The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2554.htm

“Push” versus “pull” “Push” versus

“pull”
entrepreneurship: an ambiguous entrepreneurship
distinction?
Christopher Dawson 697
Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK, and
Received 19 November 2010
Andrew Henley Revised 6 May 2011
School of Management and Business, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK 21 July 2011
Accepted 17 October 2011

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to reassess whether individuals choose to become
self-employed for “pull” or “push” reasons, to discuss and describe ambiguities in this distinction, with
focus on differences between men and women, and draw conclusions for further conceptual work.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews current literature, from which specific
hypotheses are developed. For illustration and evaluation secondary analysis is undertaken of an
existing large-scale data source available in UK Quarterly Labour Force Surveys over the period
1999-2001.
Findings – It was found that 86 per cent state only a single reason for self-employment. Response
patterns differ significantly between men and women. Independence is the most commonly cited
motivation but 22 per cent of women cite family commitments. “Push” motivations may account for as
much as 48 per cent depending on interpretation. Men who report two or more factors tend to combine
“pull” factors, but women tend to combine “push” with “pull”.
Research limitations/implications – Respondents may display recall bias. Potential ambiguity in
the way in which respondents may interpret particular motivations points to the need for future
detailed qualitative research, and questionnaire item development. Further work is recommended to
assess whether conclusions hold in recent recessionary economic conditions.
Practical implications – Clarity between “push” and “pull” factors is important in the design of
entrepreneurship policy, especially during a recession. Further work is needed to provide this clarity to
inform policy design.
Originality/value – Few previous studies investigate reasons for choosing entrepreneurship using
large, population-generalisable data, and do not consider the conceptual ambiguities inherent in
categorising motivations as either “pull” or “push”.
Keywords United Kingdom, Entrepreneurialism, Gender, Motivation ( psychology),
Entrepreneurial orientation, Self-employment, Gender differences
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
This paper is concerned with why people report that they choose to be self-employed.
During periods of economic crisis and rising unemployment individuals may be
pushed towards self-employment in the absence of other opportunities. Under more
benign conditions, individuals may report that they are attracted into self-employment
for a variety of positive reasons related to market opportunity, financial betterment or
International Journal of
personal autonomy. In current economic conditions necessity motives may have Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
become more significant. However it may, in practice, be difficult to disentangle Research
Vol. 18 No. 6, 2012
the extent to which individuals are pushed or pulled towards self-employment. Indeed pp. 697-719
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
this distinction may be ambiguous if particular motives conflate “push” and “pull” 1355-2554
factors, or if individuals report a combination of “push” and “pull” motives. DOI 10.1108/13552551211268139
IJEBR Furthermore previous research has established significant differences in the pattern
18,6 of reported motivations between men and women, with women significantly more
likely to report personal and family concerns, and less likely to report financial
motivation. An important question concerns whether women are more likely to report
“push” motives to do with a desire for flexible working, whereas men are more
likely to be motivated by financial and market-led concerns. Individual perceptions
698 of why they chose self-employment may be idiosyncratic such that the precise meaning
of particular motives is open to debate (Brush, 1990). This paper investigates
whether the push-pull dichotomy may be over-simplistic. Commonly reported motives
may conflate both “pull” and “push” factors, with the balance influenced by
contemporary economic conditions, as well as the differing personal circumstances of
men and women.
Section 2 of the paper reviews the current literature. In Section 3 hypotheses
concerning patterns of reported motivations are formulated. These are investigated in
Section 4 through an analysis of large-scale survey data on ex post reported
motivations for choosing self-employment for the UK. The data employed in the
paper are subject to significant limitations, and thus implications for further future
research are discussed in Section 5. Supported by the findings from the analysis
the paper concludes in Section 6 by arguing for a refocusing of the theoretical and
conceptual understanding of “push” vs “pull” motives. In particular, differences
between men and women are highlighted. Implications are drawn for a more
refined theoretical conceptual understanding of the “push” vs “pull” distinction,
appropriate to contemporary economic circumstances and policy.

2. Background
i. “Positive” and “negative” entrepreneurial motivations
Self-employment is an economic status which may encompass a wide range of
different activity, accounting for at least one in ten in the workforce in many
economies (Blanchflower, 2000), although in some countries, including the UK, male
self-employment rates are considerable higher than female rates (Georgellis and Wall,
2005)[1]. Aggregate cross-country differences between men and women are
investigated by Verheul et al. (2006). Individuals may choose to be self-employed for
many different reasons, and the self-employed as a group may be heterogeneous.
At one end of a “willingness” spectrum the self-employed may be positively motivated
by perceptions of personal self-efficacy or external market opportunity to venture
entrepreneurial micro-businesses. A substantial body of research investigates the
self-employed as entrepreneurs, using self-employment as an observable category
which, albeit imperfectly, identifies the stock of entrepreneurial talent in the
economy. At the other end of this spectrum, self-employment forms a less desirable
state chosen reluctantly by those unable to find appropriate paid employment in
recessionary economic conditions. Thus, those seeking flexible working hours
might choose self-employment if a flexible paid employment contract is unavailable.
Previous research has highlighted the significance of this for women who
choose self-employment (see Taylor and Newcomer, 2005 for a detailed review). For
some, self-employment may be the only available alternative to unemployment.
An extensive literature has addressed the process of the formation of
entrepreneurial intention or motivation (Krueger et al., 2000). Analysis typically
develops a range of empirical constructs related to the formation of entrepreneurial
intention, both ex ante and ex post, and correlating such constructs with both
entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial action and performance. Reported levels “Push” versus
of ex ante interest in entrepreneurship are often very high, particularly if questions “pull”
are framed loosely in terms of open-ended career aspirations, with men significantly
more likely to report interest than women (see Blanchflower et al., 2001). A further entrepreneurship
economic literature models ex post self-employment choice as an occupational choice
decision, focusing on economic returns mediated by background and demographic
associations (see Le, 1999; Parker, 2004 for surveys). 699
Others have addressed the question of why those choosing self-employment made
that choice, and the extent to which it is a voluntary choice. Terminology may vary;
for example Gilad and Levine (1986) and Amit and Muller (1994) refer to “push” vs
“pull” entrepreneurship, Hessels et al. (2008) refer to “necessity entrepreneurship”,
and Thurik et al. (2008) coin the term “refugee entrepreneurship”. The Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor programme emphasises a distinction between
“opportunity-based” and “necessity” entrepreneurship (Reynolds et al., 2001). Some
researchers identify a three-fold categorisation additionally introducing “lifestyle/
family” entrepreneurship, with particular emphasis on this as a generic motivation
for many female entrepreneurs in particular (see Stevenson, 1986; Brush, 1992;
Hughes, 2006; Kirkwood, 2009, inter alia, for further discussion). Overlaid here are
considerations of whether entrepreneurship is primarily the result of external
environmental factors or the result of human agency (Shane et al., 2003). If motivations
are largely external opportunity related then self-employment can be viewed
positively, as it may provide opportunities for quality of life improvement and for
exploration of creative entrepreneurial opportunities. However if entrepreneurship
is a reluctant activity associated with absence of other opportunity or, particularly
for women, family pressures, then self-employment may viewed far less positively. In
current conditions the latter may have become far more important.
Whilst much previous empirical work has investigated those attributes which
distinguish the self-employed from the employed, somewhat less attention has been
given to the reasons that individuals cite for choosing self-employment. Moreover,
many studies use case studies or small “convenience” samples, sometimes focusing
on men or women separately. The question of the distinction between “push” and
“pull” factors has been an important theme in this literature. Theoretical perspectives
focus on the cognitive lens through which entrepreneurship is perceived (Gatewood
et al., 1995; Krueger et al., 2000), and focus on the voluntary nature of business
venturing. All studies find that opportunity or “pull” motives are pre-eminent and
dominate the entrepreneurial population, both male and female (Gilad and Levine,
1986; Segal et al., 2005). However other motives, while not in the majority, may
nevertheless comprise a significant aspect of the self-employment decision.

