Keywords

Introduction

This chapter focuses on how migration influences new venture creation and internationalization and how this shapes the overall economic landscape. Migration dynamics are linked to the formation of entrepreneurship, which points out the need to understand the underpinnings and interconnection of these global flows. Migration is part of globalization in a similar way as trade and investment. International organizations , such as International Organisation for Migration (IOM), United Nations (UN), and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) see migration as an increasingly growing megatrend that influences the economy and society globally. For example, in Europe, migration levels tend to correlate strongly with business cycles and the migration policies have developed toward a more liberal approach (de Haas 2017). In 2015, there were 244 million international migrants. In total, 140 million international migrants lived in developed countries while 85 million of them originated from a developing country (United Nations 2016). During the rapid era of globalization between 1990 and 2015, the number of international migrants rose by 60%, resulting in the developed countries accruing a significant gain of human capital. In 2015, international migrants constituted 11.2% of the total population of developed countries, also referred to as the global North.

At the same time, business activities are rapidly developing from local to international , even global. Partly through this increasing interconnectedness and migration, entrepreneurship, per se, has changed its nature, taking on new global dimensions, but little is actually known about the interconnectedness of these migratory and entrepreneurial dynamics (cf. Elo et al. 2017). Even if migration (Ravenstein 1885; 1889) may be influenced by numerous forces, relevant epidemic dynamics (Busenberg and Travis 1983), gravity laws (Bergstrand 1985; Kultalahti et al. 2006), bandwagon effects (e.g., Aharoni 1966), and the interplay of local economic landscapes, these dynamics, even considered as laws, have remained on the outskirts of the international business and entrepreneurship area of research interest.

This generates two needs: (1) to understand the spatio-temporal dynamics of migration that implants entrepreneurs into new contexts and between contexts and (2) to understand the types of entrepreneurs and businesses “in dispersion”, being products of these global interconnected flows.

Wright and Ellis (2016) suggest that migration is about transitions, intersections, and cross-fertilizations and, as such, suitable for interdisciplinary study; therefore, linking migration with entrepreneurial action is well-suited (cf. Jones and Coviello 2005; Porter 2000). As Brinkerhoff (2016) notices, the globalized context and migration create an in-between place in which migrants operate and venture; also, their businesses may act in this transnational constellation. This dynamic transnational space is not just one place, such as the host or home country, it stretches beyond nation-states in a multifocal and evolutionary manner (cf. Cantwell et al. 2010; Brinkerhoff 2016). Migrants have a competitive advantage in this transnational in-between space, and they are generally more entrepreneurial (Brinkerhoff 2016; Vandor and Franke 2016).

Paradoxically, these flows and movements between places are approached often with the lenses of multinational enterprises, trade, and investment but it is not asked who these business people are enabling this international business as entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs (cf. Elo and Vincze 2017). Furthermore, it is highly important to have specific, relevant, and reliable findings for disciplines dealing with pragmatic implications and policymaking for migration. Migration constitutes one of these organizing and governing challenges for both society and economy, partly, because it is not easily confined to a single place nor to static and clear categories.

The purpose of this chapter is to advance the understanding and broaden the debate on migration’s connection with international entrepreneurship (IE). Migration offers many root-cause explanations on IE, however, the who-question and the place-dimension have not attracted much interest outside specific sub-fields of entrepreneurship, which thus constitutes a notable gap. This is partly due to different definitions and foci. This chapter introduces and interconnects views from migration theory to entrepreneurship by revisiting spatio-temporal migratory paths of entrepreneurs in the extant approaches and the underlying migratory dynamics. It synthesizes views from different levels and disciplines with a phenomenon-driven logic.

Migration’s role in entrepreneurship and internationalization requires a better conceptualization and contextualization, particularly regarding the types of “international ” entrepreneurship, as IE can be the reason and/or the outcome of migration and migration may play a significant role in accelerating IE in a place (e.g., Young et al. 2003; Mtigwe 2006; Zahra 2005, 2007; Welter 2011; Zahra et al. 2014; Saxenian 2005). Thus, it is indeed important to discuss and conceptualize “who is the entrepreneur” along with the respective migratory background linking this path to international business in order to provide the contextual understanding on the particular characteristics (cf. Gartner 1988; Boyd 1989; Saxenian 2005; Zolin and Schlosser 2013), but it is also necessary for comparability in research (cf. Lemaitre 2005; see also Jones et al. 2011). Managerially, this is of high interest, as other firms and entrepreneurs may learn from migrants and their entrepreneurial activities, which makes this relevant to a broader audience (Basu and Virick 2013).

The study contributes by providing a theoretical extension on the dynamics of migration and entrepreneurship, highlighting IE as only one of the forms migrant entrepreneurship may take. The study addresses the opportunities and challenges that migration provides to the overall field of entrepreneurship research and provides recommendations for future studies.

First, the study reviews competing views on migration theory and introduces these in relation to entrepreneurship. Second, it presents a model reflecting migration on entrepreneurship and presents research propositions based on the review; and finally, it discusses the paradoxes, challenges, and recommendations for future studies.

