Extending mixed embeddedness to a multi-dimensional concept of transnational entrepreneurship

Abstract

Migrant entrepreneurship in times of transnational migration go beyond locally serving markets and increasingly operate transnationally. The mixed embeddedness by Kloosterman and Rath has become the main concept to analyze such migrants’ entrepreneurship as it accounts for the multiple embeddedness of entrepreneurs in the variety of social and institutional contexts at multiple levels. This concept, however, does not yet accommodate the transnational dimensions of migrant entrepreneurship, which is still rather nascent in entrepreneurship research. Transnationalism is multi-dimensional in its nature as pointed out by migration researchers as Vertovec, and transnational migrants’ embeddedness appears to go beyond the notion of being simply dually embedded in two locations but rather should be conceived as being in one larger transnational field—though such aspects are not conceptually accounted in the mixed embeddedness approach. Taking this as a starting point, we propose to analyze the conditions that allow migrant entrepreneurs to engage in transnational activities. Our proposed framework bases on empirical research with 36 Polish entrepreneurs in the EU labor market, by drawing their opportunities from different levels and contexts of transnationalism. Following the research question on which levels and dimensions of embeddedness in the transnational field contribute to transnational entrepreneurship, we develop a novel refined framework of mixed embeddedness to analyze transnational entrepreneurship. It clarifies the entrepreneurial context by analytically and systematically subdividing components across dimensions (political, social and economic), and rearranging institutional elements and structures in each dimension according to respective levels (macro, meso, and micro). Emphasizing the role of conditions at the meso-level, the novel analytical framework better incorporates the multi-dimensionality and multi-levelling of transnational entrepreneurial activities of migrants. This model can be used as a tool for future comparative analyses of migrant entrepreneurship in different transnational contexts, it also contributes to the concretization of the transnational nature of transnational migrant entrepreneurship.

The relationship between farmers’ entrepreneurial behavior and macroeconomics based on the probit regression model and entrepreneurial psychological capital

“…This study refers that macroeconomic regulation can drive people's enthusiasm for starting a business, and people will provide certain conditions for starting a business with the growth of macroeconomics and their own actual conditions. And, with the support of this entrepreneurial condition, a series of entrepreneurial behaviors are formed (Yamamura and Lassalle, 2022). In addition, previous studies have also shown that economic recession can have a significant impact on entrepreneurial intentions and behavior, and it also affects entrepreneurial psychology (Yang et al, 2021).…”

Borders of immersive fieldwork - a methodological critique of entrepreneurship

“…Indeed, many sociological theories tend to be vernacularly used in entrepreneurship, cherry-picking concepts as buzz words is a common phenomenon, if not symptomatic of social theories in entrepreneurship. Examples of such superficial engagement with social theories in entrepreneurship are reflected: in the singular usage of social capital and claiming it to be Bourdieusian (whereas Bourdieu's theory is unique and pivotal as it embeds different types of capital into their specific field, see Yamamura and Lassalle (2022); Bourdieu 1976, 1979; Robinson et al, 2021), the mere counting of ethnicities of entrepreneurs and claiming it to be superdiversity (whereas Vertovec's concept precisely criticises this groupist view and extends the diversity dimensions beyond ethnicity, see Yamamura and Lassalle (2020a); Vertovec, 2007) and in the limited adaptation of Crenshaw’s (1991) intersectionality theory into entrepreneurship (often ignoring the important discourses on power issues and simultaneous multiple discrimination in social sciences) when a real engagement with intersectionality theory is needed (Essers et al, 2020; Lassalle and Shaw, 2021b; Yamamura and Lassalle, 2021).…”

Harmonizing multi-dimensional events that characterize tech start-up emergence in emerging economies: a systematic review

“…We approach our study by deploying a concept-centric systematic literature review as recommended by some scholars (Levy and Ellis, 2006; Webster and Watson, 2002; Rowe, 2014; Paré et al , 2017; Okoli, 2015; Schryen, 2013). A systematic literature review provides detailed steps, identifying, analysing, evaluating and interpreting prior relevant studies in a given area of interest (Castro and Zermeño, 2020; Chan and Mustafa, 2020; Ahmad and Bajwa, 2021; Aldairany et al , 2018; Aljuwaiber, 2020; Hänle et al , 2021; Khan et al , 2022; Sharma, 2018; Santisteban and Mauricio, 2017; Claire et al , 2019; Yamamura and Lassalle, 2022; Bansal et al , 2020). Consequently, it provides a rigorous process, free of biases and the credible outcome needed by researchers as a foundation for advancing knowledge (Webster and Watson, 2002; Okoli, 2015; Mahdavi, 2011).…”