Abstract

This article generalizes arguments and counter-arguments within the scientific discussion regarding the determination of the influence of gender proxies of sustainable entrepreneurship on country innovative development. Systematization of the scientific  findings on the above-mentioned problems proves that there is a lack of empirical studies aimed at familiar issues, which, in turn, proves the necessity of further theoretical and empirical search in this sphere. Thus, it was developed a scientific and methodical approach based on the combination of correlation and panel data regression analysis in order to test the hypothesis about gender determinants influence on country innovative development. In order to test this hypothesis it was developed a scientific and methodological approach that consists of several stages: 1) correlation analysis in order to eliminate multicollinearity problem between control variables; 2) analysis of dataset descriptive statistics; 3) realization of the panel data regression analysis and characteristics of its results. This  research are realized within the Stata 12/SE software. Country sample consists of 9 countries (Czech Republic Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Ukraine). Period of observation – 2008-2018. Panel data regression analysis results help to reveal that there is no significant relationships between gender proxies of sustainable entrepreneurship and country innovative development. Specifically, it was revealed that an increase in 1 % of female labor force participation leads to 0.9 points increase of Global Innovation Index with 99 % confidence probability; an increase of GINI Index in 1 % results in increase of Global Innovation Index in approximately 0.5 points with 90 % confidence probability, while female labor force basic education and female unemployment have no statistically significant impact on it.  This leads us to the conclusion that gender perspective of sustainable entrepreneurship should developed in more rapid manner in order to transform it in vital mechanism of country innovative and sustainable development.

Keywords: gender aspects, innovative economic growth, innovative state management, panel data analysis, sustainable entrepreneurship.

JEL Classification: C23, D22, O30, O47.

Cite as: Starchenko, L (2020). Impact of gender aspects of sustainable entrepreneurship on country innovative development. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 304-311. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2020.4-25

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Al-Khonain, S., & Al-Adeem, K. (2020). Corporate Governance and Financial Reporting Quality: Preliminary Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 4(1), 109-116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Baranovskyi, O. I. (2020). Regulation of functional and structural transformational processes in the financial sector. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 1(32), 292-306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]   
3. Biewendt, M., Blaschke, F., & Böhnert, A. (2020). An Evaluation Of Corporate Sustainability In Context Of The Jevons. SocioEconomic Challenges, 4 (3), 46-65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Bilan, Y., Pimonenko, T., & Starchenko, L. (2020). Sustainable business models for innovation and success: bibliometric analysis. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 159, p. 04037). EDP Sciences. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Boiarko, I. M. (2016). Praxeological and situational approaches in the formation of strategic accounting. Financial and credit activities: problems of theory and practice, 2(21), 80-90. [CrossRef]
6. Bonamigo, A., & Mendes, D. (2019). Value Co-creation and Leadership: An Analysis Based on the Business Ecosystem Concept. Business Ethics and Leadership, 3(4), 66-73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Brimah, B. A., Olanipekun, W. D., Bamidele, A. G., & Ibrahim, M. (2020). Knowledge Management and its Effects on Financial Performance: Evidence from Dangote Flour Mills, Ilorin. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 4(2), 34-42. [CrossRef]
8. Cebula, J., & Pimonenko, T. (2015). Comparison financing conditions of the development biogas sector in Poland and Ukraine. International Journal of Ecology and Development, 30(2), 20-30. [Google Scholar]
9. El Amri, A., Boutti, R., & Rodhain, F. (2020). Sustainable Finance at the time of Institutions: Performativity through the lens of Responsible Management in Morocco. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 4(2), 52-64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Global Innovation Index Reports. (2020). Retrieved from [Link]
11. Goncharenko, T. (2020). From Business Modelling to the Leadership and Innovation in Business: Bibliometric Analysis (Banking as a Case). Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(1), 113-125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].
12. Goncharenko, T.,& Lopa L. (2020). Balance Between Risk And Profit In The Context Of Strategic Management: The Case Of Ukrainian Banks. SocioEconomic Challenges, 4(1), 111-121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Hanić, A., & Jevtić, D. (2020). Human Resource Management Between Economy and Ethics–Research of Serbia and Bosnia and Hercegovina. Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(3), 127-136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Hrytsenko, L. L., Roienko, V., & Boiarko, I. M. (2018). Institutional background of the role of state in investment processes activation. Financial and credit activities: problems of theory and practice, 1(24), 338-344. [CrossRef]
15. Kaya, H. D. (2020). Business Friendliness, Firm Performance and Owner’s Optimism. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 4 (3), 13-23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Kuznyetsova A. Ya., Zherebylo I. V., Klipkova O. I., Kozmuk N. I. (2019). Creation of the value of national enterprises with the help of the innovation centers in the cluster formations. Financial and credit activities: problems of theory and practice, 2(29), 391-402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Lopez, B. S., & Alcaide, A. V. (2020). Blockchain, AI and IoT to Improve Governance, Financial Management and Control of Crisis: Case Study COVID-19. SocioEconomic Challenges, 4(2), 78-89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].
18. Mamun, M. Z. A., & Khan, M. Y. H. (2020). A Theoretical Study On Factors Influencing Employees Performance, Rewards And Motivation Within Organisation. SocioEconomic Challenges, 4(3), 113-124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Tommaso, F. D., & Gulinelli, A. (2019). Corporate Governance and Economic Performance: The Limit of Short Termism. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 3(4), 49-61. [Google Scholar][CrossRef].
20. Tovmasyan, G., & Minasyan, D. (2020). The Impact of Motivation on Work Efficiency for Both Employers and Employees also During COVID-19 Pandemic: Case Study from Armenia. Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(3), 25-35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Tsalikis, J., & Seaton, B. (2020). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Cross-National Study of the Treatment of Consumers and Employees. Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(2), 6-15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].
22. Umadia Sr, K., & Kasztelnik, K. (2020). The Financial Innovative Business Strategies of Small to Medium Scale Enterprises in Developing Country and Influence for the Global Economy Performance. SocioEconomic Challenges, 4(3), 20-32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. World Bank DataBank. (2020) Retrieved from [Link].