doi: 10.58763/rc2025475
Review Article
Trends and challenges of female entrepreneurship: A bibliographic review
Tendencias y desafíos del emprendimiento femenino: Una revisión bibliográfica
Susan Lizeth Cruz Rodríguez1 
*, José Manuel Saiz-Álvarez2 
*
ABSTRACT
Introduction: in today’s dynamic business context, entrepreneurship has become a multifaceted and transcendental phenomenon, where the literature has begun to pay special attention to the intersection between entrepreneurship and gender.
Methodology: this article aims to explore this relationship from a bibliometric perspective, analyzing a thorough review of accumulated scientific production from 2001 to 2023.
Results: the findings highlight the relevance of entrepreneurship for economic development and the fact that women’s participation also plays a crucial role in it. Furthermore, an upward trend was observed in publications related to female entrepreneurship; seminal authors were highlighted, and the main thematic lines were examined.
Conclusions: the article sought to answer questions about the evolution of studies, their objectives, and conclusions, as well as explore the level of scientific production in Honduras and Latin America specifically. Ultimately, the article synthesizes knowledge and critical reflections on the role of men and women in innovation and economic change.
Keywords: information sciences, small enterprises, women employment, women managers.
JEL Classification: J16, L26
RESUMEN
Introducción: en el dinámico contexto empresarial actual, el emprendimiento se ha convertido en un fenómeno multifacético y trascendental, donde la literatura ha comenzado a prestar especial atención a la intersección entre emprendimiento y género.
Metodología: este artículo se propone explorar esta relación desde una perspectiva bibliométrica, analizando una acuciosa revisión de la producción científica acumulada del año 2001 hasta 2023.
Resultados: los hallazgos destacan la relevancia del emprendimiento para el desarrollo económico y el hecho de que la participación de las mujeres también desempeña un papel crucial en este. Además, se observó una tendencia al alza en las publicaciones relacionadas con el emprendimiento femenino, se destacaron autores seminales y se examinaron las principales líneas temáticas.
Conclusiones: se buscó responder a preguntas sobre la evolución de los estudios, sus objetivos y conclusiones, así como se exploró el nivel de producción científica en Honduras y América Latina de manera específica. En definitiva, se sintetizan conocimientos y reflexiones críticas sobre el papel de hombres y mujeres en la innovación y el cambio económico.
Palabras clave: ciencias de la información, empleo de las mujeres, empresaria, pequeña empresa.
Clasificación JEL: J16, L26
Received: 19-11-2024 Revised: 08-02-2025 Accepted: 15-04-2025 Published: 31-07-2025
Editor:
Alfredo Javier Pérez Gamboa 
1Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras. Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
2Universidad Católica de Santiago de Guayaquil. Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Cite as: Cruz Rodríguez, S. L. y Saiz-Álvarez, J. M. (2025). Tendencias y desafíos del emprendimiento femenino: Una revisión bibliográfica. Región Científica, 4(2), 2025475. https://doi.org/10.58763/rc2025475
INTRODUCTION
As a multifaceted phenomenon, entrepreneurship has transcended its traditional conception to position itself as one of the driving forces of economies and societies (Bacq et al., 2022; Fauzi et al., 2025; Hidalgo et al., 2024). A reflection of this evolution was the simultaneous events of the Women's Entrepreneurship Forum 2024, the first in Bangkok. This event, organized by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), brought together governments, financial institutions, and associations to design policies that strengthen female entrepreneurship through innovative financing and skills development.
On the same day, at the University of Toronto, a discussion was held on how women were participating in redefining traditional barriers to global trade. In this space, through workshops and the formation of strategic collaboration networks, the entrepreneurs discussed how to provide valuable tools and information to women in international business. These experiences underscore the current relevance of the topic and validate a thesis increasingly present and supported in current literature: the intersection between gender and entrepreneurship is an indisputable catalyst for economic development (Aparicio et al., 2022; Suseno & Abbott, 2021; Ratten & Pellegrini, 2020).
Although the systematic study of entrepreneurship as an academic discipline dates back to the pioneering work of Cole (1942) and Evans (1942), its incorporation into fields such as psychology, sociology, and business has been progressively consolidated. In the case of Cole's (1942) analysis, she examines the impact of the limited theoretical support existing at that time on the terms entrepreneurship and entrepreneur while recognizing the impact of both on North American history. For his part, Evans (1942), although also part of this insufficient conceptualization, breaks down the phenomenon into three units of expression: the organization of a new business, the expansion of establishments, and the significant efforts to adapt to rapidly changing and potentially hostile environments.
Today, the literature has provided new conceptual frameworks to explore its links with variables such as performance, innovation, and poverty reduction, highlighting its role as a driver of social transformation in multiple contexts (Ajide & Dada, 2023; Dzingirai, 2021). In this context, female entrepreneurship takes on special relevance by promoting not only gender equality but also productive work and economic resilience, as multiple previous studies point out (Ilie et al., 2021; Naguib, 2024; Ojong et al., 2021).