Perspectives from Migration Theory

Migration theories have approached the dynamics of human flows between places (Kultalahti et al. 2006; Wright and Ellis 2016; Zolberg 1989; Greenwood 2016; White and Johnson 2016; de Haas 2017). Migration is defined as “the crossing of the boundary of a political or administrative unit for a certain minimum period of time. It includes the movement of refugees, displaced persons, uprooted people as well as economic migrants. Internal migration refers to a move from one area (a province, district or municipality) to another within one country. International migration is a territorial relocation of people between nation-states. Two forms of relocation can be excluded from this broad definition: first, a territorial movement which does not lead to any change in ties of social membership and therefore remains largely inconsequential both for the individual and for the society at the points of origin and destination, such as tourism; second, a relocation in which the individuals or the groups concerned are purely passive objects rather than active agents of the movement, such as organised transfer of refugees from states of origins to a safe haven” (UNESCO 2017).

Migration research has not only numerous distinct disciplinary settings, such as globalization, economic geography, history, and political studies, but also social, ethnological, and anthropological-cultural studies that address migration (e.g., Cohen 2008; Fitzgerald 2006; Brettell 2016). International migration studies (see more in Brown and Bean (2016)) are employed in nation-state governance, international relations , and international migration politics; therefore, a notable body of research has a related macro-level emphasis and ontological and epistemological approach. As a result, a significant part of migration theory deals with the aggregated level of populations, more than that of individuals, and how these populations shift (e.g., Kultalahti et al. 2006).

Migration studies are particularly interested in the mechanisms and laws that may regulate human flows (see more in Ravenstein 1885; Lee 1966). Migration-related concepts explaining migration vary from macro- to micro-levels of agency (cf. Bakewell 2010). Pull and push forces play a central role in the analysis of migration triggers and country selection. Political regimes, their impact, and migration policy constitute one significant stream of research in migration studies. Populations, per se, are also seen to form gravity effects and pull and push effects, beyond the early gravity models based on unemployment rates and distance of migration (Kultalahti et al. 2006; Makower et al. 1938).

Individual agency and social networks influence decision-making on migration (e.g., Bakewell 2010). Utility maximization views (Greenwood 2016), early location theory (Isard 1960), and present discounted values of the outcome of migration as a human capital investment (Sjaastad 1962) have provided approaches for theory development explaining migration (Greenwood 2016). In addition, researchers in economic geography have approached migration through its geographical location, related networks , and linkages but also by examining corridors and other migratory formations in places (Yeung 1999). Diasporic gravity effects, entrepreneurial bandwagon effects and opportunities, even religious networks influence migratory paths (cf. Basu and Virick 2013; Elo et al. 2017).

The early theories on migration build strongly on Ravenstein’s (1885, 1889) seven laws of migration; these addressed distance, stages, stream and counter-stream, urban-rural context , gender on distance, technology, and dominance of the economic rationale. The underlying idea of several early theories followed the disequilibrium perspective in which migration functions as the means to diminish the difference (economic/income) and/or to catch up between two places. Greenwood (2016) discusses the shortcomings of the disequilibrium approach, proposing an equilibrium approach instead, suggesting that migration occurs to amenity-rich areas.

The modern theories look at issues similar to globalization, world-systems analysis, state theory , and global structures related to inequality, barriers to movement, changing labor migration, liberalization, the opening of the socialist world, and the refugee crisis in the developing world (Zolberg 1989). This kind of macro-level research relates to centrifugal and centripetal forces, dynamics, and models that are confined to particular places. Both early and modern theoretical views relate directly to the concept of place; a place represents advantages that can be captured by migrating and has an aggregate and dynamic nature (cf. entrepreneurial ecosystem).

However, there is a need for a qualitative and more granular understanding. Numerous institutes and associations employ migration studies that support their activities, for example, in managing migrant integration, employment, or policy programs. Beyond the research that serves a country and its governance issues on a macro-level, there is a stream of research approaching migration in a more qualitative manner by trying to address the “why?” and “how?” questions in order to understand these dynamics, for example, concerning migrant entrepreneurs. For instance, studies on migration dynamics related to marriage migration, foreign students, and labor migrants provide vital understanding on the social underpinnings for shaping various societal, educational, and industrial policies (e.g., Boyd 1989). Other specific theoretical lenses are needed to examine particular phenomena, such as demographic development, integration, and urbanization processes related to migration and entrepreneurship (Eðvarðsson et al. 2007; Heikkilä and Peltonen 2002).

