INTRODUCTION:

Innovation is central to economic development (Edquist, 1997, Freeman, 1987, Hall et al., 2003, Lundvall, 1992, Spielman, 2005).Of particular interest in developing countries is rural innovation since it is in rural areas that most of the poor live (WB, 2008). Whilst previous rural development theory, including innovation-related policy, has focussed on small-holder agriculture, the fact is that most rural poor are landless poor and therefore unlikely to benefit directly from agriculture-based policies. Instead, pro-poor innovation in rural areas is more likely to occur through small-scale ventures and entrepreneurs than industrial research and development. Entrepreneurship, in other words, plays a major role. One of the vital factors influencing and supporting entrepreneurship is finance. In fact, together with a level playing field provided by appropriate and fair regulations and laws, andaccess to human capital, access to finance constitutes the pillars of entrepreneurship (UNDP, 2004).

Although it appears to be contentious whether availability of finance impacts on entrepreneurial entry to markets (Kim et al., 2006, p. 5), it is likely to be a critical factor in determining the early success or failure of any new start-up venture. What is more, it has also been implicated as an important factor in determining the ongoing success of the business (Marlow and Patton, 2005, p. 717; Capelleras et al., 2008, p. 688). The literature would also appear to indicate that the balance between the availability to and uptake by entrepreneurs of different forms of finance may have wider effects on the national economy (Deidda and Fattouh, 2008, p. 6). Therefore it may be important to gain a better understanding of the level of availability of different forms of finance to start-up ventures, along with different factors affecting their uptake by entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurial Finance examines the elements of entrepreneurial finance, focusing on technology-based start-up ventures and the early stages of company development. This addresses key questions which challenge all entrepreneurs: how much money can and should be raised; when should it be raised and from whom; what is a reasonable valuation of the company; and how should funding, employment contracts and exit decisions be structured. It aims to prepare for these decisions, both as entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. In addition, it includes an in-depth analysis of the structure of the private equity industry. Strategy, Valuation, and Deal Structure applies the theory and methods of finance and economics to the rapidly evolving field of entrepreneurial finance. This approach reveals how entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and outside investors can rely on academic foundations as a framework to guide decision making.

Unlike others we will find a unique and direct focus on value creation as the objective of each strategic and financial choice that an entrepreneur or investor makes. We specifically address the influences of risk and uncertainty on new venture success, devoting substantial attention to methods of financial modeling and contract design. Finally, providing a comprehensive survey of approaches to new venture valuation, with an emphasis on applications.

Background:

The different financing options available to start-up ventures, focusing on bank finance and venture capital.

Entrepreneurial Finance is the process of making financial decisions for new ventures. New ventures are inherently different from established ventures, as are entrepreneurs inherently different from conventional business managers. The financial decisions faced by each are different as well. Entrepreneurs face very different finance challenges than do corporate managers. The most obvious, which most entrepreneurs are familiar with, is "financing". To the average entrepreneur, this means simply "finding money". It is this process of finding investors that tends to consume nearly all of the focus of most entrepreneurs while extremely important, it is not the only financial decision that an entrepreneur faces.

1. In entrepreneurial finance, investment decisions and financing decisions are the same thing:

Corporations can sell financial claims in the market at market rates. They can also often fund projects through allocation of internally generated funds. New ventures, on the other hand, do not have a market for their financial claims, and thus must raise funds for projects from investors. The result is that corporations can often finance projects with expectations of a positive net return on investment for which an new venture would reject the same project unless they can raise investment.

Likewise corporations can diversify their risk. Through risk management techniques, established corporations can shift project risks in order to reduce overall corporate risk. New ventures are usually typified by the entrepreneur bearing most of the risk themselves, undiversified.

2. Portfolio Theory (valuation based on risk) does not apply to new ventures clearly:

Entrepreneurs have limited mechanisms by which they can signal and communicate their true intentions. This creates potential moral hazard and information asymmetry. In contrast, the public corporation has many formal, standard mechanisms by which information is communicated and incentives are aligned.

3. The Entrepreneur must signal intentions to investors often by willingly undertaking irreversible, undiversifiable financial risks:

Given the different risk profiles, new ventures are difficult to accurately value. In practice, the value of most new ventures is largely derived as a function of the value of its options. Called "real options analysis", this approach applies options valuation techniques to real-world decisions. Venture capital firms are well known for applying sophisticated options valuation strategies to their portfolio of companies and decisions about if, when and how much to fund various financing rounds.

