Keywords

1 Introduction

Like most social science concepts, ethnicity is viewed by scholars from varied perspectives. Studies on ethnicity have been more about the negatives: ethnic conflicts, ethnic violence, ethnic riots and so on. Ethnicity, however, is a concept that is much wider than its narrow conflict related interpretation suggests. Just like ethnicity, entrepreneurship has equally proven to be an indefinable concept for scholars (Iyer and Schoar 2008). Though the concept is an old one, there appear to be no universal acceptance of all its features as scholars in the field have varied perceptions on the phenomenon. It appears as if the concept is always evolving each time scholars come close to unanimity on its meaning and context.

Despite these difficulties and sometimes, mis-conceptualisations of the concept, it is still a matter of interest to researchers to understand what determines why some people go into entrepreneurship and what predicts the success of specific approaches to entrepreneurship. Researchers have equally been interested in carrying out studies on why certain nations, regions within nations or even ethnic groups within a country differ in their entrepreneurship orientation and attitude (Bonacich 1972; Light 1973; Waldinger (1986).

The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) also carries out annual surveys to determine levels of entrepreneurship across member countries with the aim of ranking those member countries. The GEM (2002) report, for instance, finds sharp differences in the levels of entrepreneurship among countries. The levels recorded in India and Thailand in 2002, for example, was found to be about six times higher than those of countries like Belgium, Japan and Russia. Dana et al. (2005) as well as Todorovic and McNaughton (2007), maintains that there are substantial dissimilarities between cultures in their inclination towards entrepreneurship.

Even within the same nations, studies have shown major differences in entrepreneurial attitudes between regions and zones. One example is in the difference between West and East Germany. Bergmann (2009) confirms this difference citing GEM country report on Germany. The report confirms differences in entrepreneurship inclination between East and West Germany more than a decade and a half after unification of the country. The East Germans were rather more restrained and more pessimistic than West Germans in choosing to go into business as they exhibit a higher level of fear for business failure.

Differences in cultural traits are usually given as explanation for disparities in entrepreneurship orientation of nations, regions or ethnics. Hence, many cultural entrepreneurship studies that seek to determine the influence of ethnicity, religion, race, etc on entrepreneurship attitude of different people have been undertaken (Bruce 2003; Hofstede 1991; Light 1972, 2000). Some of those studies tried to compare entrepreneurial attributes of ethnic groups within the same country, although majority was done from western perspective (Jung and Kau 2004). Most ethnic entrepreneurship studies in the USA, for example, compared entrepreneurship attitude of blacks and migrants like Koreans, Indians, Chinese and Cubans etc. against white Americans (Light 1972; Light and Bonacich 1988; Light and Gold 2000). In Europe and particularly in the United Kingdom, such studies compared migrants particularly Asians, Black-Caribbeans with White Caucasians (Ram 1991; Ram et al. 2000).

An example such studies conducted outside the west was the one undertaken by Iyer and Schoar (2008). It found that the Marwaris were considered the most entrepreneurial community in India. There was also the study by Mungai and Ogot (2009) on ethnicity, culture and entrepreneurship in Kenya. Even then such studies are still rare in developing countries and sub-Saharan African countries in particular. This might be because interest on impact of culture on entrepreneurship even in Europe and the West generally were intensified only as from the 1980s.

Nigeria, a country of 150 million and the largest African/black nation is among the most diverse nations globally (Ukiwo 2005 ) . Agreeing with that assertion, Kohnert (2010) stresses that Nigerians form approximately a half of the West African population. In addition, the country is made up of over 250 ethnic groups . McClelland (1961) posits that members of each ethnic group within a modern nation state do have their unique customs, behavior and a common world view and thus do share certain cultural particularities compared to other groups within those nations.

