Keywords

1 Introduction

In the past few decades, international migration has increased rapidly in to 272 million migrants (UN, 2019). In 2019, there are over 70 million forcibly displaced migrants that look for a place to go (UNHCR, 2020). The recent large waves of migrants and refugees arriving in Europe, for example Austria, have been coined as the “refugee crisis” in media and political debates. This notable increase of migrants arriving to developed countries and their potential contribution to the host country’s economy is not only attracting the attention of policymakers but has also attracted scholarly attention in different disciplines (Wong & Primecz, 2011; Head & Ries, 1998; Dana, 1993). Despite that little is yet known about migrants’ destination selection. There have been numerous debates on the overall nature of the pull forces and effects that generate the flows towards European host countries, also referred to as the fortress Europa (Favell & Hansen, 2002; Castles & Miller, 2009; Lee, 1966), but none addressing the entrepreneurial location logic of migrants. Migrant and diaspora entrepreneurship are directly linked to international migration; entrepreneurship can be an antecedent or an outcome of migration (Dana, 1993; Elo et al. 2018, b; Portes et al., 2002). Previous research has shown that migrants of all kinds are playing an important role as entrepreneurs and founders of start-ups as entrepreneurship is often the best option for progress due to labour market difficulties (Dana, 1993; Mestres, 2010; Nijkamp et al., 2010; Wong & Primecz, 2011). Migrants as entrepreneurs is a phenomenon of global importance, but the phenomenon is of very heterogenous nature (Gurău et al., 2020; Dabić et al., 2020). The majority of the discussions on international migration, especially on decision making, focus on people coming from third world countries to developed countries (Connell, 2008; De Jong et al., 1986; Hamer, 2008). This paper addresses the largely unknown logics of disadvantaged migrants’ entrepreneurial location choice and decision making.

Despite the less privileged origin or status (Hakiza, 2014), migrants who are referred to as “disadvantaged migrants” can have a positive impact in the host countries underlining the importance of the topic (Newland & Tanaka, 2010; Tung, 2008; Nijkamp et al., 2012). However, the positive outcome, individual and/or contextual, is often contested (Heinonen, 2013). Migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and paperless migrants are heterogeneous groups and experience a range of distinct problems and inequalities due to their immigration status. The status ranges from permanent residency permits to irregular situations where uncertainty is very high and planning impossible. Furthermore, status can be ignored or determined in ways supporting undocumented existence sustaining vulnerability (Méndez et al., 2020). Vulnerable migrants are assumed to follow the pull of their ethnic communities that often operate in liminal and marginal spaces (e.g. Lee, 1966). Furthermore, they often experience various sorts of discrimination on multiple grounds and face impediments as a visible minority (Dana, 1993; Hofer et al., 2017; Weichselbaumer, 2016). Precarious situations and systemic discriminations can be also made and sustained with and within a particular context (Lancione, 2019).

Disadvantaged migrants, however, are not merely trapped in a survival choice, they can also be framed from the economic participation side (Portes et al., 2002; Rath & Kloosterman, 2000), as entrepreneurs generating value and prosperity in the host context. Despite their liabilities and marginality, migrants appreciate independence, autonomy and self-determination and often adopt a proactive integration strategy by developing entrepreneurial activities and establishing firms (Valenzuela 2001). Demand-oriented studies often neglect the role of human agency and are inherently functionalist, holding deterministic views of the broader social context (Engelen 2001). In short, we know very little about disadvantaged migrant entrepreneurs’ criteria and selection of place when establishing business operations that serve their host markets instead of co-ethnic enclaves.

Previously, Waldinger et al. (1990a, b) proposed an analytical model that combines demand (opportunity structures) with supply (group characteristics) and accounts for the stages and spatial scales of ethnic business development: areas with high concentrations of same-group migrants become entry markets with relatively low specialization, preparing the ground for more specialized “ethnic niche markets”; when firms surpass the borders of the enclave, “middlemen markets” begin to address the wider public, while economic assimilation is achieved through the break out in the mainstream economy (see also Bager & Rezaei, 2001). Critics of the model contest its implied teleology and essentialist spatiality (Engelen, 2001, pp. 211–212); its understanding of assimilation as the end of a series of sequential stages (Rath, 2001); its excessive emphasis on the ethnic environment, neglecting socio-economic processes and changing migration trends (Rath & Kloosterman, 2000. The “mixed embeddedness” theory (Kloosterman et al., 1998; Rath & Kloosterman, 2000; Kloosterman & Rath, 2001, 2003) suggests that migrants are embedded in the socio-economic and politico-institutional environment of the host country, as well as in social networks (Kloosterman & Rath, 2001, p. 190). In this view, the opportunity structures involve accessibility of migrant entrepreneurs to (national, urban or local) markets and sectors for developing and expanding their firms. Contrary to ethnic enclaves and research on urban epicentres as locations, there are also migrant businesses emerging in highly atypical contexts without such pull-demand from co-ethnic populations (Elo et al., 2019).

