Entrepreneurship Education for Women—European Policy Examples of Neoliberal Feminism?

Abstract

Entrepreneurship education is seen as a way to get more women into their own businesses. This paper reports on pedagogical interventions designed to accomplish this. Policies on entrepreneurship education produced by the European Union from 2004 to 2018 were categorized according to the research questions: How are women to be educated? What subjects should be taught? And by whom? Policy analysis combined with a neoliberal feminist perspective was applied to understand why entrepreneurship education has not been as successful as expected. Findings show that the ideal teacher is a female entrepreneur whose knowledge just needs to be copied by the students. What is seen as useful knowledge is ideologically selected, including ways of thinking and behaving. According to policy analysis with emphasis on neoliberal feminism, the focus of the policies are not primarily about getting more women into self-employment, but an ideological education about how to think and behave “right.”

Entrepreneurship Education and the Targeted Student

Entrepreneurship or self-employment is regarded by the EU and by national European governments as being an important solution to unemployment and as a way to contribute to welfare and economic growth (European Commission, 2013a; Valerio et al., 2014). Education has been perceived as being important in strengthening economic growth, private markets, and above all, the small business sector (O’Connor, 2013; OECD, 2013). Policies for entrepreneurship education and training are, therefore, viewed as being efficient mechanisms to increase entrepreneurial activity (O’Connor, 2013). Such policies have been published since the middle of the 1990s. It is seemingly imperative that students throughout the educational sector should be exposed to entrepreneurship courses (European Commission, 2004a, 2012a). One group that has been paid special attention is women, simply because fewer of them are self-employed compared to men (European Commission, 2020a).

However, there is still no evidence of the outcomes expected of entrepreneurship education (Bae, Qian, Miao, & Fiet, 2014; Rideout & Gray, 2013); that is, an increase in number of self-employed. Overviews of the prevalence of self-employment in the European Union (Eurofound, 2017; European Commission, 2017) show that the total number of self-employed people has been quite stable, but within this group of self-employed, there has been a slight shift toward those without employees and part-timers.

Aim and Research Questions

The aim of this study is to describe how entrepreneurship education, directed toward women, should be implemented within the European Union, according to their policies. Such descriptions aim at an understanding why policies on women’s entrepreneurship education have had little or no effect, even after so many years (e.g., Bae, Qian, Miao, & Fiet, 2014; European Commission, 2014; Rideout & Gray, 2013). In examining this issue, the research questions are: How are women to be educated? What subjects should be taught? And by whom? The critique of neoliberal feminism will be used to discuss the answers to these questions, and provide a base for reflections about the assumptions in these policies. Entrepreneurship education is defined by the European Union as education that “prepares people to be responsible and enterprising individuals” (European Commission, 2020a, 2020b).

Why is Entrepreneurship Education Important according to Policies?

EU policy documents have paid special attention to two groups:

1. Those who are less educated and unemployed: they are expected to become financially independent through self-employment: Women are included in this group along with other “vulnerable groups,” such as young people, people with disabilities, and migrants (European Commission, 2012b, p. 26; 2013a, p. 22). Women are predominantly targeted because fewer women than men are self-employed and are therefore they are seen as an important potential force for the European labor market (European Commission, 2020a).

2. The tertiary educated: University graduates are seen as innovative and suited as business owners and thereby also able to employ others (Gibb, 2011; Teixeira & Davey, 2010; Yendell, 2001). Students educated within the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) are seen as being particularly important and as more likely to start businesses and to contribute to innovation and competitive wealth creation (European Commission, 2012a).