The contemporary approaches on migration studies are: (1) generally historical, paying attention to changing specificities of time and place; (2) generally structural, focusing on the social forces constraining individual action and emphasizing the dynamics of capitalism and state ; (3) generally globalist, seeing national entities as social formations permeable to determination by transnational and international economic and political processes; and (4) generally critical, concerned with the consequences of international migrations for both the countries of origin (COOs) and destination, as well as for the migrants themselves (Zolberg 1989). Recently, migration research has been enriched with new sub-streams on the international mobility of talent and international human resources (e.g., Habti and Elo 2017; Tung 2008). Both the emphasis on expatriation and self-initiated expatriation stem from the corporate context and the individualist side of migration (e.g., Andresen et al. 2012). Sojourners, self-initiated expatriation, and global mobility, as theoretical concepts, continue to build partly on the earlier labor migration theories addressing pull and push forces on the individual level (cf. Mahroum 2000). There is a discussion on the new international division of labor and the role of global cities as epicenters of human activity, and migration appears again in the context of globalization, business, and entrepreneurial ecosystems, and on the development of megacities (cf. Zolberg 1989). The location perspective, as the epicenter of the centripetal forces, such as those megacities and clusters, takes into account the competitiveness and attractiveness of the place as well as its agency in governing the pull (e.g., Tung 2008; Bakewell 2010; Porter 2000). Thus, the multi-layered link between people and place is inherently dynamic.

Interestingly, despite the significant volume of literature on international migration focusing on migrants that migrate for employment (e.g., labor diasporas ) and on distressed migrants (e.g., asylum seekers and refugees who are forced to leave their homes) fleeing various threats, there is as of yet very little literature on the international migration of entrepreneurs seeking opportunities in a particular place (cf. Sandberg et al. 2018; Elo et al. 2017; Elo 2016). This highlights a grey area also in IE research.

Even with the core assumption in migration studies, the element of a better life and better opportunities in the post-migration situation, the concept of opportunity remains rather implicit, even neglected. This is a paradox, as the expected outcome is strongly related to the pre-migration motivations and reasoning of the process in total but the process view is lacking. There are only partial studies on certain causalities or functions regarding the mechanism. Inequality, as explicated by differences in political and economic opportunities, such as those between the global “south” and “north”, taken together with migratory networks and economic proximity, are considered elements of regionalized migratory pressures (Portes and Walton 1981).

Another key assumption to debate is that of free movement, as this is invalid for most migrants. Flows of migrants are not free-floating phenomena but regulated by both the sending and receiving states according to migration policies and laws. The multi-lateral and bilateral agreements among nation-states on migration regulate the flows but have not produced any contemporary version of the Nansen Passport (the stateless persons passports issued after the First World War) that would allow legal status for stateless people seeking refuge (Bundy 2016); thus, free movement is only reserved to those holding rights within these agreements, such as EU citizens. Already in 1889, Ravenstein noted that migration flow can be diverted or stopped by legislative enactments. Modern migration theory refers to these moderating forces as “disincentives” also emphasizing the fact that, if socialist countries were to let people out, the effective constraint would be incorporated in the immigration legislations of the destination countries (Bhagwati 1984).

Modern migration theory approaches the movement of labor not just as an individual response to opportunities but as part of the dynamism of the transnational capitalist economy (Zolberg 1989). Zolberg (1989) and Portes (1978) further discuss the relation between the center and the periphery, and their roles , as the periphery supplies the center with labor, which constitutes a migration flow toward the center but also represents a form of dependency, even forming structural distortions that function as push conditions. Conceptually, the center also strongly conveys the notion of being the place of capital and power, for example, migrant labor and talent has been seen and discussed as a permanent solution, with costs and benefits, for European capital in economics (Cohen 1987; Zolberg 1989). According to Cohen (1987, 144), importing labor of a subordinate status was a preferred and helpful solution for European capital, regarding the state-level agency as the “importer” of migrants and migration.Footnote 1 These policies were assessed by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1979), which pointed out, already then, that there was a repetition of serious problems in history resulting from cultural conflicts, competing claims for jobs, and miscommunications due to language problems. Similarly, opposition in the political arena has underlined self-interested native taxpayers, that is, incumbent actors in the domestic economy, militating against the newcomers, even when they share ancestral origins (Zolberg 1989). Labor migration is linked to both the resulting ethnic enclaves and emerging ethnic and immigrant entrepreneurship. Therefore, place is specific and also the time period when this labor is employed is specific (being often limited or temporary). The membership of these labor migrants in their own social contexts simultaneously represents a more limited degree of societal participation and membership in the context of the host society (cf. Cohen 2008).

Place is a central concept in migration. Place, a nation-state, has not only the agency to govern its migration flows with laws and migration policies but also the responsibility to address the so-called brain drain, brain gain, and brain circulation that are part of its economic resource base dynamics (see Fig. 17.1). However, diasporas , international economic competition, and the war for talent with versatile skills form pull and push forces, gravity effects, and economic comparisons made on the individual level that further amplify centripetal and centrifugal forces influencing the balance of the flows, their intensity, direction, and number (see Fig. 17.1). These dynamics relate directly to entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems that are dynamic spatio-temporal configurations.