ii. Financial motivation

Research from a range of perspectives argues that perceptions of financial benefit from
entrepreneurship may be significant (Gatewood et al., 1995; Douglas and Shepherd,
2002; Cassar, 2007). However some research suggests that financial motives are less
important for women (Taylor and Newcomer, 2005). Whilst the ease with which
alternative occupation can be found may be an important factor, opportunity cost
considerations are also important (Douglas and Shepherd, 1999). In a seminal
economic study, Rees and Shah (1986) find ex post support for self-employment as an
occupational choice decision made rationally on the basis of the expected earnings
differential between self-employment and employment. Taylor (1996) and Clark and
IJEBR Drinkwater (2000) also find that individuals are attracted to self-employment by
18,6 higher expected earnings. Others, including Gill (1988) and Earle and Sakova (2000),
question this finding. Financial motives may only be of secondary importance
(Amit et al., 2001). For example, Georgellis and Wall (2005) conclude, from German
data, that the expected earnings differential is less important for women than for men.
Indeed the inherent nature of particular occupations, for example amongst
700 professionals such as accountants or lawyers or in construction trades, may lend
themselves towards self-employment, regardless of financial benefit. For such
individuals, the choice of self-employment may be integral to the choice of a particular
occupation (Aronson, 1991). Gender occupational segregation may have a further role
to play here (Blackburn and Jarman, 2006). Researchers typically identify financial
motives for entrepreneurship as “pull” factors. However it is far from clear in a
conceptual sense that a financial motivation indicates opportunity rather than
necessity. In terms of occupational choice analysis, self-employment may become
relatively more attractive either because perceived returns to entrepreneurship
have increased ( pull), or because perceived earnings from organisational employment
have fallen ( push), or a combination of both. If the economy enters recession the
balance between these two will shift.
Mixed conclusions here may be explained by the divergence of data sources used,
in particular differences are apparent between studies which focus on reported
motivations, and in particular use qualitative methods, and those which infer the
importance of financial motives from econometric analysis of the association between
self-employment choice and earnings. Within the latter approach findings are
sensitive to model specification (i.e. choice and availability of control covariates and
econometric identifying restrictions in different data sources). They may also be
influenced by alternative perceptions of self-employment relative to other labour
market states between men and women (Georgellis and Wall, 2005), the difficulties
in accurately measuring self-employment income, and variations between countries
(choice of data source). So not only is the question of the relative financial
attractiveness of entrepreneurship open to conceptual discussion, it is a matter of
empirical uncertainty as well.

iii. Self-employment and external economic conditions

Many so-called “necessity” entrepreneurs may be pushed towards self-employment
because of negative external forces, such as layoff and a subsequent lack of
available paid employment. In the current climate, this may be a particular issue for
men, for whom withdrawal from the labour market into a home-making role may,
to a greater extent, be perceived as failure. Aggregate economy-level research has
addressed the relative importance of both “push” and “pull” theories by examining the
relationship between self-employment and unemployment. Theoretical arguments
have been constructed in support of both a positive, prosperity-pull relationship and
a negative, recession-led relationship between self-employment and unemployment.
According to the “push” hypothesis, increased unemployment reduces the prospects
for finding paid employment; thus expected returns from entrepreneurship become
more attractive, pushing people into self-employment (Storey, 1982; Storey and
Johnson, 1987). Moreover, second-hand capital becomes both cheaper and more readily
obtainable, as business closures increase in a time of recession. Thus, worsening
economic conditions activate previously dormant entrepreneurial ambitions, pushing
individuals towards self-employment (Davidsson et al., 1994, Rotefoss and Kolvereid,
2005). Unemployment or redundancy may capture both supply side and demand side “Push” versus
effects. Redundancy may stimulate entrepreneurial motivations, but may also be “pull”
associated with changes in external conditions that are both favourable (cheaper
start-up costs) and unfavourable (weaker local demand). entrepreneurship
Whilst most cross sectional analysis has found a negative association between
self-employment and unemployment (e.g. Evans and Leighton, 1989; Blanchflower
and Meyer, 1994), the majority of times series studies report significant positive 701
correlation (e.g. Hamilton, 1989; Parker, 1986)[2]. Time series analysis has also
identified important differences between men and women (Saridakis and Storey, 2010).
The recession “push” effect is stronger for men than for women, working both
through unemployment rate and interest rate effects. Trends in female self-employment
appear to correlate more with socio-economic factors, such as a positive association
with movements in the divorce rate. Some time series analyses, notably Black et al.
(1996), Cowling and Mitchell (1997), Robson (1998) and Blanchflower and Shadworth
(2007), also report a positive aggregate association between average house prices
and self-employment, consistent with a prosperity-pull explanation. Others have
identified personal housing wealth and windfall financial gains as positively
associated with self-employment, for example Henley (2007) and Georgellis et al. (2005).
The transmission mechanism here is presumed to be in the relationship between
the value of personal collateral and access to business loan finance. So, for men
particularly the recent recession may have led to greater “push” self-employment, as
unemployment has risen and house prices stagnated.
Other external motivational pressure may be negative. For example, a significant
proportion of the self-employed are so because they have joined a pre-existing
family-run business. For some this may have occurred willingly; for others family
pressure or “dynastic compliance” (Orhan and Scott, 2001) may influence the choice to
remain with the business rather than to explore alternative career and educational
opportunities.

iv. Non-pecuniary and internal motivations

It is important to consider whether other non-pecuniary considerations, drawing on
non-economic perspectives, are of equal or greater importance to external economic
conditions. So, for example, researchers have engaged in discussion of the attracting
influence of internal motivations such as a perceived desire for autonomy or
independence (Gatewood et al., 1995; Kolvereid, 1996; Feldman and Bolino, 2000;
Douglas and Shepherd, 2002; Hughes, 2003; Cassar, 2007). Hisrich and Brush (1986)
identify independence- seeking as particularly important for women. However,
here again the question of “pull” vs “push” arises. Is it the positive desire for autonomy
that pulls an individual towards self-employment? Is it is the lack of personal
autonomy in organisational employment that pushes an individual to consider
alternatives? Deterioration in current job satisfaction may promote a perceived need
for independence (Corman et al., 1988; Cromie and Hayes, 1991; Nooderhaven et al.,
2004). However, Schjoedt and Shaver (2007) report evidence from the US Panel
Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics comparing nascent entrepreneurs with
non-entrepreneurs to refute this.
Personal autonomy and flexibility to manage family commitments have been
found to be important for women, particularly those who are married or who have
dependent children. Some research examines the motivation of female entrepreneurs in
isolation (Buttner and Moore, 1997; Orhan and Scott, 2001; Hughes, 2003), identifying
IJEBR the importance of work/family balance. Hughes (2003) argues, from mixed methods
18,6 research with 61 female Canadian entrepreneurs, that the importance of “push”
motivations for women is likely to be underestimated. This is because qualitative
interviewing suggests that “push” motivators may be of deeper underlying
significance for those who ranked “positive” factors highly in questionnaire
responses. However, comparative assessment of such conclusions is problematic in
702 single gender studies. Other studies focus on both small- and large-scale surveys
involving both genders. An early small-scale study, Cromie (1987), identifies career
dissatisfaction and family concerns as relatively more important for women, whereas
financial motives are more important for men. Similar conclusions are reached
by DeMartino and Barbato (2003) from a sample of MBA alumni entrepreneurs,
and by Kirkwood (2009) in a small-scale study of New Zealand entrepreneurs.
However it has also been noted that female entrepreneurs, themselves, are not
homogeneous, and that female entrepreneurs achieve success by developing
more effective strategies to mitigate tensions between work and family
commitments (Shelton, 2006).
Dennis (1996), reports strong evidence that people enter self-employment because
they want to and not because of lack of available alternatives. Over half reported
that use of “skills and abilities”, “greater control over their life” and “building
something for the family” were important motivating factors. Smeaton (2003) finds
that the most cited motivator for male self-employed was a preference for being one’s
own boss. For women the most cited motivating factors were “going into business
with a family member”, along with “prefer to be own boss” and “to follow an interest”.
Carter et al. (2003), find evidence that motivations offered by nascent entrepreneurs
when starting a business are dominated by self-realisation, innovation and
independence. Parental background may also exert an important mediating
influence here (Aldrich and Cliff, 2003), and may differ between men and women
(Kirkwood, 2007). For social entrepreneurs or those focused on providing goods
and services related to environmental sustainability, non-pecuniary motives are likely
to be particularly important (Austin et al., 2006; Kirkwood and Walton, 2010).
Investigating large-scale Canadian survey data, Hughes (2006) reports that
“independence/freedom” is the most important motivator for both men and women.
However for women concerns such as “work-family balance” and “flexibility of hours”
were also highly cited. Overall Hughes suggests that 71 per cent of men, but only
53 per cent of women, can be classified as “opportunity” entrepreneurs. On the
other hand 22 and 25 per cent of women fall into “necessity” and “work-family”
entrepreneurs, respectively, far greater proportions than for men. The relative
importance of work circumstances and family commitments for women in the
self-employment choice process would appear to be well established.
So, cross-sectional surveys of various forms tend to suggest that motivations for
choosing entrepreneurship are dominated by positive factors, including pre-eminently
independence. For women, independence connect to a desire to manage work and
family commitments more effectively. However many studies may suffer from a
potential bias, which will result in differences between stated (ex post) motivation
and actual (ex ante) motivations. That is, people may be reluctant to admit to
negative factors ex post, preferring to provide information which is consistent with
revealed behaviour. This leads to recall bias (Cassar, 2007), and this caveat must be
regarded as important, particularly when assessing the relative importance of
“positive” motivating factors.
3. Research hypotheses “Push” versus
The literature review outlined in the preceding section suggests that that previous “pull”
research has implied or, at least, operationalised a distinct separation between
“push” and “pull” motives for choosing self-employment or entrepreneurship. entrepreneurship
Overlaid is a further characterisation of motives into “external” and “internal”,
depending on whether those motives relate to opportunities or constraints external
to an individual’s self-perception, or internal to personal objectives and goals. 703
To some extent researchers are obliged to adopt distinct categorisations in order to
structure available data. For men and women both the framing and the incidence of
these characterisations may be very different, as illustrated by a range of previous
research.
In practice these dimensions may be blurred, in particular across the “pull” and
“push” dimensions. Individuals may report multiple motivations for choosing
self-employment across both “push” and “pull” and external and internal
dimensions, In addition, the role of occupational choice is of potential importance,
since self-employment may arise “accidently” or concurrently with choice of a
particular occupation, such as a construction trade or a profession. Here
again gender may be important as occupational gender segregation may be
significant.
Given the nature and structure of the data source used in the study, the first
important issue to be addressed concerns the extent to which, when given a choice,
individuals report a single, pre-eminent motivation for choosing self-employment, or
prefer to report a more complex pattern of multiple motivations. Underlying this is
the hypothesis that the self-employment decision is a complex process based on the
balance of various, potentially competing factors. It may be expected that the decision
process is complex, because it is far from clear whether certain motivating influences
are framed in the same way as either “push” or “pull” by all entrepreneurs. So the
specific hypothesis for investigation here is:

