Can a BAP Broaden Access? Women Entrepreneurs as a Stress Test

A Business Angel Platform (BAP) can make an investment process more reachable without making finance more equal. This chapter uses women entrepreneurs’ financing barriers to test the BAP’s access governance, investor community, training, matching, and support mechanisms. The aim is not to declare that BAPs solve a gender gap—the focal BAP study does not measure that outcome—but to diagnose where the model could reduce friction, where it could reproduce exclusion, and what evidence would distinguish the two.

The finance gap is more than a headline percentage

The OECD’s 2025 report presents women’s entrepreneurship finance as a multi-stage problem. Across OECD countries, women were about 75% as likely as men to be starting or managing a new business during 2019–23. That difference is only the first symptom. Women-led businesses also showed, on average, lower growth expectations, innovation, and international reach, although the pattern varied substantially across countries and contexts.

Access to external finance is another symptom. The report says women entrepreneurs were about half as likely as men to report borrowing from a bank to start, operate, or expand a business. It also cites a broad estimate that women-owned or women-led businesses receive about 2% of total venture-capital investment. The figures use different populations and measures; neither is a measure of BAP activity. Their importance is diagnostic. They show that the question is not only whether a woman can find a platform or submit an application. It is whether they can obtain appropriate capital, in an amount and on terms that support the business, and whether the financing relationship continues to provide useful support.

The gap therefore has at least four dimensions.

Access asks whether an entrepreneur reaches a lender or investor and is considered at all. A person may not apply because they lack information, connections, confidence, or a reasonable expectation of success. The OECD describes this as discouragement: entrepreneurs may need finance but decide not to seek it because they believe an application will be rejected.

Amount asks how much capital is offered or secured. Women entrepreneurs often receive smaller amounts, partly because they request smaller sums and operate different types or sizes of businesses, but the result can still constrain growth. A smaller initial investment may limit hiring, product development, or the ability to reach a later financing stage.

Terms ask what the capital costs and requires. The report notes that women often pay higher interest rates and provide more collateral when receiving loans. Equity terms also matter, even when the available evidence is usually expressed through access and total funding rather than a single comparable price. An entrepreneur who receives money under less favourable conditions has not experienced the same access as an entrepreneur who receives flexible, adequate finance.

Continuation asks whether the relationship brings knowledge, networks, and follow-on opportunities. Women entrepreneurs can miss not only the first investment but also the informal learning that comes with working alongside experienced investors. A funding gap can therefore become a capability and network gap, which then affects future applications.

These dimensions caution against treating the 2% venture-capital figure as a complete diagnosis.