Fig. 17.1
figure 1

Migration and nation-state flows and forces

Full size image

The Interconnection of Migration and Entrepreneurship

Regardless of the a priori reasons and mechanisms of migration, there is notable evidence on the impact of migration on entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial orientation, capabilities, mind-sets, and cross-cultural experiences (e.g., Riddle and Brinkerhoff 2011; Cohen 2008; Brinkerhoff 2009; Vandor and Franke 2016; Filatotchev et al. 2009; de Haas 2017). One of the key paradoxes is that, despite this significant link, the research on entrepreneurs in IE has not included the person behind the “entrepreneur” and the location-migratory path of this person as part of its theoretical focus. Therefore, the underpinnings of migration remain separate from the IE field and have been developed to a greater extent under the sociology umbrella (e.g., Rath and Kloosterman 2000) than the entrepreneurship theory umbrella, leading to an amphidromic theory development. The debates on multiple country-market settings and the multifocality of the entrepreneurial activity seem to exist in a disconnected manner (cf. Ojo 2013; Solano 2016). Interestingly, this underexploited and under-examined domain has high potential for IE and entrepreneurial internationalization (EI) research (see, e.g., Calof and Beamish 1995; Jones and Coviello 2005; Coviello and McAuley 1999). According to Jones and Coviello (2005), EI is a process that is both time based and time dependent. Similarly, the migrant dispersion that covers high psychological distances and connects locations in a rich manner has significant potential to explain related international new ventures (INVs) and EI processes, and the space in-between (cf. Brinkerhoff 2016; Elo 2017). Additionally, the digital dimension that is typical for transnational diaspora entrepreneurs (TDEs) (cf. Brinkerhoff 2009) requires IE theorizing, as it is more than a supply or marketing element.

IE, as a domain, has a strong focus on place, this being the place of activity regarding the business itself, such as manufacturing and sales, and also representing foreign target markets where the output is distributed, sold, and used. The word “international ” here refers to foreign markets that are nation-states, representing cross-border transactions and activities. Jones et al. (2011) reviewed the domains of IE research and created a thematic map of the domain’s development, illustrating how different types of IE research evolve and focus on different elements. These groupings are EI, international comparisons of entrepreneurship, and comparative EI. They formed the typology by grouping the thematic areas of the primary focus of the research. Internationalization of entrepreneurial activity provided multiple facets and respective approaches in this seminal review but did not explain the linkage between the entrepreneurs and their migratory biography due to other ontological and epistemological foci.

Theorizing on Migration and Entrepreneurship: Paradoxes and Challenges

The migration literature presents multiple paradoxes regarding aspects such as flows, stickiness, brain circulation effects, and employment of resources and their benefits on the host economy (de Haas 2017; M. Heinonen 2013). Among the major problems of theorizing migration and migrant entrepreneurship is the multifaceted disciplinary setting and the nascent, emerging nature of the field of migrant entrepreneurship that lacks generally agreed-upon concepts and terms. The perspectives tend to separate sending (home) and receiving countries (host) in following similar conceptual framing as IE, but the transnational in -between space creates complexity for IE. Key concepts for this theory nexus debate are the migrant-origin person and trajectory, the place of business activity, and the dimension of internationalization linked to the overall migration.

First, the status and category of the migrant-person requires conceptualization and contextualization (in the multiple embedded social and spatio-temporal contexts ); only then can it become a fruitful object of theorizing. Otherwise, there is no comparability. Furthermore, there is no agreement on who is a migrant in terms of legal status, societal membership, otherness in heritage, linguistics, and what can be considered the number of generations still constituting what we can term as migrantness, or, put another way, the layers of diasporic embeddedness. As a result, various types are discussed in an interchangeable manner (cf. Brubaker 2005). Moreover, the role of migrants as entrepreneurs is multifaceted: owner-entrepreneur, co-owner entrepreneur, active investor, member of a family business, intrapreneur, and combinations of these. Therefore, the who-question requires clarification be incorporated into the migration literature.

Second, the place of the entrepreneurship (i.e., location) imposes challenges, prompting the question of which location should be addressed, the firm’s or that of the entrepreneur, or is it the location span of the entrepreneurial activity, per se (cf. Riddle et al. 2010). Therefore, the where-question requires revisitation in combination with the who-question and the particular migratory trajectory, as the “where” is intertwined with the concept of “who”, and is not a stand-alone concept.

In addition, migrants as entrepreneurs follow neither the gradual style of the Uppsala model (Johanson and Vahlne 2009) nor the innovation models in internationalization (Ruzzier et al. 2006) that exhibit a strong link to geographical proximity; they follow their own proximity configurations (cf. Brinkerhoff 2009; Riddle et al. 2010). For example, the business and psychological distance between COO and country of reception (COR) can be significant, but, for migrants, it may be their closest proximity relation for entrepreneurial activity and the most relevant EI choice. This is radically different from the dynamics presented in classic internationalization literature (e.g., Johanson and Vahlne 2009). Thus, there is the need to explain this processual difference theoretically within IE.

Entrepreneurs and migrants are embedded in an overall social and economic context (Rath and Kloosterman 2000). They are influenced by population developments, as migration creates markets and shifts markets. Deducing from migration and diaspora research, the number of migrations, including transnational circulation, has an impact on the type of entrepreneurship that results from these transitions and changes of location. In addition, the role of dispersion, depending on whether it is high related to the ethnic or co-ethnic population, is significant regarding the type of entrepreneurship (Lin and Tao 2012). For example, small and highly dispersed diasporas do not support formation of the type of immigrant entrepreneurship that builds on ethnic enclaves, co-ethnic populations, or ethnic business ideas serving dispersed diasporas in the COR, whereas, larger diasporas that form ethnic enclaves which are dispersed collectively do serve these forms of entrepreneurship, becoming the “new domestic” entrepreneurship in the host context (cf. Ram and Jones 2008) . On the other hand, migrant entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are not setting up simply local ethnic enclave businesses despite the significance of the size of the Indian diaspora there. Thus, qualitative research needs to explain these formations and patterns (cf. Basu and Virick 2013).