H1. Individual self-employment choice is a complex decision based on a

combination of “pull” and “push” motivating factors.

Given the potential lack of precision in interpreting whether particular motives

are regarded as “push” or “pull”, there is a result likely to be a significant range of
uncertainty about the scale of “push” factors as motives for choosing self-employment.
The range may be higher than that implied by a narrow interpretation of “push”,
which is confined to those who choose self-employment because of the absence
of other employment opportunity. Formally this can be expressed in the following
hypothesis:

H2. There is a significant range of uncertainty about the extent to which self-
employment choice motives can be classified as “push” or “pull”.

This issue seems in particular to relate to women, where previous research has shown
that entrepreneurship may be attractive to women, not only because of internal and
external “pull” factors such as desire for autonomy or to meet a market opportunity,
but also “push” factors such as the need for identify a career choice which balances
work and home life. On the other hand previous research suggests that financial
motives are likely to be pre-eminent for men.
IJEBR So a further hypothesis which will be addressed is:
18,6 H3. Men and women report different patterns of motivations for choosing self-
employment.

And following from these three subsidiary hypotheses are:

704
H3a. Women have a higher propensity to report independence and family-related
motives than men.

H3b. Men have a higher propensity to report financial motives than women.

H3c. There is a higher range of uncertainty about the scale of “push” motives for
women.

H3d. For significant numbers of the self-employed, that choice is bound up with
choice of occupation.

The third question here (H3c) relates to the possibility that, for women, independence
seeking and the need to manage family responsibilities may represent underlying
“push” factors that contribute to dissatisfaction with organisational employment
(Hisrich and Brush, 1986; Buttner and Moore, 1997). Therefore, for women, the extent
to which freedom from the constraints of organisational employment or the
management of family responsibilities are positive motivators is uncertain.
These questions relating to differences between men and women refer to issues that
have already been addressed in previous work, albeit using much smaller samples of
observations, or case study analysis. However the structure of the data used here
allow for closer investigation of the nature of responses to questions about motives,
and in particular questions of the nature of combinations of response. In the light of
the discussion about the ambiguity of interpreting motivations for entrepreneurship,
particular interest here is in the relationship between “push” and “pull” motives. Thus,
further hypotheses for investigation are:

H4. Those who report multiple motivations for choosing self-employment combine
“push” and “pull” motives.

H4a. Women who report more multiple motivations for choosing self-employment
are more likely than men to report a combination of “push” and “pull”
influences.

4. Reported motivations for choosing self-employment

i. Data source
The data for analysis are taken from the UK Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS),
covering the years 1999-2001[3]. Ideally the analysis would be conducted using much
more recent data, particularly as this period coincides with the middle of the long
period of sustained economic growth of the 1990s and early 2000s. This may fail to
reflect possible changes in the patterns of reported motivations since the onset of the
economic and financial crisis since 2008. However the analysis draws on particular
questions about motivation asked of a very large sample of the self-employed available
at this time as part of a regular national labour force survey, and dropped “Push” versus
subsequently. The opportunity to analyse findings in a very large dataset may provide “pull”
conclusions that are more accurately generalised to the population of entrepreneurs
as a whole, particularly concerning combinations of motivations. Set against this is the entrepreneurship
possibility that the scale of response to particular motivations may have changed over
time. This may have been reinforced by the faster growth in female self-employment.
Nevertheless, while “push” motives may have become more significant during the 705
recent economic crisis, broad differences in the way in which motivations are combined
between men and women may remain. Furthermore the data are likely to provide
an important context to potential ambiguities in the distinction between “push” and
“pull” motives.
Although, the QLFS has a longitudinal design element, with each household in
the sample interviewed for five consecutive quarters, this study is concerned
with individual responses to a schedule of “recall” questions about self-employment
choice asked only once of each individual[4]. Interviews were achieved at
approximately 59,000 addresses in each quarter, resulting in a sample of
approximately 138,000 working age (18-65 years) adult respondents in each quarter.
It is thus possible to obtain a large nationally representative sample of observations on
the self-employed.
Some studies invite respondents to assess the importance of all of a range of
multiple items, and thus derive multiple constructs. While this approach has its
attractions, it may also introduce the issue of irrelevant alternatives. The QLFS
questionnaire invites all, who report their economic activity status as self-employed, to
answer an open-ended question: “why did you become self-employed”. Interviewers
were asked to code up to four reasons using a list of 11 coding options, on the following
grid (which was not shown to interviewees):
(1) to be independent/a change;
(2) wanted more money;
(3) for better conditions of work;
(4) family commitments/wanted to work at home;
(5) opportunity arose – capital, space, equipment available;
(6) saw the demand/market;
(7) joined the family business;
(8) nature of the occupation;
(9) no jobs available (locally);
(10) made redundant;
(11) other; and
(12) no reason given.