4. Real options analysis is a valuable technique for valuing the entire venture:

New ventures are illiquid by definition. They are closely held, private companies which have no explicit market value. The process of creating a market for investment in the new venture is known as creating liquidity, or achieving liquidity. Most venture capital firms plan their portfolio around expectations of liquidity events. Once liquidity is achieved, the firm's value can be harvested.

5. Liquidity is the only way in which new ventures return value to investors:

This leads to the final fundamental difference between corporations and new ventures: the entrepreneur. In an established corporation, the shareholders are the residual claimants. Incentives are aligned accordingly. But in a new venture--one in which the entrepreneur is still participating--the ultimate residual claimant is the entrepreneur herself. It is the entrepreneur who has undertaken disproportionate risk, undiversifiable risk, intangible risk in the form of personal sacrifice. It is therefore no surprise that it is the entrepreneur who finds herself necessarily driving valuation goals for the venture.

6. The Entrepreneur is the ultimate residual claimant and driver of valuation goals.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

There is a lack of recent research available as to trends in funding of entrepreneurs in The Netherlands. Understanding of such trends in other countries, where extensive research has taken place in the field of entrepreneurial finance, could result in the understanding as well as the applicability of general findings to The Netherlands and any other country.

Evidence confirms that banks continued to provide a major source of finance for SMEs in the 1990s (Hughes, 1997, p. 151) although it would be expected that the recent financial crisis could have impacted this (Udell, 2011, p. 103). While relaxing financial constraints may allow greater access to bank financing for entrepreneurs, it may also encourage excessive entry to the market and may also undermine bank-monitoring incentives according to Arping et al. (2010, p. 26).

Evidence from developing nations such as South Africa suggest that access to formal bank financing is likely to be a determinant of start-up rates in any given region (Naude et al., 2008, p. 111). There was however, little consideration in this paper as to whether availability of venture capital had any moderating effect on this relationship, and other sources suggest that this may be less important than availability of human capital (Kim et al., 2006, p. 5).

There may not only be issues associated with availability of bank finance, but also access to it. There is some suggestion within the literature that women may be somewhat disadvantaged in securing bank finance when compared to their male counterparts (Marlow and Patton, 2005, p. 717; Carter et al., 2007, p. 427). Other authors have disputed this, although it is possible that these differences could be accounted for by different geographical foci (Sabarwal et al., 2009, p. 1). There is also some suggestion that differences may exist between ethnic groups in access to bank finance (Smallbone et al., 2003, p. 291) while other personal characteristics of entrepreneurs could also create barriers (Irwin and Scott, 2010, p. 245).

The relationship between banks and entrepreneurs could be key to enabling access. Research from Italy suggests that there could be trust issues between young entrepreneurial firms and bank managers. This may be particularly true where there is perceived to be heavy monitoring, and may lead to lower levels of demand for bank financing (Howorth and Moro, 2006, p. 495). There is some evidence that the ownership of the bank itself may influence the relationships it forms with businesses of all types, including start-ups. In particular, the evidence suggests that firms are more likely to maintain exclusive relationships with state-owned banks, which may indicate greater levels of trust than compared to foreign or privately owned banks (Berger et al., 2008, p. 37).

The literature identifies some strategies that may be effective in helping to overcome these barriers. For example in emerging economies, networking has been implicated as an important strategy in helping small to medium enterprises (SMEs) secure bank financing. This more specifically relates to networking with customers and government officials (Le and Nguyen, 2009, p. 867). There is some suggestion that firms in developed countries are more likely to incorporate in order to access formal bank financing (Acs et al., 2008, p. 10).

It has been speculated that young businesses may require more than just monetary input, but also require access to expertise. This argument has been proposed predominantly in the context of technology firms, who may lack experience in research and development. Such businesses may benefit from expertise provided by venture capital firms who possess expertise and skills in this area (Keuschnigg and Nielsen, 2005, p. 222). It would however be suggested that this may extend into some other sectors on the basis of research by Kim et al. (2006, p. 5) which found that availability of human capital was instrumental in determining entrepreneurial entry to markets.

