Introduction

This chapter explores the ontologicaldifferences between normative assumptions of entrepreneurship which place emphasis on economic growth, promoting wealth, prosperity and that militate against inequalities, and critical perspectives which draw attention to the political, structural and social inequalities of entrepreneurship. Popular rhetoric often glamorizes the entrepreneurial opportunity, positioning it as a path towards the alleviation of social exclusion and inequalities. We argue against entrepreneurship based on neoliberalism ideals which focus on the ideas of agency, free markets, and new venture creation as mechanisms for individuals to attain economic wealth and rewards. Entrepreneurialism is advocated as an escape from the economic constraint faced by labor markets. In contrast we challenge this positive rhetoric surrounding entrepreneurship, and the merits of existing policy initiatives encouraging entrepreneurship as a career of choice against a backdrop of structural and economic discrimination. The case of ethnic minority entrepreneurs can challenge such rhetoric.

Rather than being a panacea, entrepreneurship is often thrust upon ethnic minority entrepreneurs due to economic necessity caused by labor market disadvantage and the “double disadvantage” of racism and resource disadvantage on the supply side. At the same time, entrepreneurship typically fails to overcome structural forces within wider society that disadvantage migrants/ethnic minority groups and push them into entrepreneurship in the first place. As such, whilst being positioned as a source of emancipation for minority entrepreneurs, it often does little to free them from societal oppression. Furthermore, entrepreneurship offers an inherently precarious and vulnerable living for minority entrepreneurs, with ethnic run businesses being more likely to have the survival of the business threatened than non-ethnic run enterprises (Wishart et al. 2018). This can push these individuals into further poverty rather than alleviating the poverty they face, as can the fact that migrant entrepreneurs are forced into market sectors that are over-concentrated in low entry threshold activities where the scope for up-scaling or diversification into mainstream markets may be limited. Migrant entrepreneurs can also be driven to operate in the informal economy mainly because of lack of formal finance mechanisms, and limited mobility and access to information and networks. This again hinders scalability and means such businesses offer an inherently vulnerable living to these entrepreneurs. Policies and programs aimed at ethnic minority entrepreneurs are also often developed based on overly positive assumption.

The chapter illuminates the dark side of entrepreneurship. Embedded within the context of critical entrepreneurship, we seek to expose the taken-for-granted norms of scholarship in this field, including its ideologies, assumptions and narratives that posit entrepreneurial activity and practice as largely positive. Despite the phenomenon of entrepreneurship being very diverse, calling for divergence and multiplicity in its understanding, it is fair to contend that most of the available entrepreneurship research is functionalist in nature (Perren and Jennings 2005; Tedmanson et al. 2012). With only little exception, the extant discourse surrounding the notion of entrepreneurship positions it as a “positive economic activity” within the market (Calás et al. 2009). In this light, entrepreneurship as a field of scholarship has mostly been dominated by those interested in it as being a purely market-based, individualistic activity, which should significantly contribute to the economy (Verduijn et al. 2014). From theoretical perspectives in fields of psychology and economics, entrepreneurs are generally considered to possess special traits or an important set of behaviours which sets these individuals aside from the rest and drives the creation of new business. The focus on entrepreneurship activity as perceived as desirable and unquestionably positive obscures important questions which challenges traditional literature and discourse. The case against entrepreneurship raises questions of identity, ideology and unequal relations of power (Curran and Blackburn 2001; Johnson et al. 2001; Tedmanson et al. 2012; Verduijn et al. 2014). However, only few studies have aimed to counter the extant positive literature on entrepreneurship and explore the potentiality for the dark side.

In making the case against entrepreneurship, we unveil entrepreneurship by exploring the paradoxes, tensions and ambiguities from the perspectives of minority entrepreneurs—those groups whom can be considered as socially excluded and marginalized from society (e.g. migrants/ethnic minorities). The entrepreneurial context of advanced economies is increasingly being shaped by the growing and dynamic presence of ethnic minority-businesses (EMBs hereafter). Ethnicentrepreneurs in the US are more than twice as likely as native-born citizens to start new businesses, and 28% of all US companies started in 2011 had immigrant founders (Fairlie 2013). In the UK, ethnic entrepreneurs create one in seven companies and are twice as entrepreneurial as the British-born working age population (Centre for Entrepreneurs2014). Evidence from the US (Anderson and Platzer 2007), UK (Nathan 2015; Nathan and Lee 2013) and mainland Europe (Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp 2009) also notes the trend for EMBs to be innovative and growth-oriented.