What we Already Know about Women, Self-Employment, and Education

Previous research on gender and self-employment has largely consisted of discourse analyses. Already in 1957 Hamilton (1957) had stated that the image of a successful entrepreneur was that of a hero. This hero is usually a white, Western, middle-aged man (Lewis, Benschop, & Simpson, 2017; Marlow & Martinez Dy, 2018; Marlow & McAdam, 2013; Ogbor, 2000) with certain “inherited” traits, such as being risk taking, non-conforming, and combative (Ahl, 2006; Holmgren et al., 2005; Ogbor, 2000). Since this seems to be the norm in the policies, women will inevitably fall short; therefore, women need to be “fixed.” This “fixing” seems to mean that women need to become more confident, aspirational and active, and to learn the right “entrepreneurial mindset;” a particular way of thinking and a pre-defined behavior (Jones, 2014). A general critique of policies about women and self-employment is that women are homogenized, they are defined as “other” in relation to the norm (Marlow & Martinez Dy, 2018; Ogbor, 2000). Several researchers (Ahl, 2006, 2008; Ogbor, 2000; Rönnblom & Keisu, 2013) have written about the negative perception of women that is the result of this comparison to the discourse of the successful entrepreneur.

According to the entrepreneurship policies examined using discourse analysis, women fall short in many respects. For example, they are more active in other sectors than men, leading to an estimation that their entrepreneurial ideas are less successful; women ask for smaller loans which gives the financier as much paperwork as a big loan, but lower prospects of profit; and women do not have the “right” type of networks. Family responsibilities, which usually fall on women, are also mentioned as an explanation that limits the opportunity to develop a business (Ahl & Nelson, 2015). Nevertheless, “positive” aspects about being a woman were also expressed in policies: women were depicted as being different from men (more collaborative, friendly), and women could contribute by starting businesses within fields of knowledge perceived as being their “own,” such as in the service sector. However, work within this sector normally only contributes to small economic returns which is usually not mentioned (Ahl & Nelson, 2015). Since these studies focus on women, less attention has been paid to the homogenization of men; “men in general” would probably not recognize themselves in these heroic descriptions.

Women in Europe are generally more educated than men; more women than men pursue tertiary education in most countries, among the exceptions being Germany and Greece (European Commission, 2019). Women also make up the majority in most fields of education except for engineering, construction, and computer science in which men make up a large majority. To sum up, women make up the majority of educated professionals within business, accounting, management, teaching, health care, chemistry, medicine, language, art and law, among others (European Commission, 2019), education that usually leads to employment in large companies or in the public sector. Women have increased in number as employees and as tertiary educated during the period 2006–2016 (European Commission, 2017), meaning they are not homemakers or unemployed, but are active citizens as workers or students.

Previous research has not paid much attention to entrepreneurship education for women particularly, but some concerns have been raised. Knowledge and critical reflection which are (were!) the beacons in academe are becoming less important than commercial expertise. Several policy studies (Farny, Hedeboe Frederiksen, Hannibal, & Jones, 2016; Jones, 2014, 2015; Pettersson, Ahl, Berglund, & Tillmar, 2017) stress that lecturers do not appear to be trusted to give the “right” entrepreneurship training. According to their analyses of the policies, the licensed teachers lack applied knowledge and motivation. Instead, entrepreneurs active in the labor market are increasingly invited to teach entrepreneurship usually through case studies or best practice. “Traditional” education is devalued since “entrepreneurs are born and not made” (Jones, 2015, p. 313).

Neoliberal Feminism—The Theoretical Lens

Several forms of feminism that demand gender equality have developed because of, or as a reaction to, ideological and political shifts in society (Ferguson, 2017; Fraser, 2015). For example, radical feminists focused on women’s subordinated position in a patriarchal society; socialist feminists criticized capitalism, and the liberal feminists stressed that everyone must be treated equally before the law. Several researchers have described neoliberal feminism as a merger between neoliberalism and feminism (e.g., Ferguson, 2017; Fraser, 2013; Kantola & Squires, 2012; Prügl, 2015; Rottenberg, 2017). Neoliberalism is critical of joint solutions such as societal responsibility and organization, public welfare, solidarity (e.g., redistribution) and to social associations (e.g., unions) (Bridgstock, 2013; Fraser, 2013, 2015; Prügl, 2015; Rottenberg, 2014, 2017). Thus, neoliberal feminism does not criticize men’s superiority, the capitalistic economic system and does not strive for universal equality. In other words, it does not offer any critique of the neoliberal system.