Given such reality and the fact that the country faces challenges of economic development in a fast phased global economy; Nigeria has no alternative but to learn to be increasingly entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurship, generally, and more particularly, ethnic entrepreneurship, should be of interest to Nigerians. Nigeria would need to learn from some of the best practices globally with a view to learning from such and possibly domesticating those practices among our diverse ethnics. Here, the argument put forward by Valdez (2002) that it is vital to realize the connection between ethnicity and enterprise can never be more apt. It is for this reason that this study is undertaken aimed at reviewing and synthesizing ethnic entrepreneurship studies globally and thereby identifying lessons for Nigeria and Nigerians.

This study is a literature survey type that seeks to identify, from literature globally, those attitudes in various cultures that bring out the best in each ethnic group’s entrepreneurship. Such positive cultural attitudes from all ethnic groups would be worthy of emulation by the other ethnic groups for best practices in entrepreneurship.

2 Review of Literature

2.1 Ethnicity and Ethnic Groups

Weber (1930) sees ethnic groups as artificial and subjective social constructs. This is because such groups are formed based on what Weber considers subjective belief in shared community. In fact the belief in shared community is not responsible for the group formation; rather, it is communities that construct the belief in shared ethnicity. Barth (1969) in a seminal volume on ethnicity—Ethnic Groups and Boundaries—was even more emphatic seeing ethnicity as some form of fabrication and that it is a phenomenon that is continually changing and then changing again due to ‘both external ascription and internal self-identification’. Sharing similar sentiment, Cohen (1978), an anthropologist, claims that the label “ethnic groups” is rather inaccurately used by social scientists. This is because it is chiefly imposed and may not conform to indigenous realities. In the opinion of Cohen (1978) when an ethnic group’s identification is by strangers, it might not agree with identification members of a group make of themselves. Stressing that the word “ethnicity” was initially used in lieu of earlier words like “cultural” or “tribal”, Cohen (1971) had earlier attributed that claims to ethnic identity was a colonialist creation and that it was used mainly in referring to colonised peoples.

These views about ethnicity are substantially Eurocentric. For a multicultural nation like Nigeria, ethnicity is more than an artificial social construct as noted by Weber (1930). Also, even though it was used especially during colonial and neo-colonial era to emphasize divisions among the people, Nigerians do not regard ‘ethnicity and ethnic identity’ as a subjective belief in shared community contrary to Cohen (1978).

Ukiwo (2005), define ethnicity from the context of conflict as “the employment or mobilization of ethnic identity and difference to gain advantage in situation of competition, conflict or cooperation”. This definition is preferable for two reasons: first, because ethnicity does not occur accidentally or naturally but is a deliberate effort by social actors. Secondly, ethnicity is not limited to conflict situations as it also manifest from the perspective of ‘cooperation’. Ukiwo (2005) allude to the fact that ethnic conflict is displayed in many forms some of which (like in the case of voting or community service) need not always have negative consequences. Also, while obviously, agreeing to the fact that ethnic groups share some common features like sharing of a common territory, lineage, language, race or culture , his study, does not accept that this is always the case.

Bacik (2002), on the other hand, sees ethnic nationalism from the perspective of lineage thus, members of an ethnic group have common distinct features. They may bear common and distinct physical characteristics; have common ancestry, religion, race and language among others. In essence therefore, even within the same nation states, there could be different nations made up of members that are ethnologically related sharing features as outlined above. Even the Wikipedia (2011) acknowledges that members of an ethnic group identify with each other and usually share some common traits which may, but does not necessarily have to include, shared culture , common heritage, dialect or language. Ethnic groups emerge out of a process called ethnogenesis and that in some cases, the only thing members of an ethnic group have in common is the shared (ethnic) identity.

Schildkrout (1978) defines ethnicity as “-a set of conscious or unconscious beliefs or assumption about one’s own or another’s identity, as derived from membership in a particular type of group or category”. Horowitz (1985) sees ethnicity as an umbrella concept that embraces groups separated by language, colour or religion. According to him the definition could be extended to cover “tribes”, “nationalities” and “castes”. To Chandra (2006), ethnic identities are a subset of identity categories in which eligibility for membership is determined by attributes associated with, or believed to be associated with descent.