(Source: QLFS questionnaire, spring quarter, March-May 1999)

Each respondent was asked to indicate up to four reasons, with no indication of
ranking. Individual observations are pooled across samples obtained from the three
available spring quarters providing a total pooled sample of 147,686 economically
active individuals, of which 17,507 (11.9 per cent) are self-employed[5]. A significant
IJEBR proportion of the responses (37 per cent) were from by proxy, and so to avoid proxy
18,6 respondent bias these observations are omitted from the analysis. As a result of
multiple choices there are 15,219 choice responses to this question for the 11,051
face-to-face self-employed respondents. Table I provides a summary of the structure
of the sample.
The informational content here is that it allows identification of those individuals
706 who wished only to volunteer a single motivation, as well as, for those choosing
multiple motivations, the identification of pairings of motivational choices, and thus
the extent to which an individual decision for self-employment might be attributable
solely to “push” or “pull” or combination of both. Indeed combinations may reveal
potentially important indirect information about how particular “ambiguous”
motivators, for example financial motivation, are framed.

ii. Incidence of particular motives

Table I shows that almost three-quarters of responses represent a sole reason for
having become self-employed (86.4 per cent of respondents). A further 17 per cent of
responses are where two reasons are given, and the remaining almost 10 per cent
are where three or four reasons are given. This suggests that, in fact, for a sizeable
majority the reasoning behind the original choice decision is focused on a single
pre-eminent motivating factor. However, for a significant minority of the self-employed
H1 is confirmed, with multiple motives reported. Although a slightly greater
percentage of women only give one reason, the difference in the pattern of proportions
between men and women is not statistically significant. This would suggest that the
answer to H1 is that, for the majority, self-employment is not a complex choice.
Furthermore, in the sense of not being more likely to report multiple motivations,
women’s motivations for becoming self-employed are not necessarily more complex[6].
Table II provides a breakdown by gender of the pattern of motivations reported,
along with the significance level of w2 test statistics for the difference in each case.
Over 30 per cent of the reported motivations relate to a desire for greater independence
or change (R1). This motivation has, by some margin, the greatest preponderance,
and is in line with previous research reporting the importance of internal motivations
related to a positive desire for personal autonomy (Cromie, 1987; Scheinberg and
MacMillan, 1988; Birley and Westhead, 1994; Kolvereid, 1996; Shane et al., 2003;
Beugelsdijk and Nooderhaven, 2005; Cassar, 2007).
Turning to H2, a narrow interpretation of “push” entrepreneurship might simply
group motives R9 and R10 together and conclude that only 13 per cent of reported
motivations for choosing self-employment are related to “push” factors. However
significant “push” factors may be contained within R2-R4 and R7. The upper bound of

Men Women All

Total economically active (non-proxy) 48,706 55,009 103,715

Of which self-employed 7,175 3,876 11,051
One motivation given 5,266 (73.4%) 2,917 (75.3%) 8,183 (74.1%)
Two motivations given 1,234 (17.2%) 633 (16.3%) 1,867 (16.9%)
Three motivations given 470 (6.6%) 233 (6.0%) 703 (6.4%)
Four motivations given 205 (2.9%) 93 (2.4%) 298 (2.7%)
Table I.
Sample structure Notes: Authors’ calculations from QLFS 1999-2001; w2 p-value for difference between genders: 0.144
 All Men Women w2
“Push” versus
Reason (%) N (%) (%) ( p-value) “pull”
entrepreneurship
R1: to be independent/a change 30.2 3,339 25.5 32.8 0.000
R2: wanted more money 12.6 1,394 15.2 7.7 0.000
R3: for better conditions of working 5.4 595 6.1 4.1 0.000
R4: family commitments/wanted to work at home 9.7 1,074 2.5 23.1 0.000 707
R5: opportunity arose – capital, space, equipment
available 12.5 1,379 12.9 11.8 0.095
R6: saw the demand/market 8.6 955 8.9 8.3 0.289
R7: joined the family business 5.9 646 5.3 6.9 0.001
R8: nature of the occupation 20.7 2,288 19.8 22.4 0.002
R9: no jobs available (locally) 3.7 404 4.2 2.6 0.000
R10: made redundant 9.3 1,027 12.3 3.8 0.000
R11: other reasons 16.4 1,808 16.0 17.1 0.133
No reason given 2.8 310 3.0 2.5 0.097
N 15,219
Notes: Percentage columns sum to 4100 per cent because respondents may report multiple Table II.
motivations. The right hand side reports the significance of a t-test for the difference between men and Reported motivations for
women. Bold italic indicates p-value o0.05 choosing self-employment
Source: Authors’ tabulations from QLFS spring quarters 1999-2001 by gender

the scale of “push” factors could therefore be as high as almost 48 per cent of reported
motivations (and, although there is variation in the pattern of motivations between
men and women, the overall totals here are very similar). This is a very large range of
uncertainty about the extent to entrepreneurship is motivated by “push” rather than
“pull”, appearing to confirm H2.
The final column of Table II reports w2 statistics testing for differences between the
proportions of responses for men and women for each motive. No difference between
men and women is rejected for eight of the 11 different motivations. Evidence to
support H3 is therefore strong, confirming previous research. It is also noticeable that a
statistically significantly higher proportion of women report “independence” as a
motivation: 33 per cent of responses compared to 26 per cent for men. Again this
finding affirms previous research (Hughes, 2003, 2006; Kirkwood, 2009). The second
most highly cited motivation for the female sample is in fact “family commitments/
wanted to work at home” (R4). The difference in the proportions of men and women
citing this motivation is very large indeed; 23 per cent of women, but only 2.5 per cent
of men. Over 55 per cent of women cite either independence (R1) or family commitment
(R4) as motives, compared to o30 per cent of men. This provides very strong
support for H3a. The importance of motivations related to the home and family
for female entrepreneurs has been noted in previous research, including discussion
of whether such motivations should be considered as “push” or “pull” influences
(Buttner and Moore, 1997; DeMartino and Barbato, 2003; Hughes, 2006; Kirkwood,
2009).
Financial motivation (R2) is cited by 12.6 per cent, with the proportion of men
(15.2 per cent) more than double that for women (7.7 per cent), providing strong
support for H3b. This difference in the level of financial motivation between the
genders has also been noted in previous research (Cromie, 1987; Brush, 1990; Buttner
and Moore, 1997)[7].
IJEBR A further important feature of the data reported in Table II concerns the relative
18,6 unimportance of motivations, R9 and R10, that may be directly attributed to “push”
or “necessity” factors. Together these account for 13 per cent of all cited motivations,
with previous redundancy (R10) the most important. However, men are statistically
significantly more likely to report these direct “push” motivations, confirming
cross-country findings reported by Verheul et al. (2006). Men are more than three times
708 more likely to cite redundancy. At the time these data were collected, unemployment
rates across the UK were low and had been falling for almost ten years, and so the
proportions of individuals reporting a lack of local jobs (R9) as a motivation might
be at a relatively low historical level. Prima facie evidence for the relative
unimportance of “necessity” entrepreneurship is noted in other data sources such as
GEM (Levie and Hart, 2009). This would also suggest that “push” motives are lower
for women. However, as noted above, it is possible that other motivations may
include elements of “push”. For women the most significant of these is R4 (family
commitments/wanted to work at home). Is this a positive attractor for women, or a
reason why they give up on paid employment? Given the scale of female response
to R4, the extent of underlying “push” motives is highly uncertain. “Push” could range
between 6.4 per cent (R9 and R10) to 48.2 per cent (R2, R3, R4, R7, R9 and R10).
The corresponding range of uncertainty for men is between 16.5 and 45.6 per cent.
This lends some support for H3c, albeit evidence of a very impressionistic form.
Approximately a fifth of the self-employed report that one reason for choosing
self-employment was that it followed from their choice of occupation (R8). This
is as a whole the second most cited motivation, supporting H3d. These responses
cover individuals in a range of occupations from those working as self-employed
in construction trades, where taxation regulations allow individuals to register
as self-employed if they remain for only short periods of time at particular sites,
through to members of professional practices, such as in financial and legal
services, or caring professions. However women are slightly more likely to cite
this motivation and this difference is statistically significant[8]. It is a moot
point as to whether such self-employment reflects a positive, intentional act of
entrepreneurship.
A final feature of the data in Table II concerns the proportion of the sample citing
“other reasons” (R11) as a motivation for choosing self-employment – over 16 per cent
of responses, suggesting considerable heterogeneity amongst entrepreneurs.