According to neoliberal feminism, gender equality will be achieved when women learn to accept and adapt to the current gender order and economic structures (Lewis et al., 2017; Rottenberg, 2014, 2017). Neoliberal ideology is deeply suspicious of the state and prefers governmental and public institutions to be privatized, and when not, to be run according to private market principles. Subsequently, initiatives that support the public good are replaced by initiatives that support free markets and economic growth with institutions being obliged to create profit (Prügl, 2015). Individuals are judged in relation to how efficient they are, and how much they produce. If they do not produce, for example, if they are homemakers (e.g., they do unpaid domestic and caring work in their own homes and those of others) or do voluntary or charity work, they are not valued, as there is no economic value accruing to such activities. However, if the homemaker’s work is done in a home owned by someone else, the work is valued since it is paid for (Rottenberg, 2017). Therefore, neoliberalism privileges paid work as the most important driver of a successful society (Fraser, 2013; Rottenberg, 2017). Women should work hard and postpone family and child responsibilities; these responsibilities are still mostly seen as female. Individual women need to solve the issue about gender equality themselves and how to reach “work–family balance.” To become successful, women need not only to work hard, but also to be self-confident, outspoken, pushy, and fearless (Rottenberg, 2014, 2017).

The competition for a livelihood leads to a division of people into those who are “hard working” and entrepreneurial and those who are “lazy.” The entrepreneurial ones look down on those who are not (Scharff, 2016). The risks and, thus, worries involved by being independent and entrepreneurial are concealed behind positive thinking and a positive attitude. The fear of not being (economically) successful, being the one looked down upon, leads to a project of constant self-improvement for women (Scharff, 2016). The work on oneself is time consuming and feelings of not having done enough easily occur, with feelings of anxiety, self-doubt, or self-critique (Scharff, 2016). If a person is unsuccessful, unemployed, unhappy or uneducated, it is seen as being their own fault, and it is their individual responsibility to solve the problem (Rottenberg, 2014). A constant feeling of not having done enough may lead to priorities other than reflection, thereby reducing the possible critique of male privilege and male domination (Bridgstock, 2013) and leaving heterosexual norms unchallenged (Scharff, 2012).

Women are expected to aim for traditionally male-dominated sectors such as engineering, mathematics and natural sciences. Those women, who make it and manage to reach the top, can finally get room to maneuver and can exercise their rights. There is an idea that if more women reach leading positions, the conditions for all women will improve (Rottenberg, 2014, 2017). However, only a small proportion of all women, around 0.1% reach high-ranking positions in organizations, and it is often high-achieving, middle class women who succeed (Rottenberg, 2014, 2017). Moreover, these influential women are supposed to speak for all women’s interests; but it is more likely that they will represent their own interests and on matters that correspond to the current dominant policies (Ferguson, 2017; Kantola & Squires, 2012). These privileged women can consume in a free market and outsource tasks like housework and child responsibilities to “other” women, who are deemed to be less aspirational, worthy, or responsible. This has the potential to increase the divide between women, making it difficult, perhaps impossible, to work jointly toward gender equality across social positions such as class, sexuality, and ethnicity. Successful women will have more in common with men at the top, and hierarchies within the women based on social class, race or nationality risk being further entrenched (Bridgstock, 2013; Rottenberg, 2017; Scharff, 2012). Women in such privileged positions are unlikely to call themselves feminists; that is, there is no explicit stated neoliberal feminist agenda (Ferguson, 2017; Scharff, 2012).

