The Immigrant

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

The immigrant entrepreneur in the international change A managerial analysis according to demographic profile

Immigrant entrepreneur

377

Carlos Rueda Armengot Department of Business Administration, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Frances Sole´ Parellada Polytechnic University of Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, and

Joaquı´n Rieta Carbonell SAI Wireless, Valencia, Spain Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the ethnic profile of the entrepreneur in relation to business activity, the reasons for creating the firm and the creation process. The aim is to analyze whether or not belonging to a particular ethnic group has an influence on the said processes, regardless of place of birth or nationality. Design/methodology/approach – A total of 326 questionnaires were analyzed in order to carry out an exploratory study on different ethnic communities in the region of Valencia (Spain) by identifying the most influential factors for each of the dimensions studied. Findings – The empirical results obtained show the relevance of ethnic origin. The variables that correspond to business activity, motives for new firm creation and the process involved undergo extremely significant alterations, depending on the origin of the entrepreneur. Research limitations/implications – The paper focuses on a particular geographical area and thus the limitations of the sample, as well as the influence of environmental factors may affect some of the results. Originality/value – The paper contributes towards understanding business activity among an increasingly important collective in a globalized economy and provides valuable knowledge for creating public policy aimed at the integration and development of different ethnic groups. Keywords Entrepreneurs, Ethnic groups, Entrepreneurialism, Spain Paper type Research paper

Introduction A lack of consensus on the exact definition of the concept of the object of this study, the ethnic entrepreneur, is the first hurdle to overcome. On reviewing the variety of studies that have addressed this topic, it can be seen that the expression ethnic entrepreneur crops up reasonably frequently, although it should be underlined that its use is somewhat disparate. The term often overlaps with or is substituted by other terms that refer to the condition of being an immigrant, to the condition of being an entrepreneur, or the condition of belonging to a minority group within the economic space under analysis. According to Chaganti and Greene (2002), the reasons that explain this overlapping of terms lies in the theoretical framework used as a reference,

Journal of Organizational Change Management Vol. 23 No. 4, 2010 pp. 377-395 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0953-4814 DOI 10.1108/09534811011055386

JOCM 23,4

378

which conceives immigrant entrepreneurs as a group of minority business owners for reasons of race, ethnic background or (Rinder, 1958). As Chaganti and Greene (2002) state, immigrant entrepreneurs are not always characterized by ethnic attributes, and not all ethnic minority entrepreneurs are immigrants, as in the case of second or third generations. Particularly in Spain, which forms the general geographical framework of this study, the term ethnic entrepreneur is regarded from a broad perspective and has been used in the majority of studies on the topic (Cavalcanti, 2007), referring both to the immigrant population that create a new firm and to those that belong to ethnic minorities even when they are not immigrants, thus combining the different terms used in the literature. We use the term ethnic entrepreneur with the meaning given by Waldinger et al. (1990) or Ma Mung (1992), and adhere to the ideas of Chaganti and Greene (2002) on this collective, who highlight the importance of the entrepreneur’s involvement with their ethnic community with regard to identifying their ethnicity and the lesser relevance of their place of birth or nationality in this sense. Development and evolution of research on the ethnic entrepreneur The increase in business activity on the part of immigrant groups in the USA and Northern Europe during the 1970s aroused interest on the part of academics on topics related to ethnic firms and the particularities of this type of entrepreneur. Thus, North American and European researchers (especially the former) began to design studies that addressed the question of ethnic entrepreneurs from differing perspectives (Light, 1972; Cummings, 1980; Ward and Jenkins, 1984; Portes and Bach, 1985; Waldinger, 1986; Light and Bonacich, 1988; Min, 1988, 1996; Langlois and Razin, 1989; Waldinger et al., 1990; Body-Cendrot and Ma Mung, 1992; Portes and Stephick, 1993; Light and Rosenstein, 1995; Yoon, 1997; Razin and Light, 1998; Light and Gold, 2000; Klemm and Kelsey, 2004; Theodorakopoulos et al., 2005; Altinay, 2005; Dhaliwal, 2006; Johnson et al., 2007; Altinay and Altinay, 2006, 2008). However, over time, a change can be seen in the trends of the approaches adopted by researchers. Cultural approaches focused on ethnic resources used by the entrepreneur, typical of the early stages of research into this topic, gave way to more generic perspectives that address the phenomenon in a more integrated way, adopting approaches that highlight contextual factors of the society where immigrants settle in order to explain the increase in ethnic firms in specific environments. The main approaches that have been adopted in studies examining this field can be generally grouped into three categories: (1) studies that adopt a cultural approach; (2) those carried out under a contextual approach; and (3) those carried out within the framework of an integrated approach. They all share the common objective of identifying the factors that explain the boom in ethnic firms and their differences with regard to those created by the local population, although they vary in the importance they endow to each of the factors considered. The cultural approach A good deal of the literature that has appeared on the subject of the ethnic entrepreneur is based on the fact that the particularities of this collective lie in the support they receive

