At CIPE, we take a systemic and institutional approach to supporting entrepreneurship. Systemic in that unlike other organizations, rather than providing training or microloans to individual entrepreneurs, we seek to understand the policy barriers that often make it difficult to register firms, access credit, or conduct business. Institutional in that we support the efforts of civil society organizations – chambers of commerce and business associations – that seek to engage and advocate with policymakers to eliminate those barriers.
In the case of promoting women entrepreneurs, CIPE has focused in a wide range of countries on building the capacity and strengthening the governance of women’s chambers and association, thus making them more effective participants in that advocacy process.
Recently, a group of CIPE staffers took part in an informal email discussion that illuminates certain aspects of our approach to working with these organizations, which we wanted to share with readers of this blog. The conversation began when Julie Mancuso, Program Officer for Africa, wrote to several of her colleagues: “I am curious as to best models for women’s chambers and whether separate is usually better. Should women be engaged ideally through a strong local chamber, rather than starting their own, organized primarily around gender? Is this an area of debate or is there an agreed-upon model one way or the other?” Her specific question concerned her work with a coalition of women’s business associations that are weighing the relative merits of creating their own chamber or operating under the umbrella of the national chamber.
Based on CIPE’s recent work with a network of women’s chambers and associations in South Asia, my response was that “there is no one, or right, answer to that question.”
In the South Asia program, CIPE is working with representatives of women’s chambers, and with women board members of the “mainstream” (male-dominated) chambers. Separate women’s chambers can be better because they allow the organization to focus on the needs of women-owned business, and on the policy barriers that prevent women-owned business from flourishing.
On the other hand, increasing the role of women in mainstream chambers demonstrates that they can play leading roles in the business community as a whole, and helps ensures that the voice of women entrepreneurs figures into the mainstream policy dialogue. For an example, one can look at CIPE’s efforts to change the law on chambers in Pakistan, which both gave women the right to start their own chambers, and also mandated that women sit on the boards of the regional chambers. It all depends on the partners’ vision for what they seek to achieve.
Writing from Bucharest, CIPE Consultant Camelia Bulat, who has done extensive work in this area, shared her views. She noted that in her experience, there are “powerful women’s business associations that are concerned with business, not necessarily with gender. Some act as regular business associations, while others work for specific conditions for women in business.”
Bulat pointed out that often women entrepreneurs who start their own associations are also members of other organizations, but when they run for leadership positions, even when they are selected for the board, they only rarely win leadership roles. She explained that among “41 local chambers of commerce in Romania, none has a women president, [in a] country in which most successful women don’t feel discrimination.” Thus, the fact that women want to form their own organizations indicates that certain needs are not being met by other types of organizations, particularly the visibility that comes from leadership roles and control over the actions of the organization.
Bulat stressed that the creation of a separate chapter in a large, strong organization is also a valid model. In that case, rather than trying to grow a new organization, it becomes possible to rely on the structures, resources, and systems of an existing organization. Yet this can create tension if the larger organization views the women’s division as a side project with “limited autonomy,” as Bulat noted, or insists on approving the division’s activities, which can lead to clashes with the main chamber’s established traditions. Bulat explained that as the women’s chapter builds its own identity, it may consider spinning off from the main organization.
Bulat concluded that “if they are committed, have a vision and believe they can better serve their members as a separate entity… go for it. Of course, they will face challenges in building an organization from scratch, and they better be prepared for what it takes.”
Finally, CIPE Pakistan Deputy Country Director Hammad Siddiqui jumped in with some thoughts on the financial viability of women’s chambers, particularly in South Asia. He noted that women’s chambers sometimes “suffer due to their small membership, which means small revenue, hence limited opportunities to represent their membership.”
He also cautioned that smaller organizations can face the problem of “mission drift,” since a “few wealthy members make payments towards the chamber’s essential needs, such as rent and staff salaries.” This creates the risk that the organization can be captured by leading board members, rather than truly serving all of its members’ needs. Moreover, there is sometimes the risk that smaller women’s chambers can be suppressed by larger, male-dominated organizations. Thus, he concluded, “there is no right or wrong answer; it’s a matter of choice and depends on the given situation in a specific country or a city. A chamber survives only if there is a need, and if its members are willing to support the organization.”
Marc Schleifer is Regional Director for Eurasia and South Asia at CIPE.
Published Date: November 25, 2013