iii. Combinations of “push” and “pull” motives

In order to investigate further the extent to which there is blurring in the dichotomy
between “push” and “pull” entrepreneurship, the section investigates the 17 per cent of
responses which comprise multiple motivations for choosing self-employment. Table II
reports information on the quantitative importance of each of 55 possible pairings of
motivations, for men and women, for the 2,868 sample instances where two or more
motivations were reported[9]. The most common pairing for men, by some margin, is
“independence” and “wanted more money” (R1 and R2), accounting for 27 per cent of
pairings. However in both cases it has been argued that they may not be viewed
entirely as “pull” motivators. There is a pronounced and significant difference between
men and women in their propensities to report this combination. Two of the next
three highest pairings for men, accounting for 15 and 13 per cent of responses,
respectively, combine a desire for independence with external “pull” factors related to
opportunity and market demand (R5 and R6). However 12 per cent of pairings for men
combine the “pull” factor of “independence” with the “push” factor of previous working “Push” versus
conditions (R1 and R3). “pull”
The most common pairing observed for women is R1 with R4, “independence” and
“family commitments”, accounting for almost 19 per cent. Women are over four times entrepreneurship
more likely to report this combination. Given that the need to manage family
commitments may be regarded as a “push” factor into self-employment for women,
this leads to the question of whether for these women in particular “independence” is 709
framed as a “pull” or “push” factor, and therefore whether it is possible to be conclusive
about H4a. An even larger difference between men and women is observed for the R4
and R8 pairing (“family commitments” and “nature of the occupation”). This
combination accounts for almost 11 per cent of the total pairings for women, but o1
per cent for men. Again this reinforces a view that, for women, self-employment choice
is bound up with the choice of a particular occupation which will more easily facilitate
a lifestyle built around managing family. It seems likely that factors which are framed
as “push” may be significant in the decision process. Other pairings, which involve
R4 “family commitments” attract generally higher numbers of women than men. For
example, over 6.5 per cent of women report the combination of “family commitments”
with “more money” (R2 and R4). For a combination such as this it is far from clear
if “more money” reflects a “pull” or “push” motive, offering some support for H4a.
It is certainly possible that, for women attempting to make a career choice consistent
with family life, that financial constraints may act as a push factor, created perhaps
by the demands of managing and paying for child care. Similarly for a combination
such as R3 and R4 (“working conditions” and “family commitments”) it may be the
“push” motivation of avoiding inflexible organisational working conditions, and
the impact of those on managing caring activity, that propels women towards
self-employment.
It would appear that men are much more likely to report combinations of
external and internal “pull” motives, although subject to the caveat that there may
be “pull” elements to some factors such as financial motivation. Women on the other
hand are much more likely to combine an internal “pull” motive such as a desire
for independence with the need to manage family circumstance. However some men do
combine “independence” with the “push” factor of “working conditions”. For these
reasons, and because of the difficulty of interpreting particular motives as definitively
“push” or “pull”, it is arguably not possible from these data to reach a definitive
conclusion about H4a, the hypothesis that women are more likely to have mixed
“push” and “pull” motives. What is clear is that men and women, in some cases, report
very different combinations of motives, reflecting their overall importance.
“Push” factors for men focus around redundancy (R10). However for men R10
tends to appear in combination with another potential “pull” factor such as R1
“independence”, R5 “opportunity arose” or R6 “saw the demand”. Proportions for these
combinations are much higher than for women. Again, but in a different direction,
this points to the observation that for some self-employment choice is a complex
combination of both “pull” and “push”. This also supports the conclusion that it is not
necessarily possible to accept H4.
As Table III shows, the majority of pairings account for o5 per cent of the total
pairings. However significant differences between men and women persist towards
the lower part of the table. These differences tend to reflect those already observed
in Table II; namely that men are more likely to report financial motivation and women
are more likely to report the importance of managing family commitments.
IJEBR All Men Women w2
18,6 Combinations (%) N (%) (%) ( p-value)

R1 and R2: independence/more money 22.98 659 27.34 14.29 0.000

R1 and R6: independence/saw the demand 13.32 382 14.51 10.95 0.008
R1 and R8: independence/nature of occupation 12.69 364 12.83 12.41 0.747
710 R1 and R5: independence/opportunity arose 11.54 331 12.62 9.38 0.010
R1 and R3: independence/working conditions 11.37 326 12.41 9.28 0.013
R1 and R4: independence/family commitments 9.00 258 4.14 18.67 0.000
R5 and R6: opportunity arose/saw the demand 8.47 243 8.75 7.92 0.455
R2 and R3: more money/working conditions 7.39 212 9.06 4.07 0.000
R1 and R11: independence/other reasons 6.83 196 6.23 8.03 0.072
R2 and R6: more money/saw the demand 6.24 179 7.33 4.07 0.001
R6 and R8: saw the demand/nature of occupation 5.89 169 5.66 6.36 0.450
R5 and R8: opportunity arose/nature of occupation 5.13 147 5.19 5.01 0.836
R2 and R8: more money/nature of occupation 5.02 144 5.87 3.34 0.003
R2 and R5: more money/opportunity arose 4.71 135 5.76 2.61 0.000
R1 and R10: independence/redundancy 4.15 119 5.08 2.29 0.000
R4 and R8: family commitments/nature of occupation 4.08 117 0.84 10.53 0.000
R2 and R11: more money/other reasons 3.94 113 4.50 2.82 0.028
R8 and R11: nature of occupation/other reasons 3.49 100 3.30 3.86 0.442
R2 and R4: more money/family commitments 3.45 99 1.89 6.57 0.000
R5 and R10: opportunity arose/redundancy 3.42 98 4.35 1.56 0.000
R4 and R6: family commitments/saw the demand 3.07 88 1.20 6.78 0.000
R3 and R8: working conditions/nature of occupation 2.72 78 3.14 1.88 0.049
R5 and R11: opportunity arose/other reasons 2.62 75 2.25 3.34 0.086
R3 and R6: working conditions/saw the demand 2.58 74 3.35 1.04 0.000
R4 and R5: family commitments/opportunity arose 2.55 73 1.00 5.63 0.000
R4 and R11: family commitments/other reasons 2.51 72 1.20 5.11 0.000
R3 and R5: working conditions/opportunity arose 2.44 70 2.57 2.19 0.537
R3 and R4 working conditions/family commitments 2.34 67 1.36 4.28 0.000
R6 and R11: saw the demand/other reasons 1.99 57 1.99 1.98 0.987
R6 and R10: saw the demand/redundancy 1.92 55 2.41 0.94 0.007
R1 and R9: independence/no jobs available 1.92 55 2.25 1.25 0.065
R3 and R11: working conditions/other reasons 1.64 47 1.68 1.56 0.823
R7 and R8: joined family business/nature of occupation 1.57 45 1.73 1.25 0.332
R8 and R10: nature of occupation/redundancy 1.50 43 2.10 0.31 0.000
R9 and R10: no jobs available/redundancy 1.43 41 1.89 0.52 0.004
R10 and R11: redundancy/other reasons 1.39 40 1.73 0.73 0.031
R1 and R7: independence/joined family business 1.26 36 1.31 1.15 0.712
R9 and R11: no jobs available/other reasons 1.22 35 1.31 1.04 0.539
R8 and R9: nature of occupation/no jobs available 1.22 35 1.26 1.15 0.800
R5 and R9: opportunity arose/no jobs available 1.05 30 1.05 1.04 0.990
R6 and R9: saw the demand/no jobs available 1.01 29 1.15 0.73 0.286
R5 and R7: opportunity arose/joined family business 0.94 27 0.73 1.36 0.104
R4 and R7: family commitments/joined family business 0.94 27 0.47 1.88 0.000
R3 and R10: working conditions/redundancy 0.80 23 1.05 0.31 0.037
R2 and R10: more money/redundancy 0.77 22 1.00 0.31 0.048
R2 and R9: more money/no jobs available 0.77 22 0.94 0.42 0.128
R4 and R9: family commitments/no jobs available 0.66 19 0.42 1.15 0.023
R2 and R7: more money/joined family business 0.59 17 0.58 0.63 0.871
Table III. R7 and R11: joined family business/other reasons 0.52 15 0.42 0.73 0.276
Preponderance of two-way R6 and R7: saw the demand/joined family business 0.49 14 0.42 0.63 0.454
combinations of
motivations by gender (continued )
 All Men Women w2
“Push” versus
Combinations (%) N (%) (%) ( p-value) “pull”
entrepreneurship
R4 and R10: family commitments/redundancy 0.49 14 0.37 0.73 0.188
R3 and R9: working conditions/no jobs available 0.31 9 0.31 0.31 0.995
R3 and R7: working conditions/joined family business 0.24 7 0.21 0.31 0.597
R7 and R10: joined family business/redundancy 0.24 7 0.21 0.31 0.597 711
R7 and R9: joined family business/no jobs available 0.07 2 0.05 0.10 0.619
Total of all two-way combinations 2,868
Note: Bold italic indicates p-value o0.05 Table III.