This study focuses on a less researched destination-location context, on Austria representing a Central-European country—without external EU borders relevant for migration—and on the city of Klagenfurt, which represents a medium-sized non-capital urban context (Omata, 2019). Hence, we ask why disadvantaged migrants decide to settle down and become entrepreneurs in Klagenfurt, Austria? How do they select this location? Afterall, in Austria, many migrant entrepreneurs are facing multiple disadvantages due to labour market discrimination, their origin providing lower qualifications, linguistic problems and other un-wanted features (Grand & Szulkin, 2002; Hofer et al., 2017). These disadvantages have partial roots in the non-competitive skill structure (Zikic et al., 2010), but most importantly, this non-competitiveness in host countries also seriously influences their credibility in regard to access on entrepreneurial finance for nascent migrant entrepreneurs (Vaaler, 2013; Vertovec, 2004). Most such programmes focus on more skilled migrants or investors.

In order to make sense of the location choice and the against the odds-type of entrepreneurship, we focus on the experiences of this specific type of migrant entrepreneurs. We examine disadvantaged migrants who represent visible minorities and have disadvantages in terms of their migratory path and origin, some are even victimized by exploitation. Underprivileged migrants have distinct features mobility-wise, as economic migrants and refuge seeking individuals forced to leave their country or origin contrast the highly-skilled migrant elites who may more freely select their location. Still, for regional development their entrepreneurial criteria and logic are important to understand as they may be part of communities on the move or migrate in a disconnected manner (Parrilli et al., 2019).

The study shows that these migrants have found a way to develop and sustain a life and a business by building entrepreneurial strategies in a place of their choosing—in a non-enclave context (Achidi Ndofor & Priem, 2011). Contrary to expectations on selecting urban hot spots with co-ethnic populations, their relationship to the new “home” is strong and without an ethnic pull, with permanent characteristics, and this settling and root building is also central for their entrepreneurship. This study argues that this type of migrant-diaspora entrepreneurship with disadvantages (e.g. refugeeness) and new local roots is a specific non-mobile category settling down entrepreneurially. This has previously been addressed mainly from the immigrant policy or ethnic angle suggesting that immigrants are allured by macro-level pulls, such as social security benefits, low immigration barriers or notable co-ethnic populations. The findings illustrate an interplay of entrepreneurship and coping with local root building that seems to be specific for refugees and other disadvantaged migrants (Glick Schiller & Salazar, 2013). The study contributes to studying disadvantaged migrant entrepreneurship in smaller cities and more peripheral contexts, and offers insights on the positive elements of integration and localization via entrepreneurship (e.g. Elo et al. 2018, b; Parrilli et al., 2019).

The paper is organized as follows: in the next part the theoretical views addressing immigrant and disadvantaged migrant entrepreneurs are discussed. Then, the research approach and methods are explained after which the cases are presented. Finally, the findings and implications are discussed.

2 Theoretical Framework and Extant Research Literature

2.1 Disadvantaged Characteristics of Migrants

There are massive differences between the privileged expatriates and disadvantages migrants and their life conditions (Brewster et al., 2014; Grand & Szulkin, 2002; OECD, 2015; World Bank, 2013; Wissink et al., 2020). The privilege mode of mobility does not apply for the “home”-making of disadvantaged migrants (cf. Zhang & Su, 2020). Disadvantages that are not only related to qualifications or perceived differences and discrimination but are also real-life aspects that link to safety, persecution, refuge, escape and survival and also shape the life of an individual (Cohen, 2008; OECD, 2015; Méndez et al., 2020; Wissink et al., 2020). As a result of diverse impediments, refugee entrepreneurship is often perceived as being loaded with barriers and difficulties (Wauters & Lambrecht, 2008). Additionally, different ethnic groups have divergent economic integrations and frameworks (Gold, 1992; Lancione, 2019). In general, research literature underlines the importance of social networks and support from family, friends and co-ethnic diasporas as a disadvantage/deficit-counterbalancing element, i.e. the role of social capital in entrepreneurial life and livelihood (Light & Dana, 2013; Sandberg et al., 2019; Bizri, 2017; Wissink et al., 2020). In short, the life path and strategies of disadvantaged migrants who flee some extreme conditions, including poverty and lack of future perspectives, are fundamentally different from those migrants who have the luxury to select broader options in their migratory and entrepreneurial life. Disadvantaged migrants are seen to represent more reactive and necessity entrepreneurship and to improvise using diverse bricolage sort of strategies to cope entrepreneurially (e.g. Dana, 1997; Fisher, 2012)