Quantitative surveys conducted amongst start-up firms has suggested that various characteristics of those ventures may determine the structure and types of finance which are utilized, including size, assets, growth orientation and owner characteristics (Cassar, 2004, p. 261). When selecting venture capital, businesses must consider contracts carefully, as these will have a significant impact on how the firm is able to exit at a later stage (Cumming, 2008, p. 1947).de Bettignies and Brander (2007, p. 808) argue that venture capital may be preferred to bank finance when venture capital productivity is high and entrepreneurial productivity is low. Winton and Yerramilli (2008, p. 51) suggest that there may be different criteria for determining preference, based on preference for risky or safe continuation practices and relative costs associated with finance options. For example, they suggest that if venture capital companies lower their cost of capital, this may entice some entrepreneurs to switch from safe continuation strategies utilizing bank finance, to riskier strategies utilizing venture capital.

Economists in the post war years like Lewis, Higgins and Leibenstein drew direct parallels between availability of entrepreneurial facilities, knowledge and credit on the one hand and increased income per head on the other (Penny, 1968). They suggested that farmers needed more capital than they could save from income, and that credit would be necessary in small agriculture and industry (Penny, 1968). This complemented the small-but-efficient paradigm (Schultz, 1964) where farmers were considered the engine of growth, and where agriculture related innovation could be induced.

In this supply-led theory, finance was considered a means to induce innovation, as a form of input (Patrick, 1966) for example conveyed the idea that economic growth and development could be encouraged through interventions in the financial system by supplying finance in advance of demand. These supply-leading financial theories came to dominate rural finance for several decades. Patrick (1966) suggested that “supply-leading finance has two functions: to transfer resources from traditional or non-growth sectors to moderns sectors and to promote and stimulate entrepreneurial responses.

Access to supply-leading funds opens new horizons, enabling the entrepreneur to ’think big’” (Patrick, 1966:51). It follows that if subsidised credit was provided to the agriculture sector, farmers would be induced, or spurred, to buy new and more efficient technology, such as tractors, which would have a positive impact on economic growth and development. Credit programmes were expected to help the rural poor increase agricultural production (and thus growth) not only by giving them the opportunity to purchase new technology but also by compensating farmers for the government prices and policies that were having a detrimental effect on their earnings (Adams et al., 1984:1). The result of this ‘direct credit’ approach was expected to be increased food production at a time when the world was facing a severe food crisis.

A further assumption underlying the need for government intervention and funding of subsidised credit programmes was that ‘bad moneylenders’ that were providing the majority of finance in rural areas, would charge higher rates. Therefore, formal financial institutions needed to be created that could provide credit at a better rate to the rural poor (Von Pischke et al., 1983). Providing credit was ultimately seen to be the responsibility of governments and international donors, either directly or through financial institutions.

Internationally, USAID’s predecessor was pioneering in providing rural credit for farmers in the 1950’s followed by the Inter-American Development Bank and the World Bank. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation supported programmes with information dissemination and technical support (Von Pischke et al., 1983:2-3). National governments of low income countries quickly adopted the credit programmes, which proliferated in the 1960’s and 70’s, with the arrival of new technologies and the Green Revolution, particularly in Asia. Nevertheless, fierce criticism of the narrow supply-led finance theories and credit programmes surfaced almost before they had even developed.

Despite early criticisms, the major turning point only came with the USAID’s Spring Review of Small Farmer Credit of 1972-73. The review surveyed a large number of credit programmes and severely criticised the model. New approaches emerged in the 1980s, resulting in a paradigm shift in rural finance away from the narrow focus on rural credit to emphasising a broader view of the financial system (Robinson, 2001). The change was led by the Rural Finance Programme at Ohio State University which created the Rural Financial Markets approach, summarised in two important collections of essays on rural finance edited by Von Pishcke et al. (1983) and Adams et al. (1984).

The new paradigm was based on a change and broader attitude towards informal financiers, mobilising savings and extending financial services beyond farm credit, to non farm activities and in line with general development policy at the time. A more market driven approach where market forces would be expected to allocate financial services (Adams et al., 1984:229, Gonzalez-Vega, 1994). In addition, there was a strong belief in competitive local and informal financial markets and their ability to provide adequate access to finance. In fact, it was an almost complete turn around on the ‘evil moneylender’ assumption, believing instead that informal financial institutions and markets could adequately support the rural poor (Robinson, 2001) and should be left to themselves. Furthermore, the World Bank further discussed rural financial markets in several important articles and books in the 1990’s including Von Pischke, (1991), Hoff et al., (1993), Benjamin and Yaron, (1997), all stressing an enabling environment and removing policies biased against rural markets in line with the prevailing Washington Consensus. These authors called for governments to correct market failures through policy and regulatory reforms rather through the subsidy-based direct credit programmes.

