Immigrant entrepreneurs' selectivity: host market distance and opportunity

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore the motivations of immigrant entrepreneurs in choosing a host country before immigrating, through a comparison of country distances and economic opportunities.

Design/methodology/approach

Hypotheses borrow from selectivity theory and institutional theory to propose that there will be a negative relationship between distance and the selection of a host county, as well as a positive relationship between host country opportunity and immigrant selectivity. OLS regression was used on secondary data to determine the flow of labor immigrants from source‐destination country dyads.

Findings

Cultural and geographic distances are stronger indicators of where a business person immigrates than the promise of opportunity.

Research limitations/implications

Exclusive use of secondary data precludes potentially important variables from being included in this cross‐sectional study. Future primary, longitudinal research may determine if this is the immigrant's first choice of markets, if the immigrant has family already in the host market and what the motivation was for the first family member to immigrate.

Practical implications

Immigrants may need to seek objective third party information on the opportunities in potential host countries rather than relying on personal networks with asymmetrical information.

Social implications

Policy makers may consider utilizing local immigrant enclaves to communicate host market opportunities to highly desired immigrant talent still residing in the source country.

Originality/value

Entrepreneurial intentions before migrating to a new market have been understudied in the literature and this paper offers a rigorous theoretical and empirical framework for addressing this question.

Citation

Crockett, D.R. (2013), "Immigrant entrepreneurs' selectivity: host market distance and opportunity", Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 196-212. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-12-2011-0032