This paper therefore aligns more with Schildkrout (1978), Horowitz (1985) and Bacik (2002). Their views appear to be closer to the accepted reality that the ethnic group s in Nigeria share some physical characteristics, a common language and culture and in some cases even religion. It also agrees with Ukiwo (2005), even though that is not the subject of this effort that ethnic groups attempt to attain advantageous position regardless of whether it is in a conflicting or competitive situation.

2.2 Entrepreneurship

Cantillon (1680–1734) was attributed to be the earliest scientist that paid considerable attention to the field of entrepreneurship. The ‘entrepreneur’ was said to have first been acknowledged in Cantillon’s post humous publication (1755) titled ‘Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général’. Since then, entrepreneurs have been seen as the heart of economic activity and growth. For example, in Smith’s (1776), Wealth of Nations, the impression one gets is that the most important function of the businessman is to supply capital as an entrepreneur—one of the factors of production. In addition, as Iyer and Schoar (2008) confirms, economic theorists from Schumpeter to Baumol have highlighted entrepreneurship as the driving force for change and innovation in a capitalist system.

Despite this belief, the real roles of entrepreneurs remain a contentious issue. For example, Kirzner (1985), Bygrave (1997), Shane and Venkataraman (2000) as well as Robbins and Coulter (1999) see entrepreneurship from the lens of opportunity recognition while Schumpeter (1934) views the entrepreneur as an innovator—a creative personality.

To Shane and Venkataraman (2000), entrepreneurship is the study of “how, by whom and with what consequences opportunities to produce future goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited”. Bygrave (1997) see an entrepreneur as a person that is able to identify opportunities and craft the necessary organization to pursue it. To Kirzner (1985), an entrepreneur is a person that is alert and ready to cash in on overlooked opportunities. The leadership provided by the entrepreneur in identifying and taking advantage of unnoticed opportunities assist in “correcting” the market thus bringing it towards an equilibrium position.

Schumpeter (1934) rejects the equilibrium analysis and perceives the entrepreneur as a creative character and an innovator that has capacity to totally transform how things are done. Entrepreneurship is, therefore, a new combination including the exploitation of new opportunities or finding better ways of doing things that are already being done. This new combination may involve introducing new technologies, opening up new markets, a fresh source of supplies or rearranging production processes and so on. The entrepreneur is thus not an imitator but an innovator who also tends to have monopolistic tendencies. The innovator engages in ‘creative destruction’ thereby contributing to economic development and must necessarily be monopolistic to protect innovations.

Hisrich and Peter (2002) looks at the concept of entrepreneurship from two perspectives—economic and psychological perspectives. From the economic perspective, an entrepreneur is seen as a person that assemble other factors of production like labour and capital as well as all the required resources that would facilitate creation of fresh goods and services; or those that introduce innovations into the way things were done before. From the psychological perspective however, an entrepreneur is seen as that person with a strong desire to innovate or come up with completely novel approaches to how things should be done; as a person with strong achievement orientation or someone with a strong desire for independence

2.3 Ethnic Entrepreneurship

Mitchell et al. (2002) in an attempt to empirically determine whether entrepreneurship cognitions are common across cultures undertook an eleven country empirical study. In all, 990 respondents were surveyed across the eleven countries. The study finds, among others, that there are significant differences in the entrepreneurial archetypes of the eleven countries. However, in the opinion of Shariff and Saud (2009), few studies have tried to understand what determines why some people go into entrepreneurship and what predicts the success or specific approach to entrepreneurship. In essence, studies that use personality/character, demographic and attitudinal approaches to determine potential to create aspiring entrepreneurs in various fields of endeavour appear to be few. Even fewer studies appear to have been made on the influence of culture on entrepreneurship attitude of ethnic group s. An attempt was made by Lindsay (2005) to design a model of entrepreneurship attitude by combining both Hofstede (1980a, b) dimensions and the Entrepreneurship Attitude Orientation (EAO) model. Even then, no attempt yet has been made to empirically test the model.

Two reasons could be adduced for the fewer studies done with regard to influence of culture on entrepreneurship attitude of ethnic groups . The first is the fact that much entrepreneurship research was undertaken by western scholars who appear to associate ethnicity with backward cultures (see Light and Bonacich 1988 and Waldinger et al. 1990 ) . And where such researches are undertaken in the west, it tends to examine the entrepreneurship attitude s of immigrants compared to local populations.

Bruce (2003) surveyed 325 entrepreneurs from different ethnic backgrounds in South Africa: Indians, Europeans and Africans and finds significant differences in aspects of their entrepreneurship. The study for example, finds the Africans did not have an extensive network unlike the Indians and Europeans. There is also noticeable difference between the ethnic groups on access to and diversity of finance sources. Even the hurdles and obstacles the ethnic groups experience is different. This study suffers, obviously, from the faults of the Europe and American studies by lumping all Indians, Europeans and Africans as ethnic groups. The reality is that, while each group may share some similar cultural experiences they differ on many others.

Mungai and Ogot (2009) undertook a preliminary study that sought to investigate differences in entrepreneurial attitude of four Kenyan ethnic groups -Kikuyu, Kalenjin, Kamba and Lou. The study compared the four ethnic groups on two features closely associated with entrepreneurship attitude —locus of control and risk aversion. The study established positive correlation between the factors investigated and the perception the various communities have of entrepreneurship. It concludes that some cultures nurture entrepreneurship in their followers more than others as the four ethnic groups recorded significant difference on the factors investigated. While such a study has its uniqueness, it only used descriptive statistics; it did not use any robust methodology. It had limited scope as it studied four of Kenyan ethnic groups and was limited to the city of Nairobi. The study also limited itself to only two of the factors and made no attempt to rank the ethnic groups overall on their levels of entrepreneurship.

In another study, Aruwa (2005) found that ethnic background was a major influence in explaining entrepreneurial patterns and motivations in Kaduna followed by finance, environmental influence, and personal experience and motivations. The study also found that some ethnic groups in Kaduna dominated certain entrepreneurship ventures. While the study’s objective was not to examine the impact of culture on entrepreneurship attitude s, it has indirectly demonstrated that entrepreneurship attitudes are influenced by cultural factors.

In addition to the above, studies have been undertaken in some countries and regions that empirically suggest that differences in entrepreneurial attitude exist between countries and regions of the world. Bosma et al. (2009), for example, found that occupants of Southern Europe, Ireland and the UK exhibit comparatively higher levels of self-employment inclinations among European Union (EU) countries thus confirming that considerable variation exist within the EU. Also, Bergmann (2009) found major differences in entrepreneurship attitude between West and East Germany more than a decade and a half after German unification. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) report (2008) on Germany confirms that there are noticeable differences between the two regions on their entrepreneurial attitude. Unlike West Germans, for example, the study finds East Germans are somewhat more restrained in starting business as they have higher fear of failure .

In another GEM Report on New Zealand (GEM 2005), the entrepreneurship attitude of the Maori ethnic group was assessed. The aim was to measure Maori’s levels of entrepreneurial activity relative to the general population in New Zealand and with other countries. The research finds the traditional Maori society to be ‘tribal’, in which property is communally owned and leadership is exercised by elders of high status by virtue of their lines of descent. It also holds that the Maoris have relatively higher levels of opportunity entrepreneurs with 83 % of entrepreneurs being opportunity entrepreneurs. This is respectable and compares favourably even when matched against the situation in countries like USA, Austria or Canada. With a record of 15 %, the Maoris also recorded a decent level of necessity entrepreneurs , higher than the average New Zealand level and comparing favourably with levels recorded in such countries like Austria, Singapore and Italy. In addition, wealth creation is seen as a secondary motive among the Maoris which fits the general New Zealand pattern. Equally, the study finds high rate of “seniorpreneurship” at 15 % and the Maori women ranked third globally on early stage female entrepreneurial activity, at 12.3 %. They are also half as likely to be necessity entrepreneurs as Mäori male entrepreneurs. Finally, the study also finds that compared to the general (New Zealand) population, 8.1% of whom are confident of creating 20 jobs in 5 years.

These studies are proofs that differences do exist in the entrepreneurship attitu des among communities and nations and that this was largely because of the respective culture s associated with each group or community, ethnic or otherwise.

2.4 Immigrant Ethnic Entrepreneurship

A greater proportion of studies comparing ethnic groups ’ level of entrepreneurship have focused on immigrants who are more often seen as the ‘ethnics’ especially in the USA and Europe. In the USA for example, studies have been undertaken to compare levels of entrepreneurship of ethnic groups such as Chinese, Indians, Koreans, Cubans or blacks with white Caucasians (see for example, Waldinger 1986; Morris and Schindehutte 2005; Light and Bonacich 1988; Light 1972). Similar studies were conducted in the United Kingdom, that compare Caribbeans, Asians and the White Caucasians population (Ram 1991; Ram et al. 2000). This, despite the fact that more often than not as Deon et al. (1999) posits the mistake is always made whereby for example, Moroccans, Indonesians, Indians or Turkish ethnic groups residing in Europe or America are categorised as one ethnic group though in their countries of origin they might belong to different cultural backgrounds.

Despite the error of generalization as pointed out above, the studies have, almost without exception (except off-course the ones on blacks versus white Americans) found the immigrant groups to possess higher entrepreneurship traits than their hosts. Additionally, Bonacich (1973) claims that transitory migrants (sojourners) have a higher likelihood of becoming entrepreneurs than permanent migrants (settlers). This is because sojourning by its nature encourages thrift and hard work for persons whose ultimate aim is of returning to their home country. Another reason given by Bonacich (1973) is sojourners have, relatively, higher levels of internal solidarity. This gives them some advantage while competing with the rest of society.

Deon et al. (1999) undertook a study that examined the issue of ethnic entrepreneurship and migration. The study finds that migrants are motivated to go into entrepreneurial activities because of cultural hostility they face. Other factors that force migrants to consider entrepreneurship career include the fact that they tend to have limited access to finance in the face of inadequate capital; the high level of competition; existence of ethnic support networks as well as advantages the migrants might have in ‘ethnic products market’ where they have niche advantage. According to Light (1995) migrants face special challenges compared to residents when it comes to prospect for getting formal employment. Although jobs should, in principle, be competed for by all those that are qualified, in practice, this is not the case. Migrants, find themselves eliminated as some hidden considerations to do with ethnicity or nativity are brought in. Since their chances are limited in the formal sector, migrants have to resort to entrepreneurship careers.

Waldinger et al. (1985, 1996 ) identified some possible scenarios that could explain why some ethnic groups become more entrepreneurial than others. These possibilities have to do with: cultural resources of the respective ethnic groups, structure of the ethnic enclaves, and the circumstances of each ethnic group’s immediate environment. A good example of ethnic cultural resources could perhaps be seen in the findings of studies undertaken by Morris and Schindehutte (2005) in the state of Hawaii which involved administering questionnaires to first generation Japanese, Filipinos, Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese in addition to native Hawaiians. The study finds each ethnic group associating itself with certain core values usually connected with their specific ethnic circumstances. Specifically, the study finds the Korean sample generally more frugal, the Japanese exhibiting a higher level of risk aversion while native Hawaiians are generally more hospitable.

One other feature worthy of review with regards to ‘ethnic’/migrant entrepreneurs is the role of the ethnic networks. This has to do with the existence of ‘diasporas’—ethno-national populations spread around the world that nonetheless remained in continuous, long-term interaction with one another and with their real or putative homeland (Cohen 1997). According to Light and Gold (2000), their actual or supposed homeland constituted the hub of ethnic diasporas while the colonies scattered abroad represented the spokes. Light (2010) stress that trading diasporas were involved in shipping commodities around the diaspora network, sometimes to distant continents and that in each diaspora site, co-ethnic merchants sold imported goods to locals and purchased goods from them for export. The middleman minority’s specialisation in international trade gave him many advantages.