Towards the mid 1990s, rural finance theory had moved towards demand-led models. Three separate but interrelated strands of financing theory particularly relevant to financing innovative entrepreneurs were emerging that both questioned the neo-classical view of economic development. One strand is the fashionable and currently much researched micro credit and micro finance approach. The other focuses on financial systems and innovation. Lastly, since the start of the new millennium, work on financial access and inclusion has become increasingly popular.

Micro Credit and Micro Finance:

Microcredit and later Microfinance emerged in the 1980’s to provide small amounts of credit to the rural poor, treating them as customers and expecting regular, and full repayment including interest. Microfinance thus emerged as a response to the continual failure of financial services to reach the poor. Reasons for this failure include the insistence on collateral for credit, information asymmetry between lenders and borrowers, the high transaction costs of administering small savings and loans and a failure to reach out to the poor. For the past 20 years, microfinance has grown rapidly and in 2001 Robinson wrote on the Microfinance Revolution and sustainable microfinance provision as the key to sustainable services for the poor. Various forms of microfinance exist.

Bangladesh predominantly uses Grameen’s “joint liability” model where small groups are formed where each member is required to act as a guarantor of the other members of the group ,in case of loan default. India on the other hand, uses a different group model based on larger Self-Help-Groups (SHG) where credit is given to a self-formed village group of prevalent women who then administer the loan within the group. SHG’s have been linked with rural banks, resulting in the “SHG-bank-linkage model” which has become enormously popular among Government and Apex institutions as the main mechanism for providing finance to the rural poor.

Thirdly, apart from group lending some microfinance organisations offer loans to individuals. The Grameen and SHG models often rely on government subsidised credit for on-lending; models such as Latin American MFI’s Banco Sol and Bank Compartimos, rely on for profit ,investments and savings. However, microfinance in particular microcredit has also been criticised for not having a clear and sustainable impact among the poor (Morduch, 1998, Morduch, 1999) and several impact evaluation have substantiated this belief (Banerjee et al., 2009, Morduch, 1998, Pitt and Khandker, 1998). One problem with the credit provision to small-holders is that it is often too small to be used for the intended purpose such as buying healthy animals. Instead, it is common for loans meant for productive purposes to be spent on household consumption (Birdar and Jayasheela, 2000) such as a new roof or family events including funerals and weddings. In fact, Banerjee, Duflo et al. (2009) found through a random trial that microcredit has little impact on the investment practices and business income of those micro entrepreneurs that did not already possess a functioning business at the time of loan disbursement, who chose instead to use the credit for consumption while those entrepreneurs that already had a business were more likely to use the extra credit for business expansion purposes."Microcredit “succeeds” in affecting household expenditure and creating and expanding businesses, it appears to have no effect on education, health, or women’s empowerment” (Banerjee et al., 2009:21). This highlights another problem with microfinance, that it rests on the faulty assumption that all poor are willing and able to be entrepreneurs.

Nevertheless, a major point that microfinance has proved, is that the poor are reliable bank customers. Microfinance has thereby opened up financing for a new section of society and using women rather than men as clients in order to minimise the diversion of funds (Robinson, 2001).

Throughout the world, poor people are excluded from formal financial systems. Exclusion ranges from partial exclusion in developed countries to full or nearly full exclusion in lesser developed countries (LDCs). Absent access to formal financial services, the poor have developed a wide variety of informal, community-based financial arrangements to meet their financial needs. In addition, over the last two decades, an increasing number of formal sector organizations (non-government, government, and private) have been created for the purpose of meeting those same needs. Microfinance is the term that has come to refer generally to such informal and formal arrangements offering financial services to the poor.

Microfinance exist, although mostly in the shadows and unseen by casual observers. The rise of formal financial systems and probably predates them. It has only been within the last four decades that serious global efforts have been made to formalize financial service provision to the poor. This process began in earnest around the early to mid-1980s and has since then gathered an impressive momentum. Today, there are thousands of MFIs providing financial services to an estimated 100 - 200 million of the world’s poor (Christen et al., (1995)). This grass-root “movement” led to the development of commercial and financial industry throughout the world.