2.2 Immigrant and Migrant Entrepreneurship–in a Post-Migration Context

Migrants often seek better job opportunities and economic prosperity by self-employment and entrepreneurship in the host country after their arrival; while doing so they produce jobs and facilitate new ideas originating from other angles and minorities (Dana, 2007; Chrysostome & Lin, 2010). Entrepreneurs’ aspirations, motivations, ideas, risk-taking and incoming capitals open horizons for capacity building, and some regions have particularly benefitted from these effects, e.g. Silicon Valley and Bangalore (Kotabe et al., 2013; Saxenian, 2005). In similar vein, scholars have pointed out the meaning of ethnic businesses and migration for the welfare and prosperity generation in the host context, also indicating spatial characteristics regarding the opportunities and venturing (Light, 1972; Light & Bonacich, 1988; Waldinger et al., 1990b; Dana, 2007).

Moreover, migrant entrepreneurial activities have been approached in literature from various disciplinary angles and in different contexts as recent reviews illustrate (Dabić et al., 2020). The majority of research has concentrated on the immigrants who settle down (mainly permanently) in the host country and start a business (Aliaga-Isla & Rialp, 2013; Hernandez, 2014; Lagrosen & Lind, 2014; Price & Chacko, 2009). A large part of this research has disciplinary lenses from sociology, anthropology and economic geography, and debate various aspects of collective migration, social embeddedness, culture and post-migratory integration and adaptation, particularly, in relation to livelihood generation (Coleman, 2008; Favell, 2007; Granovetter, 1985; Nijkamp et al., 2010; Sheller & Urry, 2006; Urbano et al., 2011; Zhou & Liu, 2016). Another stream of literature has looked at the forms of transnational entrepreneurship by migrants, connecting both the contexts of home and the host country (Dimitratos et al., 2016; Guarnizo et al., 2003; Patel & Conklin, 2009; Rana & Elo, 2017). Here, the international element in the business and the firm has been in the epicentre of interest (Dimitratos et al., 2016; Oviatt & McDougall, 2005). Migrants follow different entrepreneurial pathways that link to their minority- and contextual status (Elo & Servais, 2018).

Migrants are assumed to select their host country based on its attractiveness and opportunities offered, in short, by following the pull (Favell & Hansen, 2002; Foot & Milne, 1984). The host country context plays a central role in the study of migrant entrepreneurship, similarly as in international business, since this is the arena or locus where difficulties and impediments are realized for migrants (Grand & Szulkin, 2002; Hofer et al., 2017; Liebig, 2007; Weichselbaumer, 2016). Dana (1997) identified four spheres of influence that impact self-employment of migrants: the individual or self, the ethnocultural environment, the circumstances in society and a combination of these. On the host country-society level, he introduces stratification, social blockage, government assistance and occupational clustering as factors that encourage self-employment (Dana, 1997). Hence, the role of extant co-ethnic diaspora community is a pull- and enabling factor for ethnic entrepreneurship. Thus, the host context is theoretically interesting and part of the explanatory mechanisms and lack of co-ethnic diaspora suggests other explanations beyond ethnic entrepreneurship (Dana, 1997; Elo et al., 2019). Furthermore, as theories on integration, assimilation, acculturation and other adaptive frameworks point out, there is a time dimension in post-migratory life (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2003; Guarnizo et al., 2003; Schittenhelm & Schmidtke, 2010). The early life after the migration is particularly “loaded” with challenges for migrants, but over time these inherent challenges may diminish while the distance to the original home country respectively may increase (Buckley et al., 2012; Hedberg, 2007; McAuliffe, 2008; Sahin, 1990). Gurău et al. (2020) presented a typology of immigrant entrepreneurs and addressed the ways how migrants overcome their liabilities of foreignness in the host context. These processes can be addressed through the lens of social practice that illustrate different approaches as paths. Migration research distinguishes different types of time orientations, starting from short-term seasonal workers just visiting a country for limited period of work, e.g., in agriculture or tourism, all the way to permanent settlement with the purpose of building a life in the new host country, which also underlines the agency and commitment of the migrant in taking decisions (Bakewell, 2010; Barber, 2000; Hunt, 2011; Klekowski von Koppenfels & Höhne, 2017; Tharenou, 2010). Hence, when the location represents the place of permanent settlement it has a special meaning for life and entrepreneurship of the migrant (Price & Chacko, 2009).

