Revisiting Ethnic Entrepreneurship: Convergencies, Controversies, and Conceptual Advancements

Abstract

In the past thirty years, many concepts and theories on ethnic entrepreneurship have been developed, challenged, and revised to provide a fuller account of the phenomenon. This article revisits the existing literature to address some of the conceptual and methodological issues and the controversies that have lingered around them and to highlight important advancements that have broken through conventional frameworks of this lasting subject matter. It first reexamines the meaning and analytical distinction of such relevant concepts as the middleman minority, ethnic economy, and enclave economy, arguing that ethnic social structures in which entrepreneurs are embedded must be stressed in the understanding of these concepts. It then draws attention to the convergencies and controversies in research on the causes and consequences of entrepreneurship. Finally, it highlights two interrelated conceptual advancements in the study of ethnic entrepreneurship ‐ transnational entrepreneurship and the synergy of entrepreneurship in community building.

Cultural background, human capital and self-employment rates among immigrants in Norway

“…At the societal level structural barriers can prevent particular groups of immigrants and ethnic minorities from competing with the native born on an equal basis in the mainstream economy (Zhou 2004). As a consequence, some immigrants and minorities can be pushed into self-employment to a larger extent than others.…”

“…At the group level, the phenomenon of immigrant entrepreneurship is associated with group-specific cultural values, behavioural patterns, distinct group traits, social structures, collective resources and coping strategies (Zhou 2004). Light's cultural theory (1972) states that some groups of immigrants are more predisposed to entrepreneurship than others due to their sociocultural background.…”

Female Migrant Entrepreneurs in Vienna: Mobility and its Embeddedness

“…As mentioned already, the mainstream literature on 'ethnic 1 3 entrepreneurship' increasingly focuses on the transnational economic activities of so-called ethnic or migrant entrepreneurs, thereby assuming that every entrepreneur is automatically transnationally active, possessing 'transnational capital' (Rusinovic 2008;Ambrossini 2012;Portes et al 2002;Zhou 2004). Our interviews have, however, shown that transnational economic activities, transnational capital, or transnational links do not play a significant role in the economic activities of female entrepreneurs.…”

“…The pluri-local, transnational, interactive relationships of migrants and their descendants were and are largely ignored and not systematically explored (Portes et al 2002, p. 284;Goebel and Pries 2006, p. 264) due to the fact 1 3 that methodological nationalism (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2003) has been and still is prevalent. Due to this focus, it has long been overlooked that many migrant businesses depend on regular contact with their countries of origin or, as for example Zhou (2004) argues, on social networks across space. Neither has it been discussed that so-called local 'ethnic' economies are increasingly part of global production (Portes et al 2002).…”

Second-Generation Immigrants in the Small-Business Sector in Sweden

“…Bonacich and Modell, 1980;Portes and Bach, 1985;Borjas, 1986;Waldinger, 1990). Zhou argues that 'immigrants seek self-employment in greater proportion than natives do because of discrimination in the larger labor market and disadvantages associated with immigrant status, such as poor English proficiency and the depreciation of human capital' (Zhou, 2004(Zhou, , p. 1047. Whereas, culture and ethnic economy or 'the ethnic resource model' (Ram and Jones, 2008) have been the dominant hypotheses in the US literature, the 'breadwinning hypothesis' has had a larger impact in European research (Kloosterman, 2010;Clark and Drinkwater 2000).…”