. (2017). The Determinants of Firm Performance and Bribery: Evidence from
Manufacturing Firms in Nigeria. International Economic Journal, 31(4), 647-669.
23
Owoo, N. S., Oduro, A., and Ackah, C. (2019). Exploring Firm Performance and Growth
among Own-Account and Micro Enterprises in Ghana. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 38 (3), 294- 311
Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., and King, S. N. (2002). Benefits for multiple roles
for managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 369–386.
Sikweyiya, Y., Addo-Lartey, A.A., Alangea, D.O. et al. (2020). Patriarchy and gender-
inequitable attitudes as drivers of intimate partner violence against women in the central
region of Ghana. BMC Public Health, 20, 682 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-
020-08825-z
Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., and Rosenbusch, N. (2009). Human capital and
entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, (3)
341–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.004.
UNIDO (2001). Women entrepreneurship development in selected African countries. Working
Paper No. 7, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna.
Wang, X., Zhu, X., Deng, S. (2020). Female entrepreneurs’ gender roles, social capital, and
willingness to choose external financing. Asian Business and Management, 21, 432–457
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-020-00131-1
Welter, F., and Smallbone, D. (2011). The embeddedness of women’s entrepreneurship in a
transition context. In E. G. Candida Brush, Colette Henry, Anne de Bruin (Eds.), Women
entrepreneurs and the global environment for growth: A research perspective (pp. 96–
117). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Yadav, V. and Unni, J. (2016). Women entrepreneurship: research review and future
directions”, Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 6(12).
24
Table 1. Definition of variables
Variable Description
Performance indicators
Labor productivity Value of total sales/revenues (in Ghana cedis) divided by total number of workers (paid and unpaid), plus
owner/manager, in the last month of operation (GH¢/person).
Profits Total profit during the last month of operation (GH¢)
Main explanatory variables
Gender role attitudes A Z score index derived from responses to 14 questions on gender norms
Personality groups Responses: Strogly agee/Agree/ Neither agree nor disagree/disagree/ strongly disagree
Impulsiveness I plan tasks carefully (reverse coded); I make up my mind quickly; I save regularly (reverse coded)
Work centrality I look forward to returning to my work when I am away from work;
The most important thing that happens in life involves work.
Tenacity I can think of many times when I persisted with work when others quit;
I continue to work on hard projects even when others oppose me.
Polychronicity I like to juggle several activities at the same time;
I would rather complete an entire project every day than complete parts of several projects (reverse coded); I believe
it is best to complete one task before beginning another (reverse coded)
Locus of control It is difficult to know who my real friends are (reverse code); I never try anything that I am not sure of (reverse code);
A person can get rich by taking risks.
Achievement It is important for me to do whatever I’m doing as well as I can even if it isn’t popular with people around me; Part
of my enjoyment in doing things is improving my past performance; When a group I belong to plans an activity, I
would rather direct it myself than just help out and have someone else organize it; I try harder when I’m in
competition with other people; It is important to me to perform better than others on a task.
Power motivation I enjoy planning things and deciding what other people should do; I find satisfaction in having influence over others;
I like to have a lot of control over the events around me.
Organized My family and friends would say I am a very organized person.
Optimism In uncertain times I usually expect the best; If something can go wrong for me, it will (reverse coded); I’m always
optimistic about my future; I hardly ever expect things to go my way (reverse coded); I rarely count on good things
happening to me (reverse coded); Overall I expect more good things to happen to me than bad.
Owner Characteristics
Male 1 if the business owner is male
Age Age of business owner in completed years
Secondary education 1 if the owner has completed at least a secondary school education
Married 1 if the owner is married (monogamous/ polygynous) or living with a partner
Muslim 1 if the owner is a muslim
Household characteristics
Poor 1 if the business owner belongs to the poorest and poorer asset-based wealth quintiles
Under 5 Number of children under 5 years present in the household
Under 15 Number of children under 15 years present in the household
Business characteristics
Registered 1 if the business is registered with the Registrar General, Department of Cooperatives, District Assemblies, or the
Ghana Revenue Authority
Business tenure Length of time that the business has been actively operating or operated (years)
Businesses operated Number of businesses operated in the household
Home 1 if the business usually operated at home- inside or outside the residence
Traditional market 1 if the business usually operated in a traditional market
Commercial 1 if the business is located in an industrial or a commercial area
Roadside 1 if the business is located on a roadside or other fixed place
Mobile 1 if the business is mobile or has no fixed location
Separate expenses 1 if business expenses are kept separately from the household expenses
Apprenticeship 1 if the Main owner/manager of business has ever been an apprentice in line with her/his current activity
Credit 1 if the credit was used to operate the business in the last 12 months
Business account The owner has a bank account to run the business
COVID support Since the outbreak of COVID-19, this business has received any national or local government support issued in
response to the crisis
Literate employees How many of the people working in this business (including [owner]) can read and write?
Social media The owner/manager uses any digital application/technology such as instagram, WhatsApp, emails, Facebook, etc. to
operate the business
Association 1 if the business is a member of or part of any organized association such as a market association, a professional
association, a trade union, etc.