A particular stream of migrant entrepreneurship has focused on the long-term formation of diaspora and ethnic enclaves that create and shape ethnic economies building on co-ethnic ties (Ojo, 2012; Price & Chacko, 2009; Ram & Jones, 2008; Zhou, 2004). Ethnic entrepreneurship (Dana, 2007) examines the economic and entrepreneurial activity of migrants within their ethnic scope and the ethnicity of their business (Achidi Ndofor & Priem, 2011; Chaganti & Greene, 2002; Volery, 2007; Yeung, 1999). In ethnic entrepreneurship, the shared ethnicity, cultural understanding, social capital, linguistic features and religious setting have specific roles in the business context, influencing the commonalities instead of the divides that may separate the migrants from the mainstream economy, business and societal context (Dana & Dana, 2008; Elo & Volovelsky, 2017; Faist, 2013; McAuliffe, 2008; Mir, 2013; Powell & Steel, 2011; Ram et al., 2008; Urbano et al., 2011; Wahlbeck, 2007). Historically, there have been large waves of migrants, like the guest workers in Germany (Bhagwati et al., 1984; Klekowski von Koppenfels & Höhne, 2017), that create diasporas and respective ethnic enclaves which have provided ample business opportunities for various ethnic businesses. These enclaves have dominated the location choice of the co-ethnic incoming migrants on many levels, socially through family, marriage and friendship, but also in regard to schooling, education, work opportunities and cultural life (Arends-Tóth & Van de Vijver, 2003; Daller & Grotjahn, 1999; Granovetter, 1973; Pruthi, 2014; Rezaei et al., 2017; Sarason et al., 2006; Song, 2011; Waldinger et al., 1990b). Therefore, it has been an assumption that there are social pressures on ethnic businesses from the diasporas to be established within the new “home” context and often to also serve the diaspora with their business models (Hernandez, 2014; Inglis, 2011). Here, this approach is coined “staying in” instead of “breaking out” (e.g. Bager & Rezaei, 2001). These social forces are linked to the culture and the entrepreneurial circumstances that the migrants adapt into (e.g. Hamilton et al., 2008). Although the global mobility of people has departed from the guest worker and migrant “simplicity” to a more diversified and complex migratory life (Faist, 2013; Glick Schiller & Salazar, 2013; Tharenou, 2010), it is still assumed that extant ethnic diasporas and enclaves pull new migrants to settle within or close to them following the idea of gravity and the pull effect of the “better future” communicated by others in the new context (Tobler, 2010). Recent studies on migration are actually pointing out that the most significant migratory flows take place across Global South, exceeding the flows from Global South to Global North. Thus, it can be expected that novel forms of decision-making and mobility have emerged (Patterson, 2006; Saxenian, 2005; Tharenou, 2010). There is a growing stream of research specifically addressing the highly skilled people who employ a more individualistic agency in their global mobility (Mahroum, 2000; Reitz, 2005; Schittenhelm & Schmidtke, 2010). These advanced choices today influence the overall decision making on migratory life and host country selection, the length of the stay or settlement or circulation, as well as the location or locations of a possible business (Dana, 1996; Etemad, 2004; McCormick & Wahba, 2001; Riddle & Brinkerhoff, 2011; Solano, 2016; Tung, 2008). Therefore, the location choice dynamics of entrepreneurial migrants require revisiting.

However, beyond the privileged global mobility and expatriates (Aycan, 1997; Brewster et al., 2014; Vance et al., 2017; Zikic et al., 2010), other types of migrants are not enjoying comparably rich alternatives in their decision-making process. Disadvantaged migrants, like refugees, asylum seekers, uneducated (particularly illiterate people), disabled, women with children and young people without local schooling/education and visible minorities, often face limitations in such life choices (Abu-Lughod, 2002; Favell & Hansen, 2002; Fiddian-Qasmiyeh et al., 2014; Lee, 1966; McCormick & Wahba, 2001; OECD, 2015; Orhan & Scott, 2001). Since disadvantaged migrants are seen less as a resource and more as a liability or an object for policy, their role as entrepreneurs has remained underexplored (Sandberg et al., 2019). There are studies illustrating various illicit and negative entrepreneurial roles, activities and forms of trade related to migration and its challenges (Datta, 2005; Gillespie & McBride, 2013; Larue et al., 2009; Staake et al., 2009), but very little findings on the entrepreneurial location choice, survival and resilience of disadvantaged migrants (Hakiza, 2014). For this reason, there is a need to explore disadvantaged migrant entrepreneurship in a more processual manner (de Haas, 2010; Halinen et al., 2013; Yeung, 1999) to understand the dynamics over time that influence the decision making, the choice and the commitment to a specific location (cf. Dana, 1996; Elo et al. 2018, b).