Table IV reports the proportions of men and women reporting particular three-way
combinations of motivations. The number of possible combinations is very high, with
many having tiny or zero numbers of responses. The table reports the top 16 three-way
combinations where the proportions of the sub-sample are 4 per cent or more. There
remain, even with these relatively sparsely populated cells of three-way combinations,
a number of combinations where men and women are significantly different. So for
example the combination of R1, R5 and R6 which includes three “pull” motivators
attracts 12 per cent of men but only 8 per cent of women. The combination of R1, R2
and R5 involving “pull” motivators including “more money” shows an even more
pronounced difference between men and women. The findings reinforce the patterns
already observed. So combinations of both internal and external “pull” motivators are
more significant for men. On the other hand combinations of either internal or external

All Men Women w2

Combination (%) N (%) (%) ( p-value)

R1, R2 and R3: independence/more money/working conditions 14.09 141 16.30 9.51 0.004
R1, R2 and R5: independence/more money/opportunity arose 11.09 111 13.19 6.75 0.002
R1, R5 and R6: independence/opportunity arose/saw demand 10.79 108 12.00 8.28 0.076
R1, R2 and R5: independence/more money/opportunity arose 8.49 85 10.67 3.99 0.000
R1, R6 and R8: independence/saw demand/nature of occupation 7.79 78 8.00 7.36 0.724
R1, R2 and R8: independence/more money/nature of occupation 6.69 67 7.41 5.21 0.193
R1, R2 and R4: independence/more money/family commitments 5.69 57 3.85 9.51 0.000
R1, R3 and R5: independence/working conditions/opportunity arose 4.70 47 5.04 3.99 0.462
R1, R3 and R6: independence/working conditions/saw demand 4.70 47 5.78 2.45 0.020
R1, R5 and R8: independence/opportunity arose/nature of
occupation 4.60 46 5.04 3.68 0.337
R1, R2 and R11: independence/more money/other reasons 4.40 44 4.74 3.68 0.443
R1, R4 and R6: independence/family commitments/saw demand 4.30 43 2.22 8.59 0.000
R1, R4 and R8: independence/family commitments/nature of
occupation 4.20 42 1.33 10.12 0.000
R1, R3 and R8: independence/working conditions/nature of
occupation 4.20 42 4.30 3.99 0.820
R2, R5 and R6: more money/opportunity arose/saw demand 4.20 42 5.33 1.84 0.010
R1, R3 and R4: independence/working conditions/family
commitments 4.00 40 2.81 6.44 0.006 Table IV.
Total of all three-way combinations 1,001 Selected three-way
combinations of
Note: Bold italic indicates p-value o0.05 motivations by gender
IJEBR “pull” motivators allied to the “push” motivation of “family commitments” are far more
18,6 significant for women, suggesting support for H4a.

5. Limitations
It might be tempting to conclude that the analysis here offers a more clear picture
of the distinction between “push” and “pull” motivators than that which arises from
712 studies in which individual entrepreneurs are asked to rate all of a series of candidate
factors. However, it would be misleading to conclude here that the vast majority
of the self-employed are motivated simply by a single “pull” motivation, of which a
desire for autonomy is the most common. First, a substantial number of women
report “push” motivations. Most notable is “family commitments” but motivations tied
to the nature of a prior occupational choice, one that is often allied to a caring
profession are also important. Second, it is far from clear how individuals frame
certain motivations. For example, some element of the significant proportion of those
citing “money” may do so from a position of financial necessity rather than the
attractiveness of financial opportunity. It is argued in the paper that the “zone of
uncertainty” over the scale of “push” motivations could be as wide as between
13 and 48 per cent of responses, depending on the interpretation placed on particular
responses. While the researcher may choose to interpret responses in a particular
manner, the way in which particular motivations are framed by respondents is not a
question that can be answered in questionnaire survey work, but requires more
detailed supporting qualitative analysis from further research.
Current external conditions affecting individual decisions to choose self-employment
or to launch new business ventures have been seriously affected by economic recession
and a faltering recovery through which unemployment rates have continued to rise.
Public sector employment is under pressure in a number of developed economies and is
likely to fall further as governments grapple to restore public finances. Business support
spending, which might ease the transition into self-employment, is also subject to
significant scaling back. Consequently an analysis conducted on data which is now a
decade old, collected during a more benign economic climate, is subject to serious
limitations. There is a need for further analysis using more recent data, in particular to
assess whether the balance between self-reported “push” and “pull” motives has
changed. It is unfortunate that no further data have been collected in the UK since 2001.
Since the QLFS no longer asks about motives for choosing self-employment, an answer
to this question would now require a bespoke collection of data.
The paper develops its analysis from an investigation of ex post self-reported motives
for choosing self-employment. This stands in contrast to the significant body of work on
ex ante entrepreneurial intention (see Krueger et al., 2000), which investigates the role of
cognitive constructs, notably self-efficacy and locus of control, and the importance of
norms and values. Ex post internal motivations, such as a desire for personal autonomy,
may relate back to these ex ante constructs. In turn this is an avenue for further work.
However the literature on entrepreneurial intentions tends to downplay the importance
of external factors such as local economic conditions and the availability of resources.
Potential differences between ex ante and ex post are important; however ex post
information is often more readily available. Work to address the relationship between the
two would require comprehensive longitudinal data that is rarely available.
The principal limitation with ex post data is that it may be subject to recall
or self-justification bias. Such bias is likely to lead to over-reporting of positive
“pull” motives and under-reporting of “push” motives, particularly if those are
associated with past failure. However, such data are the best that are typically available. “Push” versus
Further research on the scale of bias is needed (Cassar, 2007; Cassar and Craig, 2009). “pull”
One further issue which should be considered in the present case concerns interview
interpretation of free responses. Further research should address the extent to which entrepreneurship
interviewer interpretations produce consistent conclusion with questionnaire
approaches, used elsewhere, which ask individuals to indicate or evaluate
agreement with particular statements about why self-employment was chosen. 713
6. Discussion and conclusions
This paper has explored the ambiguity between “push” and “pull” motives for
choosing self-employment, and highlighted in particular the differences between
genders. This is illustrated by analysis of data within the UK QLFS over the period
1999-2001. This has allowed the study to investigate information contained within the
numbers and combinations of choices, and to address questions relating to the
conceptualisation of “push” and “pull” motives for choosing entrepreneurship. This is
an issue which now assumes greater significance as unemployment has risen, and one
where there may be profound differences between genders.
Perhaps surprisingly, given discussion on the heterogeneity of motivations for
choosing self-employment in the research literature, the majority of individuals
volunteer a single motivating factor. The most popular reason given for both men and
women is “independence”, accounting for 30 per cent of responses. For men “nature of
the occupation” and “wanted more money” attract significant levels of response. For
women over 22 per cent of responses refer to “family commitments/wanted to work at
home”. In eight of 11 cases the proportion of men citing a particular reason is
significantly different from that for women.
For those women who report multiple motives it seems that the possible “pull” of
“independence” may be allied to other “push” factors such as family and home
circumstance or the nature of the chosen occupation. For men the picture is perhaps
clearer, since internal “pull” factors such as “independence” tend to be combined
with external “pull” factors such as “saw the market” or “opportunity arose”.
The combination of “independence” and “working conditions” attracts a number of
responses in the survey, particularly for men. Here the question of interpretation arises
in that it is unclear if individuals report that they chose self-employment to escape
unsatisfactory working conditions in organisational employment, or are “pulled” by
the attractiveness of working conditions in self-employment allied to greater personal
autonomy. In a variety of respects the distinction between “pull” and “push”
entrepreneurship is an ambiguous one, a point that is not explicit in previous
work. Figure 1 provides a concluding conceptual summary of these points. Self-
employment choice is framed across two dimensions. The first characterises whether
choice was subject to external attractors or constraints or subject to internal personal
objectives or self-perceptions. The second dimension focuses on “push” and “pull”
factors, but is subject to ambiguity of interpretation. So, for example, a personal
financial objective may be framed as both an attractor or “pull” factor, depending on
the extent to which self-employment is perceived as a route from current financial
distress. A key conclusion is that, in the current economic climate, further research is
needed, focusing specifically on the development of questionnaire items to allow this
ambiguity to be explored further, thus leading to further conceptual refinement.
Over 20 per cent of responses tie self-employment to choice of occupation,
highlighting the extent to which self-employment and entrepreneurship are not
IJEBR External factors Internal factors
18,6 Entrepreneurial
activity
- Lack of
“Push” factors