Methodology

Policy analysis will be used to understand the seemingly taken-for-granted assumption that entrepreneurship education will increase the number of self-employed women. The approach to policy analysis is called “What’s the problem represented to be?” (Bacchi, 1999, 2009; Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). How a problem is defined determines what solutions are available. Depending on perspective, the observation that fewer women than men are self-employed can be perceived as a problem or not. Compared to “ordinary people,” the definition of a problem used by governmental institutions tends to be viewed more as a matter of truth because of their authoritarian position. It is therefore important to analyze how institutions define problems to become aware of their perspective and alternative ways of defining “what is the problem.” To investigate the assumptions that underlie the depiction of a problem, Bacchi and Goodwin (2016, p. 20) suggest six questions:

1. What is the problem represented to be?

2. What assumptions underlie this representation?

3. How has this representation of the “problem” come about?

4. What is left unproblematic? Where are the silences?

5. What effects are produced by this representation of the “problem?”

6. How and where has this representation of the “problem” been produced? How can it be disrupted and replaced?

In this study, the governmental perspective will become transparent through the “what is the problem” approach, together with a critique on neoliberal feminism. Information from previous research and statistical facts will be utilized to facilitate a developed understanding of the “problem.”

Selection of Policy Documents and Analysis Method

The EU, especially the European Commission, has organized seminars, produced policy documents., and written action plans to support member states to encourage entrepreneurship and self-employment since the 1990s, but this has become increasingly visible from the first decade of the twenty-first century (e.g., European Commission, 2004a, 2006). The first selection of documents was retrieved from a search at EUR-Lex (Access to European Union law). Documents were available for the period 1995–2018. However, gender in relation to entrepreneurship education was not mentioned until 2004. The search words “women and entrepreneurship education” and “female and entrepreneurship education” led to 126 hits, most of them overlapping. Only five hits from “female and entrepreneurship education” were exclusive. Of these documents, 44 were issued by the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) and the rest (82) were documents from the European Commission. Common in these documents was their lack of information on women’s entrepreneurship education. In a large majority of these hits, texts about women were separated from texts about entrepreneurship education. Moreover, several issues of OJ contained the same or similar paragraphs as previous issues; no change could be identified over the period. The descriptions of women’s entrepreneurship education were vague and general. In searching for greater detail, and if the search words had not been adequate, websites published by the European Commission and its Directorate-Generals (DGs) were examined. Policy on women and entrepreneurship education can likely be found in material produced by the DG Growth (for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs), under the topic “education” produced at the DG of Education, Youth, Sport and culture, or under the topic “gender equality” which can be produced under several DGs. In total, 38 EU documents were found to contain information on how educating women to reach the goal of increased entrepreneurship. The specific search words “women/female and entrepreneurship education” prevent comparison with men and “vulnerable groups.”

The excerpts from these 38 EU documents were organized according to three research questions: How are women to be educated? What subjects should be taught? And by whom?

The presentation of the results have been inspired by the Gioia methodology (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013), the purpose of which is to make it transparent how quotes constitute created concepts. In this study, several quotes provide an answer on each of the research questions. Thus, the reader can also see the characteristics these quotes have in common over time. A qualitative, manifest/conventional content analysis with an inductive approach was carried out (Bengtsson, 2016; Graneheim, Lindgren, & Lundman, 2017; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Initially, key words related to women’s education were identified when reading the documents. The quotes including the key words were then categorized to enable the three research questions to be answered. Some quotes contain several key words and can fit into more than one category; in such cases, the main message in the quote decided the category. Several short quotes have been included in the text, while the major portions of the extensive excerpts have been collected in the Supplementary Appendix.

Results

What Models of Education to Support Women to Become Entrepreneurs Are Advocated?

How Are Women to Be Taught?

The documents show that entrepreneurship education can take place in several settings; within the regular school system, for example, “local communities and schools” (Bekh, 2013, p. 4) and in other venues where projects promoting entrepreneurship take place, for example, “women’s business centers” (European Union, 2013, p. 69).