Minority entrepreneurs tend not to be the focus of mainstream literature on entrepreneurial activity, which instead focuses on the mystification of the entrepreneur as white and male (i.e. European) (Essers and Benschop 2007, 2009; Verduijn et al. 2014). These essentialist conceptualisations have come under increasing challenge in recent years—places and spaces have been created which allow room for a concerted focus on what has been termedCritical Entrepreneurship Studies (CES). Similarly, authors including Down (2006, 2010), Hjorth and Steyaert (2009), Nodoushani and Nodoushani (1999) and Ogbor (2000) have implied that more critical applications to the study of entrepreneurship are now crucial. Rehn and Talaas (2004), alongside several others, have also paved the scope in challenging dominant entrepreneurial scholarship by exploring alternative, often marginalised, narratives. And other key scholars have begun to challenge the entrepreneurial assumptions that are taken at face-value by shedding an important light on the experiences of minority entrepreneurs (Naudé et al. 2015; Ram and Trehan 2012).

In this chapter, we begin by introducing being against entrepreneurship, in order to counter the positive discourse on entrepreneurial scholarship to date, we embed our understanding of the increasing shadow sides to this notion in the context of critical entrepreneurship—our focus primarily helps to shed light on the activities and experiences of minority entrepreneurs. A focus on the shadow side reveals that entrepreneurs become entrepreneurs for more reasons than simple choice. For example, often it is the result of marginalization, discrimination and unemployment within the market that drives such decisions. We also introduce the importance of alternative theoretical perspectives and highlight the added value of these theories in exploring the dark sides of entrepreneurship. In contrast to traditional theories on entrepreneurship, these perspectives help to shed light on the unequal power dynamics, social relations and the importance of social cohesion amongst minority groups of entrepreneurs. We conclude by arguing for more integrated and nuanced approaches to the study of entrepreneurship in theory and practice.

Against Entrepreneurship: An Institutional Perspective

An institutional perspective of entrepreneurship enhances our understanding of the phenomenon for several reasons. Firstly, entrepreneurship is a multifaceted concept—in order to appreciate the institutional context in relation to entrepreneurial activity, it follows that multiple and diverse means/units of analysis are required (Rath and Kloosterman 2000). Secondly, given that the study of entrepreneurship has been considered from competing traditional perspectives, for example, economic, psychological, sociological resource-based entrepreneurship theory, there is currently no complete paradigm that is able to shed light on both the positive and the negative experiences of entrepreneurial activity. Mainstream literature has focused primarily on positive experiences, whilst ignoring the negatives. There is, therefore, little understanding of the dark sides of entrepreneurship. The dark sides might be associated with entrepreneurs who respond to the institutional environment in light of increasing control by the state and their experiences of marginalization/discrimination at levels of the organization and society. It is important to explore and appreciate how minority entrepreneurs navigate these conditions.

Further to this, the institutional perspective helps to show that there are both “push” (necessity) and “pull” (opportunity) factors for the practice of entrepreneurship (Kloosterman 2010; Williams 2007). It shows that for social groups whom might be considered as socially excluded, the choice to become an entrepreneur is not necessarily driven by opportunity but, instead, by an economic need to survive (Harding et al. 2005; Maritz 2004; Williams 2007). This notion challenges the core of entrepreneurial scholarship and raises important questions.

Unlike traditional theories of entrepreneurship, an institutional perspective provides insight into the cultural and emotional aspects of economic activity—influencing individual decision-making and personal reasons for choice (Kristensen 1994). Changes within an institution shapes the organization and how economic and social aspects evolve through time/space (Thornton and Ocasio 2008)—these institutions are thus key to understanding the nature of entrepreneurship in our current climate. In this light, an important aspect of institutional theory considers the perspectives of institutional logics as providing a promising analytical lens into the experiences of social phenomena (Thornton and Ocasio 2008; Reay and Hinings 2009)—and there has been some academic consideration given to this perspective in the context of “institutional entrepreneurship” (e.g. Misangyi et al. 2008; Tracey et al. 2011).