from the family and others of the same nationality to start up, finance, and develop their firms (Waldinger et al., 1990; Werbner, 1990; Song, 1997; Light and Gold, 2000; Engelen, 2001). At the crux of this idea is the notion of “ethnic resources” or “ethno-cultural resources” whose use on the part of the entrepreneur justifies their being identified as “ethnic entrepreneurs” according to Waldinger et al. (1990) or Ma Mung (1992). It is the use of such resources and the degree to which the ethnic community participates in the development of the firm (whether it be as a source of financing, or as a customer or supplier), as well as the extent to which the new firm depends on these resources, which justifies the consideration of the entrepreneur, and the firm he or she creates as being ethnic. At the same time, such dependence determines, to a large extent, how far the firm can grow and the entrepreneur’s access to available opportunities in the economy of the receiving country. However, as highlighted by Ram and Smallbone (2001), the strategic use of ethnic resources might constitute a source of competitive advantage, in such a way that “ethnicity” in itself becomes a highly important resource. Within this perspective of ethnic resources, included in this category would be all the socio-cultural elements that the entrepreneur uses for the creation and development of the firm and from which they passively (Dalhammar and Brown, 2005) or actively (Ram and Smallbone, 2001) profit. According to Waldinger et al. (1990) these are resources that are linked to a group and not to individually considered members and imply the predisposition of certain elements and means of mobilization. These resources can materialize in something tangible or physical (financing) or intangible (information, advice, and guidance) (Light, 1972, 1979; Light and Gold, 2000), and are based on relationships of trust and friendship that the entrepreneur has with others of the same ethnic background through marriage systems or, more generically, through social networks or social capital (Light and Rosenstein, 1995). More specifically, among the elements that make up this type of resources are nationality of origin, religious beliefs, language, value, and attitudes towards particular alternatives or ways of living (in particular towards firm creation and education) and, in general, the factors that contribute to determining the culture of a given collective (Bonacich, 1973; Ward, 1983; Waldinger et al., 1990; Werbner, 1990; Bian, 2008). Taking a deeper look at the concept of ethnic resources, there are authors that go even further in delimiting these resources by differentiating them according to resources of class (Light, 1984; Min, 1988; Yoon, 1991, 1997; Light and Gold, 2000). The basis for this new classification can be found in the different opportunities that the entrepreneur has to access certain ethnic resources according to social class. Belonging to different social classes in the country of origin is eventually reflected in the country they emigrate to (Light and Gold, 2000). Recently, some researchers have taken the question of resources of class a step further by integrating human capital into social and cultural capital (Becker, 1995) besides training and experience. However, following the ideas of Min and Bozorgmehr (2000), social and cultural capital can be considered an ethnic resource or a resource of class depending on whether its origin is to be found in an ethnic group or in social class. Therein lies the motive for the still unresolved controversy that surrounds both types of resources. However, according to these authors, the difference between these two types may be linked to the characteristics of the firm created (mainly type, size, or location).

Immigrant entrepreneur

379

JOCM 23,4

380

In this way, ethnic resources are more notable in small firms, while resources of class would be more linked to large firms that demand better training and financial resources. The contextual approach Within the contextual or structuralist approach are studies that justify the boom in business initiatives on the part of ethnic entrepreneurs as a direct consequence of the contextual factors of the receiving society (Cole, 1959; Ram and Jones, 1998; Brunet and Alarco´n, 2005). From this perspective, making the most of a business opportunity derived from a socio-economic context of the adopted society (Mulligan and Reeves, 1983; Gouch, 1984; Timmermans, 1986) or, where applicable, overcoming the obstacles that the ethnic collective has to face in the adopted society (Light, 1979; Light and Gold, 2000) is the main reason for justifying firm creation as a means of maintaining a certain amount of independence and achieving greater integration in society (Marger, 1989). Also within this approach, but very close to the idea of an integrative approach, Razin and Light (1998) highlight the effect of interaction between location and new firm creation, providing evidence of the spatial variations in the creation of firms among specific groups of immigrants, therein underlining the importance of the context, but also of the traits of a particular ethnic group in business activity. The integral approach The integral approach or model represents the third analysis perspective on the ethnic entrepreneur. This approach arises from the integration of the cultural and contextual-structural approaches, explaining the creation of ethnic firms through the interaction between ethnic resources of the immigrant population and the structure of opportunities of the adopted society (Kloosterman et al., 1999; Taylor, 2001; Barrett et al., 2002). The theory of interaction introduced in the 1990s by Waldinger et al. (1990), which highlights the role of economic structure above that of social relationships, is one of the fundamental ideas of this perspective. The underlying model for this theory distinguishes three types of factors: group characteristics, structures of opportunities and ethnic strategies. Group characteristics include the capabilities of a group to mobilize resources, as well as the characteristic traits of the group. Structures of opportunities include both the market conditions for the existence of ethnic or non-ethnic products and access to the conditions or facilities for starting up a new ethnic firm. And ethnic strategies refer to the way in which ethnic resources are used within the framework of particular opportunity structures, resulting in specific models for firm survival (long working hours, formation of alliances with other ethnic groups or informal mechanisms used for financing the firm’s investments). Completing the integral proposal by Waldinger et al. (1990), alternative interpretations also arise that highlight the importance of institutional and regulatory aspects over economic ones. Kloosterman et al. (1999) introduce the idea of mixed embeddedness with which they explains the interaction of internal factors (ethnic resources and particularly cultural ones) and external factors (structure of opportunities and, above all, the institutional framework. Kloosterman (2000) also distinguishes between two models of embeddedness: in the first, firm creation would be the reflection of the strategy followed by immigrants for obtaining higher income and

upward social mobility; in the second case, called the Rhineland model, contextualized in central Europe, the difficulties for entry into a job market characterized by the coexistence of high wages and job stability are reflected, together with high rates of unemployment, which lead less qualified immigrants towards business activity. The socio-cultural profile of the entrepreneur and firm creation Understanding the reasons that explain why particular individuals, groups, and less directly, regions and countries are more entrepreneurial than others has been one of the principal objectives of researchers in the field of firm creation, which has been shifted to the more specific area of ethnic entrepreneurship. In recent years, the increase in firms created by this collective, as well as differences shown by diverse ethnic groups within the same target society has once again placed the spotlight on cultural aspects that differentiate certain communities from others (Basu and Werbner, 2001). Culture is considered to be an ethnic resource whose use on the part of the entrepreneur endows the firms created, the process followed for their creation and the strategies adopted for their development with specific traits. Culture is associated with a set of values, beliefs, and norms shared by a group or community (Hofstede, 1991); manifested as a way of thinking, feeling or reacting (Kluckhohn, 1951) through which members of a particular group differentiate themselves from those that belong to others. Therefore, culture exists within the context of a social group or unit, and the cultural differences can reflect variations related to the country or region of origin, ethnic background, social class, religion, gender, or language. Within the cultural elements, values have been one of the factors that the literature has studied most (McGrath et al., 1992a, b). Rokeach (1972) explained that “having values” means maintaining a permanent belief in preferring one specific type of behaviour over, or a final state of existence in relation to others. Schwartz (1992) characterizes values as concepts or beliefs that are applied to final desired states or behaviours. For Hofstede (2001), values are learnt predispositions, in other words, learnt mechanisms that are used in actions or behaviours with a view to obtaining positive consequences and/or avoiding negative ones. In this sense, it should be stated that values can be held by individuals and by groups, and also by collectives (Kilby, 1993; Kluckhohn, 1951), although it is only on a collective level that values can become components of a culture. More specifically, in the field of firm creation, some researchers have demonstrated the existence of associations between business and certain values that form a part of a given culture upheld by individualism, achievement, independence, or masculinity (Hofstede, 1980; Lipset, 2000). Equally, certain cultures have less consistent value systems in which business activity is included, especially in cases in which the activity implies risk, innovation, growth, and reinvestment of profits (Light, 1972). In this sense, what is common to all studies carried out on this topic is that not all ethnic groups have neither the same entrepreneurial capacity nor show the same entrepreneurial behaviour. Thus, for example, according to the Office for National Statistics (2001) in the UK, the ratio of firm creation by west Europeans is 12 percent, as opposed to 15 percent among Indians, 18 percent amongst the Chinese population and 19 percent of Pakistanis. In the same vein, Asian and East African entrepreneurs have a long tradition in business, in many cases related to the restaurant sector (Basu and Altinay, 2002). Corkill (2001) states that African immigrants tend

Immigrant entrepreneur

381

JOCM 23,4

382

to concentrate on the building industry in Portugal and on agriculture in Spain, whilst Latin Americans and Asian women tend to work in domestic services and Polish, Lithuanian, and Rumanian immigrants tend towards the construction industry in Spain. Curran and Burrows (1988) point out that those from Southern Asia look more to the restaurant, general food trading, and clothing industries. The Chinese are to be found principally in retailing (Song, 1997), and Afro-Caribbeans in the construction sector (Curran and Blackburn, 1993). Thus, in the context of the ethnic entrepreneur, studies that compare the relationship between different ethnic backgrounds and cultural factors, among which is their attitude towards business activity, are reasonably common. At the same time, this attitude is related to other cultural elements that highlight more specific values, such as saving money, family, and/or religious ties or trust, all of which are elements that are linked to business success (Bonacich, 1973; Ward, 1983; Waldinger et al., 1990; Werbner, 1990). The differences that exist between the greater tendency of some collectives towards firm creation is thus explained ( Jewish, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Korean, or Pakistani business owners) (Light, 1972; Bonacich, 1973; Min, 1992; Zhou, 1992), or the aversion to business activity shown by others (Afro-Caribbeans) (Barrett et al., 1996). Many of these studies have been carried out recently in the UK, an environment where the immigrant population is among the highest in Europe (Modood, 1992; Rafiq, 1992; Metcalf et al., 1996; Basu, 1998; Basu and Goswami, 1999; Borooah and Hart, 1999; Smallbone et al., 1999; Brown, 2000). Modood (1992) reports that the success of Asian entrepreneurs in England represents an essential success on the part of this group. Such conclusions are corroborated in the study carried out by Metcalf et al. (1996) in which it is proven that the lesser business success of Pakistani entrepreneurs is due to socio-economic and cultural factors, such as a lack of adequate training, scarcity of family loans, and the influence of religion. Similarly, Smallbone et al. (1999) argue that Pakistanis have to overcome greater discrimination in the job market compared to other groups, due to the desire to maintain their Islamic values within the society they settle in. Such statements are supported by other studies such as that of Rafiq (1992), in which he concludes that Muslim Asian firms are not as profitable as those that are not Muslim. However, his study ignores the variations that might exist between different groups of Muslims. It should be pointed out that, on certain occasions, the origin of the differences inherent in the ethnic entrepreneur go further than his or her ethnicity in itself and can be found more in the temporary or permanent nature of migratory movement. In this sense, Bonacich (1973)[1] attributes a more entrepreneurial nature to temporary immigrants than to permanent ones, given that the nature of temporality lends itself to a greater tendency to save money and to work in order to return to the country of origin with sufficient funds. For Vinogradov and Kolvereid (2007), the length of residence is an influential factor in firm creation by foreigners in any given country. At the same time, there is normally a high degree of internal solidarity amongst ethnic entrepreneurs that helps them to compete with business owners from their adopted country. Another relevant aspect is the marital status of the entrepreneur (Le, 2000). Hispanic women entrepreneurs in the USA normally marry less than their male equivalents, according to Shim and Eastlick (1998). Moreover, there are “twice as many disadvantages when creating a firm than for men” (Lerner et al., 2005, p. 194).