In Latin America, female leadership is emerging as a key factor for the common good despite persistent gaps in business management (Henao Orozco, 2024; Maldonado et al., 2024; Wilches et al., 2024). In this regard, Acevedo-Duque et al. (2021) highlight that entrepreneurial education has been essential in mitigating these inequalities. However, they also indicate that cultural dynamics that assign men family-supporting roles persist. This context of reproduction of historical inequalities has limited women's economic agency and the development of their businesses (Dávila & Lluch, 2022; Silva Corrêa et al., 2024).
Furthermore, this paradox is exacerbated in contexts such as Honduras, where the absence of scientific studies reveals an opportunity to challenge paradigms and generate critical knowledge about equity and innovation (Silva Corrêa et al., 2022). According to the research reviewed, in addition to the various social factors affecting women entrepreneurs, research and the limited helix relationships with other sectors significantly constrain their progress (Chiplunkar & Goldberg, 2024; Franzke et al., 2022; Ogundana et al., 2021).
Considering the arguments presented and the relevance of this topic, this article analyzes the evolution of gender-focused entrepreneurship through a mixed, systematic, and bibliometric perspective. To this end, a sample of 307 articles is examined using a systematic review design and collaborative network analysis using VOSviewer, complemented by data interpretation using Lotka's and Zipf's laws. This rationale allowed for the identification of academic productivity patterns and thematic trends. The study sought to answer the following question: How has research in this field evolved? What objectives and contributions stand out? What is the state of scientific production in Honduras and the Latin American region?
THEORETICAL BASIS
Entrepreneurship
The concept of entrepreneurship, linked to the mercantile sphere, finds its roots in the 16th century with the work A Summary of Deals and Contracts (1569) by Friar Tomás de Mercado. In this treatise, the author defended the role of merchants as agents of social justice and emphasized the importance of trade for economic development, providing ethical principles governing it. Mercado criticized practices such as price manipulation, abusive interest rates, and disloyalty in agreements, setting a moral precedent that preceded Richard Cantillon's economic analysis by two centuries (1755) (Russell-Wood, 2017; Saiz-Alvarez & García-Vaquero, 2019; Thornton & Brown, 2023).
Although the term "entrepreneurship" is not new, its systematic study emerged in the 1980s, when it was integrated into emerging but more established disciplines such as business, psychology, and sociology. This multidisciplinarity fueled a growth in academic publications, initially unstable and then exponential. Subsequently, the field guided global economic policies toward sustainable wealth creation, with a view to equitable redistribution through public institutions (Del-Aguila-Arcentales et al., 2022; Demircioglu & Chowdhury, 2021; Su, 2021). Sin embargo, las motivaciones para emprender no se explican únicamente por rasgos individuales, sino por dinámicas macroeconómicas. Two theoretical approaches stand out here:
1. The recession-push or "safe haven" effect: This arises as a response to economic crises or unemployment. In adverse contexts, the opportunity cost of starting a business decrease, incentivizing subsistence ventures (Fossen, 2021; Laing et al., 2022). A paradigmatic example occurs in Latin America, where displaced public sector workers often create businesses focused on selling services to the state (Benites et al., 2021).
2. The pull or Schumpeterian effect: This is based on identifying market opportunities. Here, entrepreneurship is associated with economic expansion and reflects the innovative capacity to capitalize on competitive advantages (Callegari & Nybakk, 2022; Henrekson et al., 2022; Henrekson et al., 2024).
This theoretical duality demonstrates that entrepreneurship is a dynamic phenomenon shaped by structural pressures and individual agency. While the first approach prioritizes necessity, the second emphasizes innovation, creating a comprehensive analytical framework for understanding its impact on socioeconomic development.
Female Entrepreneurship
Female entrepreneurship is a fundamental pillar of the global business community. Furthermore, the most recent research shows that there has been progressive progress, albeit uneven in geographical and sociodemographic terms, toward gender equity in this area (Deng et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2022). Regarding this trend, recent studies qualify this perspective by pointing out that behavioral differences between male and female entrepreneurs are less significant than the differences observed among women themselves, depending on the sector or type of activity they engage in (Darnihamedani & Terjesen, 2022).
The motivation behind these ventures is often linked to driving factors, such as job insecurity, economic crises, or the need for survival, a phenomenon that occurs more frequently in women than in men. This representation of causality aligns with findings that attribute the low presence of women in scientific and business leadership roles to systemic barriers, such as limited access to opportunities to lead complex organizations (Beltramini et al., 2022; Grangeiro et al., 2022). However, evidence indicates that the participation of women in management positions is currently gaining strategic relevance, as it fosters sustainable and resilient leadership models, which are key to organizational development (Acevedo-Duque et al., 2021).