In addition, an important strand of the dark side of entrepreneurship considers the use of emotion, unequal power relations and social cohesion as informing the work of minority entrepreneurs. For example, within the context of institutional logics, the concept of social embeddedness provides a fruitful means of analysis (e.g. Zukin and DiMaggio 1990; Kloosterman 2010; Uzzi 1996, 1997). Social embeddedness, originally coined by Granovetter (1985), reflects the institutional logic of community orientation (Thornton and Ocasio 2008). The concept suggests that economic activity cannot be understood outside of the social context within which it takes place. Economic actors, therefore, are involved in a series of personal relations. In this light, migrant entrepreneurs are embedded within a (relatively) concrete network of social relations—customers, suppliers, banks, competitors, law enforcers etc. (Kloosterman 2010)—therefore, helping to highlight the importance of social capital, social relations and a sense of shared experience as central to migrant entrepreneurial work as a means of navigating other competing, institutional conditions (e.g. control by the state).

Academic scholarship has considered the notion of entrepreneurship from an institutional lens (Veciana 1999; North 1989; Hodgson 1998), shedding an important light on the influence of institutions on entrepreneurial activity. Limited attention, however, has been given to the dark side of entrepreneurship from an institutional perspective. Given the inter-disciplinary nature of institutional theory, allowing insight from disciplines including politics, sociology, psychology and other sciences, then a dialogue provided by institutional analysis to understanding the multidimensional texture of the dark sides to entrepreneurship can provide strong theoretical insights.

In this light, it is essential that (minority) entrepreneurship is considered from a wider perspective, scoping the way to critically explore the negatives associated with entrepreneurial activity, specifically in relation to minority-group entrepreneurs.

Against Entrepreneurship: Unveiling Inequalities

Much policy attention is given to the promotion of enterprise in disadvantaged areas and amongst under-represented groups. For example, Marti and Mair’s (2009) study of entrepreneurship in a context of poverty illuminates the resourceful and effortful practices of individuals to overcome adversity. This kind of work has echoes in the more celebratory accounts of minority entrepreneurship. It reminds us that of the resilience of such communities, and their potentially valuable contributions to the urban economies, but studies of the everyday political communicative practices of migrant businesses are scarce. This section seeks to illuminate how systems psychodynamic can contribute to our understanding of the political, emotional, and relational work performed by minority entrepreneurs. In applying a systems psychodynamic lens, we explore the relationship of the organization as a system, specifically how diversity, power relations and emotions are experienced in the daily working lives of minority business owners. The political view of the small enterprise recognizes that the business owner is embedded in a web of social and economic relationships that both enable and constrain his/her scope for action. Systems psychodynamic—with its heightened sensitivity to emotional and political context—is particularly well-placed to elicit the complexity and multi-layered nature of diversity in small firms.

The lived experience of ethnic minority business owners is often neglected in small firms, organizational and management theory (Kets de Vries et al. 2007; Vince 2002; Trehan and Glover 2019). Psychodynamic theory can help us to explore the unconscious nature of entrepreneurial work by studying the extent to which ethnic minority entrepreneurs are constrained by organizational arrangements and their capacity to disrupt the status quo to effect change. Furthermore, the approach offers an additional view to the rational and economic approaches to work (Sievers 2009). “Diverse minority entrepreneurship is an emotional and political endeavour and not simply about resourcing and planning, but rather about intervening in the emotions and emotionality of organisation life” (James and Arroba 2005, p. 302). Finally, it is important to understand how minority entrepreneurs take up personal authority to manage power dynamics by mediating, manoeuvring and negotiating various manifestations of emotions and the discomfort of learning how to operate in new environments while simultaneously experiencing the adventure of venturing into new markets. In the next section, we explore the role of self-employment and entrepreneurship to illuminate the dark sides of entrepreneurship in the context of the lived experience of migrant entrepreneurs.

Self-employment and Entrepreneurship

Over the past 50 years there has been growing participation of migrants in entrepreneurship in the UK, especially in establishing small businesses (Fairchild 2010). Migrant businesses contribute at least £40 billion a year to the UK economy, a contribution that is continually increasing as new national and international markets are opened up. Migrant entrepreneurs often provide employment, particularly in deprived areas, and play a highly visible and dynamic role in sustaining neighborhoods and transforming the economic and social landscape of cities in the UK. Small businesses have experienced an on-going process of transformation as they cope with austerity, new forms of competition, and the changing nature of work driven by new technologies, enhanced diversity, migration inflows, mutable local infrastructure, and alterations in the make-up of families and households. Self-employment is a necessity for some migrants. Waldinger (1986), Kloosterman et al. (1999) and Kloosterman and Rath (2001) have identified key motivating reasons why entrepreneurship is critical for migrant businesses.