Subsistence 1 if the household consumes some of the goods and services produced by the business
Manufacturing 1 if the business is in the manufacturing sector
Retail 1 if the business is in the retail sector
Geographic controls
25
Urban 1 if the household resides in urban area
Ashanti 1 if the household resides in Ashanti region
26
Table 2. Descriptive statistics by gender of business owner
Pooled Women Owners Men Owners
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD T-tests
Performance indicators
Labor productivity 1,793 2,844 1,514 2,772 2,355 2,907 -807***
Profits 947 1,176 701 845 1,444 1,539 -738***
Main explanatory variables
Gender Norms index 41.12 10.74 40.47 10.13 42.45 11.79 -1.835**
Personality Groups
Impulsiveness 2.41 0.54 2.39 0.55 2.43 0.51 -0.011
Work centrality 4.24 0.68 4.19 0.71 4.33 0.59 -0.130***
Tenacity 3.96 0.7 3.95 0.72 3.97 0.68 -0.031
Polychronicity 2.21 0.68 2.26 0.72 2.13 0.58 0.094*
Locus of control 3.14 0.7 3.07 0.71 3.30 0.65 -0.196***
Achievement 3.74 0.59 3.76 0.59 3.71 0.6 0.006
Power motivation 3.38 0.81 3.36 0.81 3.43 0.81 -0.091
Organized 4.14 0.72 4.17 0.73 4.08 0.69 0.071
Optimism 3.6 0.51 3.58 0.5 3.64 0.53 -0.075*
Owner Characteristics
Male 0.33 0.47
Age 40.7 10.31 41.27 10.51 39.53 9.83 1.385*
Secondary education 0.86 0.35 0.86 0.35 0.86 0.35 0.006
Married 0.71 0.45 0.7 0.46 0.74 0.44 -0.047
Muslim 0.55 0.5 0.52 0.5 0.61 0.49 -0.075**
Household characteristics
Under 5 0.54 0.78 0.52 0.79 0.57 0.77 -0.098*
Under 15 1.86 1.79 1.92 1.82 1.74 1.73 0.111
Poor 0.27 0.44 0.29 0.45 0.22 0.42 -0.073**
Business Characteristics
Registered 0.29 0.45 0.22 0.41 0.42 0.49 -0.200***
Business tenure 9.12 7.93 8.85 7.78 9.67 8.22 -0.718
Businesses operated 1.35 0.58 1.32 0.56 1.39 0.6 -0.055
Home 0.41 0.49 0.48 0.5 0.28 0.45 0.180***
Traditional 0.08 0.28 0.09 0.29 0.07 0.25 0.036*
Commercial 0.07 0.25 0.06 0.23 0.09 0.29 -0.038**
Roadside 0.2 0.4 0.15 0.36 0.3 0.46 -0.150***
Mobile 0.24 0.43 0.22 0.42 0.27 0.44 -0.029
Separate expenses 0.38 0.49 0.36 0.48 0.41 0.49 -0.048
Apprenticeship 0.28 0.45 0.21 0.41 0.44 0.5 -0.235***
Credit 0.05 0.21 0.05 0.21 0.05 0.22 0.007
Business account 0.28 0.45 0.21 0.41 0.42 0.49 -0.206***
COVID support 0.03 0.16 0.03 0.17 0.02 0.14 0.005
Literate employees 1.03 3.21 0.64 1.78 1.82 4.88 -1.075***
Social media 0.27 0.45 0.19 0.39 0.44 0.5 -0.204***
Association 0.07 0.26 0.05 0.22 0.11 0.31 -0.050***
Subsistence 0.31 0.46 0.39 0.49 0.17 0.37 0.213***
Sector of Operation
Manufacturing 0.28 0.45 0.28 0.45 0.27 0.44 0.019
Retail 0.51 0.5 0.58 0.49 0.38 0.49 0.184***
Geographical controls
Urban 0.9 0.31 0.88 0.32 0.92 0.27 -0.050*
Ashanti 0.56 0.5 0.57 0.5 0.53 0.5 0.045
# Observations 861 585 276
t test if the mean difference between men and women * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.010
27
Table 3. Descriptive statistics by business registration status
Informal Formal
Mean SD Mean SD T-tests
Performance indicators
Labor productivity 1530.44 2600.83 2448.54 3290.25 -1003.4***
Profits, GHC 773.19 1041.59 1382.02 1367.58 -625.4***
Main explanatory variables
Gender Norms index 40.82 10.47 41.87 11.36 0.0104
Personality Groups
Impulsiveness 2.41 0.54 2.41 0.54 0.0645
Work centrality 4.25 0.69 4.21 0.64 0.044
Tenacity 3.98 0.71 3.9 0.69 0.031
Polychronicity 2.23 0.69 2.17 0.64 0.0624
Locus of control 3.09 0.7 3.29 0.66 -0.199***
Achievement 3.77 0.59 3.67 0.6 0.0824*
Power motivation 3.39 0.82 3.37 0.78 0.0364
Organized 4.15 0.69 4.13 0.78 0.0197
Optimism 3.62 0.51 3.56 0.52 0.00776
Owner characteristics
Male 0.27 0.44 0.49 0.5 -0.224***
Age 40.5 10.27 41.18 10.43 -0.442
At least secondary education 0.85 0.36 0.88 0.33 -0.0106
Married 0.69 0.46 0.76 0.43 -0.0427
Muslim 0.59 0.49 0.47 0.5 0.145***
Household characteristics
Under 5 0.53 0.77 0.56 0.8 -0.0258
Under 15 1.90 1.82 1.76 1.73 0.180
Poor 0.33 0.47 0.12 0.32 0.265***
Business characteristics
Registered