Mentoring and coaching by the already established self-employed seems like a practical and hands-on way to offer education. Students, the soon-to-be entrepreneur will learn to copy the senior entrepreneur. The approach to teaching appears to be influenced by behaviorism (Kimble, 2001); that is, it is possible to achieve the desired behavior (entrepreneurship) after the treatment “fostering” (European Commission, 2004b, 2008, 2011a; European Union, 2008). In these excerpts (European Commission, 2013a, p. 23; OECD/European Union, 2017, p. 3), it is possible to sense a devaluing of the academic approach, in which knowledge develops when views are contested. For example, instead of teaching women how to reflect, analyze, and act when exposed to the structural resistance they are likely to come across as self-employed women, they are expected to listen to success “stories” pointed out by researchers (Farny et al., 2016; Jones, 2010, 2014, 2015):

Education and training are dominated by male role models. Female role models need to be introduced. Story-telling, as applied by the network of EU Women’s Entrepreneurship Ambassadors is an excellent example of a new form of informal learning. Early exposure of learners to entrepreneurial success stories featuring both men and women is critical. Thus, women entrepreneurs should be encouraged to engage with local communities and schools to establish active links and cooperation. (Bekh, 2013, p. 4)

“Early exposure of learners to entrepreneurial success stories … is critical” (Bekh, 2013, p. 4). Such an aim can easily lead to a conspiratorial reflection that the type of knowledge transfer is consciously planned to take place before students have gained insight into social structures in society. Researchers have suggested it is like an ideology or cult is being imposed (Farny et al., 2016; From, 2010; Ogbor, 2000; Parker, 2004). The transferring of experience and knowledge will take place in networks; what works in one country may be a good idea to try out in another. It is “best practices” (European Commission, 2013a, p. 23) that will be shared, but there is also another side of the coin, the failures.

What Skills Need to Be Taught?

General skills: A common explanation of women’s low representation among the self-employed suggested by EU policies is lack of knowledge; women therefore need to be more frequent participants in regular entrepreneurship education (European Commission, 2011b, 2013b). As mentioned above, according to From (2010), this education is driven by an ideology with the assumption of a causal relationship between education and outcome, a relationship that has not yet been confirmed (Bae et al., 2014; Rideout & Gray, 2013).

Specific skills: The subjects or fields of knowledge that women need to study according to these policies (European Commission, 2012a, 2018) are STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) and ICT (information and communications technology).

Greater efforts must now be made to highlight STEM as a priority area of education, and increase engagement at all levels. Although broad challenges are well known, such as the need to make it more attractive to females, it is also now important to increase understanding of the career pathways followed by STEM graduates. (European Commission, 2012a, p. 4).

It is difficult to analyze the extent to which students educated within certain fields will also hold positions that match their education. What is known is that women make up around 40% of graduates in STEM fields in Europe, and almost 80% of them were employed (sector unknown) (Reingarde, 2017). Among ICT specialists (ICT service managers, professionals and technicians), eight per cent of the women were self-employed, compared with 10% self-employed women in all sectors (EIGE, 2018). That people educated in the STEM fields, and particularly women, are not particularly likely to start businesses is further supported by two large-scale studies, one in Sweden (Berggren & Olofsson, 2019) and one in Austria (Falk & Leoni, 2009) showing that people educated within fine arts were the most likely to become self-employed.

Mental skills: Teaching or fostering a particular approach: “entrepreneurial attitudes, mindsets, skills” (European Commission, 2011a, p. 29) or “interest and talent” (European Commission, 2008, p. 5) overlook the fact that there is a social structure in society which individuals need to take into consideration. Several researchers have emphasized the difficulties women (and other underrepresented groups) face when they have to fit into a social organization of self-employment to a large extent ingrained by the white, middle class male norm (Ahl & Marlow, 2012; Calás et al., 2009; Ogbor, 2000). Moreover, women were also designated to fix the gender inequalities in the labor market. The policies push the responsibility to “overcome gender-specific hurdles” (European Union, 2017, p. 460) onto women and the regular educational system.

Recognises the underachievement of women in the enterprise sphere where only 30% of entrepreneurs are female, and the significant impact of gender specific training and support to increase the number of female entrepreneurs, and calls for the creation of dedicated women’s business centres; (European Union, 2013, p. 69)

The EU consists of many countries with varied histories, levels of welfare, and labor market structures. It is worth noting that governments and companies with power, financial resources, and networks cannot be those expected to put things right.