The rise of the microfinance industry represents a remarkable accomplishment taken within historical context. It has overturned established ideas of the poor as consumers of financial services, shattered stereotypes of the poor as not bankable, spawned a variety of lending methodologies demonstrating that it is possible to provide cost-effective financial services to the poor and mobilize millions of dollars of “social investment” for the poor (Mutua, et al. (1996)). It must be emphasized that the animating motivation behind the microfinance movement was poverty alleviation. Microfinance offered the potential to alleviate poverty while paying for itself and perhaps even turning a profit—“doing well by doing good.” This potential perhaps, accounts for the emergence of microfinance onto the global stage.

RATIONALE OF STUDY:

It would appear that many of the studies have much to contribute to a better understanding of how entrepreneurs select between bank and venture capital financing. However, most have focused on only limited aspects of the issue. A literature review that aims to take a wider perspective may therefore be useful in providing a better understanding of what may be a relatively complex decision-making process. In particular, most of the evidence available has examined the availability and access to bank financing, with much less information available on comparison to venture capital availability and access. Yet contrasting the benefits and limitations of the two may be important in enabling entrepreneurs to make an informed decision while structuring their start-up finance arrangements.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of the study are:

· To study and identify the differences in the availability of and access to bank financing and venture capital to businesses.

· To identify the availability and access to different types of finance impact choices made by entrepreneurs.

· To construct a comprehensive instrument to measure and evaluate through a scale, the Financing techniques.

· To determine the common barriers to bank finance and venture capital or are some barriers specific to one option.

· To identify strategies that may enable entrepreneurs to overcome these barriers.

HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY:

HO1: It is not possible to construct a financial measurement scale that demonstrates homogeneity in a moderately large sample.

HA1: It is possible to construct a financial measurement scale that demonstrates homogeneity in a moderately large sample.

HO2: There is no impact of bank finance and venture capital on value creation.

HA2: There is an impact of bank finance and venture capital on value creation.

RESEARCH METHODOLGY:

Exploratory analysis of existing review and recent developments in the field of Entrepreneurial Finance will be done to identify the broad components . An initial item pool for the assessment questionnaire will be developed based on the theoretical conception of entrepreneurial finance including techniques of financing ,the development of a sound theoretical model on which test items can be based is a crucial first step in scale development. The vast majority of researchers rely on a thorough literature review of the subject in order to infer from previous research a model of the construct . This would be the approach for the conception of the proposed model and scale of entrepreneurial finance.

DATA COLLECTION:

The proposed study would collect data from both primary and secondary sources. Secondary data will be collected from published books, journals, and periodicals, etc., along with manuals and other reports of different companies in India. Primary data to test the hypotheses would be collected by administering a structured questionnaire to a sample of 150 individuals working as an entrepreneur in India.

Sample selection:

Stratified random sampling technique would be used to select entrepreneurs from the various industries.

Homogeneity:

Homogeneity will be measured by Cronbach's Alpha. Homogeneity refers to the degree in which a measurement represents a single construct.

Reliability:

Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure. Reliability for the components of entrepreneurial finance would be established by cronbach’s alpha and spearman’s-brown equal length. Also, split-half reliability would be gauged wherein all items that measure the same construct are divided into two sets and the correlation between the two sets is computed. Reverse-coded items will also be included in the questionnaire as indicators of internal reliability.

Validity:

Validity refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores entailed by proposed uses of tests (AERA/APA/NCME, 1999).Validity of an assessment is the degree to which it measures what it is supposed to measure. In the present study Construct validity has three aspects or components: the substantive component, structural component, and external component.They are related close to three stages in the test construction process: constitution of the pool of items, analysis and selection of the internal structure of the pool of items, and correlation of test scores with criteria and other variables.

Content validity Content validity refers to the degree to which the content of the items reflects the content domain of interest (APA, 1954)

Content representation is the only aspect of validation that can be completed prior to administering the test and reporting results. If this process yields disappointing results, there is still time to recoup” (Crocker, 2003)

Factor analysis:

The analysis will isolate the underlying factors that explain the data using a matrix of associations. Factor analysis is an interdependence technique. The complete set of interdependent relationships is examined. There is no specification of dependent variables, independent variables, or causality. Factor analysis assumes that all the rating data on different attributes can be reduced down to a few important dimensions. This reduction is possible because some attributes may be related to each other. The rating given to any one attribute is partially the result of the influence of other attributes. The statistical algorithm deconstructs the rating (called a raw score) into its various components, and reconstructs the partial scores into underlying factor scores. The degree of correlation between the initial raw score and the final factor score is called a factor loading.