Business tenure 8.87 7.8 9.76 8.22 -1.183*
Businesses operated 1.35 0.59 1.34 0.55 -0.0258
Home 0.46 0.5 0.3 0.46 0.150***
Traditional 0.07 0.26 0.1 0.31 -0.0245
Commercial 0.05 0.21 0.11 0.32 -0.0661***
Roadside 0.14 0.35 0.35 0.48 -0.214***
Mobile 0.28 0.45 0.13 0.34 0.154***
Separate expenses 0.35 0.48 0.44 0.5 -0.0974***
Apprenticeship 0.26 0.44 0.34 0.48 -0.0962***
Credit 0.03 0.17 0.09 0.29 -0.0458***
Business account 0.21 0.41 0.46 0.5 -0.258***
COVID support 0.02 0.15 0.04 0.2 -0.014
Literate employees 0.51 1.64 2.33 5.2 -1.595***
Social media 0.21 0.41 0.42 0.49 -0.192***
Association 0.03 0.18 0.17 0.37 -0.135***
Subsistence 0.32 0.47 0.29 0.45 0.0481
Sector of business
Manufacturing 0.29 0.46 0.23 0.42 0.0688**
Retail 0.53 0.5 0.46 0.5 0.0815**
Geographic controls
Urban 0.88 0.33 0.94 0.23 -0.112***
Ashanti 0.52 0.5 0.65 0.48 -0.159***
Observations 632 229
t test if the mean difference between formal and informal; * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.010
28
Table 4. Drivers of business performance, without gender role attitudes and personality traits
Average revenue Profits
Full Women Men Full Women Men
Age 0.076** 0.047 0.117* 0.097*** 0.086** 0.104*
(2.20) (1.21) (1.82) (3.10) (2.18) (1.88)
Age_sq -0.001** -0.000 -0.002** -0.001*** -0.001** -0.001**
(-2.25) (-1.13) (-2.08) (-3.26) (-2.24) (-2.24)
Male 0.525*** 0.000 0.000 0.565*** 0.000 0.000
(5.82) (.) (.) (7.01) (.) (.)
Secondary education 0.009 -0.025 0.042 0.084 -0.002 0.219
(0.07) (-0.14) (0.17) (0.65) (-0.01) (0.80)
Married -0.083 -0.073 0.054 -0.010 -0.098 0.323
(-0.71) (-0.46) (0.26) (-0.09) (-0.66) (1.34)
Muslim -0.130 0.020 -0.308 -0.304** -0.145 -0.495**
(-0.84) (0.14) (-1.24) (-2.51) (-1.04) (-2.47)
Poor -0.254** -0.173 -0.449** -0.297*** -0.169 -0.494**
(-2.59) (-1.51) (-2.23) (-2.69) (-1.41) (-2.48)
Under 5 0.118* 0.021 0.215* 0.055 0.021 0.056
(1.76) (0.25) (1.96) (0.81) (0.27) (0.47)
Under 15 -0.021 0.031 -0.075 -0.019 0.019 -0.066
(-0.71) (0.83) (-1.39) (-0.69) (0.56) (-1.27)
Registered 0.217** 0.383*** -0.056 0.285*** 0.442*** -0.025
(1.98) (3.00) (-0.35) (3.26) (3.69) (-0.19)
Business tenure 0.007 0.012 0.002 0.009 0.009 0.012
(1.23) (1.55) (0.18) (1.61) (1.29) (1.27)
Businesses operated -0.044 -0.124 0.126 -0.035 -0.129 0.109
(-0.54) (-1.31) (0.92) (-0.42) (-1.27) (0.90)
Traditional market 0.795*** 0.866*** 0.701** 0.575*** 0.496*** 0.996***
(5.66) (5.03) (2.39) (4.73) (3.43) (3.82)
Commercial 0.304 0.375 0.126 0.097 0.001 0.079
(1.63) (1.33) (0.44) (0.53) (0.00) (0.28)
Roadside 0.191 0.187 0.104 0.162 0.213 0.061
(1.57) (1.21) (0.44) (1.53) (1.42) (0.27)
Mobile 0.100 0.163 -0.083 0.218** 0.211 0.149
(1.01) (1.20) (-0.44) (2.14) (1.55) (0.80)
Separate expenses 0.151* 0.240** -0.001 0.267*** 0.373*** 0.088
(1.69) (2.21) (-0.00) (3.18) (3.63) (0.63)
Apprenticeship -0.142 0.016 -0.290** 0.031 0.148 -0.065
(-1.47) (0.10) (-2.01) (0.33) (1.17) (-0.53)
Credit 0.139 -0.016 0.322 0.259* 0.161 0.285
(0.79) (-0.08) (1.02) (1.75) (0.86) (1.00)
Business account 0.368*** 0.429*** 0.284* 0.370*** 0.413*** 0.331**
(3.42) (3.21) (1.70) (3.63) (3.15) (2.24)
COVID support -0.070 -0.324 0.199 -0.020 -0.143 0.078
(-0.36) (-1.38) (0.46) (-0.10) (-0.58) (0.26)
Literate employees -0.058** -0.115*** -0.045** 0.030*** 0.013 0.036***
(-2.35) (-2.96) (-2.47) (2.64) (0.38) (2.92)
Social media 0.173 0.271* 0.069 0.144 0.263* -0.001
(1.56) (1.92) (0.39) (1.62) (1.84) (-0.00)
Association -0.463** -0.752** -0.113 -0.456** -0.653* -0.153
(-2.28) (-2.35) (-0.47) (-2.23) (-1.96) (-0.72)
Subsistence 0.296*** 0.254** 0.359* 0.299*** 0.288*** 0.286*
(3.32) (2.55) (1.95) (3.28) (3.07) (1.67)
Manufacturing -0.169 -0.035 -0.284 -0.096 0.076 -0.334
(-1.36) (-0.24) (-1.18) (-0.84) (0.51) (-1.52)
29
Retail 0.076 0.129 0.120 -0.182* -0.051 -0.249
(0.76) (0.91) (0.77) (-1.84) (-0.36) (-1.60)
Urban 0.436*** 0.437** 0.400 0.229* 0.250* 0.114
(2.76) (2.46) (1.52) (1.70) (1.68) (0.54)
