Regulation of migrant entrepreneurship: The strained conjunction of laws, policies and practices

Abstract

We are struck by a curious paradox: the flourishing discourse on migrant entrepreneurship is replete with references to the regulatory environment; yet the precise ways in which regulations exert influence is rarely spelt out. This task is all the more urgent because policymakers are alighting on the fact that migrants often turn to self-employment to make their way in destination societies. Yet, the extent to which regulations -comprising laws and governmental and non-governmental policy measures and practices -is poorly understood. This special section aims at filling this gap by adopting a theoretically informed analytical perspective to understand the role of regulation in migrant entrepreneurship. Articles in this special section analyse the nature of laws, policies and practices, the factors of success/failure of these, the role of governmental and non-governmental actors, and the effect of different welfare regimes and governance conditions.

Much ado about very little: The dubious connection between ethnic minority business policy and ethnic minority entrepreneurship

“…In one of the few wide‐ranging investigations of migrant enterprise support, Rath and Swagerman (2016) compared enterprise promotion in 28 European cities and showed that one constant was the way that enterprise support ‘opted for measures that supposedly targeted ethnic entrepreneurs’ deficiencies’ rather than addressing structural disadvantage ‘by removing barriers or by offering new economic opportunities’ (Rath & Swagerman, 2016, p. 163). It seems that the ‘ethnic resources’ approach—emphasising the apparent virtues of cultural idiosyncrasies rather than the conformity of structural barriers—is evident in the profusion of policy measures from Europe (Solano et al, 2019). Such practitioner initiatives, based on an implicit ‘deficit model’, promotes a lop‐sidedness which weakens the potential value of migrant business support measures.…”

“…structural barriers-is evident in the profusion of policy measures from Europe (Solano et al, 2019). Such practitioner initiatives, based on an implicit 'deficit model', promotes a lop-sidedness which weakens the potential value of migrant business support measures.…”

“…This deceptively simple question is rarely remarked upon in either scholarly or practitioner circles. The flurry of policy measures across Europe (Solano et al, 2019) suggests that practitioners, implicitly at least, are confident of the efficacy of such initiatives. The increasingly critical and nuanced scholarly discourse (Jones & Ram, 2007; Kloosterman, 2010; Rath & Schutjens, 2019; Romero & Valdez, 2016) addresses the systemic structural constraints on ethnic minority entrepreneurship, but is surprisingly reticent about prosaic policy pronouncements (for exceptions, see Ram et al, 2015; Rath & Swagerman, 2016).…”

“…This deceptively simple question is rarely remarked upon in either scholarly or practitioner circles. The flurry of policy measures across Europe (Solano et al, 2019) suggests that practitioners, implicitly at least, are confident of the efficacy of such initiatives. The increasingly critical and nuanced scholarly discourse (…”

The regulatory environment for migrant and women entrepreneurs

“…Guided by neoliberal economic tenets, both governmental and non‐governmental organizations foster entrepreneurship, including among migrants and women, to increase employment and economic development (Ram et al, 2017; Ribeiro‐Soriano & Galindo‐Martin, 2012; Solano et al, 2019). Governments lean on migrant and women entrepreneurship for employment opportunities (Powell, 2008), gender equality (Achtenhagen & Welter, 2003), migrant integration (Constant et al, 2007) and social mobility (Rath & Kloosterman, 2000; Zhou, 2004).…”