Firstly, thanks to their hub and spoke structure, diasporas linked distant continents in such a way that ethnic minorities resident in anyone place had strong social and cultural ties with co-ethnics in many others. And through such networks, it became easy for co-ethnics to dominate certain businesses especially where they have better knowledge of the market with regards to sourcing of inputs or finding markets for particular products. Ethnic diasporas were commercially important, but they were not numerous. Diasporas were uncommon because most immigrants just assimilated into host societies within three generations (Bonacich 1973; Light and Gold 2000). As a result, unless renewed by new immigration, the spokes ceased to communicate with one another and with the hub.

Entrepreneurial ethnic communities that operated around diaspora structure earned the sobriquet “middleman minorities ” in the literature of social science (Bonacich 1973; Kieval 1997). Middleman minorities were non-assimilating ethnic minorities noteworthy for their abundant and persistent entrepreneurship everywhere they lived. They highlight their characteristics to include among others the fact that they resist assimilation. In non-middleman minority groups, grandchildren are assimilated and unable to speak their grandparents’ language. However, middleman minorities realizing that when immigrants or ethnic minorities assimilate, they lose their commercial advantages, successfully resisted assimilation for centuries. They become bi-cultural in mono-cultural civilizations (Light 1995). Speaking their ethnic language as well as the vernacular of their country of residence, middleman minorities could communicate across linguistic barriers thus given them advantages.

Secondly, the international social networks produced an international system of enforceable trust that subjected to sanctions any who violated the presumption of honesty. And thirdly, middleman minorities acquired advanced business skills and passed them along to younger generations even when there were no famous business schools then! While acknowledging the existence of others, Light and Gold (2000) mentioned among the prominent middleman minority communities: the Jews of Europe, the Hausa of Nigeria, the Sikhs of East Africa, the Chinese of South East Asia, the Armenians of Near East and the Parsees of India.

According to Light (2010) another phase in the evolution of immigrant entrepreneurship that followed the ‘middleman–minority’ phase is what Schiller et al. (1992) referred to as transnationalism. This, they explained as a process through which immigrants (who virtually live in two countries—their country of birth and that of settlement. Effectively such migrants succeed in building social bridges between two countries. Schiller et al. (1992) refers to these immigrants as “transmigrants” as they are usually resident in more than one country and are frequently shuttling between a minimum of two societies—their home country and another that they often travel to for business. Each of these countries could easily be called ‘home’. They stay as active participants in both countries but are not fully encapsulated mono-cultural participants in either. Light (2010) argues that transnationalism started after 1965 the period when globalisation commenced. The transmigrants like the middleman-minorities do not assimilate with their host communities; they however acculturate—by understanding the language of host societies. Light (2010) observes that the transmigrants resemble middleman minorities in some ways. For instance, transnationals have diasporas just like middleman minorities. Gold (1997) asserts that transnationalism gave ethno-racial groups that were never middleman minorities in the past an opportunity to have diasporas. He gave the examples of Brazilians or Filipinos who now maintain diasporas, a benefit enjoyed only by middleman minorities like the Chinese, Armenians, or Jews. This, he argues is because in an era of globalisation, diasporas are logistically easier to maintain now.

Secondly, contemporary transnationals are bicultural just as are members of the classic middleman minorities . As a result, transnationals enjoy some of the same advantages for international trade that middleman minorities enjoyed in the past. The spokes of the transnationals’ diaspora communicate with one another and with the diaspora’s hub in the mother tongue while selling locally in the local vernacular. Another similarity highlighted by Light (2010) is that, like middleman minorities, contemporary transnationals have international social capital that provides access to enforceable trust.

