Search results

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.

The literature of ethnic ownership economies descends from middleman minority theory, a subject it continues to include. However, ethnic economy literature now more broadly addresses the economic independence of immigrants and ethnic minorities in general, not just of middleman minorities (Light & Bonacich, 1991, pp. xii–xiii).¹ This expansion releases the subject from narrow concentration upon historical trading minorities, and opens discussion of the entire range of immigrant and ethnic minority strategies for economic self-help and self-defense. Partial or full economic independence represents a ubiquitous self-defense of immigrants and ethnic minorities who confront exclusion or disadvantage in labor markets. Ethnic economies permit immigrants and ethnic minorities to reduce disadvantage and exclusion, negotiating the terms of their participation in the general labor market from a position of greater strength. Unable to find work in the general labor market, or unwilling to accept the work that the general labor market offers, or just reluctant to mix with foreigners, immigrants and ethnic minorities have the option of employment or self-employment in the ethnic economy of their group. Although ethnic and immigrant groups differ in how well and how much they avail themselves of this defense (Collins, 2003; Light & Gold, 2000, p. 34; Logan & Alba, 1999, p. 179), none lacks an ethnic economy.²

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.

Entrepreneurship, business creation and self-employment are a common pattern for immigrants’ incorporating themselves into Western receiving societies. Sociologists in North America and Western Europe have devoted much energy to explain how poor unskilled immigrants have become business-owners, thereby creating what are often referred to as ‘ethnic’ economies or ‘ethnic’ niches. This scholarship is usually dominated by two key orientations. First, it is predominantly of a socio-economic nature, with comparatively little attention to the cultural implications of business; and second, it is embedded in an ‘ethnic’ approach, according to which ethnicity (broadly defined as individuals’ belonging to a specific social groups) is a key explanatory factor. By contrast, this chapter aspires to shed light on ‘mixed cultural competencies’ in entrepreneurship: this points to the way business relies upon the in-betweeness of entrepreneurs and their capacity to successfully conciliate ethnic and non-ethnic resources. It does so through the ethnographic description of a small number of shops held by German-Turkish businesspeople situated in multiethnic neighbourhoods of Berlin.

This study considers an under-explored pathway of immigrant business expansion beyond contemporary models of ethnic entrepreneurship.

We push against dominant theories of immigrant adaptation and small business, such as assimilation theory, to explain a rise of franchised small businesses among Indian Americans. We combine two cases on Indian American small business ownership, based on years of qualitative fieldwork each.

Indian Americans have forged a new path of immigrant business growth beyond either enclave or middleman minority businesses. The growth of franchised stores by immigrants remains underexplored in the immigration and work literature. Their growth in the industry signals a type of mobility, by moving more into corporate models of business ownership and performance. Yet, their success has depended on many of the same mechanisms that define lower end, informal ethnic businesses, such as a reliance on ethnic social capital for information and financing, strategies to avoid racism, co-ethnic labor, and the like.

Like any qualitative study, it is limited by its lack of breadth. But, given that it combines two cases, it compensates for this challenge more than otherwise.

This chapter furthers the argument that immigrant mobility does not necessarily mean assimilation and in fact can represent a collective response against assimilationist tendencies. This continued collective strategy to mobility is all the more necessary in the face of neoliberal economic models that place greater burdens on individuals.

The basis of ethnic groups' economic status remains among the enduring controversies in both popular and social scientific discussions of inequality. While this debate commonly opposes cultural attributes to structures of opportunity and disadvantage, we point out that various policies—including banking, public employment, business development programs, and refugee resettlement—have also had important impacts on ethnic economies. Because our definition of the ethnic economy includes both the ethnic-owned economy of the self-employed as well as the ethnic-controlled economy, wherein ethnic networks help locate jobs in non-co-ethnic firms or the public sector, we are able to incorporate a wide range of groups and contexts in our analysis. Our results suggest that the economic status of certain ethnic groups in American society reflects the outcome of specific policies that helped or hindered the growth of their ethnic economies. We conclude that policies, such as public employment, which incorporate various ethnic groups, are a more viable means of nurturing ethnic economic growth than selective programs that benefit some groups while excluding others.

The Mexican-American population has experienced a dramatic increase in ethnic entrepreneurship over the last several decades. In an attempt to explain this development, 25 Mexican-American entrepreneurs were interviewed in the Chicago area. These interviews focused upon the specific ethnic strategies used by these entrepreneurs to bridge the gap between the opportunity structures for entrepreneurship in the United States economy and the unique group characteristics or capacities for entrepreneurship characterizing the Mexican-American population. Based upon these interviews, we found that the favored ethnic strategy used by Mexican-American entrepreneurs involved attempts at socializing the economic encounter between co-ethnic customers and entrepreneurs. These socializing activities were examined using Goffman's frame analysis, with particular attention devoted to the collective organization of customer and entrepreneur experience in terms of an ethnic frame.

The study of the family firm has gained increased attention in recent years, judging by the number of articles and books published lately as well as the fact that a number of universities in the United States and elsewhere now emphasize a focused study of family business in higher education (Fletcher, 2002; Hoy & Verser, 1994; Litz, 1997). At the same time, the field of entrepreneurship has been enriched by perspectives from sociology and anthropology and has welcomed the study of ethnic business groups, especially in terms of their unique entrepreneurial tendencies as well as their organization and operations within a social order in which they remain a distinct minority (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990; Light & Gold, 2000).

Diversity is becoming the context through which researchers can account for different aspects of increasingly complexifying conditions of both entrepreneurship and migration. Taking a superdiversity perspective, this chapter uncovers and conceptualises what is diversifying particularly in migrant entrepreneurship. The authors identify four different dimensions of diversity and diversification affecting the activities of migrant entrepreneurs. First, with diversifying flows of migration, the characteristics of the entrepreneurs themselves as individual (usually transnational) migrants are diversifying. Second, with changing migration contexts, resources deriving from migration experiences are diversifying, exemplified by the different forms of transnational capitals used in entrepreneurship. Third, through migrant-led processes of diversification in the larger society, the main markets are diversifying, providing further opportunities to migrant entrepreneurs. Last but not least, the entrepreneurial strategies of migrant entrepreneurs are accordingly also diversifying, whereby finding different breaking-out strategies beyond the classical notion of only serving ethnic niche markets arise.

These diversities are embedded in the context of the overall superdiversifying society in which migrant entrepreneurs emerge and struggle to establish. By disentangling the different dimensions of diversity, this chapter contextualises debates on entrepreneurship and migration, including those in the present edited book, into the larger debate on the societal turn to superdiversity. It further discusses the notions and practices of differences embodied in migrant entrepreneurship, beyond the notion of the ethnic niche and the disadvantaged striving for market integration.