3 Research Approach and Methodology

Qualitative case study method can be particularly useful for understanding a complex real-life phenomenon and entrepreneurship that is less well known, such as location dynamics of disadvantaged migrant entrepreneurship (Dana & Dana, 2005; Eisenhardt, 1989). Qualitative research methods addressing rich and deep data and offering are suitable for examining several influencing factors, diverse dynamics and processes on entrepreneurial pathways (Silverman, 2006; Sinkovics & Alfoldi, 2012). A multiple case study allows horizontal, vertical and diagonal comparison processes (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2016) that are useful for reflecting different individual case trajectories (Wissink et al., 2020). These cases are migrant life courses addressed through migratory-entrepreneurial pathways and life-choices. Here, multiple case studies are employed which explore and present the entrepreneurial trajectories over time in a context (Chung et al., 2012; Flyvbjerg, 2006; Marschan-Piekkari & Welch, 2011; Piekkari et al., 2010; Yin, 2013). Case study method on migrant entrepreneurs is particularly suitable as essential aspects of the environment and context are included (Dana & Dana, 2005; Welter, 2011). More ethnographic and emic style narratives from entrepreneurs in such cases may produce valuable lessons and contribute to research (e.g. Berglund & Wigren, 2014). Contextualizing the entrepreneurship of these migrants spatio-temporally is central as the location is of focal interests and its meaning is part of the research rationale. Moreover, this also responds to the call for better contextualization (Ambrosini, 2012; Welter, 2011; Zahra et al., 2014).

The chosen research strategy is explorative, it builds on identifying and understanding the factors that constitute the overall mechanism of location choice and respective decision making of migrant entrepreneurs, who are particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged (e.g. Dana, 1993, 1997). Prior studies on migration addressing pull and push factors serve as a starting point for understanding these dynamics, but we explore more inductive what makes them choose a particular location. The selection of place for entrepreneurial activity and life requires a deep level of understanding and a more micro-level exploration (i.e. microfoundations). Therefore, a progressive focusing and reflecting back and forth between theory and practice can help form a bigger picture of the phenomenon and exploring individual trajectories within it (de Haas, 2010; Halinen et al., 2013; Sinkovics & Alfoldi, 2012). For this reason, we have designed this individual examination as a “two-way” interaction between the top-down migration dynamics and policy constellations and a bottom-up entrepreneurial emergence and adaptation process in the locality (see, e.g., Dana, 1996, Emmanuel et al., 2019). Beyond the locality of the business, it also contains dimensions related to migrant and diaspora networks and connections or to businesses elsewhere (Alvesson, Skoldberg, 2010; Ojo, 2012, 2013; Solano, 2016).

In terms of geographic-spatial context, our paper explores a less known context of non-capital urban areas, i.e. smaller cities and towns (Tobler, 2010). In contrast to capital areas and emerging mega-cities, these smaller contexts typically have less or lack that urban pull-factor for incoming entrepreneurial people (Elo et al. 2018, b). As location on the EU external borders, such as Greece or Spain, can have significant effect on the incoming dynamics, we explore the dynamics within the central Schengen area to understand these pull effects experienced by disadvantaged migrants.

3.1 The Data Collection

We chose Austria as the context of the study due to its location and migration policy configuration as an EU Schengen country and Carinthia as a regional context with total of 560 000 inhabitants (Statistics Austria, 2017). Further, Klagenfurt is rather small city that does not have ethnic enclaves in economic-entrepreneurial sense as there are only 1659 people from Afghanistan, 549 people from India and 135 people from Pakistan (Statistics Austria, 2017). The ethnic cultural and social institutions are not strong, e.g. there are only 3-4 mosques in Klagenfurt and limited locus for socializing. Due to the religious diversity of the disadvantaged migrant population representing Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and other religious groups, there is a very heterogenous and diverse migrant population intermingling in Klagenfurt.

The data collection for our empirical analysis has been carried out qualitatively in the city of Klagenfurt (Dana & Dana, 2008; Johnstone, 2007; Marschan-Piekkari & Welch, 2004; Nijkamp et al., 2010). Contacts with migrant-diaspora associations and social connections were employed for identifying suitable candidates. They were contacted purposefully based on their representation of the phenomenon. Also snowball sampling method within the migrant business scene was used to identify other candidates. One research team member identified and double-checked migrants who were selected primarily due to their disadvantaged migrant characteristics. We chose the establisher-owner as the focal individual to concentrate and we focused on entrepreneurship that had been formally established and was actively development. The primary focus was on ethnic origins that represent the “migration crisis” cohorts. The most important selection criterion for these case studies was built on: the disadvantaged migrant owner-establisher, part of visible minority group, the establishment of the firm after migration to the location, firm location in Klagenfurt, owner-establisher still actively participating in the management of the firm and further business development. Another selection criterion was the availability of varied business experiences and diversity in the degree of success so that we did not have some outliers only as we tried to balance the cases to explore the phenomenon on a broad range.