Migration is actually a prerequisite for many INVs. Migrants who are not embedded (entrepreneurially) in large diasporas in the host context and who are migrating multiple times following international opportunities are typically entrepreneurs who may become serial- and multiple entrepreneurs (cf. Basu and Virick 2013). Entrepreneurship research is also understood as explaining the discovery and development of opportunities (Ardichvili et al. 2003), which links these two processes (migration and entrepreneurship) as one. Porter (2000) discusses this dynamism, suggesting that crossing a border is one thing, but it is another thing where entrepreneurs settle (cf. cluster), which is often what attracts them, instead of the country, per se (cf. Mainela et al. 2014).

Structuralist Perspectives on Migrant Entrepreneurship

To understand the phenomenon of entrepreneurship and its inherent migration dynamics and resources, it is necessary to review, analyze, and organize the definitions, elements, and ontological approaches (cf. Shane and Venkataraman 2000). Therefore, this review employs moderate structuralist (topology of home-host) and connectionist (flows of activities) lenses in approaching the distinct fields and settings (Borgatti and Foster 2003). Shane and Venkataraman (2000, 218) specify two key elements to address: the processes of discovery, evolution , and exploitation of opportunities, and the set of individuals who discover, evaluate, and exploit. The concept of “closeness” between the producer and consumer (cf. McDougall 1989; McDougall et al. 2003) is inherent in the concept of place, but it is also linked with migration, its distance, flow (i.e., stream and counter-stream), and center-periphery location dynamics (cf. urban-rural difference).

This section analyzes the foci and the main differences of entrepreneurship research in terms of their topology (cf. place and international activity) reflecting ethnicity, origin, place, and internationalization and flows that represent business activities and personal migratory paths. The review compiles an overview for the theory debate. Despite the “broad label” of entrepreneurship (cf. Shane and Venkataraman 2000), there are distinct fields or types of entrepreneurship that have specific international characteristics, country settings, and flows that have particular “places” in which they are active and with which entrepreneurs are connected through their migration. These are summarized in Table 17.1.

Table 17.1 Types of entrepreneurship and migration
Full size table

Host Economy as the Place: Ethnic Entrepreneurship and Immigrant Entrepreneurship

International entrepreneur-individuals can do local business; ethnic and immigrant entrepreneurship are closer in nature to domestic entrepreneurship than other migrant entrepreneurship types. This type is less “dispersed” as these entrepreneurs employ their co-ethnic networks and resources as customers, employees, and for the sourcing of partners, bringing the “home market” features into the new context (Fig. 17.2). This type of entrepreneurship often builds on a single migration (the entrepreneur) and less internationality (often imports) and is therefore ontologically clearly different from IE (cf. Jones et al. 2011). Still, these types are dominant in the overall migration waves and related to the significance of the migrant stock (cf. Fig. 17.1).

Fig. 17.2
figure 2

Migration and dispersion on entrepreneurship

Full size image

Ethnic economies and entrepreneurship have been approached through the lens of being the minority within a host-country setting, mostly with a sociological, ethnological, or psychological emphasis (e.g., Stiles and Galbraith 2004; Dana 2007; Ilhan-Nas et al. 2011). This type of entrepreneurship is often linked to significant ethnic populations in particular places, for example, diasporas , and is directly linked with migration dynamics. Beyond the ethnicity and ethnic character of the entrepreneur, aspects of social and human capital, theories on assimilation and institutions , and even theology have been employed in the research (e.g., Dana and Dana 2008; Stiles and Galbraith 2004). Waldinger et al. (1990, 3) define ethnic entrepreneurship as “a set of connections and regular patterns of interaction among people sharing common national background or migration experiences”. Still, different motivations drive ethnic entrepreneurs who work under disparate performance conditions than domestic entrepreneurs (Masurel et al. 2002). Despite the deficit lens on economic adaptation, there are novel views on urban endogenous growth among groups sharing a distinct cultural identity (Masurel et al. 2002). Zhou (2004) notes that ethnic entrepreneurship research excludes larger firms which have incorporated their businesses into the core of the mainstream economy.

Volery (2007) differentiates ethnic entrepreneurship from immigrant entrepreneurship that “include[s] the individuals who have actually immigrated over the past few decades” (Volery 2007, 30). The term “immigrant” excludes ethnic minority groups that have stayed in the host country for longer, but the term “ethnic” does not exclude immigrant or minority groups (Volery 2007). The terms are fuzzy, as the social and business topology can refer to an isolated niche (Masurel et al. 2002). In sum, the ethnic enclave or market has boundaries and it is distinct enough to also generate specific breakout strategies (Masurel et al. 2002). Volery (2007) denotes the difference between ethnic and immigrant entrepreneurs and the ethnic-controlled economy, which is based on ontologically larger and different actor- and business setting.