Ashanti -0.092 0.124 -0.264 -0.041 0.200 -0.333
(-0.55) (0.80) (-1.01) (-0.28) (1.32) (-1.26)
Constant 4.519*** 4.681*** 4.837*** 3.635*** 3.501*** 4.660***
(5.81) (5.25) (3.44) (4.79) (3.54) (3.91)
R2 0.214 0.213 0.212 0.281 0.241 0.277
N 861 585 276 857 581 276
t statistics in parentheses: * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.010; standard errors clustered at cluster level
30
Table 5. Effects of Gender role attitudes and Personality traits on labor productivity (pooled sample)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Norms+
Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+
Norms+ Norms+ Controls Norms+ Norms+ Norms+
Norms+ Controls+ Controls+ Control+ Control+
Norms Controls+ Controls+ + Controls+ Controls+ Controls+
Controls Polychroni Locus of Achievem Power
Personality Impulsive Work Tenacity Organized Optimism
city Control ent Motivation
Central
Traditional -0.017*** -0.010** -0.012*** -0.015 0.012 -0.012 -0.028* -0.029 0.014 0.022 0.012 -0.012
(-3.75) (-2.42) (-2.73) (-0.82) (0.74) (-0.57) (-1.88) (-1.56) (0.50) (1.40) (0.67) (-0.33)
Age 0.072** 0.062* 0.072** 0.064* 0.068* 0.072** 0.070** 0.067* 0.068** 0.068** 0.070**
(2.08) (1.91) (2.06) (1.89) (1.97) (2.09) (2.07) (1.92) (2.02) (2.01) (2.02)
Age_sq -0.001** -0.001* -0.001** -0.001* -0.001** -0.001** -0.001** -0.001* -0.001** -0.001** -0.001**
(-2.12) (-1.95) (-2.10) (-1.91) (-2.01) (-2.15) (-2.09) (-1.92) (-2.08) (-2.04) (-2.07)
Male 0.547*** 0.548*** 0.545*** 0.524*** 0.539*** 0.528*** 0.572*** 0.556*** 0.539*** 0.557*** 0.560***
(6.11) (6.01) (6.09) (5.95) (5.96) (5.74) (6.38) (6.28) (6.25) (6.34) (6.15)
Secondary education 0.022 -0.029 0.022 0.031 0.013 0.020 0.036 0.011 -0.023 0.000 0.016
(0.16) (-0.22) (0.15) (0.22) (0.09) (0.14) (0.26) (0.08) (-0.17) (0.00) (0.12)
Married -0.067 -0.065 -0.066 -0.060 -0.056 -0.067 -0.079 -0.054 -0.061 -0.043 -0.072
(-0.56) (-0.56) (-0.56) (-0.52) (-0.49) (-0.57) (-0.67) (-0.46) (-0.52) (-0.36) (-0.62)
Muslim -0.071 -0.123 -0.075 -0.084 -0.087 -0.060 -0.078 -0.098 -0.115 -0.089 -0.081
(-0.49) (-0.88) (-0.52) (-0.58) (-0.60) (-0.41) (-0.54) (-0.68) (-0.80) (-0.63) (-0.56)
Poor -0.226** -0.230** -0.228** -0.211** -0.223** -0.227** -0.239** -0.215** -0.229** -0.233** -0.217**
(-2.32) (-2.40) (-2.33) (-2.19) (-2.29) (-2.34) (-2.43) (-2.19) (-2.33) (-2.38) (-2.25)
Under 5 0.114* 0.116* 0.115* 0.105 0.118* 0.108 0.116* 0.115* 0.112* 0.119* 0.114*
(1.71) (1.86) (1.73) (1.59) (1.79) (1.62) (1.74) (1.74) (1.75) (1.79) (1.71)
Under 15 -0.019 -0.022 -0.019 -0.015 -0.018 -0.018 -0.023 -0.017 -0.018 -0.023 -0.022
(-0.65) (-0.77) (-0.64) (-0.50) (-0.61) (-0.61) (-0.75) (-0.58) (-0.62) (-0.78) (-0.73)
Registered 0.232** 0.267*** 0.232** 0.254** 0.238** 0.242** 0.258** 0.251** 0.241** 0.238** 0.227**
(2.15) (2.74) (2.15) (2.37) (2.16) (2.28) (2.45) (2.37) (2.31) (2.24) (2.09)
Business tenure 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.008
(1.30) (1.29) (1.30) (1.29) (1.34) (1.37) (1.35) (1.25) (1.28) (1.37) (1.36)
Businesses operated -0.044 -0.037 -0.046 -0.043 -0.051 -0.038 -0.040 -0.059 -0.066 -0.046 -0.027
(-0.53) (-0.48) (-0.56) (-0.53) (-0.60) (-0.47) (-0.50) (-0.72) (-0.81) (-0.54) (-0.33)
Traditional market 0.778*** 0.743*** 0.780*** 0.760*** 0.768*** 0.779*** 0.760*** 0.769*** 0.795*** 0.759*** 0.767***
(5.49) (5.43) (5.58) (5.29) (5.44) (5.64) (5.59) (5.39) (5.52) (5.26) (5.57)
commercial 0.296 0.243 0.296 0.252 0.264 0.293 0.271 0.251 0.291 0.278 0.315*
31
(1.60) (1.28) (1.61) (1.37) (1.39) (1.54) (1.49) (1.35) (1.55) (1.50) (1.71)
Roadside 0.176 0.152 0.176 0.185 0.169 0.168 0.179 0.164 0.170 0.177 0.186
(1.45) (1.26) (1.45) (1.51) (1.39) (1.42) (1.47) (1.37) (1.44) (1.47) (1.51)
Mobile 0.096 0.097 0.091 0.107 0.104 0.095 0.099 0.120 0.132 0.110 0.085
(0.97) (1.03) (0.90) (1.08) (1.06) (0.97) (0.99) (1.23) (1.37) (1.11) (0.88)
Separate expenses 0.137 0.123 0.142 0.130 0.128 0.149* 0.115 0.101 0.119 0.131 0.134