There are, however, differences between middleman minorities and transnationalists. For example, Mahler (1998) argues that while middleman minorities originate from ‘below’, transnationalism originates ‘from above’ and ‘below’ as well. Mahler gave the example of countries like Canada, USA, and Australia that issue entrepreneur visas. There is also the method in which special visa are issued to skilled foreigners temporarily to access the labour market in the destination country. Such cases are referred to as coming from above. Light (2010) gave as an example in this category, Jerry Yang, co-founder of Yahoo. But in the cases when routine, non-elite immigrants opt for a transnational lifestyle, it amounts to coming from below just as was the case with middleman minorities . It’s the opinion of Light (2010) that transnationalism from above introduces immigrants who arrive well-equipped with human and financial capital as well as of course with ethnic social and cultural capital. As against transnationalism from below which gives rise to entrepreneurs who have only average or even below average human, social and financial capital and who tend to open routine business firms many of which serve only their own co-ethnic community. Regardless of how transnationalism originates (from above or from below), Saxenian (2002, 2006) is of the view that transnational entrepreneurs enhance the economic growth of both their homelands and adopted countries.

The most recent interesting development that is impacting migrant entrepreneurship is the global acceptance of English as the language of commerce. Like transnationalism, this development is also seen as part of the effect of globalisation Fishman (1998). With the dominance of English language , Lebanese, Poles or Chinese for example could have a common language of trade. This would jeopardise but does not completely exclude the earlier linguistic advantage of middleman minorities and transmigrants (Light 2010). It however has some implications for the middleman minorities and transnationalists as it would limit their advantages. For example, as illustrated by Light, Armenian middleman minorities based at Peru have some advantages in say trade for Turkish carpets. They could use their networks in Turkey who normally would speak Armenian and Turkish to import the carpets and would have no difficulty communicating with the Peruvians in their language. Now that English is growing as the language of commerce, the Peruvians could communicate directly with the Turks in English thus removing the advantage of the intermediary.

Gould (1990, 1994) sought to establish this empirically when he undertook some studies in the 1980s with regards to the effect of the use of English on immigration and foreign trade in Canada and the USA. He found that the volume and skill levels of immigrants increased the dollar volume of both American and Canadian exports to the immigrants’ home countries without increasing importations from them. This was in cases where the immigrants were from non-English speaking nations. This finding was contrary to earlier held beliefs that immigrants should import more from their homelands than they export to them because of long-term cultural links to entertainment and food products of their homeland. Light (2001) and Light et al. (2002) replicated Gould’s study using a different American data set and confirm the same findings as Gould that immigrants to the United States increased American exports to their home countries without increasing American imports from their home countries.

3 Lessons for Nigeria

As stated above, Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa with 150 million inhabitants (Kohnert 2010). Considering the fact that the country is also the 6th largest oil producing nation globally, we can say that it is well endowed in both human and natural resources. However, given the high level of poverty in the country, there is a need to give entrepreneurship development all the attention it deserves. This becomes even more critical, if the country’s vision to be among the top 20 biggest economies globally, by the year 2020, is to be realized. While these lessons are obviously inexhaustible, a few of them are itemized below:

3.1 Comparative Studies

As studies by Mitchel et al. (2002), Bosma et al. (2009) and the various GEM annual country reports among several other studies show, entrepreneurship cognitions between countries, regions or ethnic groups within countries differ. However, comparative studies on the entrepreneurship attitudes of the Nigerian ethnic groups are rare, if available. Stakeholders (public or private), would, therefore, need to consciously sponsor studies that would seek to investigate the entrepreneurship drive of Nigeria’s many ethnic groups. This way, it would be possible to understand which ethnic cultures encourage entrepreneurship more as well as the cultures that retard entrepreneurship, if any. The factors responsible for either stance can then be publicized for the benefit of all Nigerians. Since ethnic conflicts sometimes manifest in competition between ethnic groups, publicizing the outcome may encourage others to improve their entrepreneurship attitude .