There is a persistent debate about education. While some studies suggest that women have less formal training in financial management compared to their male counterparts (Kwapisz, 2022), others argue that the gaps are due not to gender but to contextual factors such as family environment or available training opportunities (Banu et al., 2025). This duality reflects the complexity of generalizing patterns in an inherently multifactorial phenomenon. Regarding financing, while specific programs exist to support female entrepreneurs, particularly in developed countries, structural challenges persist in emerging economies and underdeveloped countries. A critical issue is that women-led businesses often start with limited capital, operate on a smaller scale, and face difficulties accessing formal credit, as highlighted by analyses of discrimination in banking institutions (Nyarko, 2022; Villaseca et al., 2021).
METHODOLOGY
Global literature demonstrates how scientific publications transform knowledge and influence state strategies, emerging technologies, and academic practices (Sánchez-Castillo et al., 2024). Topics such as impact measurement, citation analysis, mapping of disciplinary fields, and the creation of indicators for public policy are highlighted in these studies (Donthu et al., 2021). This approach converges with related disciplines, such as information systems and science policy, which have consolidated interdisciplinary frameworks for understanding the dynamics of knowledge (Acevedo-Duque et al., 2022).
In line with these ideas, the study adopted a mixed approach that combined an exploratory qualitative design with bibliometric and scientometric analysis of the literature. In the former, the methodology used prioritized the analysis of texts, discourses, and meanings to understand the social dimensions of the phenomenon in question. As mentioned, to complement this approach, two quantitative methods were integrated: a scientometric analysis and a systematic literature review based on bibliometric procedures (Linnenluecke et al., 2020).
The first examined 307 articles indexed in Web of Science (2001-2023) using the search equation TS=(female NEAR/0 entrepreneurship), processed with VOSviewer. According to Sánchez-Castillo et al. (2024), this approach allows for the quantification of academic production to identify structural patterns and trends in scientific practice. The systematic and bibliometric review, meanwhile, synthesized qualitative and quantitative evidence on female entrepreneurship, following the transparency and comprehensiveness criteria proposed by previous studies that offer guidelines for such objectives (Donthu et al., 2021; Linnenluecke et al., 2020).
Likewise, Lotka's law was applied to delve deeper into the distribution of academic productivity. Of the 762 authors identified, the square root of the total (28 authors) contained at least six publications, confirming the trend of authorship concentration in small groups (Sánchez-Castillo et al., 2024). At the same time, Zipf's law revealed that, of 693 keywords analyzed, only 26 exceeded the minimum frequency threshold, with 10 terms standing out for their thematic recurrence (Wang et al., 2023). Finally, the Hirsch index indicated that 17 of the 307 documents accumulated 142 citations or more, reflecting their differential impact on the academic community.
The combination of methods allowed for triangulating perspectives: while scientometrics quantified macro patterns, the systematic bibliometric review, and the qualitative approach provided the necessary interpretive depth. This integration strengthens internal validity and enriches reflexivity by contrasting empirical data with established theoretical frameworks (Sánchez-Castillo et al., 2024).
RESULTS
Number of Publications per Year
The analyzed data, represented in figure 1, revealed an upward trend in academic production on women-led entrepreneurship between 2001 and the present. First, the methodological classification of the records showed that, since the beginning of the 21st century, the volume of publications has grown steadily. However, the period between 2019 and 2022 marked a turning point, as in those four years, the number of indexed articles increased from 16 to 56, evidencing an unprecedented quantitative leap in the field.
This phenomenon suggests a temporal correlation with the intensification of global debates on gender equity and economic inclusion policies. Starting in 2019, the publication curve adopted an exponential trajectory, with an average year-on-year increase of 65%. It is worth noting that the 2022 and 2023 records confirm the continuation of this trend, reinforcing the topic's academic and social relevance on the contemporary agenda.
|
Figure 1. Annual production trend |
|
|
Source: Own elaboration
Number of Publications by Prolific Authors
The bibliometric analysis of the Web of Science identified contrasting patterns in scholarly productivity. David Urbano leads the ranking with five indexed articles, accumulating 470 citations, reflecting a sustained theoretical impact in the discipline. In the second place, Dianne Welsh recorded seven publications with only 15 total citations, a divergence that suggests possible variations in thematic or methodological influence among authors (figure 2).
|
Figure 2. Co-authorship network according to relevance |
|
|
Source: Own elaboration using the VOSviewer program
These data reveal two simultaneous dynamics: while Urbano consolidates his authorship through highly referenced works, Welsh prioritizes the quantity of output with less resonance in the academic community (table 1). The quantitative-qualitative gap invites reflection on the relevance criteria in the field, particularly when contrasting international visibility metrics with regional dissemination strategies. However, it is essential to highlight that the auxiliary search showed that Welsh has a dissimilar research impact outside the database, where she analyzes categories such as innovation, technology, and small business (Emami et al., 2022; Neneh & Welsh, 2022; Ortigueira-Sánchez et al., 2022).
|
Table 1. Prolific Female Entrepreneurship Authors according to VOSviewer |
||
|
Author |
Documents |
Citation |
|
Urbano David |
5 |
470 |
|
Li, Yackuang |
5 |
70 |
|
Wu,Juan |
5 |
70 |
|
Kaciak, Eugene |
6 |
112 |
|
Wels, dianne H.B. |
7 |
165 |
|
Brieger, Steve A. |
5 |
119 |
Source: Own elaboration using the VOSviewer program
Along the same lines, a Google Scholar search allowed for mapping recent scientific productions on female entrepreneurship. As a result, ten researchers specialized in studying the phenomenon were identified and selected based on their cumulative citation index (figure 3). This methodological criterion prioritized the academic influence of the works over their publication volume, facilitating a focused analysis of the most recognized theoretical contributions.
|
Figure 3. Most relevant authors returned by the auxiliary search in Google Scholar |
|
|
Source: Own elaboration.
Note: The figure appears in its original language
The selection reveals a dual pattern: while some authors concentrate their impact on seminal publications, others maintain constant productivity with less penetration into the literature base (table 2). This approach not only delimited the analytical corpus but also invited discussion of the asymmetries in the construction of conceptual frameworks within the field, particularly in gender studies applied to entrepreneurship.
|
Table 2. Prolific authors of female entrepreneurship according to Google Scholar |
|
|
Author |
Citation |
|
C Álvarez, M Noguera |
198 |
|
SE Castiblanco Moreno |
149 |
|
MLS García, MEC Adame |
108 |
|
JL Mendoza, DH Leasaski |
51 |
|
BVA González, SMZ Vargas, MS Pineda |
49 |
|
OB García, AB García, |
49 |
|
BM González, JAC Ballesta |
43 |
|
SP Paredes Hernández, MC Leal, ... |
41 |
|
BO Coronado |
41 |
Countries with the highest scientific production of female entrepreneurship
The geographical analysis of academic output revealed a marked predominance of English-speaking countries in the study of female entrepreneurship (figure 4). The United States stood out as the primary contributor with 77 indexed articles, followed by the United Kingdom (56), Spain (40), and China (37). In contrast, Latin America registered a marginal share: Chile led the region with just seven academic documents, while Colombia took second place with six entries.
|
Figure 4. Co-authorship network between countries |
|
|
Source: Own elaboration using the VOSviewer program
This territorial distribution reflects a recurring pattern in the social sciences, where thematic visibility is concentrated in research centers with more significant funding and international networks. The quantitative gap between geopolitical blocs, which reached a ratio of 10 to 1 between the United States and Chile, highlighted disparities in academic prioritization of the topic and raised questions about the representativeness of dominant theoretical approaches in non-Western contexts (table 3).
|
Table 3. Scientific production by country and number of citations |
||
|
Country |
Documents |
Citation |
|
United States |
77 |
3434 |
|
England |
49 |
1813 |
|
Spain |
40 |
1010 |
|
Peoples R China |
37 |
342 |
|
Italy |
26 |
921 |
|
Canada |
20 |
988 |
|
Germany |
19 |
704 |
|
Netherlands |
15 |
565 |
|
Sweden |
13 |
159 |
|
Australia |
12 |
253 |
|
France |
11 |
115 |
|
Poland |
11 |
145 |
|
Norway |
10 |
226 |
|
Finland |
8 |
296 |
|
Portugal |
8 |
95 |
|
Mexico |
8 |
105 |
|
Chile |
7 |
150 |
|
India |
7 |
89 |
|
Scotland |
7 |
373 |
|
Malaysia |
6 |
60 |
|
Colombia |
6 |
227 |
|
Saudi Arabia |
5 |
18 |
|
South Africa |
5 |
27 |
|
Russia |
4 |
60 |
|
Switzerland |
4 |
84 |
|
South Korea |
4 |
33 |
|
Belgium |
3 |
15 |
|
Pakistan |
3 |
108 |
|
Austria |
3 |
9 |
Source: Own elaboration using the VOSviewer program.