(1.52) (1.42) (1.57) (1.46) (1.43) (1.66) (1.29) (1.09) (1.36) (1.44) (1.50)
Apprenticeship -0.137 -0.118 -0.136 -0.128 -0.144 -0.130 -0.139 -0.163* -0.156 -0.135 -0.128
(-1.42) (-1.24) (-1.42) (-1.37) (-1.49) (-1.38) (-1.47) (-1.69) (-1.61) (-1.42) (-1.32)
Credit 0.135 0.101 0.129 0.118 0.139 0.117 0.098 0.148 0.163 0.140 0.145
(0.76) (0.67) (0.72) (0.72) (0.81) (0.67) (0.55) (0.93) (1.01) (0.78) (0.84)
Business account 0.352*** 0.359*** 0.353*** 0.374*** 0.349*** 0.347*** 0.326*** 0.367*** 0.391*** 0.325*** 0.355***
(3.31) (3.32) (3.27) (3.50) (3.31) (3.33) (3.07) (3.40) (3.58) (3.13) (3.33)
COVID support -0.067 -0.171 -0.057 -0.140 -0.118 -0.041 -0.046 -0.156 -0.152 -0.092 -0.064
(-0.34) (-0.82) (-0.29) (-0.69) (-0.61) (-0.20) (-0.23) (-0.80) (-0.76) (-0.46) (-0.31)
Literate employees -0.057** -0.055** -0.058** -0.057** -0.056** -0.057** -0.055** -0.056** -0.059** -0.056** -0.058**
(-2.41) (-2.37) (-2.40) (-2.48) (-2.45) (-2.53) (-2.28) (-2.57) (-2.57) (-2.55) (-2.26)
Social media 0.198* 0.185 0.196* 0.186* 0.222** 0.178* 0.197* 0.220** 0.185* 0.226** 0.174
(1.82) (1.64) (1.77) (1.73) (1.99) (1.68) (1.79) (2.01) (1.75) (2.06) (1.52)
Association -0.462** -0.500** -0.462** -0.473** -0.467** -0.491** -0.440** -0.442** -0.436** -0.510** -0.451**
(-2.27) (-2.36) (-2.26) (-2.31) (-2.30) (-2.42) (-2.12) (-2.11) (-2.02) (-2.50) (-2.29)
Subsistence 0.311*** 0.346*** 0.314*** 0.317*** 0.310*** 0.326*** 0.322*** 0.309*** 0.336*** 0.311*** 0.296***
(3.58) (3.96) (3.60) (3.63) (3.59) (3.77) (3.63) (3.52) (4.02) (3.58) (3.37)
Manufacturing -0.176 -0.173 -0.180 -0.166 -0.166 -0.181 -0.191 -0.179 -0.179 -0.168 -0.178
(-1.40) (-1.44) (-1.43) (-1.34) (-1.31) (-1.45) (-1.52) (-1.44) (-1.48) (-1.32) (-1.44)
Retail 0.081 0.105 0.078 0.095 0.077 0.087 0.089 0.087 0.075 0.085 0.088
(0.82) (1.13) (0.79) (0.97) (0.77) (0.88) (0.89) (0.88) (0.78) (0.85) (0.89)
Urban 0.381** 0.383** 0.383** 0.383** 0.393** 0.392** 0.366** 0.383** 0.389** 0.390** 0.374**
(2.37) (2.34) (2.38) (2.33) (2.41) (2.44) (2.31) (2.38) (2.30) (2.38) (2.37)
Ashanti -0.059 -0.063 -0.059 -0.056 -0.073 -0.074 -0.059 -0.029 -0.007 -0.084 -0.062
(-0.38) (-0.40) (-0.38) (-0.36) (-0.46) (-0.47) (-0.37) (-0.18) (-0.05) (-0.54) (-0.40)
Impulsive 0.085 -0.032
(0.86) (-0.09)
Work centrality 0.086 0.395*
(1.14) (1.89)
Tenacity -0.006 0.081
32
(-0.07) (0.34)
Polychronicity -0.131** -0.492*
(-2.31) (-1.86)
Locus of control -0.071 -0.381
(-1.00) (-1.29)
Achievement 0.002 0.494
(0.02) (1.38)
Power motivation 0.179** 0.636***
(2.29) (2.73)
Organized 0.129* 0.391*
(1.82) (1.84)
Optimism -0.098 -0.164
(-0.91) (-0.34)
Traditional*Impulsive 0.002
(0.25)
Traditional*Work centrality -0.005
(-1.31)
Traditional*Tenacity 0.001
(0.11)
Traditional*Polychronicity 0.008
(1.37)
Traditional*internal control 0.006
(0.91)
Traditional*Achievement -0.007
(-0.86)
Traditional*Power motiva, -0.010**
(-2.00)
Traditional*Organized -0.005
(-1.25)
Traditional*Optimism 0.000
(0.02)
R2 0.019 0.220 0.253 0.221 0.229 0.223 0.227 0.226 0.229 0.242 0.229 0.224
N 861 861 861 861 861 861 861 861 861 861 861 861
t statistics in parentheses: * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.010; standard errors clustered at cluster level
33
Table 6. Effects of gender role attitudes and personality traits on labor productivity (women sample)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+
Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+
Norms+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Control+ Control+
Norms Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+
Controls Work Polychroni Locus of Achieveme Power
Personality Impulsive Tenacity Organized Optimism
Central city Control nt Motivation
Traditional -0.018*** -0.007 -0.011** -0.025 0.017 0.015 -0.022 -0.033 0.025 0.011 0.026 -0.019
(-3.32) (-1.44) (-2.11) (-1.12) (0.82) (0.66) (-1.37) (-1.42) (0.70) (0.59) (1.08) (-0.48)
Impulsive 0.100 -0.272
(0.89) (-0.59)
Work centrality 0.031 0.408
(0.36) (1.48)
Tenacity 0.035 0.380
(0.38) (1.40)
Polychronicity -0.166*** -0.450
(-2.70) (-1.48)
Locus of control -0.072 -0.475
(-0.85) (-1.28)
Achievement 0.041 0.590
(0.32) (1.23)
Power motivation 0.139* 0.445
(1.67) (1.47)
Organized 0.150* 0.526*
(1.86) (1.90)
Optimism -0.224 -0.380
(-1.51) (-0.71)
Traditional*Impulsive 0.008
(0.85)
Traditional*Work centrality -0.006
(-1.13)
Traditional*Tenacity -0.006
(-0.96)
Traditional*Polychronicity 0.006
(0.98)
Traditional*locus control 0.008
(1.00)
34
Traditional*Achievement -0.009
(-0.90)
Traditional*Power motiva, -0.006
(-0.96)
Traditional*Organized -0.008
(-1.39)
Traditional*Optimism 0.002
(0.20)
_Constant 7.262*** 5.022*** 4.994*** 5.650*** 3.348** 3.551*** 5.975*** 6.659*** 2.851 3.612*** 2.876* 6.734***
(30.643) (5.072) (2.965) (3.771) (2.090) (2.654) (4.826) (5.248) (1.400) (2.708) (1.696) (3.097)
Controls included NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
R2 0.020 0.216 0.259 0.218 0.225 0.222 0.227 0.224 0.226 0.232 0.230 0.227
N 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 585
t statistics in parentheses: * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.010; standard errors clustered at cluster level
35
Table 7. Effects of gender role attitudes and personality traits on labor productivity (men sample)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+
Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+
Norms+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Control+ Control+
Norms Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+
Controls Work Polychronici Locus of Achieveme Power
Personality Impulsive Tenacity Organized Optimism
Central ty Control nt Motivation
Traditional -0.020*** -0.013* -0.013 0.023 -0.005 -0.063* -0.020 -0.036 -0.010 0.052** -0.031 -0.002
(-3.03) (-1.97) (-1.54) (0.75) (-0.15) (-1.89) (-0.59) (-1.38) (-0.25) (2.21) (-0.97) (-0.03)
Impulsive 0.091 0.716
(0.53) (1.36)
Work centrality 0.044 0.188
(0.33) (0.51)
Tenacity -0.150 -0.604
(-1.20) (-1.61)
Polychronicity -0.033 -0.147
(-0.23) (-0.23)
Locus of control -0.045 -0.367
(-0.34) (-0.94)
Achievement -0.017 0.210
(-0.09) (0.44)
Power motivation 0.283** 1.098***
(2.05) (3.73)
Organized 0.052 -0.107
(0.39) (-0.30)
Optimism 0.137 0.196
(0.76) (0.23)
Traditional*Impulsive -0.015
(-1.34)
Traditional*Work centrality -0.002
(-0.23)
Traditional*Tenacity 0.013
(1.50)
Traditional*Polychronicity 0.003
(0.21)
Traditional*locus control 0.007
(0.80)
36
Traditional*Achievement -0.001
(-0.09)
Traditional*Power motiva, -0.020***
(-2.75)
Traditional*Organized 0.004
(0.53)
Traditional*Optimism -0.003
(-0.13)
Constant 7.980*** 5.331*** 4.146** 3.407* 4.796*** 7.395*** 5.663*** 6.467*** 4.783** 2.510* 5.917*** 4.549
(27.66) (3.74) (2.47) (1.67) (2.73) (4.00) (2.63) (3.33) (2.25) (1.72) (2.79) (1.46)
Controls included NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
R2 0.036 0.224 0.257 0.230 0.227 0.232 0.225 0.228 0.229 0.271 0.226 0.225
N 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276
t statistics in parentheses: * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.010; standard errors clustered at cluster level
37
Table 8. Effects of gender role attitudes and personality traits on profits (pooled sample)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+
Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+
Norms+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Control+ Control+
Norms Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+
Controls Work Polychroni Locus of Achieveme Power
Personality Impulsive Tenacity Organized Optimism
Central city Control nt Motivation
Traditional -0.011*** -0.003 -0.007** -0.008 -0.002 -0.014 -0.021 -0.011 -0.004 0.015 0.007 0.009
(-2.73) (-0.77) (-2.00) (-0.47) (-0.12) (-0.69) (-1.54) (-0.72) (-0.18) (1.04) (0.38) (0.27)
Impulsive 0.023 -0.073
(0.25) (-0.24)
Work centrality -0.000 0.101