For our study, we were able to find and selected five cases of migrant entrepreneurs from Klagenfurt that filled our criteria and were willing to participate. These entrepreneurs were interviewed face-to-face. The interviews lasted 60-90 minutes and were conducted to complete a life-story following semi-structured interview approach with guiding questions starting with demographic data for comparability. In all five cases, the interviews have been recorded, transcribed and cross-checked by the members of the research team. The data were collected between 2015 and 2019. The researcher who did the interviews is a migrant sharing features of the sample populations that were interviewed. The researcher could communicate and interpret the data also culturally. Ethnographic style observations, participation and cultural knowledge supported the process of data collection and interpretation over time (Berglund & Wigren, 2014). Our approach increases the acceptability of the request to share life course information and facilitates trust creation due to shared problem-constellations and perceived inclusion–exclusion settings. Thus, it also increases the trustworthiness and reliability of the data as there is a perceived common understanding regarding improvement of life situations that can be useful in data collection (Sinkovics & Alfoldi, 2012; Sørensen & Vammen, 2014; Waldinger & Duquette-rury, 2015; World Bank, 2013).

3.2 The Data Analysis

The data is analysed using a network lens on individual entrepreneurial trajectories that start from the idea of entrepreneurship through nascent entrepreneurship towards established entrepreneurship in the particular location (de Haas, 2010; Halinen et al., 2013; Halinen & Törnroos, 2005). The analysis incorporates a coding process and a chronological organization of data into trajectories around the entrepreneurial establishment and migratory path (Elo, 2016; Saldana, 2009; Urbano et al., 2011). Based on the qualitative material and the first level coding, we developed seven sections representing the second level principal codes: personal background, reason for the migration, selection of destination, social network support, cultural background, motivation to become an entrepreneur, remittance back to family at homeland to achieve the object of our case study, see Table 2. These allowed us to theorize on our research concerns (Saldana, 2009).

We examined the personal background of migrant entrepreneurs to assess the immigration related difficulties (as they represented non-EU nationals who need a visa), country of origin, migration year, language and most importantly education level (see Table 1 for overview). This is important as one cannot establish a business as a paperless person. Similarly, we tried to understand why they decided to come specifically to Austria and Klagenfurt that is not a major urban area nor among the top destinations otherwise. Therefore, we asked our focused participants what had originally motivated them to come to Austria and how that happened. The question to all the migrant entrepreneurs we interviewed, was to assess the factors or limitations in destination selection such as visa requirements and financial requirements. We also tried to check, how their social networks supported them at the desired destination, if there were any. Further, the idea was to explore how these migrants, by developing entrepreneurial strategies find a way to develop and sustain a life and a business in a place of their choosing, and why they decided to settle down permanently in Klagenfurt. With coding we analysed the data contents constructing a trajectory based on their narratives with main critical event phases in their lives that have led to their entrepreneurship in Klagenfurt while reflecting the theory elements (Halinen et al., 2013), see Fig. 1 and Table 2. We run several rounds of analysis going back and forth between data and theory. We tried to address rather holistically the factors that influenced the location choice and explored diverse layers of their narratives. We asked for macro-level pulls such as policies or ethnic diasporas, but were unable to identify any prior to arrival in Klagenfurt, their social ties were influential in the post-migratory setting but not as pull factors to Klagenfurt. In line with the social mechanisms (Emmanuel et al., 2019), we also wanted to check the remitting behaviour of these migrant entrepreneurs back to family members residing in the country of origin as this is potentially linked to entrepreneurial endeavours and transnational features, see Table 2.

Table 1 An overview to the cases and analysis of the emerging post-migratory entrepreneurship
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Trajectories of the cases towards entrepreneurship and settlement

Full size image
Table 2 The migrant life stories towards entrepreneurship
Full size table

4 Analysis–Five cases in Klagenfurt, Austria

First, we provide a contextual overview to the cases and an analysis of the emerging post-migratory entrepreneurship with the key elements in their live courses, see Table 1. This allows a more embedded understanding of their life and emerging entrepreneurship in Klagenfurt. The entrepreneurship of all is directed to multi-ethnic customers, not only co-ethnics, including local customers and niche markets (cf. ethnic cross-over). Due to the size of the city ethnic products and services are mainly sold in such independent retail stores/shops.