Who Are the Teachers?

Teaching seems to be delivered by professional or licensed teachers, but these need assistance from commercial experts, preferably women (European Commission, 2013a; European Union, 2008; OECD/European Union, 2015) active in the labor market, who can “tell stories” about their “success.” On the one hand, these experts appear to be radical and to believe strongly in their work/“mission” since they seem to accept sharing their knowledge for free (European Commission, 2013a; OECD/European Union, 2015). On the other hand, the moral and financial burden is placed on individual women entrepreneurs to support other women, rather than being properly funded by the state.

In 2009 the Commission inaugurated the European Network of Female Entrepreneurship Ambassadors, to serve as inspirational role models for potential women entrepreneurs. This was followed in 2011 by the European Network of Mentors for Women Entrepreneurs, who voluntarily counsel women starting and running new businesses. (European Commission, 2013a, p. 23).

Pettersson et al. (2017, p. 58) note that the “ambassadors” share their knowledge at non-governmental organizations, networks and schools, not with business promotors. This means that there is little opportunity to challenge the patriarchal values in the labor market, when they do not have access to those in power (Rottenberg, 2014).

The Results in Relation to Bacchi’s Questions Interpreted from a Neoliberal Feminist Perspective

(1) The representation of the problem is that women are less likely to be self-employed because they lack knowledge, particularly within the fields of STEM and ICT (European Commission, 2018) and they lack the “right” attitudes and confidence (Jones, 2014; Scharff, 2016). The solution to the problem is entrepreneurship education.

(2) The presuppositions that underlie this representation are that women can change, they need to improve themselves (Scharff, 2016), and they seem not to understand what is best for themselves. There is also an assumption that women are “naturally” supportive of other women, as suggested by Lewis et al. (2017). Female entrepreneurship ambassadors share their knowledge and time for free, and do not need to be financially compensated. In other words, implementation of policies about entrepreneurship education for women will not be financially burdensome.

(3) An explanation of the occurrence of this “problem” is the current neoliberal ideology. Responsibility for social welfare and livelihood is “downloaded” to an individual level (Kantola & Squires, 2012; Prügl, 2015; Rottenberg, 2017). Entrepreneurship is understood as an ideal way for individuals to become financially independent, earn their income and to employ others. Since comparably few women are self-employed, they are identified as a problem.

(4) Several difficult issues are not problematized in these policies:

There has been no reflection about assumptions of eternal growth, or paid work for everyone, if they really are realistic goals (Fraser, 2013; Kantola & Squires, 2012; Prügl, 2015; Rottenberg, 2014). Business failures are seldom mentioned, and there is no mention of how to learn from them. Moreover, the policies address women in a range of European countries, as if they were disconnected from social structures and cultures; they are expected to adapt to the neoliberal economic structure (Lewis et al., 2017; Rottenberg, 2014, 2017).

The EU states on one hand that women need to be more educated, while on the other hand, the EU has gathered information providing evidence that in most European countries, more women have achieved a higher level of education than their male counterparts (European Commission, 2019). No policies mentioned how well-educated women can contribute with their already-achieved knowledge (in most fields except for engineering, manufacturing and construction and computer science) (European Commission, 2019; OECD, 2019). There does not seem to be any idea of an alternative entrepreneur who supports the government with ideas of how to create a sustainable society; societal responsibility is simply not on the agenda (Bridgstock, 2013; Fraser, 2013, 2015; Prügl, 2015; Rottenberg, 2014, 2017). Entrepreneurship education with subjects such as ecology and social justice, with the purpose to develop an inclusive society for new and old generations, for example, is not mentioned, probably because such benefits cannot be easily calculated. It is the economic “man” (Prügl, 2015) who is the model in these policies. The academically “low” level of education for women entrepreneurs that is suggested can be interpreted as a way to prevent women from really competing with men (Bridgstock, 2013; Scharff, 2012). Furthermore, the policies emphasize the importance of learning the “right” attitudes and mindsets to become successful entrepreneurs (Scharff, 2016), not critical thinking that could lead to a development in a new direction.