Organizations with the highest scientific production of female entrepreneurship
The cross-referencing of institutional data, systematized in table 4, revealed two divergent patterns in academic production on female entrepreneurship. Brock University (Canada) recorded the highest volume of publications with eight indexed articles, positioning it as a benchmark in quantitative productivity. However, the qualitative analysis revealed a different dynamic, as Babson College concentrated the theoretical impact of the field by accumulating 1,179 citations to its work, a figure two orders of magnitude higher than the Canadian institution (figure 5).
|
Table 4. Organizations with the most scientific production according to Vosviewer |
||
|
Affiliation |
Documents |
Citation |
|
Brock University |
8 |
160 |
|
Babson College |
6 |
1179 |
|
University of Sussex |
6 |
153 |
|
Universidad de Valencia |
6 |
120 |
|
Harvard University |
6 |
427 |
|
Kozmininki University |
6 |
112 |
|
World Banck |
6 |
159 |
|
Universidad de Granda |
6 |
99 |
|
University of Florida |
5 |
246 |
|
Indina University |
5 |
496 |
|
Hefei University of Technology |
5 |
70 |
|
Universidad de Beira Interior |
5 |
60 |
|
University of North Caroline |
5 |
158 |
Source: Own elaboration using the VOSviewer program
This dichotomy invites reflection on evaluation criteria in the social sciences. While North American universities led the way in historical and scientific visibility, consistent with their tradition of entrepreneurial studies and the seminal analyses of Evans (1942) and Cole (1942), the Canadian case illustrates contemporary strategies of thematic specialization. This gap between academic volume and significance questions one-dimensional measurement models, particularly in areas of gender, where epistemological diversity is a constitutive value. In this sense, the qualitative analysis revealed multiple studies on female entrepreneurship in Canada that, while not achieving high impact, constitute important contributions to the field by analyzing causal factors, different industries, and geographic contexts, as well as important narratives and experiences of female entrepreneurs (Okeke-Ihejirika et al., 2023; Steedman & Brydges, 2023; Williams, 2021).
|
Figure 5. Density map of the most productive institutions |
|
|
Source: Own elaboration using the VOSviewer program
Most Studied Topics in Female Entrepreneurship
The lexicometric analysis of recent literature identified stratified conceptual patterns (figure 6). First, the variable Gender dominated the thematic spectrum with 100 mentions in the last five years, followed by Female Entrepreneurship (89 occurrences), confirming its centrality in current theoretical frameworks. Applying Zipf's Law to the 693 keywords recorded in the database, a minimum threshold of 26 units (square root of the total) was established. Only 10 terms exceeded this limit, forming a small conceptual core representing 1.44% of the specialized lexicon.
|
Figure 6. Keywords according to Zipf's Law |
|
|
Source: Own elaboration using the VOSviewer program
This phenomenon suggests two opposing dynamics: while the recurrence of Gender coincided with the consolidation of intersectional approaches in feminist economics, the low density of the terminological core (10/693) revealed an epistemological fragmentation in the field. The disproportion between the high frequency of foundational concepts (Gender, Female Entrepreneurship) and the long tail of minority terms indicates the need to rethink thematic consensus in the discipline, particularly in studies where semantic diversity could enrich contextual analyses (table 5).
|
Table 5. Variables related to female entrepreneurship |
|
|
Keywords |
Occurrence |
|
Gender |
100 |
|
Female Entrepreneurship |
89 |
|
Business |
53 |
|
Growth |
48 |
|
Performance |
45 |
|
Impact |
40 |
|
Women |
66 |
|
Women Entrepreneurs |
42 |
|
Self-Employment |
32 |
|
Determined |
28 |
Source: Own elaboration using the VOSviewer program.
Sources with the Most Publications on Female Entrepreneurship
The analysis of academic sources identified 146 journals specializing in entrepreneurship studies, with a highly skewed distribution of thematic contributions. Small Business Economics led the scientific output with 32 indexed articles, followed by Sustainability in second place with 16 (Figure 6). However, 68% of the journals (100 journals) recorded a single article on female entrepreneurship, representing an extreme thematic concentration in the field.
|
Figure 6. Most relevant sources |
|
|
This publishing landscape reflected two simultaneous phenomena: the consolidation of hegemonic cores of scientific dissemination and the thematic periphery in journals with limited scope. The quantitative gap, where the leader was observed to outnumber the output of the last quintile by 32, revealed hierarchies in the academic legitimation of the topic and raised questions about epistemological diversity in gender studies. The overrepresentation of specific titles could be linked to geopolitical biases in database indexing, a critical factor for research focused on non-English-speaking realities and counter-hegemonic conceptual frameworks.
DISCUSSION
The specialized literature reveals an androcentric historical construction in entrepreneurship studies. Based on data synthesis and an in-depth analysis of relevant sources, four structural axes were identified that have dominated the research agenda: 1) gender inequalities in access to entrepreneurial activities, 2) financing gaps, 3) differences in management practices, and 4) disparities in organizational performance. This conceptual framework reflects the transition from the initial persistence of comparative male-female approaches as the dominant paradigm to a new approach focused on women and their entrepreneurship (Afshan et al., 2021; Baral et al., 2023; Raman et al., 2022).
In this sense, despite advances in visibility, empirical findings confirmed systemic patterns of exclusion. For example, longitudinal research shows that women are less likely than men to engage in entrepreneurial initiatives (Chiplunkar & Goldberg, 2024), with considerable overrepresentation in low-profit sectors such as personal services (Sahu et al., 2024).
Along these lines, recent studies propose intersectional frameworks. Specifically, Acevedo-Duque et al. (2021) reveal that female leadership prioritizes organizational resilience and corporate sustainability through collaborative strategies, challenging patriarchal management models. However, this evidence emerges primarily from industrialized economies, highlighting a critical gap in contexts such as Honduras, where no indexed publications exist. This fact represents a clear example of the mechanisms of scientific production that perpetuate colonial narratives that render non-Western entrepreneurial practices invisible.
CONCLUSIONS
The quantitative analysis identified exponential growth in academic production on female entrepreneurship, with a 1,300% increase between 2001 and 2023. However, this progress presents an asymmetric geographic distribution, with 92% of publications concentrated in English-speaking and European countries, while regions such as Central America show critical gaps. In this regard, Honduras did not record indexed contributions in the analyzed database, explicitly highlighting the South-North epistemic gap identified in the analysis.
At the thematic level, the data reveal two contrasting patterns. On the one hand, it was identified that women face less access to startup capital than men in entrepreneurial ventures. On the other hand, according to standardized metrics, women-led companies show more excellent talent retention and a clear trend toward improvement in sustainability indicators. These divergences are amplified in strategic sectors, as technology startups are predominantly led by men, compared to the apparent dominance of women in personal service ventures.
Latin American production represented only 4.2% of the global corpus, with predominantly descriptive studies. This methodological limitation limits the ability to generate situated theoretical models integrating cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic variables specific to the region. The results suggest that overcoming these barriers will require increasing the volume of research and adopting mixed designs that combine bibliometric big data with critical ethnographies.
REFERENCES
Acevedo-Duque, Á., Gonzalez-Diaz, R., Vargas, E. C., Paz-Marcano, A., Muller-Pérez, S., Salazar-Sepúlveda, G., Caruso, G., & D’Adamo, I. (2021). Resilience, Leadership and Female Entrepreneurship within the Context of SMEs: Evidence from Latin America. Sustainability, 13(15), 8129. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158129
Acevedo-Duque, Á., Llanos-Herrera, G. R., García-Salirrosas, E. E., Simón-Isidoro, S., Álvarez-Herranz, A. P., Álvarez-Becerra, R., & Sánchez Díaz, L. C. (2022). Scientometric Analysis of Hiking Tourism and Its Relevance for Wellbeing and Knowledge Management. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8534. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148534
Afshan, G., Shahid, S., & Tunio, M. N. (2021). Learning experiences of women entrepreneurs amidst COVID-19. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 162–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-09-2020-0153
Ajide, F. M., & Dada, J. T. (2023). Poverty, entrepreneurship, and economic growth in Africa. Poverty & Public Policy, 15(2), 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/pop4.368
Aparicio, S., Audretsch, D., Noguera, M., & Urbano, D. (2022). Can female entrepreneurs boost social mobility in developing countries? An institutional analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121401
Bacq, S., Hertel, C., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2022). Communities at the nexus of entrepreneurship and societal impact: A cross-disciplinary literature review. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(5), 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2022.106231
Banu, J., Baral, R., & Kuschel, K. (2025). Negotiating business and family demands: The response strategies of highly educated Indian female entrepreneurs. Community, Work & Family, 28(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2023.2215394
Baral, R., Dey, C., Manavazhagan, S., & Kamalini, S. (2023). Women entrepreneurs in India: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 94–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-05-2021-0079
Beltramini, L. D. M., Cepellos, V. M., & Pereira, J. J. (2022). Young women,“glass ceiling”, and strategies to face crystal walls. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 62(6), e2021-0073. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0034-759020220608x
Benites, M., González-Díaz, R. R., Acevedo-Duque, Á., Becerra-Pérez, L. A., & Tristancho Cediel, G. (2021). Latin American Microentrepreneurs: Trajectories and Meanings about Informal Work. Sustainability, 13(10), 5449. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105449
Callegari, B., & Nybakk, E. (2022). Schumpeterian theory and research on forestry innovation and entrepreneurship: The state of the art, issues and an agenda. Forest Policy and Economics, 138, 102720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102720
Chiplunkar, G., & Goldberg, P. K. (2024). Aggregate Implications of Barriers to Female Entrepreneurship. Econometrica, 92(6), 1801–1835. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA20396
Cole, A. H. (1942). Entrepreneurship as an Area of Research. The Journal of Economic History, 2(S1), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700083467
Darnihamedani, P., & Terjesen, S. (2022). Male and female entrepreneurs’ employment growth ambitions: The contingent role of regulatory efficiency. Small Business Economics, 58(1), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00405-0
Dávila, C., & Lluch, A. (2022). Entrepreneurship in Emerging Markets: Female Entrepreneurs in Colombia since 1990. Business History Review, 96(2), 373–397. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007680522000502
Del-Aguila-Arcentales, S., Alvarez-Risco, A., Jaramillo-Arévalo, M., De-la-Cruz-Diaz, M., & Anderson-Seminario, M. D. L. M. (2022). Influence of Social, Environmental and Economic Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) over Continuation of Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(2), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8020073
Demircioglu, M. A., & Chowdhury, F. (2021). Entrepreneurship in public organizations: The role of leadership behavior. Small Business Economics, 57(3), 1107–1123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00328-w
Deng, W., Liang, Q., Li, J., & Wang, W. (2021). Science mapping: A bibliometric analysis of female entrepreneurship studies. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 36(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-12-2019-0240
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Dzingirai, M. (2021). The role of entrepreneurship in reducing poverty in agricultural communities. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 15(5), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-01-2021-0016
Emami, A., Welsh, D. H. B., Davari, A., & Rezazadeh, A. (2022). Examining the relationship between strategic alliances and the performance of small entrepreneurial firms in telecommunications. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 18(2), 637–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00781-3
Evans, G. H. (1942). A Theory of Entrepreneurship. The Journal of Economic History, 2(S1), 142–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700083492
Fauzi, M. A., Muhamad Tamyez, P. F., & Kumar, S. (2025). Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation in ASEAN: Past, Present, and Future Trends. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 16(1), 146–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2022.2143870
Fossen, F. M. (2021). Self-employment over the business cycle in the USA: A decomposition. Small Business Economics, 57(4), 1837–1855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00375-3
Franzke, S., Wu, J., Froese, F. J., & Chan, Z. X. (2022). Female entrepreneurship in Asia: A critical review and future directions. Asian Business & Management, 21(3), 343–372. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-022-00186-2
Grangeiro, R. D. R., Silva, L. E. N., & Esnard, C. (2022). I broke the glass ceiling, now what? Overview of metaphors to explain gender inequality in organizations. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(6), 1523–1537. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-07-2020-2281
Henao Orozco, N. (2024). Brechas de género y corrupción: El fenómeno de las mujeres ninis en Colombia. Apuntes del Cenes, 43(77), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.01203053.v43.n77.2024.16103
Henrekson, M., Johansson, D., & Karlsson, J. (2024). To Be or Not to Be: The Entrepreneur in Neo-Schumpeterian Growth Theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 48(1), 104–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587221141679
Henrekson, M., Kärnä, A., & Sanandaji, T. (2022). Schumpeterian entrepreneurship: Coveted by policymakers but impervious to top-down policymaking. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 32(3), 867–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-022-00761-y
Hidalgo, G., Monticelli, J. M., & Vargas Bortolaso, I. (2024). Social Capital as a Driver of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 182–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2021.1951819
Huang, Y., Li, P., Wang, J., & Li, K. (2022). Innovativeness and entrepreneurial performance of female entrepreneurs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(4), 100257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100257
Ilie, C., Monfort, A., Fornes, G., & Cardoza, G. (2021). Promoting Female Entrepreneurship: The Impact of Gender Gap Beliefs and Perceptions. Sage Open, 11(2), 21582440211018468. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211018468
Kwapisz, A. (2022). What do female and male entrepreneurs value in business accelerators? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 37(6), 1208–1221. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-11-2020-0510
Laing, E., Van Stel, A., & Storey, D. J. (2022). Formal and informal entrepreneurship: A cross-country policy perspective. Small Business Economics, 59(3), 807–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00548-8
Linnenluecke, M. K., Marrone, M., & Singh, A. K. (2020). Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 45(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219877678
Maldonado, E. J., González-Argote, D., Eslava-Zapata, R., & Pérez-Gamboa, A. J. (2024). Las brechas laborales que afectan a las mujeres desde la perspectiva de las ciencias económicas: Un análisis de la producción científica en la base de datos Scopus. Suma de Negocios, 15(33), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.14349/sumneg/2024.V15.N33.A9
Naguib, R. (2024). Motivations and Barriers to Female Entrepreneurship: Insights from Morocco. Journal of African Business, 25(1), 9–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2022.2053400
Neneh, B. N., & Welsh, D. H. B. (2022). Family support and business performance of South African female technology entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 28(6), 1631–1652. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-05-2021-0402
Nyarko, S. A. (2022). Gender discrimination and lending to women: The moderating effect of an international founder. International Business Review, 31(4), 101973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2022.101973
Ogundana, O. M., Simba, A., Dana, L.-P., & Liguori, E. (2021). Women entrepreneurship in developing economies: A gender-based growth model. Journal of Small Business Management, 59(sup1), S42–S72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1938098
