Search results

We review the empirical literature on ethnic economic enclaves after the concept was formulated 25 years ago. The balance of this literature is mixed, but many studies reporting negative conclusions were marred by faulty measurement of the concept. We discuss the original theoretical definition of enclaves, the hypotheses derived from it, and the difficulties in operationalizing them. For evidence, we turn to census data on the location and the immigrant group that gave rise to the concept in the first place – Cubans in Miami. We examine the economic performance of this group, relative to others in this metropolitan area, and in the context of historical changes in its own mode of incorporation. Taking these changes into account, we find that the ethnic enclave had a significant economic payoff for its founders – the earlier waves of Cuban exiles – and for their children, but not for refugees who arrived in the 1980 Mariel exodus and after. Reasons for this disjuncture are examined. Implications of these results for enclave theory and for immigrant entrepreneurship in general are discussed.

This study investigates patterns of violence employed by insurgents killing civilians living in small ethnic enclaves located in Ninewa Province, Iraq from 2003 to 2009. The ethnic minorities in these communities include: (1) Yazidis in Sinjar District, (2) Chaldo-Assyrian Christians in the Ninewa Plains and, (3) the Turkmen enclave of Tal Afar. To date, there has been little investigation into violence directed toward small ethnic enclaves during civil war, though some have suggested that ethnic enclaves might insulate civilians from violence (Kaufmann, 1996). Using fatality data from the Iraq Body Count, this study compares the patterns of insurgent violence directed toward these enclave communities to co-ethnic and mixed-ethnic communities. The experiences of the enclaves were varied – some were largely insulated from attacks – but when attacked, the average number killed was greater and more indiscriminate as compared to communities with significant Arab populations. One possible explanation for these differences is that insurgents did not regard these citizens as being “convertible,” which caused them to employ violence in a more indiscriminate manner. When insurgents did act to secure control of enclave communities, they used indiscriminate forms of violence against civilians, as compared to more selective forms of violence employed when controlling co-ethnic communities.

Since Piore’s (1979) seminal work on ethnic economies, there has been significant development in our understanding of the grouping process of immigrants and co-ethnics into economic, social, and political units, and the behavior of immigrant entrepreneurs within these groups. During the past two decades a number of sociologists have contributed several important concepts to the study of ethnic entrepreneurship such as social capital (e.g. Portes, 1998; Portes & Landolt, 1996, 2000), social embeddedness and network ties (e.g. Kloosterman & Rath, 2001; Portes & Sensenbrenner, 1993; Rath, 2002), and fine tuning the definitional distinctions between levels of co-ethnic cohesiveness, such as ethnic neighborhoods, ethnic economies, and ethnic enclaves (e.g. Light & Gold, 2000; Waldinger, 1982; Waldinger et al., 1990). More recently, business theorists have started to examine the problem of ethnic economic activity, incorporating more economic and entrepreneurship strategy concepts such as resource dependency (Greene, 1997), buyer-supplier relationships (Galbraith et al., 2003), access to financing (Smallbone et al., 2002), and differential marketing systems (Iyer & Shapiro, 1999). What appears to be sometimes lacking in modern discussions of ethnic economies and entrepreneurial behavior, however, is an underlying and unifying theoretical paradigm.

Enclave development is a common theme underlying much of the current thought regarding ethnic entrepreneurism, and particularly entrepreneurial behavior among recent immigrants. Historically, ethnic enclaves are described as having certain necessary characteristics (Portes, 1998; Portes & Bach, 1985; Waldinger et al., 1990), such as co-ethnic spatial concentration or agglomeration, a co-ethnic social and support network, a co-ethnic capital market, an intra-ethnic market trading structure (e.g. Dyer & Ross, 2000), and uniqueness of co-ethnic customer preferences and personalized services (e.g. Peterson & Roquebert, 1993). Current theory suggests that aspiring immigrant entrepreneurs and existing ethnic businesses alike can take advantage of the market and social cohesiveness offered by an established enclave, ultimately reducing the various transactions costs associated with doing intra-enclave business (Knack & Keefer, 1997). As Light (1998) argues, the key connection between social capital and ethnic entrepreneurship is the efficient use of ethnic resources to support the creation and survival of businesses in the community. While some characteristics of ethnic enclaves, such as co-ethnic agglomeration and social networks, have been extensively investigated by sociologists, regional economists, population ecologists, and entrepreneurship researchers, other enclave characteristics, such as the inter and intra-enclave market trading behaviors have been recognized, but less researched (Dyer & Ross, 2000; Galbraith et al., 2003).