“Push” factors
- Job dis-
alterative satisfaction
opportunity
- Family
714 - Redundancy constraints
Self-
- Resources employment - Financial
choice
“Pull” factors

“Pull” factors
- Market - Autonomy
opportunity - Challenge
- Innovation - Perceived
self-efficacy

Occupational
Gender choice: Gender
Figure 1. Regulatory
“Pull” and “push” factors influences
into entrepreneurship

necessarily congruent. A substantial minority of the self-employed may not identify

themselves as entrepreneurs, but rather individuals who have become self-employed
as a result of legal and regulatory environment that surrounds their prior choice of
profession or occupation. Occupational or career choice, with attendant regulatory
issues for certain choices of profession, is shown as a further antecedent in Figure 1.
However this is an area for further research, since it relates to early stage decisions that
may be impervious to the current economic climate.
Finally the figure highlights the importance of gender, drawing on the significantly
different patterns of response observed between men and women in the data. Only
around 10 per cent of responses relate to the explicit “push” factors associated with loss
or lack of paid employment opportunity. Men are significantly more likely than women
to report these motivators. Further research is needed to show how the balance of these
different forces, external and internal, “push” and “pull” has shifted during the
recession, and has shifted differently for men and women. The influence of choice of
occupation may also differ significantly between genders.
Entrepreneurship policy tends to be framed around the predominance of “pull”
motivations, in that it is designed to raise long-term awareness of entrepreneurship,
promote the acquisition of “enterprise” skills and, more specifically, support venture
start-up activity through human, physical and working capital provision. While not
calling into question the broad thrust of this approach, this paper has suggested that
the zone of uncertainty around the scale of “push” or “necessity” entrepreneurship
could be quite large. Policy instruments to support “necessity” entrepreneurs are
important in the current climate, and particular approaches might be different for
men and women. The main conclusions to be drawn from this research relate to
the need for greater clarity in identifying underlying motives for choosing
self-employment. For example, does a financial motive indicate “push” (current
financial distress) or “pull” (the perception of a lucrative market opportunity)?
A pre-condition for effective policy intervention, particularly at a time when necessity “Push” versus
entrepreneurship may be on the rise, is a clearer understanding of the underlying “pull”
motives for self-employment choice.
entrepreneurship
Notes
1. In the UK the male self-employment rate in 2010 was 17.2 per cent of the male workforce,
whereas the rate for females was 8.1 per cent. Consistently defined data are available 715
back to 2004, since when both have risen although the male increase has been lower (from
16.5 per cent) than that for women (from 7.0 per cent) (UK Annual Population Survey
estimates, 2010).
2. Estimating the relationship between unemployment and self-employment using time series
analysis is subject to the econometric issue of endogeneity. A further issue concerns the
distinction between short-run and long-run effects, which may offset each other. Cowling
and Mitchell (1997) address this point by incorporating both long-term and short-term
unemployment rates into their model, and estimating both short-run and long-run impacts
on self-employment in each case.
3. The QLFS is a national UK household survey in which adults at each sampled postal address
are asked about current labour market status and activity. This is used by the British
government to provide labour market intelligence data, and is made available to the research
community in anonymised form for other secondary analysis.
4. The choice of time period 1999-2001 is constrained by the availability of the question on
motivation for becoming self-employed. This question has been asked only periodically in
the QLFS and was dropped after 2001.
5. Each member of the QLFS sample is interviewed for five consecutive quarters in order to
provide a rotating longitudinal element to the survey. This means that the spring quarter
files for 2000 and for 2001 included two observations on those who were self-employed in
each year, and therefore a duplicate (although potentially inconsistent) response to the
question on reasons for becoming self-employed. To avoid duplicate observations in
the analysis, those individuals in the spring quarter 2000 sample who were also included in
the spring quarter 1999 sample, and those in the spring quarter 2001 sample who were also
included in the spring quarter 2000 sample, were deleted from the analysis. In fact only
9 per cent of the sample answers the self-employment motivation question more than once.
For example, women appear more likely to give inconsistent responses concerning money
(R2) but less likely concerning family commitment (R4). For present purposes, however, we
ignore the small number of potential inconsistencies in these responses, the scale of which
appears to vary between particular motivations. However this does raise important concerns
about the stability of reported motivations for choosing self-employment over time – a topic
that could be addressed in future research with more comprehensive longitudinal data.
6. Further analysis, which is not reported but is available on request, partitioned the sample
into married and not-married (i.e. never-married/widowed/divorced) sub-groups, and into
two age sub-groups (under 40 years; 40 and over). There is no difference in the likelihood
of reporting multiple motivations between married and not-married groups. Younger
respondents, however, are slightly more likely to report more than one motive for choosing
self-employment.
7. In further unreported results, it was found that married women in particular are more likely
to report “family commitments” or “joined the family business” as motives, with single
women more likely to report a financial motive or the desire for independence. Younger
women are also more likely to report “family commitments” and “wanted more money”,
suggesting that both “push” and “pull” motives are more salient earlier in life. Younger men
are more likely than older men to report a desire for independence, a financial motive or the
IJEBR nature of the occupation, suggesting the relative importance of “internal” and career-related
factors.
18,6
8. Data analysis (not reported) suggests that men who report R8 tend to be concentrated
in managerial, professional (including artistic and sports professions) and associate
professional, as well as construction trade occupations. Women tend to be concentrated in
professional, associate professional, and childcare-related occupations. This suggests that
716 for many individuals self-employment as an economic status is necessitated by occupational
choice, and it is for this group of individuals that the link between self-employment and
entrepreneurship may be at its weakest, since self-employment here reflects fiscal regulation.
9. One option for further analysis would be to consider using a data reduction technique such
as factor analysis. However preliminary investigations of this suggest that it is not
particularly informative in this case. A factor analysis of the reported reasons for choosing
self-employment, restricted to those who report two or more reasons, yields a high number of
extracted factors with individual item loadings in many instances close to 1.