Migrants may be pushed into entrepreneurship due to the discriminatory practices of employers, who either will not employ them, or fail to offer opportunities for progression (Light and Gold 2000). Parker (2009) reveals factors which prevent migrants from finding employment, including employers’ refusal to validate overseas qualifications, government regulation of the legal right to work, and cuts to funding for language classes. Entrepreneurship becomes a necessary option because other labor market opportunities are restricted. Equally important are pull factors, related to migrants’ willingness and capacity to take advantage of economic opportunities. Business opportunities for migrants can include enterprises to meet a demand for goods and services which are specific to particular migrant groups. Portes (1995) suggests that such niche markets are frequently fulfilled by migrant businesses.

Tight-knit community relations among migrants have often brought together social networks which provide informal finance arrangements, entrepreneurial experience, and emotional bonding to share common strategic goals in business (Vershinina et al. 2016). The notion of the “corner shop” migrant entrepreneur’s willingness to work long hours and invest social capital in making a family business may be a stereotype, but it is nonetheless rooted in evidence (Vershinina et al. 2011). When migrants are faced with limited employment opportunities, entrepreneurship can be a necessary vehicle for upward mobility.

For migrant entrepreneurs the drive into entrepreneurship can be seen in large part as a survival mechanism in response to job losses which, in a discriminatory job market, affect migrants even more heavily than other workers. It is also important not to underemphasize the barriers facing migrants in the wider job market, which may lead them to set up their own businesses. For example, a recent OECD report found:

Immigrants tend to be more likely to do temporary and part-time jobs—in Spain, more than half of immigrants, about 56%, have only temporary work, compared with 31% of locals. And, increasingly, immigrants are becoming self-employed. The reasons for this vary: It could indicate that immigrants are becoming more well established in their adopted countries and have the financial means to set up businesses; or it could be a sign that the barriers to finding a job are so high that it’s easier for them to work for themselves. (OECD2014, p. 90)

In order to understand entrepreneurial activity, we need to acknowledge the majority of academic attention has been given to resource-based and opportunity-based theories of entrepreneurship—which tend to focus primarily on opportunity as being central to the success of entrepreneurial activity (Bates 2011; Van Praag and Versloot 2007). Considerably less attention has been paid to institutional theory in unveiling the dark sides of entrepreneurship.

The Darker Side of Entrepreneurship

Scholarship in the field of entrepreneurial activity has considered the dark side of the entrepreneur (in relation to one’s behavioural traits and personal characteristics that can make working for him/her difficult) (see Beaver and Jennings 2005; Osborne 1991; Kets de Vries 2002; Klotz and Neubaum 2016) and the dark side of socialentrepreneurship (e.g. Williams and Kadamawe 2012). However, academic attention has not yet shifted to the dark sides of entrepreneurship as a means of economic survival (as opposed to growth). Here, we aim to expose these dark sides and shed light on the potential reasons for scholars being against entrepreneurship. As mentioned above, traditional theories on entrepreneurship emphasise a positive discourse on the topic that positions entrepreneurial activity in an unquestionably positive light (Tedmanson et al. 2012). This is because the archetypical entrepreneur—white, male and middle-class—is considered as an economic engineer, creating new business, creating new employment opportunities and contributing significantly to the economy (Bouncken et al. 2018; Tedmanson et al. 2012). Little academic attention has focused on the lived experiences of minority entrepreneurs who turn to entrepreneurship as a result of structural factors: unemployment, employer discrimination, poor access to national/international markets and feelings of social exclusion/marginalisation within institutions/society. There has also been little recognition of the cultural factors that help to bind these minority groups together: specific values and characteristics of the minority group, social solidarity amongst in-group members, informal networks, loyalty and flexibility and a sense of community/shared experience etc. (Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp 2009; Naudé et al. 2015). Setting the agenda for the various theoretical models addressing the late twentieth century rise of ethnic minority entrepreneurship in many advanced Western economies is Light’s (1972) insight that racialized minorities can achieve a surprising degree of entrepreneurial success by deploying the informal business resources of their own ethnic communities. Gradually, however, researchers became aware that this valuable explanation of the ready supply of entrepreneurs needed to be balanced by enquiry into the market demand. A critical approach to minority entrepreneurship elucidates that self-employment is often a response to economic necessity as opposed to economic growth. Importantly, although this stream of literature is currently limited, it does facilitate our understanding that not all entrepreneurs respond to opportunity, not all entrepreneurs can be responsible for creating significant new business/new jobs in the market in the context of increasing social inequality (Williams 2007; Levie et al. 2006).

Thriving or Surviving

In recent years, it has become increasingly common for scholars to distinguish between push (necessity) factors—entrepreneurs who are forced into entrepreneurial activity as a result of absent/unsatisfactory employment options or blocked opportunities (Borooah and Hart 1999), and pull (opportunity) factors—entrepreneurs who respond to the conditions of the market and exploit business opportunity because they are attracted by the economic gains and financial independence that business ownership offers (Harding et al. 2005; Maritz 2004; Williams 2007). Whilst these notions have been explored within the context of informal sector entrepreneurs, they have not considered the experiences of individuals within the context of minority entrepreneurship. The importance of a “contextualized understanding of ethnic business formation and development” (Sepulveda et al. 2011, p. 491) is multi-faceted. Opportunity structures differ according to time periods, as Sepulveda et al. (2011) show in their study of EMBs in London. Minimal migration regulation and an economic regulatory regime that favoured globalization in the 90s and early 2000s were conducive to the arrival of EMBs with a diverse set of legal statuses. Today, there are restrictions which affect the access and growth potential of EMBs. Additionally, migrant entrepreneurs (specifically new wave migrants) are affected by a “historical persistence of powerful structural limitations” (Nitu-Antoine and Feder 2013, p. 72). “For all their novelty, diversity and indeed potential creativity, new wave migrants do not enjoy immunity from the rules obeyed by their predecessor entrepreneurial minorities” and are confined to the very activities which have traditionally been an immigrant business domain (Nitu-Antoine and Feder 2013, p. 79). In this light, entrepreneurial minority groups may find themselves surviving as opposed to thrivingwith their businesses within an institutional context.

It is important to understand the motivations behind minority groups turning to entrepreneurship. From an institutional perspective, research finds that first generation migrants were forced into entrepreneurship in response to racial discrimination as opposed to presenting opportunities, combined with the need to feel independent and in control of their work/life. External institutional conditions, therefore, have pushed/pulled migrants into entrepreneurship (Light and Gold 2000; Ram et al. 2017) in light of other restricted labor market options (Borooah and Hart 1999), and thus this is not always a simple response to (blocked) opportunity by the minority entrepreneur. There are several reasons why migrants may be pushed into entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activity—usually these are to combat economic and social disadvantage. One of the most common reasons implicates the discriminatory practices of employers—who either choose not to employ these individuals or do not offer adequate opportunities for career progression (Light and Gold 2000). As Parker (2009) suggests, factors have been uncovered which prevent migrants from finding suitable employment, including the refusal of employers to validate the merit of overseas qualifications, government regulation of legalities surrounding their work rights and funding cuts to language classes. By these measures, self-employment becomes an economic necessity for migrant entrepreneurs (and others!) given that the pursual of alternative labor market opportunities are significantly restricted.

On the opposite side, also important in the context of minority entrepreneurship are the pull factors which are related to the willingness/capacity of migrants to take advantage of economicopportunities that present themselves (sometimes, in the face of blocked opportunities). For example, business opportunities for migrants often require the firms to meet an exclusive demand for goods/services, specific to particular groups of ethnic minorities. Portes (1995) has implied that these niche markets are often fulfilled by the entrepreneurial activity of migrants—the process is facilitated by social networks and personal ties in various communities, and national/international connections for shared resource, capital/finance (Kloosterman 2010).

Following the above, then, as noted by Vershinina et al. (2016) there is also strong, “tight-knit” community sense amongst migrants that binds them together, socially and emotionally—helping to socially embed minority entrepreneurs within the local context in which they reside/work. This sense of community brings with it a network of informal finance, shared experience and social cohesion signifying to the migrants that they share a common strategic goal in business (Vershinina et al. 2016). In this light, when minority entrepreneurs are faced with limited employment opportunities, blocked career paths or discrimination within the market, then it is a common finding amongst these social groups that they turn to self-employment/entrepreneurial activity as a means of upward mobility and to economically survive within society.