Inter-Subscale correlations: are examined to determine the convergent validity of subscales that are theoretically related. It is important that subscales correlate sufficiently with each other in order to have confidence that these subscales are in fact measuring the same theoretical construct, engagement. If subscales are not sufficiently correlated with each other, we can not have confidence that they are not measuring the relationship between theoretically related attributes of engagement.

REFERENCES:

· Entrepreneurial Finance is most effectively used in conjunction with a companion, http://www.sup.org/entrepreneurialfinance.

· Acs, Z.J., Desai, S. and Klapper, L.F. (2008) What does ‘Entrepreneurship’ data really show? A comparison of the global entrepreneurship monitor and world bank group datasets. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4667. Accessed 13 May 2011, from:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm

· The article published at OPENForum.com under the title: “4 Important Lessons About Entrepreneurial Finance,http:// smallbiztrends.com/2010/12/4-lessons-entrepreneurial-finance.html

· http://writepass.co.uk/journal/2012/12/literature-review-on-entrepreneurial-fin

· http://randolfe.typepad.com/randolfe/2006/11/entrepreneurial.html

· Arping, S., Loranth, G. and Morrison, A.D. (2010). Public initiatives to support entrepreneurs: Credit guarantees versus co-funding. Journal of Financial Stability, 6(1): 26-35.

· Berger, A.N., Klapper, L.F., Peria, M.S.M. and Zaidi, R. (2008). Bank ownership type and banking relationships. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 17(1): 37-62.

· Capelleras, J.-L., Mole, K.F., Greene, F.J. and Storey, D.J. (2008). Do more heavily regulated economies have poorer performing new ventures? Evidence from Britain and Spain.Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 688-704.

· Carter, S., Shaw, E., Lam, W. and Wilson, F. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurship, and bank lending: The criteria and processes used by bank loan officers in assessing applications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3): 427-444.

· Cassar, G. (2004). The financing of business start ups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2): 261-283.

· Cumming, D. (2008). Contracts and exits in venture capital finance. The Review of Financial Studies, 21(5): 1947-1982.

· de Bettignies, J.-E. and Brander, J.A. (2007). Financing entrepreneurship: Bank finance versus venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(6): 808-832.

· Deidda, L. and Fattouh, B. (2008). Banks, financial markets and growth. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 17(1): 6-36.

· Howorth, C. and Moro, A. (2006). Trust within entrepreneur bank relationships: Insights from Italy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(4): 495-517.

· Hughes, A. (1997). Finance for SMEs: A UK perspective. Business and Economics, 9(2): 151-168.

· Irwin, D. and Scott, J.M. (2010). Barriers faced by SMEs in raising bank finance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 16(3): 245-259.

· Keuschnigg, C. and Nielsen, S.B. (2005) ‘Public policy for start-up entrepreneurship with venture capital and bank finance’. In V. Kanniainen and C. Keuschnigg (Eds.) Venture Capital, Entrepreneurship, and Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 221-250.

· Kim, P.H., Aldrich, H.E. and Keister, L.A. (2006). Access (not) denied: The impact of financial, human, and cultural capital on entrepreneurial entry in the United States. Small Business Economics, 27(1): 5-22.

· Le, N.T.B. and Nguyen, T.V. (2009). The impact of networking on bank financing: The case of small and medium-sized enterprises in Vietnam. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,33(4): 867-887.

· Marlow, S. and Patton, D. (2005). All credit to men? Entrepreneurship, finance, and gender. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6): 717-735.

· Naude, W., Gries, T., Wood, E. and Meintijies, A. (2008) Regional determinants of entrepreneurial start-ups in a developing country. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20(2): 111-124.

· Sabarwal, S., Terrell, K. and Bardasi, E. (2009). How do Female Entrepreneurs Perform? Evidence from Three Developing Regions. World Bank. Accessed 15 May 2011

Received on 29.08.2013 Modified on 10.10.2013

Asian J. Management 5(1): January–March, 2014 page 08-13