Second, we present a visual analysis (colour codes) of the five case trajectories in Fig. 1 and reflect push–pull setting, the critical event phases and the location choices. Case 5 had an emotional push factor, while the other 4 had serious livelihood-danger related push forces (orange). Information had diverse and informal sources. Case 3 was the only one that entered Europe through a legitimate path, while others followed agents (“Schleuser”/human traffickers, yellow) or friends’/family’s advice (light blue) resulting in a rather random location. Cases 2 and 4 had paid Germany as the destination, but ended up in Austria. None of the entrepreneurs had prior entrepreneurship experience, beyond family tradition (see case 2, green marking), or any intention to go to Klagenfurt. Three cases (2, 3, 4) had no contacts in Austria prior to migration. Many had multiple other cities before Klagenfurt (Helsinki, Athens, Salzburg, Villach, Vienna, Graz) and all had problems with employment/labour markets that contributed to their entrepreneurial motivations and aspirations. All participants referred to location selection “pull criteria” with description such as small, beautiful, calm, peaceful, mountains, lakes, like birth city (see the location choice green marking) without mentioning economic pull. Their relationship developed to the new “home” was strong and even emotional, with permanent characteristics, and formed a central part of their entrepreneurship. Interestingly, only case 5 mentioned a local opportunity as one pull factor. Hence, economic pull factors are inadequate to explain this phenomenon.

4.1 Assessing Pathways Towards Entrepreneurial Settlement and Choice of Location

Despite different ethnicities and backgrounds all five entrepreneurs have selected Austria in a rather unspecific/random manner triggered by the push, not pull. However, the location of actual settlement was based on personal and emotional criteria relating to peace, beauty and the resemblance with home/origin, a response to a qualitative pull. They did not explicate any quantitative pull based on economic criteria or entrepreneurial programmes/policies. This qualitative pull was not diaspora/co-ethnic community driven, it was about the perceived characteristics of the city that clearly addressed the traumata and nostalgia of the migrants in a positive manner. This qualitative-emotional pull was the main pull factor for the entrepreneurial location and making of the new home, while enclaves or homophily was not found (cf. Hernandez, 2014). Contrary to Hernandez (2014) a deep and resilient wish to integrate and find peace and prosperity with the Austrian society was explicitly stated by all cases. The migratory pathway of all of them, including case 5, involved immigration, integration and labour market related difficulties. Exploitation, racism and discrimination happened, also within co-ethnics (case 5). Attempts to study and upskilling strategies failed, mainly to economic reasons (cases 1, 3), but all struggled to learn German. The German language requirement was a surprising hurdle for them, but once they learned, they actively started to help newcomers to integrate better, being “locals”. Their Klagenfurtian entrepreneurship was in line with the work of Portes et al. (2002), a form of economic adaptation to match the location with diverse strategies from bricolage to growth as family business but addressing customers beyond ethnic diasporas, see more in Table 2.

5 Findings and Discussions

The findings illustrate that the meaning of being disadvantaged (perceived vs objective dimensions) remains present over time but may diminish through entrepreneurship. The agency and entrepreneurial drivers of these cases were less linear regarding strategy and growth and more social capital and chance driven than planned (e.g. Sandberg et al., 2019), but despite various impediments the entrepreneurial firms survived in the host context, provided jobs for the family, and primarily served host country customers. This success is theoretically interesting; it has assisted them in breaking out of disadvantaged status (cf. Waldinger et al. 1990a, b), to gain higher integration, including better societal status and prosperity.

The entrepreneurial strategies were based on low tech entrepreneurship and service. Again, this dimension and positioning of the business models are strongly linked to a particular location as service businesses are proximity related. Furthermore, this suggests that the cases have managed to develop the opportunities and resources of their context although their embeddedness differs from the locals. They lack opportunities from large diasporas and ethnic enclaves. Another interesting feature is their strong emotional—even thankful—attitude and bond to Klagenfurt as a location, which stems from the shift that they have experienced from their disadvantageous past to the peaceful and agency-enabling present. The entrepreneurship was made to fit the location, not adapting life (e.g. re-migration) to entrepreneurship. All entrepreneurs settled down and integrated themselves actively into the local context. They did not consider shifting their businesses to larger cities or other countries although such potential would be available within the European Union once they have achieved a permanent EU residence status/Austrian nationality. The sense of home and the ways to create that were interesting (Ishi, 2017; Sheffer, 2003); they were linked with entrepreneurship as a means of living in Klagenfurt, but were not limited to entrepreneurial “home”. The home country-resembling mountains and beautiful environment offering peace played a strong role in the entrepreneurial narratives. Furthermore, the foreignness of the location was not perceived as a liability or a threat, but as something positive, Austrianness was something they appreciated and formed a life goal (cf. Hernandez, 2014).