In addition, research has noted that despite the recognition that several minority entrepreneurs do take advantage of opportunity when it presents itself and initiate small businesses in the context of the UK and Europe (Levie et al. 2006), this contribution is disproportionate and they are still more likely than their white counterparts to face additional barriers which may prevent their business potential from realisation (Ram and Trehan 2012). One such barrier, for example, refers to the perceived failure of mainstream business services to offer support to small/medium sized migrant enterprises. Often, migrant entrepreneurs fear that mainstream providers of business support are inaccessible to their business ventures and this support is therefore viewed as irrelevant to the context of migrant businesses (Carter et al. 2015). In addition, owners of small businesses are often reluctant to take advantage of public sector business support. In this light, research suggests that migrant entrepreneurs are much less likely to exploit local sources of capital, material and output markets, in addition to information regarding specific markets and localised knowledge (Kalantaridis and Bika 2006). Indeed, the reverse is found to be true for native entrepreneurs.

In light of the above discussion, then considering an increasingly volatile, racially discriminating job market, migrant business owners are often pushed into entrepreneurship as an economic survival mechanism. They are often responding to blocked opportunities, job loss or inadequate career progression and these issues can affect migrants much more heavily than other workers. Importantly, whilst there is an acknowledgement that some migrant entrepreneurs have become well established in their adopted countries, and secure adequate financial means to set up their own businesses out of an increased desire for autonomy and control, for the majority of entrepreneurs there are increasing institutional barriers and challenges to finding suitable employment opportunities and therefore it becomes easier to work for oneself (OECD2014).

Conclusions

The preceding discussions posit a twofold rationale for being against entrepreneurship. Firstly, we are against entrepreneurship discourse, arguing against popular rhetoric of the entrepreneurial opportunity as a panacea. Instead, entrepreneurship is often thrust on individuals from ethnic minorities due to unequal power relations (e.g. control of the state/discrimination by employers). Often (minority) entrepreneurs are surviving as opposed to thrivingand turn to self-employment due to economic necessity. Instead of being an overwhelming force for good, we argue against entrepreneurship as it can economically disadvantage minority entrepreneurs, whilst failing to overcome negative social structural constraints faced by them. Entrepreneurship also typically offers an unstable living to minority entrepreneurs, who become trapped in businesses with little opportunity to scale. Research suggests that there are dark sides associated with the experience of several entrepreneurs—these dark sides only become darker when considering the perspectives of minority group entrepreneurs (namely migrants/ethnic minorities) (e.g. Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp 2009).

Secondly, we are against entrepreneurship research that paints an overly positive picture of entrepreneurship. It is essential that entrepreneurial scholarship focuses on the experiences of socially excluded entrepreneurs and that it continues to remain critical of entrepreneurship as a means associated with only choice and opportunity. To support this, we have outlined the importance of alternative theoretical perspectives to those associated with mainstream entrepreneurial scholarship—highlighting the merit of both systems psychodynamic and institutional perspectives to the exploration of the dark side of entrepreneurship. Thirdly, we also argue that critical entrepreneurship studies importantly enable us to surface tensions, paradoxes and ambiguities present within the current literature. If entrepreneurship as a field of research is to reach its potential, it must engage with the full reality of the phenomenon of entrepreneurship, something that it currently fails to do comprehensively. At times, this may mean surfacing uncomfortable truths and challenging dominant discourses of the value of entrepreneurship to individuals, communities and societies. Remaining critical and shedding continuous light on the dark sides associated with entrepreneurial activity will allow scholars to ask important questions, raise important issues and uncover the unexpected in relation to entrepreneurial life for specific social groups.

Entrepreneurship is a multifaceted concept—the ethnocultural background of the entrepreneur is an important one to recognize when exploring the associated push/pull factors. Considering the above-mentioned theoretical perspectives and the literature to date, it is possible to explore the underlying reasons for the migrants’ decisions/rationales behind entrepreneurial work; and scholarship in this field will contribute meaningfully to our current understanding of migrant entrepreneurship. In the long term, then, the emphasis on dark side of entrepreneurship is not only fruitful from the perspectives on the migrants/small business owners in an increasingly advancing economy, but also for the emancipation of those scholars who conduct research on this topic.