References
Aldrich, H.E. and Cliff, J.E. (2003), “The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship:
toward a family embeddedness perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 573-96.
Amit, R. and Muller, E. (1994), “ ‘Push’ and ‘pull’ entrepreneurship”, Frontiers in Entrepreneurship
Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 137-51.
Amit, R., MacCrimmon, K., Zietsma, C. and Oesch, J.M. (2001), “Does money matter? Wealth
attainment as the motive for initiating growth-orientated technology businesses”, Journal
of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 119-43.
Aronson, R.L. (1991), Self Employment: A Labour Market Perspective, ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006), “Social and commercial entrepreneurship:
same, different or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Beugelsdijk, S. and Nooderhaven, N. (2005), “Personality characteristics of the self-employed: an
empirical study”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 159-67.
Black, J., de Meza, D. and Jeffreys, D. (1996), “House prices, the supply of collateral and the
enterprise economy”, Economic Journal, Vol. 106 No. 434, pp. 60-75.
Blackburn, R.M. and Jarman, J. (2006), “Gendered occupations”, International Sociology, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 289-315.
Blanchflower, D.G. (2000), “Self-employment in OECD countries”, Labour Economics, Vol. 7 No. 5,
pp. 471-505.
Blanchflower, D.G. and Meyer, B.D. (1994), “A longitudinal analysis of the young self-employed in
Australia and the United States”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Blanchflower, D.G. and Shadworth, C. (2007), “Entrepreneurship in the UK”, Discussion
Paper No. 2818, IZA, Bonn.
Blanchflower, D.G., Oswald, A. and Stutzer, A. (2001), “Latent entrepreneurship across nations”,
European Economic Review, Vol. 45 Nos 4/5, pp. 680-91.
Birley, S. and Westhead, P. (1994), “A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on
form growth and size”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-31.
Brush, C.G. (1990), “Women and enterprise creation”, in OECD (Ed.), Enterprising Women: Local
Initiatives for Job Creation, OECD, Paris, pp. 37-53.
Brush, C.G. (1992), “Research on women business owners: past trends, a new perspective and
future direction”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 5-30.
Buttner, E.H. and Moore, D.P. (1997), “Women’s organizational exodus to entrepreneurship: self- “Push” versus
reported motivations and correlates with success”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 34-46. “pull”
Carter, N.M., Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G. and Gatewood, E.J. (2003), “The career reasons of entrepreneurship
nascent entrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 13-39.
Cassar, G. (2007), “Money, money, money? A longitudinal investigation of entrepreneurial career
reasons, growth preferences and achieved growth”, Entrepreneurship and Regional 717
Development, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 89-107.
Cassar, G. and Craig, J. (2009), “An investigation of hindsight bias in nascent venture activity”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 149-64.
Clark, K. and Drinkwater, S. (2000), “Pushed out or pulled in? Self-employment amongst Britain’s
ethnic minorities”, Labour Economics, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 603-28.
Corman, J., Perles, B. and Vancini, P. (1988), “Motivational factors influencing high-technology
entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 36-42.
Cowling, M. and Mitchell, P. (1997), “The evolution of UK self-employment: a study of
government policy and the role of the macroeconomy”, The Manchester School, Vol. 65
No. 4, pp. 427-42.
Cromie, S. (1987), “Motivations of aspiring male and female entrepreneurs”, Journal of
Occupational Behaviour, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 251-61.
Cromie, S. and Hayes, J. (1991), “Business ownership as a means of overcoming job
dissatisfaction”, Personnel Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 19-24.
Davidsson, P., Lindmark, L. and Olofsson, C. (1994), “New firm formation and regional
development in Sweden”, Regional Studies, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 449-2.
DeMartino, R. and Barbato, R. (2003), “Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs:
exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 815-32.
Dennis, J. (1996), “Self-employment: when nothing else is available?”, Journal of Labour Research,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 645-61.
Douglas, E.J. and Shepherd, D.A. (1999), “Entrepreneurship as a utility-maximising response”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 231-51.
Douglas, E.J. and Shepherd, D.A. (2002), “Self-employment as a career choice: attitudes,
entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 81-90.
Earle, J.S. and Sakova, Z. (2000), “Business start-ups or disguised unemployment? Evidence
on the character of self-employment from transition economies”, Labour Economics, Vol. 7
No. 5, pp. 575-601.
Evans, D.S. and Leighton, L.S. (1989), “Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship”, American
Economic Review, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 519-35.
Feldman, D.C. and Bolino, M.C. (2000), “Career patterns of the self-employed: career
motivations and career outcomes”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 53-67.
Gatewood, E.J., Shaver, K.G. and Gartner, W.B. (1995), “A longitudinal study of cognitive factors
influencing start-up behaviours and success at venture creation”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 371-91.
Georgellis, Y. and Wall, H.J. (2005), “Gender differences in self-employment”, International Review
of Applied Economics, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 321-42.
Georgellis, Y., Sessions, J.G. and Tsitsianis, N. (2005), “Windfalls, wealth and the transition to
self-employment”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 407-28.
IJEBR Gilad, B. and Levine, P. (1986), “A behavioral model of entrepreneurial supply”, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 45-53.
18,6
Gill, A.M. (1988), “Choice of employment status and the wages of employees and the
self-employed: some further evidence”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 229-34.
Hamilton, R.T. (1989), “Unemployment and business formation rates: reconciling time series and
718 cross-section evidence”, Environment and Planning, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 249-55.
Henley, A. (2007), “Entrepreneurial aspiration and transition into self-employment: evidence
from British longitudinal data”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 253-80.
Hessels, J., van Gelderen, M. and Thurik, A.R. (2008), “Entrepreneurial aspirations, motivations
and their drivers”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 323-39.
Hisrich, R.D. and Brush, C.G. (1986), The Woman Entrepreneur: Starting, Managing, and
Financing a Successful New Business, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Hughes, K. (2003), “Pushed or pulled? Women’s entry into self-employment and small business
ownership”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 433-54.
Hughes, K. (2006), “Exploring motivation and success among Canadian women entrepreneurs”,
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 107-20.
Kirkwood, J. (2007), “Igniting the entrepreneurial spirit: is the role parents play gendered?”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 39-59.
Kirkwood, J. (2009), “Motivational factors in a push-pull theory of entrepreneurship”, Gender in
Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 346-64.
Kirkwood, J. and Walton, S. (2010), “What motivates ecopreneurs to start businesses?”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 204-28.
Kolvereid, L. (1996), “Organizational employment versus self-employment: reasons for career
choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 23-31.
Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 Nos 5/6, pp. 411-32.
Le, A.T. (1999), “Empirical studies of self-employment”, Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 381-416.
Levie, J. and Hart, M. (2009), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: United Kingdom 2009
Monitoring Report, Strathclyde University and Aston University.
Nooderhaven, N., Thurik, R., Wennekers, S. and van Stel, A. (2004), “The role of dissatisfaction
and per capita income in explaining self-employment across 15 European countries”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 447-66.
Orhan, M. and Scott, D. (2001), “Why women enter into entrepreneurship: an explanatory model”,
Women in Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 232-43.
Parker, S.C. (1986), “A time series model of self-employment under uncertainty”, Economica,
Vol. 63 No. 251, pp. 459-75.
Parker, S.C. (2004), The Economics of Self-Employment and Entrepreneurship, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Rees, H. and Shah, A. (1986), “An empirical analysis of self- employment in the UK”, Journal of
Applied Econometrics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 95-108.
Reynolds, P.D., Camp, S.M., Bygrave, W.D., Autio, E. and Hay, M. (2001), Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor 2001 Executive Report, Babson College, Wellesley, MA.
Robson, M.T. (1998), “The rise in self-employment amongst UK males”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 199-212.
Rotefoss, B. and Kolvereid, L. (2005), “Aspiring, nascent and fledgling entrepreneurs: an “Push” versus
investigation of the business start-up process”, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 109-27. “pull”
Saridakis, G. and Storey, D. (2010), “UK self-employment 1973-2007: what have been the main entrepreneurship
influences on males and females”, conference paper, 33rd ISBE Conference, London,
2-4 November.
Scheinberg, S. and MacMillan, I.G. (1988), “An 11 country study of motivations to start a 719
business”, in Kirchhoff, B., Long, W., McMillan, W.E., Vesper, K. and Wetzel, W.E. (Eds),
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp. 669-87.
Schjoedt, L. and Shaver, K. (2007), “Deciding on an entrepreneurial career: a test of the pull and
push hypotheses using the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 733-52.
Segal, G., Borgia, D. and Schoenfeld, J. (2005), “The motivation to become and entrepreneur”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 42-57.
Shane, S., Locke, E.A. and Collins, C.J. (2003), “Entrepreneurial motivation”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 257-79.
Shelton, L. (2006), “Female entrepreneurs, work-family conflict, and venture performance: new
insights into the work-family interface”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44
No. 2, pp. 285-97.
Smeaton, D. (2003), “Self-employed workers: calling the shots or hesitant independents?
A consideration of the trends”, Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 379-91.
Stevenson, L.A. (1986), “Against all odds: the entrepreneurship of women”, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 30-44.
Storey, D. and Johnson, S. (1987), “Regional variations in entrepreneurship in the UK”, Scottish
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 161-73.
Storey, D.J. (1982), Entrepreneurship and the New Firm, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT.
Taylor, M.P. (1996), “Earnings, independence or unemployment: why become self-employed?”,
Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 253-65.
Taylor, S.R. and Newcomer, J.D. (2005), “Characteristics of women small business owners”,
in Fielden, S.L. and Davidson, M.J. (Eds), International Handbook of Women and Small
Business Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 17-31.
Thurik, A.R., Carree, M.A., van Stel, A. and Audretsch, D.B. (2008), “Does self-employment
reduce unemployment?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 673-86.
Verheul, I., van Stel, A. and Thurik, R. (2006), “Explaining male and female entrepreneurship
at the country level”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 151-83.

About the authors

Christopher Dawson is Lecturer in Economics at Bristol Business School, University of the West
of England, and recently completed a PhD with Economic and Social Research Council funding
at Swansea University.
Andrew Henley is Chair of Entrepreneurship and Regional Economic Development at
Aberystwyth University. He was previously Director of the European Social Fund-supported
LEAD Wales programme, based at Swansea University, and was until 2010 Head of the School of
Business and Economics at Swansea University.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints