The Brief
- MoSPI proposes introducing gender-specific questions into ASUSE 2027–28, an existing survey of unincorporated enterprises.
- The announcement describes these questions as a first for ASUSE. It does not establish that India has never previously studied women entrepreneurs’ difficulties.
- Investment measurement would also expand. This is a proposal to collect information, not an announcement of investment funding.
- Change in Content welcomes the direction. Its value will depend on careful interviews, useful published findings and decisions that respond to them.
A survey of challenges faced by women entrepreneurs could change the questions we ask
India has proposed adding questions on women entrepreneurs’ gender-specific constraints to the Annual Survey of Unincorporated Sector Enterprises, or ASUSE, for 2027–28. Announced by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation on 26 October, the move would bring those difficulties into the survey’s account of how businesses operate.
At Change in Content, we welcome the proposal. A business can be counted, registered and included in an entrepreneurship programme while the reasons it struggles remain poorly understood. Asking about those reasons is a useful step towards designing support that reaches the problem.
Consider a hypothetical owner who turns down a larger order. Perhaps she cannot buy the equipment it requires. Perhaps she cannot travel to the buyer’s premises. And perhaps fulfilling it would require working hours she cannot manage alongside care responsibilities. The lost order looks the same in each case. The intervention needed does not.
That is the promise of a survey of challenges faced by women entrepreneurs: A better basis for deciding what help would actually make a difference.
What is being proposed, and what is not?
ASUSE 2027–28 is proposed for April 2027 to March 2028, aligning it with the financial year. The changes include questions on gender-specific business constraints and a longer reference period for investment in fixed assets. The wider package also covers electricity sources and identification of handloom, power-loom and handicraft establishments.
Here, the scope matters. ASUSE covers unincorporated non-agricultural establishments in manufacturing, trade and other services, excluding construction. It is not a survey of every Indian company or every woman founder. “Unincorporated” also does not mean automatically unregistered: The survey includes establishments with different registration arrangements.
Nor is this a newly launched funding scheme. Measuring investment is different from providing it. And “first” should be used carefully: MoSPI’s announcement concerns the introduction of gender-specific constraint questions within ASUSE, rather than a claim that women’s business difficulties have never been researched before.
The proposal deserves attention on its own terms. It does not need a bigger claim to make it significant.
Women are already visible as owners. Their operating conditions need to be visible too.
ASUSE 2025 estimated 7.92 crore establishments and 12.81 crore workers across the sector it covers. Within proprietary establishments, the share headed by women was 26.93%. That percentage is not the share of all Indian companies owned by women.
Ownership figures establish presence. They cannot fully explain whether an owner can meet buyers, negotiate with suppliers, invest in equipment or find uninterrupted time to run the business.
Our earlier examination of women entrepreneurs in the Annual Survey of Unincorporated Sector Enterprises considered the relationship between ownership, income and employment. This proposal opens a complementary question: what stands between an existing enterprise and the future its owner wants for it?
Reporting by The Indian Express on the draft identifies restrictions on entrepreneurial time, mobility outside the home and household or caregiving responsibilities among the proposed areas of enquiry. These are proposed questions, not findings about how many women experience each constraint.
Their relevance is easy to understand.
- If a business owner cannot attend an afternoon supplier meeting, another digital marketing workshop may leave her central difficulty untouched.
- If she can reach customers but cannot finance additional equipment, networking alone may have limited value.
These are illustrative possibilities, not accounts from surveyed respondents. Better evidence would help institutions distinguish between them.
The investment question could add an important business dimension
The proposal would examine fixed-asset investment over a longer period than the existing question covers. For a small enterprise, equipment purchases may be occasional and substantial. A short observation window can miss a purchase that changed how the business works.
Imagine a proprietor considering a second machine. Its usefulness depends on more than its price. She may need workspace, reliable electricity, an operator and enough confirmed orders to justify the purchase. Understanding investment alongside operating constraints could help analysts formulate more useful questions about why some businesses expand, and others do not.
That is a potential analytical use, not a result the proposed survey has already produced. A relationship between a reported constraint and lower investment would not, by itself, prove that one caused the other.
The distinction protects the value of the exercise. The strongest evidence is evidence whose limits are understood.
Who could use the findings beyond government?
The practical value could extend to organisations making everyday decisions about women-led businesses. Subject to the detail and quality of the published results, several users could benefit:
| Potential user | A decision better evidence could inform |
| Banks and other lenders | Whether access problems concern application processes, suitable finance, timing or additional business support |
| Corporate buyers | Whether supplier onboarding, meeting requirements or procurement processes unnecessarily restrict participation |
| Business associations and incubators | Where training, local networks, buyer introductions or operational assistance are most relevant |
| State and local institutions | Which constraints merit locally designed support rather than a uniform programme |
| Researchers and civil society organisations | Which differences deserve further investigation and whose experiences remain missing |
These are possible applications, not commitments announced by MoSPI. Published aggregate findings would not entitle any institution to individual respondents’ confidential information.
There is a useful connection with our coverage of the Women Entrepreneurs Finance Code pilots: institutions need to understand the people using their services before deciding what an appropriate product or process looks like.
Execution will determine how useful the answers become
Welcoming the plan means taking implementation seriously. We would look for five things as the proposal develops.
First, hear from the woman whose constraints are being recorded.
The person who handles the accounts may not be the person best placed to describe her experience. Interview arrangements should give women a meaningful opportunity to answer, with appropriate privacy when discussing sensitive household restrictions.
Second, make room for differences.
A home-based producer, a shop proprietor and a service provider need not face the same obstacles. Results should distinguish relevant business characteristics and locations where sample sizes support reliable estimates. Small or uncertain subgroups should be identified honestly.
Third, avoid interpreting constraints as preferences.
Operating close to home might be a deliberate commercial choice. It might also reflect restrictions on travel. A useful survey should help distinguish those explanations rather than label every small enterprise as lacking ambition.
Fourth, explain confidentiality and purpose clearly.
Respondents need to understand what is being asked and how their information will be handled. Interviewer training, accessible language and manageable questions are part of data quality, not administrative extras.
Fifth, recognise who an enterprise survey may miss.
Women prevented from starting a business, or those whose enterprises have already closed, may require complementary research. Evidence from businesses currently operating cannot automatically represent every woman who wanted to become an entrepreneur.
These are Change in Content’s priorities for implementation. They should not be mistaken for provisions already confirmed in the final questionnaire.
There is still an opportunity to improve the design
The ministry’s announcement invites comments on the proposed schedule in the prescribed format by 15 November 2026. Business associations, researchers and organisations working with women entrepreneurs have an opportunity to contribute practical knowledge before fieldwork begins.
Useful feedback should be specific: which question could be misunderstood, which response option misses a common experience, or which interview arrangement could prevent a candid answer? Those details can improve the eventual evidence far more than a general endorsement.
The official announcement directs stakeholders to MoSPI’s website for the draft and feedback format. Contributors should check the current notice before submitting.
Our view: A welcome beginning, with a practical test ahead
Women entrepreneurs should not have to make the same case from scratch every time they seek support. A credible body of evidence can help institutions recognise recurring difficulties while leaving room for different ambitions and business models.
India’s proposal creates a useful opening. Its eventual success should be judged by whether the findings help people make better decisions: a more accessible process, a better-designed programme, a realistic training schedule or a more useful conversation about investment.
The government is proposing to ask a better question. The next responsibility belongs to everyone in a position to act on the answers.
Sources and editorial checks
- MoSPI/PIB, 26 October 2026: ASUSE 2027–28 to align with the financial year. Primary authority for the proposal, ASUSE-specific novelty and consultation deadline.
- Akashvani News, 26 October 2026: proposal and investment measurement. Corroborates investment reference-period change and financial-year alignment.
- MoSPI/PIB, 6 May 2026: ASUSE 2025 results. Source for sector coverage, establishments, employment, proprietary ownership and registration distinction. Historical 2025 data are context, not results of the proposed 2027–28 questions.
- The Indian Express, 26 October 2026: reporting on draft questionnaire. The time, mobility and care categories are explicitly attributed to its reporting. The draft attachment was not independently inspected; no question numbers, response codes or verbatim questionnaire text are claimed.