Ojong, N., Simba, A., & Dana, L.-P. (2021). Female entrepreneurship in Africa: A review, trends, and future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 132, 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.032
Okeke-Ihejirika, P. E., Nkrumah, A., Amoyaw, J., & Otoo, K. (2023). Black entrepreneurship in Western Canada: The push and pull factors. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 13(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40497-023-00360-6
Ortigueira-Sánchez, L. C., Welsh, D. H. B., & Stein, W. C. (2022). Innovation drivers for export performance. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 100013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2022.100013
Raman, R., Subramaniam, N., Nair, V. K., Shivdas, A., Achuthan, K., & Nedungadi, P. (2022). Women Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development: Bibliometric Analysis and Emerging Research Trends. Sustainability, 14(15), 9160. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159160
Ratten, V., & Pellegrini, M. M. (2020). Female transnational entrepreneurship and smart specialization policy. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 32(6), 545–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2019.1616257
Russell-Wood, A. J. (2017). Iberian expansion and the issue of black slavery: Changing Portuguese attitudes, 1440–1770. En The Atlantic Slave Trade (pp. 303–329). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351147682-14/iberian-expansion-issue-black-slavery-changing-portuguese-attitudes-1440%E2%80%931770-russell-wood
Sahu, T. N., Agarwala, V., & Maity, S. (2024). Effectiveness of microcredit in employment generation and livelihood transformation of tribal women entrepreneurs: Evidence from PMMY. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 36(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2021.1928847
Saiz-Alvarez, J. M., & García-Vaquero, M. (2019). Entrepreneurship concept, theories, and new approaches. En Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in Digital Marketing and Entrepreneurship (pp. 457–470). IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/entrepreneurship-concept-theories-and-new-approaches/217318
Sánchez-Castillo, V., Pérez-Gamboa, A. J., & Gómez-Cano, C. A. (2024). Trends and evolution of Scientometric and Bibliometric research in the SCOPUS database. Bibliotecas, Anales de Investigacion, 20(1). https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=9740327
Silva Corrêa, V., Da Silva Brito, F. R., Mendonça De Lima, R., & Queiroz, M. M. (2022). Female entrepreneurship in emerging and developing countries: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 14(3), 300–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-08-2021-0142
Silva Corrêa, V., Mendonça De Lima, R., Da Silva Brito, F. R. D. S., Cardoso Machado, M., & Jorge Nassif, V. M. (2024). Female entrepreneurship in emerging and developing countries: A systematic review of practical and policy implications and suggestions for new studies. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 16(2), 366–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-04-2022-0115
Steedman, R., & Brydges, T. (2023). Hustling in the creative industries: Narratives and work practices of female filmmakers and fashion designers. Gender, Work & Organization, 30(3), 793–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12916
Su, Z. (2021). The co-evolution of institutions and entrepreneurship. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 38(4), 1327–1350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-019-09703-y
Suseno, Y., & Abbott, L. (2021). Women entrepreneurs’ digital social innovation: Linking gender, entrepreneurship, social innovation and information systems. Information Systems Journal, 31(5), 717–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12327
Thornton, M., & Brown, C. R. (2023). Richard Cantillon and public policy. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 12(1), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-02-2022-0031
Villaseca, D., Navío-Marco, J., & Gimeno, R. (2021). Money for female entrepreneurs does not grow on trees: Start-ups’ financing implications in times of COVID-19. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 13(4), 698–720. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-06-2020-0172
Wang, Z., Ren, M., Gao, D., & Li, Z. (2023). A Zipf’s law-based text generation approach for addressing imbalance in entity extraction. Journal of Informetrics, 17(4), 101453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101453
Wilches, J., Rivera Ortega, D., Guerrero Sierra, H. F., & Villarreal, R. (2024). Brechas de género y gobernanzas criminales del narcotráfico en Latinoamérica. Revista Finanzas y Política Económica, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.14718/revfinanzpolitecon.v16.n1.2024.8
Williams, K. S. (2021). Finding Viola: The untrue, true story of a groundbreaking female African Nova Scotian entrepreneur. Culture and Organization, 27(5), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2020.1833207
FINANCING
None.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
None.
AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION
Conceptualization: Susan Lizeth Cruz and José Manuel Saiz-Álvarez.
Data Curation: Susan Lizeth Cruz and José Manuel Saiz-Álvarez.
Formal Analysis: Susan Lizeth Cruz and José Manuel Saiz-Álvarez.
Research: Susan Lizeth Cruz and José Manuel Saiz-Álvarez.
Methodology: Susan Lizeth Cruz and José Manuel Saiz-Álvarez.
Project Administration: Susan Lizeth Cruz y José Manuel Saiz-Álvarez.
Software: Susan Lizeth Cruz and José Manuel Saiz-Álvarez.
Supervision: Susan Lizeth Cruz and José Manuel Saiz-Álvarez.
Validation: Susan Lizeth Cruz and José Manuel Saiz-Álvarez.
Visualization: Susan Lizeth Cruz and José Manuel Saiz-Álvarez.
Writing – original draft: Susan Lizeth Cruz and José Manuel Saiz-Álvarez.
Writing – proofreading and editing: Susan Lizeth Cruz and José Manuel Saiz-Álvarez.