Ethnic enclave theory and middleman theory are linked to ethnic entrepreneurship theory (Zhou 2004; Volery 2007). The middlemen minorities often serve other local markets, connecting the ethnic business resources to the mainstream economy (e.g., Waldinger et al. 1990; Volery 2007). As the ethnic community grows, ethnic enterprises, such as travel agencies and grocery shops, emerge (cf. Portes 2003). These are local, settled companies following ethnic strategies, that is, they are not active in internationalization (Volery 2007). The study of ethnic entrepreneurship is conceptually interrelated to advancements toward transnational entrepreneurship and the synergy of entrepreneurship in community-building (Zhou 2004).

Immigrant entrepreneurship is a socio-economic phenomenon that focuses on first-generation immigrants and their entrepreneurship, which makes this distinct from other groups based on ethnic or internal migration (Aliaga-Isla and Rialp 2013). The definition of immigrant entrepreneurship (also referred to as international immigrant entrepreneurship; see more in Aliaga-Isla and Rialp (2013)), refers to “individuals who, as recent arrivals in the country, start a business as a means of economic survival” (Chaganti and Greene 2002, 128). This constitutes a significant ontological difference both from domestic entrepreneurs (no foreign origin) and TDEs (broader setting than just recent/first generation). Stretching the term to the second generation is an ontological and epistemological problem and a paradox since the second-generation immigrant is only then a migrant if he or she has migrated internationally in person. This blurred view has prevailed in many articles despite the 1998 UN definition of an international migrant as “a person who changes his or her country of usual residence, i.e. migrates across nation state borders” (Lemaitre 2005, 2).

Migration is not always permanent. The definition of a short-term migration is limited to a residence of 3–12 months, whereas that of a long-term migrant starts from 12 months outside of one’s COO (Lemaitre 2005; Sasse and Thielemann 2005), while “diasporas ” can represent numerous generations. The strategies and process differences need attention concerning “what follows what” in terms of motivation, determinants, and outcomes, as migration can be the means to start a business abroad or the way to cope with the necessity-opportunity constellation in the host country caused by migration. The dynamic process and its causalities need clarification since the case of an opportunity-driven “business immigrant” (Clydesdale 2008; see also Elo et al. 2015) is a different type than the necessity-driven immigrant who then becomes an entrepreneur as part of the coping strategy (cf. Heinonen J. 2010; Chaudhry and Crick 2004).

Population economics and comparisons between generations may contribute to understanding the dynamics of immigrant entrepreneurship (e.g., Evans 1989). Ndofor and Priem (2011) studied first- and second-generation migrants noting that immigrant entrepreneurs with newly acquired characteristics in the host context are different from those co-ethnics who are born in the host context . The venture type between first and second-generation migrants differs; more technology- and knowledge-oriented ventures of second-generation immigrants are also more inclined toward international activities than locally oriented service firms (Beckers and Blumberg 2013). First-generation migration and resources from dual contexts are found in immigrant entrepreneurship and TE.

The Place In-Between: Transnational and Transnational Diaspora Entrepreneurship

Transnational and transnational diaspora entrepreneurship (DE) are closer to IE than other migrant entrepreneurship types. This transnational in-between space forms a “continuous dispersion” in the sense that these entrepreneurs employ their social and ethnic networks and resources, as customers, employees, and for sourcing partners in bridging and bonding markets (e.g., home-host) in diverse international business activities (Fig. 17.2). This type of entrepreneurship builds on boundary spanning, multiple or circular migration (of the entrepreneur), and internationalization (imports-exports-international cooperation) and is therefore ontologically more similar to IE (cf. Jones et al. 2011; Jones and Coviello 2005; Riddle et al. 2010). Still, these types represent the outliers of the overall migration waves (Portes, Conclusion: Theoretical convergencies and empirical evidence in the study of immigrant transnationalism, 2003), constituting a rather invisible part of the migrant stock (cf. Fig. 17.1), despite their higher impact on the entrepreneurial ecosystem/place (cf. Riddle et al. 2010; Riddle and Brinkerhoff 2011; Basu and Virick 2013).

Transnational entrepreneurship is a rapidly emerging aspect of international business (Drori et al. 2006). It provides a lens to compare international entrepreneurs, ethnic entrepreneurs, and returnee entrepreneurs, while addressing issues such as why, how, and when individuals or organizations pursue new ventures employing resources in more than one country. Interestingly, TE builds on a processual understanding: the process of transnational entrepreneurship involves entrepreneurial activities taking place in a cross-national context , initiated by actors embedded in at least two different social and economic arenas.

Transnational entrepreneurs (TEs) are defined as “individuals that migrate from one country to another, concurrently maintaining business-related linkages with their former country of origin, and currently adopted countries and communities” and as “social actors who enact networks , ideas, information, and practices for the purpose of seeking business opportunities or maintaining businesses with dual social fields, which in turn force them to engage in varied strategies of action to promote their entrepreneurial activities” (Drori et al. 2009, 1001). Thus, TEs have a strong ontological bifocality, as “TEs occupy two geographical locations” (Drori et al. 2009, 1001). They incorporate migration-mobility aspects and lean heavily on the concept of transnationalism (Vertovec 2001). Transnational entrepreneurship analyzes the firm and the entrepreneur, examining respective attributes and activities (Sequeira et al. 2009). Inherently, the theoretical interest is on the international nature of the venture and its international activities (Terjesen and Elam 2009), also on its embeddedness (Chen and Tan 2009), social context , and habitus of the transnational entrepreneur (e.g., Patel and Conklin 2009; Ambrosini 2012).