(-0.00) (0.50)
Tenacity 0.016 -0.025
(0.18) (-0.10)
Polychronicity -0.030 -0.421*
(-0.49) (-1.80)
Locus of control -0.088* -0.270
(-1.69) (-1.14)
Achievement 0.134 0.217
(1.25) (0.64)
Power motivation 0.044 0.375*
(0.64) (1.71)
Organized 0.141** 0.251
(2.25) (1.25)
Optimism -0.318*** -0.151
(-3.28) (-0.35)
Traditional*Impulsive 0.002
(0.32)
Traditional*Work centrality -0.000
(-0.01)
Traditional*Tenacity 0.003
(0.59)
Traditional*Polychronicity 0.009
(1.52)
Traditional*locus control 0.002
(0.43)
38
Traditional*Achievement 0.000
(0.06)
Traditional*Power motiva, -0.006
(-1.19)
Traditional*Organized -0.002
(-0.54)
Traditional*Optimism -0.004
(-0.45)
Constant 6.642*** 3.749*** 4.377*** 3.930*** 3.388** 3.914*** 4.682*** 4.707*** 3.055** 2.619** 2.768** 4.583**
(35.95) (4.65) (3.72) (3.29) (2.57) (3.31) (4.57) (4.31) (2.07) (2.61) (2.29) (2.59)
Controls included NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
R2 0.009 0.281 0.316 0.281 0.283 0.285 0.284 0.290 0.290 0.290 0.289 0.297
N 857 857 857 857 857 857 857 857 857 857 857 857
t statistics in parentheses: * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.010; errors clustered at cluster level
39
Table 9. Effects of gender role attitudes and personality traits on profits (women sample)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Norms+
Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+
Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Controls
Norms+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Control+ Control+
Norms Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ +
Controls Work Polychroni Locus of Achieveme Power
Personality Impulsive Tenacity Organized Optimis
Central city Control nt Motivation
m
Traditional -0.015*** -0.003 -0.008 -0.007 0.016 0.013 -0.020 -0.013 0.004 0.012 0.017 -0.013
(-3.02) (-0.55) (-1.60) (-0.37) (0.76) (0.51) (-1.36) (-0.62) (0.14) (0.73) (0.87) (-0.35)
Impulsive 0.117 -0.013
(1.07) (-0.03)
Work centrality -0.070 0.257
(-0.74) (0.99)
Tenacity 0.000 0.293
(0.00) (0.91)
Polychronicity -0.076 -0.407
(-1.22) (-1.64)
Locus of control -0.095 -0.285
(-1.31) (-0.89)
Achievement 0.215 0.343
(1.43) (0.78)
Power motivation 0.029 0.335
(0.38) (1.27)
Organized 0.188*** 0.399*
(2.73) (1.76)
Optimism -0.264* -0.364
(-1.96) (-0.70)
Traditional*Impulsive 0.002
(0.27)
Traditional*Work centrality -0.005
(-0.88)
Traditional*Tenacity -0.004
(-0.59)
Traditional*Polychronicity 0.008
(1.36)
Traditional*locus control 0.003
40
(0.39)
Traditional*Achievement -0.002
(-0.22)
Traditional*Power motiva, -0.005
(-0.88)
Traditional*Organized -0.005
(-0.99)
Traditional*Optimism 0.002
(0.20)
Constant 6.537*** 3.620*** 3.755** 3.653** 2.577 2.484 4.527*** 4.681*** 2.365 2.556* 1.957 5.274**
(29.02) (3.37) (2.24) (2.44) (1.47) (1.64) (3.56) (3.19) (1.20) (1.89) (1.29) (2.42)
Controls included NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
R2 0.016 0.241 0.283 0.242 0.243 0.246 0.246 0.250 0.254 0.250 0.256 0.252
N 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581 581
t statistics in parentheses: * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.010; errors clustered at cluster level
41
Table 10. Effects of gender role attitudes and personality traits on profits (men sample)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+
Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+ Norms+
Norms+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Control+ Control+
Norms Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+ Controls+
Controls Work Polychroni Locus of Achieveme Power
Personality Impulsive Tenacity Organized Optimism
Central city Control nt Motivation
Traditional -0.012** -0.002 -0.004 0.011 -0.037 -0.070*** -0.012 -0.024 -0.023 0.036 -0.029 0.055
(-2.00) (-0.25) (-0.56) (0.42) (-1.33) (-2.68) (-0.39) (-1.17) (-0.57) (1.63) (-0.87) (1.05)
Impulsive -0.167 0.123
(-1.21) (0.27)
Work centrality 0.093 -0.290
(0.72) (-0.83)
Tenacity 0.016 -0.719**