The central role of networks in advancing organizational and individual goals is well accepted (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Hite & Hesterly, 2001) in the management and sociology literatures. Networks are made up of two distinct types of ties: strong ties and weak ties. Strong ties refer to the network relationships that are close, stable and binding (Ibarra, 1993), as opposed to weak ties, that are more superficial and lacking in emotional investment. Network theory, however, suggests that strong ties may not provide the most beneficial opportunities for an individual/organization (Burt, 1997; Coleman, 1988) and conclude that in order for a business to succeed the entrepreneur must have a network made up of weak ties.

Destination and resort managers have little knowledge regarding the Chinese outbound tourist market, yet its enormous potential cannot be overlooked. Providing services to this often unfamiliar segment can be difficult and may result in poor service delivery which can be detrimental to both enclave resorts and small island destinations, such as Mauritius. This study uses in-depth interviews among key informants from three- to five-star enclave resorts targeting Chinese tourists. The main challenges experienced by the resorts are cultural behavior, language barriers, different food habits, and the need to improve the service facilities and experience. Based on insights from industry practitioners, the study identifies service modifications provided by enclave resorts to provide Chinese tourists with a positive experience.

This chapter seeks to engage with and extend the current debate in the literature of ethnic entrepreneurship. It critiques the concept of ethnic entrepreneurship and its theoretical underpinnings. It argues that research in ethnic entrepreneurship bears little reflection of the current changes and new realities in the composition of modern societies. Based on qualitative primary data from interviews combined with secondary sources of data, it suggests that the term ‘ethnic entrepreneurship’ is discriminatory and creates a narrative of Othering in the discourse of entrepreneurship, thus, portraying entrepreneurship as a western phenomenon. It argues that it is contradictory to think entrepreneurship is fundamentally contextual, socially and culturally embedded, and then define enterprise with ethnic bias. The concept of ethnic entrepreneurship propagates entrepreneurial Othering and a reductionist view of non-western forms of entrepreneurship. What constitutes ethnic enterprise should not be based on the identity of the owner. The ethnic enterprise is not confined to a geographical boundary; and the ethnic economy and the mainstream economy are not mutually exclusive. In this era of superdiversity and globalisation, researchers are encouraged to rethink the concept of ethnic entrepreneurship and embrace difference without Othering.

New York City’s status as a majority “minority” city is reflected in many local neighborhoods that exemplify the racial and ethnic diversity of the urban landscape in the 21st century. In this quintessential immigrant city, the relative share of foreign-born has reached levels not seen since the historic immigrant wave at the turn of the last century (Foner, 2000; Scott, 2002). While “all the nations under heaven” are represented among old and new New Yorkers, researchers find that patterns of residential segregation persist and in fact, have worsened especially for African Americans (Beveridge, 2001; Logan, 2001). The racial balkanization of New York City, however, is tempered by the expansion of “polyethnic” or “global” neighborhoods. These racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods are found throughout New York City but their concentration in the borough of Queens is notable. Moreover, the magnitude of ethnic diversity in these neighborhoods has “no parallel in previous waves of immigration” (Foner, 2000, p. 58).

The nature of immigration to the United States has varied tremendously over the course of the last 100 years. While the rate of immigrants in comparison to the total population was as high as 14% in the early 1900s, it steadily declined due to regulations passed at the beginning of the First World War reaching its lowest point in 1970 at less than 5% (Bernard, 1998). Yet, ever since the early 1970s, in response to the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments that replaced national-origin quotas with a single annual worldwide ceiling for all other immigrants while eliminating any numerical limitations for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, the number of immigrants has been continuously on the rise. In 1996, about 1 of every 10 residents in the United States was foreign born. This is exemplified by the fact that more than one fourth of the present foreign-born population of the United States arrived after 1990 (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2004).