Transnationalism, as the analytical concept of venturing and entrepreneurial development, is complicated (cf. Levitt 2001; Vertovec 2001; see also Elo and Freiling 2015). Transnationalism, as a concept for explaining the in-between, does not originate in entrepreneurship but in the humanities. Kivisto (2001, p. 549) criticizes transnationalism as a concept that “suffers from ambiguity as a result of competing definitions that fail to specify the temporal and spatial parameters of the term and to adequately locate it vis-á-vis older concepts such as assimilation and cultural pluralism”.

The dynamics between the two phenomena (transnationalism and entrepreneurship) and their levels (individual vs. organization) are still underexplored. Elo and Jokela (2015) found that there are individuals who are transnational and entrepreneurs but who do not represent transnational entrepreneurs, that is, are not having international business activities building on their transnationalism in a cross-border context . The degree of transnationalism reduces over time as the first-generation entrepreneurs became more and more integrated in the COR context (Elo and Jokela 2015).

DEFootnote 2 has a more inclusive approach (cf. Brubaker 2005) in examining migrant businesses and resources across multi-layered sociocultural contexts (Brinkerhoff 2009). Nine different country-setting variants connecting contexts are identified (Elo 2016). The term “diasporan” refers to “migrants who settle in some places, move on, and regroup; they may also be dispersed; and they are in a continuous state of formation and reformation” (Cohen 2008, 142). Riddle et al. (2010) perceive TDEs as migrants and their descendants who establish entrepreneurial activities that span the national business environments of their COOs and countries of residence. According to Riddle and Brinkerhoff (2011, 670), “diasporans who establish new ventures in their countries of origin comprise a special case of international ethnic entrepreneurship”. DE and TDE often employ their global diaspora networks for international entrepreneurial activity (Elo 2017) expanding the topology of activity. Some diaspora entrepreneurs are transnational in their activities and lifestyle (Riddle and Brinkerhoff 2011), while others employ their entrepreneurial resources in the context of one country (Elo and Jokela 2015). Many transnational diasporans are circulating between countries without permanent return or residence, connecting markets and developing businesses transnationally (cf. Riddle et al. 2010).

Home Economy as the Place: Transnational Diaspora Entrepreneurship and Returnees

Transnational and circular diaspora entrepreneurs also venture in the home context , in their COO. Similarly, returnee entrepreneurs repatriating to their COO select home as the place of business. Determinants such as diasporic motivations, resources, and strategies to venture in the host country may differ from those in the home country, as here altruistic, sentimental, and social aspects may influence their behavior, in addition to macro-incentives (Newland and Tanaka 2010; Brinkerhoff 2009; Riddle et al. 2010; Nkongolo-Bakenda and Chrysostome 2013). Diasporas are not just communities of dispersed people but talent pools spread across places (Kuznetsov 2006a). According to Kuznetsov (2006b, 221), diaspora networks have three key features that support their entrepreneurship: (1) networks bring together people having strong intrinsic motivation, (2) members of a diaspora play both direct roles (implementing projects in COO) and indirect roles (serving as bridges and antennae for the COO project development), and (3) successful initiatives move from discussions on how to get involved with the COO to transactions (tangible outcomes, such as entrepreneurial activities and investments).

Returnee entrepreneurship has been an important stream of research, especially in the context of Asia and the economic development of China and India. It is a form of circulation linked to COO. It refers to entrepreneurs who have first migrated and then repatriated, bringing new technology, knowledge , and other capabilities to their ventures in the COO (e.g., Kuznetsov 2006a, b; Kenney et al. 2013), particularly in the context of emerging economies (e.g., Bruton et al. 2008; Liu et al. 2010). For example, Filatotchev et al. (2009) link the export of high-technology SMEs with the knowledge transfer of returnee entrepreneurs (see more in Liu et al. 2010). Ammassari (2004) found that especially elite return migrants benefit the COO beyond nation building, namely through economic activity such as entrepreneurship and investment. Moreover, in the case of Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, they also bring innovative practices, productive investments, ideas, knowledge , work skills, and foreign experience (Ammassari 2004).

The Contributions of Migration Study to Entrepreneurship Research

This review has addressed two needs: (1) to understand the spatio-temporal dynamics of migration that implants extant- and to-be-entrepreneurs into new contexts and between contexts, and (2) to understand the types of entrepreneurs and businesses “in dispersion”, being products of these global flows. Extant research from both streams of studies highlight that these two dynamics are intertwined but not identical; they coevolve due to multiple parallel forces (cf. Fig. 17.1). The sending side acts differently from the receiving side whose attractiveness depends on these international nation-state constellations.