(0.13) (-2.17)
Polychronicity 0.009 -0.239
(0.06) (-0.43)
Locus of control -0.043 -0.443
(-0.49) (-1.47)
Achievement 0.030 -0.105
(0.16) (-0.20)
Power motivation 0.052 0.598*
(0.41) (1.95)
Organized 0.077 -0.203
(0.57) (-0.50)
Optimism -0.450*** 0.271
(-3.56) (0.45)
Traditional*Impulsive -0.005
(-0.51)
Traditional*Work centrality 0.009
(1.34)
Traditional*Tenacity 0.018**
(2.57)
Traditional*Polychronicity 0.005
(0.37)
Traditional*locus control 0.007
(1.03)
42
Traditional*Achievement 0.006
(0.50)
Traditional*Power motiva, -0.011
(-1.63)
Traditional*Organized 0.007
(0.80)
Traditional*Optimism -0.016
(-1.11)
Constant 7.223*** 4.722*** 6.646*** 4.385** 5.987*** 7.356*** 5.265*** 6.137*** 5.177** 3.183** 5.725*** 3.970
(26.14) (3.99) (4.54) (2.41) (3.87) (4.79) (2.87) (4.16) (2.36) (2.34) (2.84) (1.50)
Controls included NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
R2 0.014 0.277 0.321 0.279 0.283 0.292 0.278 0.286 0.281 0.290 0.281 0.311
N 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276 276
t statistics in parentheses: * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.010; errors clustered at cluster level
43
Figure 1. Type and number of workers by business registration status
Informal businesses
100% 6 5 3
5 18 14
19
80% 9
60%
40% 89 83
73 76
20%
0%
Women Men Women Men
Paid workers Unpaid workers
0 workers 1 worker 2+ workers
Formal businesses
120
100 6
16 10
13
80 32
14 22
60 21
40 81
71 68
20 47
0
Women Men Women Men
Paid workers Unpaid workers
0 workers 1 worker 2+ workers
44
Figure 2. Informal business performance by number of employees and gender of owner
Paid Employees
7790
10000
8000
3666
6000
3355
2752
2703
2642
4000 1718
1373
1023
953
866
527
2000
0
Women Men Women Men
Revenue Profit
0 workers 1 worker 2+ workers
Unpaid Employees
9819
12000
10000
5943
8000
3991
6000
3130
2734
2488
1953
4000
1502
1109
810
555
330
2000
0
Women Men Women Men
Revenue Profit
0 workers 1 worker 2+ workers
45
Figure 3. Formal business performance by number of employees and gender of owner
Paid Employees
13647
16000
14000
12000
8176
10000
6686
8000
3876
3363
3341
6000
2462
1736
1506
1233
1177
4000
931
2000
0
Women Men Women Men
Revenue Profit
0 workers 1 worker 2+ workers
Unpaid Employees
7197
8000
6473
5847
7000
5665
6000
4596
5000
4000
2429
1796
3000
1345
1311
1071
2000
961
735
1000
0
Women Men Women Men
Revenue Profit
0 workers 1 worker 2+ workers
46
Table A1. Differences in perceptions of gender roles by all men and women surveyed (weighted)
Gender role attitudes (Proportion Agreeing with Statements) Women Men T-test of
Mean SD Mean SD Differences
Only men should work outside the home 0.246 0.43 0.215 0.41 0.03
It is not okay for women to work outside of the home, even if she has young 0.174 0.38 0.257 0.44 -0.07**
children less than 5 years
Men should not perform household chores 0.289 0.45 0.328 0.47 -0.05
Women should perform household chores 0.977 0.15 0.98 0.14 -0.01
Men should not care for children/dependents 0.097 0.3 0.141 0.35 -0.03
Women should care for children/dependents 0.968 0.18 0.927 0.26 0.04***
Women are not as capable as men to manage workers. 0.06 0.24 0.137 0.34 -0.07***
Women are not as capable (intellectually) as men of being successful 0.066 0.25 0.099 0.3 -0.03*
Men should make all the important business and financial decisions in the 0.375 0.48 0.467 0.5 -0.09**
family
Women farmers should focus on growing food for the family 0.319 0.47 0.289 0.45 0.031
It is not okay for a woman to grow crops for sale in the market 0.054 0.23 0.073 0.26 -0.02
Only men should grow crops for sale in the market. 0.239 0.43 0.178 0.38 0.05
It is not okay for a woman to manage men working on her land 0.041 0.2 0.087 0.28 -0.04**
It is okay for a man to manage women working on his land 0.948 0.22 0.971 0.17 -0.02
Observations 585 276
T-statistics- * p<0.10, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01
47