3.2 Learning from Others

Closely related to the above, Nigerians have a lot to learn from some of the best global practices as enunciated above. For example, they need to learn the risk aversion of the Japanese, prudence of Koreans, or the penchant for opportunity recognition of the Maoris and so on. Luckily, some studies assert that the major ethnic groups possess high levels of entrepreneurship. For example, Kohnert (2010) acknowledges the fact that Nigerians and in particular the Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba have a dynamic emigration history and that they have trans-regional trading networks predating the era of colonialism in virtually all over West Africa. Citing Mahdi (1990), Aliyu (2000) confirmed that the Hausa were involved in pre-colonial migration motivated by trade (fatauci), itinerant Islamic scholarship (almajiranci) and seasonal migration (cirani). This explains the existence of the prevalence of voluntary settlements (Zango) along the trade routes. Aliyu (2000) also posits that the long-distance caravan trade route from Hausaland during the pre-colonial era extends to North Africa among other places. Also, Harris (1968), Le Vine (1966) and Lovejoy (1971) identified the Igbo as a very enterprising ethnic group. McClelland (1961) gave credit to the Yoruba and Light (2010) and Dana (2007) listed out the Hausa as one of six ‘middleman-minority’ ethnic group s globally.

3.3 Migration and Ethnic Networks

Nigerian ethnic groups would need to consider expanding their businesses and networks beyond West Africa. While it is true that the Hausa, for example, were active players in the trans-Saharan trade routes to north and central Africa, and that the Yoruba and Igbo are increasingly becoming active transmigrants, a lot need to be done to improve the situation. Nigerian ethnic groups would need to key in to modern business practices. They cannot afford to stick to the past. The fate of the old Zangos (business hubs set up by Hausa merchants along trade routes) cannot be guaranteed under modern business realities. If the Nigerian ethnic entrepreneurs do not update trade practices, they will be easily edged out even at home by the rampaging Chinese entrepreneurs among other very aggressive ethnic entrepreneurs (see Kohnert 2010).

3.4 Ethical Practices

One major lesson for the Nigerian ethnic groups is that of imbibing and fully adopting globally accepted ethical standards in trade relations. With globalization, business practices and standards are expected to comply with global standards. Nigerians must therefore key into that and can use their trading networks in the diasporas to enforce compliance.

3.5 English as Language of Commerce

The increasing adoption of English language as the language of commerce has implications for Nigerian traders. English is officially the second and official language in Nigeria. The use of English as the language of commerce should provide opportunity to Nigerian international traders most of whom can speak the language in addition to their mother tongues. They can use their proficiency in the language to their advantage in the international trading arena.

4 Conclusions and Recommendations

The conclusion of this study, which are based on a synthesis of the reviewed literature is that there are differences in entrepreneurship attitudes globally. There could also be differences between nation states, between regions and ethnic groups within the same countries. These differences are conditioned substantially by the varied cultures (including ethnicity) of the people concerned.

It is also the finding of this study that Nigeria can benefit from global trade through encouraging entrepreneurship development. The country’s ethnic groups could partake as middleman minorities (the Hausa are among the sixth globally accepted middleman minority groups), as transmigrants and by taking advantage of the usage of English language as the global language of commerce. There is need for Nigerian entrepreneurs to pursue a global vision and not to limit themselves to domestic or West African Market.

This study, therefore, recommends that government should sponsor studies that would seek to determine the cultural attitude of Nigerian ethnic groups to entrepreneurship. This study would provide opportunity to identify the best practices and publicize them. It will also be to identify poor entrepreneurship attitudes with some groups and thus use the opportunity to re-orient such communities.

Closely related to the above, The paper believes that it is especially important to ensure that steps are taken by appropriate authorities in Nigeria to introduce entrepreneurship orientation and coaching, right from the beginning of a child’s education. There is need to move beyond current policy of teaching entrepreneurship only at tertiary levels of education in Nigeria and many other countries of the world.

Nigerian entrepreneurs should be exposed to modern business processes and approaches of doing business. They need support from stakeholders for them to be exposed to production and marketing standards that would meet global standards. There is also the need to ensure that compliance with global ethical standards is encouraged, among entrepreneurs, by the government.