Ethnic and immigrant entrepreneurs increase (with more domestic-/local-oriented businesses) with large migration flows but transnational and TDEs are less linked to such migratory populations (with their more internationally oriented businesses). The role of dispersion on their business models is very different; there are four main types of businesses that employ their migratory resources in different ways (Fig. 17.2).

Based on the migratory flows and paths reviewed, we identified certain mechanisms. These form the following propositions:

  1. 1.

    Migration policy fostering brain circulation and entrepreneurial migratory flows has a positive effect on IE (cf. centripetal forces) (see de Haas 2017; Cohen 2008).

  2. 2.

    An inclusive entrepreneurial policy for migrants has a positive effect on migrant-established IE (cf. expectations and pull effects; see Greenwood 2016; de Haas 2017; Nkongolo-Bakenda and Chrysostome 2013).

  3. 3.

    Achievement of a critical mass of migrant (international) entrepreneurs has a positive effect (cf. gravity effect) on the attractiveness of a place creating a stickier place for IE and stimulating inflow (cf. Basu and Virick 2013; Porter 2000; see also Sonderegger and Täube 2010).

  4. 4.

    The existence of migrant (international) entrepreneurship in a place has a positive effect on the success and expectations of incoming migrant entrepreneurs due to co-ethnic knowledge transfer (cf. diaspora effect; see Riddle et al. 2010; Brinkerhoff 2009; Aliaga-Isla and Rialp 2013).

Future studies are needed to clarify these dynamics in different empirical contexts . We also suggest that analysis should address the number of migrations and the degree of dispersion; see Fig. 17.2.

Conclusion

Opportunity recognition, cross-cultural competence, and international experience are characteristics found in particular among migrants due to their experience of border-crossing. Thus, migrants are important economic change agents. Acs, Dana and Jones (2003, 5) suggest that “the role of the entrepreneur, however, has been conspicuously underexplored in international business journals”. This who-question is addressed theoretically in both migration and IE, identifying those of migrant origin that carry out entrepreneurial activities. Indeed, the individual as an international /transnational opportunity-recognizer having experience from multiple contexts (countries) shapes the place for the INVs activities. This confirms the importance of the connection (cf. bridging and bonding) between two or more places and in-between (Brinkerhoff 2016) that contradicts classic internationalization theory (Johanson and Vahlne 2009). Further, it underlines the importance of cross-culture competence (Muzychenko 2008; Jones et al. 2011) and international experience (Chandra et al. 2009), especially in the context of SMEs (Reuber and Fischer 1997; Fischer and Reuber 2003).

Still, entrepreneurs with migrant origin can be dissimilar, just like diasporas , which are not static homogenous groups; both have context-specific dynamics (Elo 2016). The directions of entrepreneur-migrant flows are part of the larger migration landscape but also have distinct features related to (1) types of businesses and (2) business opportunities beyond social settings (cf. Basu and Virick 2013). We conclude that IE should incorporate the “who”-actor and the respective migratory paths (entrepreneur vs. firm) into a systematic analysis to provide better conceptual clarity and novel analytical models, perhaps as a distinct sub-field (cf. Jones et al. 2011), as the conceptual confusion regarding migrant entrepreneurship types, migration forms, certain location-types, and contexts (place), and internationalization dimensions generate methodological difficulties (cf. Volery 2007).

Management implications suggest taking a closer look at the growing “places” (cf. Fig. 17.1). The flow of entrepreneurs to a particular place (host of migration waves) such as Silicon Valley, the existence of diaspora , existence of global diaspora networks , and resource networks in the COO are all elements related to place but also are pertinent to management decisions. Migrant entrepreneurs can be close or far from their COO, they can be part of intensive migration flows, part of local and global social networks , and be embedded in dual/multiple contexts . Importantly, their location partly predetermines the types of businesses that are possible in the host context related to ethnic enclaves and diasporic target groups. Regardless of the intensity of the entrepreneurial connection to migration, the overall migration (cf. Fig. 17.1) shapes and forms economic and entrepreneurial landscapes according to the attractiveness of the place (de Lange 2013; Dutia 2012). The centrifugal and centripetal powers of particular locations, the location choice, specific pull-push factors, and the gravity forces created by diasporas create the dynamism for the migrant stock and in- and outflows of migration. Thus, the number of active migrants in a place provides the bases for the different forms of entrepreneurship, IE being one of them, which explicates the connection of these two dynamics and the underpinnings on respective entrepreneurial-managerial choices.

Concerning entrepreneurial and migration policy, the stock of particular types of migrants and diasporas forms a starting point in addressing policy needs. Small and large diasporas provide different entrepreneurial patterns and dynamics. In a similar manner, the different combinations of the home and host context (cf. Elo 2016) constitute one basis for the internationalization potential that needs to be approached in a tailored manner. Building on de Haas (2017), for IE and EI, the migration policy should allow the flow of entrepreneurial talent and efforts to disperse across places since restriction of mobility triggers localized settlement and not international business. Restrictions on back-and-forth mobility may foster brain drain and small ethnic businesses representing economic adaptation instead of inserting this international entrepreneurial capability into a transnational use as a change agent for international business development.