6 Conclusions

This study on entrepreneurial settlement and location choice without ethnic enclave and diaspora pull indicates unexpected emotional features and resilient agency. The theoretical implications suggest that there are un-planned and chance-based disadvantaged migrants becoming entrepreneurs who are not following a pull by co-ethnics as previously assumed. Additionally, implications of following economic pull related to entrepreneurial opportunities, policies or programmes were not found (Castles & Miller 2009; Lee, 1966). Still, information provided by family, friends and diaspora is influential for migration and post-migratory entrepreneurship. These migrants did not orientate “rationally”, but rather randomly chose a place of settlement, partly on inaccurate information, due to human trafficking or coincidence. There was no such distinct assessment process of the best location (“country/benefit shopping”) that is often expected from migrants who arrive in developed countries, on the contrary, they chose a small city with limited demand structure. The post-migratory entrepreneurial activity was very reactive, not following classic causation or effectuation (cf. Read & Sarasvathy, 2005) but rather a bricolage kind of strategy (Fisher, 2012), if any, to gain a livelihood via business (cf. Dana, 1993, 1997). Thus, there were no clear entrepreneurial determinants of selecting a location and destination or entrepreneurial purpose in selection (cf. Elo, 2016), as there was no a priori entrepreneurial strategy either (Dana, 1993). The entrepreneurship emerged as a solution to stay in a location, ex post as a coping strategy (Mir, 2013), but this solution worked despite all disadvantages as all five cases were surviving or growing the business, which is interesting regarding small business mortality research.

What is highly interesting, is the strong relationship to this new place of settlement that does not follow the pattern of selecting an entrepreneurial hot spot or opportunity (Kotabe et al., 2013; Saxenian, 2005) and the preference for “small and beautiful”. This behaviour contradicts the trends towards the “centre” and the business requirements for adequate demand structures. The resulting relationship to the location is both family- and entrepreneurship- related and forms a full and permanent life settlement, with transgenerational features. These findings relate to the extraordinary findings from the Närpiö region in Finland, where entrepreneurial migrants and their families (also with refugee backgrounds) have found their own sweet spot of settlement and have successfully hybridized the local lifestyle and entrepreneurship (Mattila & Björklund, 2013). Hence, we propose that disadvantaged and refugee migrants may have different, seemingly random and even non-economic dynamics guiding their settlement and entrepreneurial processes. This underlines the existence of a distinct sub-category of migrant entrepreneurs strategically and behaviourally (Elo & Servais, 2018). The study implies that small cities could develop twining and bilateral matching programmes with, e.g., the UNHCR and Chambers of Commerce to attract the right “type” of a migrant from suitable “regions/ecosystems” to settle entrepreneurially (e.g. cooking—HORECA, mountain-mountain).

Managerially, these cases illustrate that a very adaptive bricolage style in entrepreneurial activity is a viable option and seems to match well psychologically with their disadvantaged and/or traumatized backgrounds. They also focused on the “right direction”, not on the impediments or problems, although their entrepreneurship could be also seen as a means of coping with marginality, liminality and necessity (cf. Dana, 1993). Social capital, social networks and especially family relations were a crucial and highly central element in their lives, providing motivation, assistance and various tangible and intangible resources, although they were not necessarily even in the same location (cf. Light & Dana, 2013; Gurău et al., 2020). This indicates that it is not just the remittancing behaviour that is theoretically interesting, it is also the positive approach and motivation that family and social relations may foster, across contexts. The lack of full mixed embeddedness did not impede the establishment of entrepreneurship; with resilience, these entrepreneurs were able to break out of the disadvantageous status and root themselves and their families in the local community. Future research is needed to study the business configurations in more detail to theorize on ways of achieving positive entrepreneurial integration.

Such invisible and complicated processes are sensitive and very difficult to study. The limitations of the research stem from the limitations of the sample, the chosen cultural origins and context as well as the idiographic nature of the study, as another setting might provide highly different cases. Methodologically, it is challenging to examine a process like this in retrospective, as the human memory and psyche influences the way such life events are interpreted and remembered (Mathews et al., 1989).

Migration policy tends to address disadvantaged migrants (due to their limitations), as if they were not able to take care of themselves, and as objects of policy making. This deficit-approach ignores the inherent entrepreneurial potential and agency (see, e.g., Dana, 1997; Bakewell, 2010). In this study, the entrepreneurial drive and activity clearly supports their integration, development and resulting wellbeing (e.g. Liu & Schøtt, 2019). The societal factors, such as discrimination, extreme-right dangers but also complicated formal impediments via bureaucracy are notable problem areas and point out the need for better institutions and inclusive-protective measures for visible minority entrepreneurs. They may perceive and develop local opportunities that the locals are not interested in benefitting the local society and business ecosystem. We conclude that implantation of the UN SDGsFootnote 1 that foster empowerment, equality and inclusion can also embrace disadvantaged migrants’ entrepreneurial agency and inter-diaspora collaboration. Future studies on these measures and more attention on the business environment’s capacity to include newcomers via policies and institutional collaboration are needed, especially employing a more positive organizational scholarship lens (e.g. Stahl & Tung, 2015). Future research on mentoring and exploring useful integration tools by immigrant business organizations could offer fruitful findings for the disadvantaged new migrants.