(5) Possible effects that are produced by this representation of the “problem” may be that women blame themselves if they fail as entrepreneurs. They may feel disrespected, both as women and as knowledgeable individuals. They should have worked harder, been more self-confident and outspoken (Rottenberg, 2014, 2017; Scharff, 2016). These feelings easily lead to self-doubt and self-critique (Scharff, 2016), if not connected to critical thinking, the patriarchal values in the labor market will remain unchallenged (Rottenberg, 2014) and the current economic order is facilitated.

(6) The representation of this problem is produced within the different departments (Directorate General), most likely influenced by the USA and research from schools of business with a neoliberal standpoint. The “problem” could have been phrased less ideologically if other departments in the same organization, such as Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, had been consulted. Information gathered by Eurostat includes education, employment and self-employment. If policymakers based their policies on facts gathered by their own institutions instead of ideology (Farny et al., 2016; From, 2010; Ogbor, 2000; Parker, 2004) they could possibly have targeted a population more suitable for self-employment (such as women educated in horticulture or arts (Berggren & Olofsson, 2019; Falk & Leoni, 2009), instead of devaluing women and women’s education and work. The current policies are likely to remain until another political ideology replaces them.

Summarizing the Findings and Reflections

Educational policies about entrepreneurship education for women covering 14 years showed that the problems and solutions identified have been similar overall. The women’s education described in the policies consisted to a large extent of copying; teaching seemed to be influenced by the old oral tradition of passing down knowledge from one generation to the next. The skills women need to acquire were described as general, at a low academic level, or typical male specializations. The policies also state that women need to embrace certain vaguely-defined ways of behaving and thinking to succeed as entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurship or self-employment is regarded in EU policies as being important for financial stability and the creation of innovation. It is remarkable that something as important as this is treated with such a lack of a proper investigation of how this goal could be achieved, and which aspects of it are not worthwhile. The regular teaching institutions and the academic professions seem not to be involved in developing the curricula and didactics that are needed to address a widening participation in business ownership, and academe is not referred to when it comes to educating the entrepreneurship educators.

EU policies about entrepreneurship education can be understood as an example of neoliberal feminism (Ferguson, 2017; Rottenberg, 2014). The reason is that women will not be educated to analyze the structures that maintain inequality, they will not be taught how to organize themselves collectively and jointly to demand action from their government to redistribute resources and power. They will not be taught how to analyze success and failures and learn from them. Women will not be encouraged to make use of their already extensive knowledge that with critical reflection and an open mindset, would be likely to lead to new innovations. The focus of the European entrepreneurship education policies are not primarily about getting more women into self-employment, but an ideological education about how to think and behave “right.”

Acknowledgement

Insightful questions and suggestions, particularly from one of the reviewers, helped me develop and clarify my message.

Additional information

Funding

The present work was financially supported by Swedish Research Council.

Notes on contributors

Caroline Berggren

Caroline Berggren is an Associate Professor in the Department of Education and Special Education at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. She has studied the social selection of students to higher education as well as their career development after higher education. Her research interest has focused on how the structure of the educational system and the labour market, together with the traditional gender structures, set the frames for individual choices. During her career she has been statistically analyzing data form national registers. The accessibility to such data provides possibilities to follow life trajectories of anonymized individuals in total birth cohorts. She has been the principal investigator for the project ‘Gender and class perspectives on students’ choice of higher education institutions and graduates’ choice of job location’. Her latest publications are: ‘A societal perspective on self-employment – Sweden as an example’ Studies in Higher Education, 2019 (co-authored with A. Olofsson); ‘Re-purposing fika: rest, recreation or regulation in the neoliberalized Swedish University?’ European Journal of Higher Education, 2018 (co-authored with L. Morley, P. Angervall, and S. Dodillet; and ‘Gender Equality in Swedish Higher Education - The Paradox’ a chapter in The Europa World of Learning Essays 2017 (ed. Morley).