Bates (1987) and Light and Rosenstein (1995) are even more critical and believe that the ratio is 3:1 in favour of male immigrants over women. Shim and Eastlick (1998) also point out that women immigrant entrepreneurs obtain less profit from their businesses than entrepreneurial immigrant men. Unemployment and low wages when working as an employee are additional important factors to be borne in mind at the moment of deciding whether to become a business owner (Light, 1972; Moore, 1983; Hammarstedt, 2001), as is gender discrimination (Ram and Deakins, 1995; Ram and Jones, 1998; Hammarstedt, 2004). Johansson (2000) and Hammarstedt (2006) add that the difference between the salary of a self-employed worker and those that work as employees encourages foreigners to become business owners. Generalist studies, not exclusively applied to the ethnic entrepreneur, are those that analyze the influence of the family on entrepreneurial activity (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Bloodgood et al., 1995; Carroll and Gannon, 1997; Luthans et al., 2000), due to the fact that we normally learn from the situations that surround us and especially when it involves members of the family. The cultural, political, and economic environment is a factor that acts as a suitable starting point for any analysis of entrepreneurship. The family (Chrisman et al., 2002), according to schools of business management that focus on the concept of corporate responsibility, also affects this environment. Finally, a view shared amongst academics is that not all ethnic groups have either the same entrepreneurial capacity or display the same behaviour (Busenitz and Lau, 1996; Wong, 2008). We therefore believe that the demographic profile affects the decision to take up some kind of self-employment and that this influence shows up both in the elements that characterize business activity and in the motives and processes followed in creating a firm. Consequently, we formulate the following hypotheses: H1. The demographic profile of the ethnic entrepreneur influences the elements that characterize business activity. H2. The demographic profile of the ethnic entrepreneur influences the elements that characterize the principal motive for new firm creation. H3. The demographic profile of the ethnic entrepreneur influences the elements that characterize the process followed to create a new firm. Methodology Sample The target population consists of the ethnic entrepreneur that has created his or her own business in the region of Valencia (Spain). In order to identify this sector of the population, we used information contained in the databases provided by the Council for Citizenship and Immigration of the Valencia Regional Government and by the three Official Chambers of Commerce in Alicante, Castello´n, and Valencia[2]. Using random sampling, a sample of 6,996 business owners from different immigrant associations was chosen, whom we contacted in a variety of ways (telephone, postal mail, electronic mail, and/or fax). In all cases, the aim of the research was presented and explained and inquiries were made on the country of origin of the main business owner, a criterion that was adopted to identify ethnic firms.

Immigrant entrepreneur

383

JOCM 23,4

384

Out of the 6,996 possible business owners contacted, 326 agreed to participate in the study. In total, 11 surveys were rejected as they were incomplete. Thus, the final sample size was 315 respondents; a ration that is superior to the “typical 10-12 percent for postal research” (Hambrick et al., 1993, p. 407). The individual response ratio was consistent with previous studies on entrepreneurs (Alpar and Spitzer, 1989; Steensma et al., 2000). This size guarantees a sample error of 5.5 percent with a confidence level of 95 percent, for a question with two possible answers in the worst scenario possible ( p ¼ q ¼ 50 percent). Within the sample, in terms of nationality, Rumanians are prominent (30 percent) as are Colombians (28 percent), together with the Moroccans (19 percent) and the Bulgarians (8 percent). The average age of the entrepreneurs was 39.9 years old (with a deviation of 8.9 years) ranging from the youngest at 18 years old to the oldest at 58. Eight out of every ten business owners were men and more than half of these (57 percent) were married when the firm was created and they also had children. The most prevalent sector is services (89 percent) within which construction is the most represented (23 percent), textile trade (18 percent), and home help (16 percent), with a turnover of less e10,000 per year in 46 percent of the cases and between e10,000 and 30,000 in 50 percent of cases, with only 4 percent exceeding this figure. The tool used for gathering the relevant information for this study was a survey sent to the business owner or founder of the firm. The questionnaire used allowed us to develop a construct: the demographic profile and three dimensions: business activity, the main motive for creating the firm, and the process followed for its creation; with the aim of contrasting the hypotheses proposed as shown in Table I. A total of 25 entrepreneurs were selected for a pilot study and the data obtained therein were excluded from the analysis. Fieldwork took place from September 2007 to April 2008. Analysis The quantitative information obtained through the surveys carried out on entrepreneurs was used to determine whether demographic profile influences business activity, the reason for creating a firm and the process followed for firm creation. The Pearson x 2 test (Amo´n, 1986; Fisher and van Belle, 1993; Fleiss et al., 2003) was used as a test of association or dependence between two categorical variables, as long as the frequency in the contingency table included more than five cases. Otherwise, and only in the case of dichotomic questions, the exact Fisher (1954) test was employed. The significativity of the analysis is classified into two levels; moderate statistical relationships and close statistical relationships, depending on whether the p-value is ,0.05 or ,0.01, respectively. Results Table II shows the corresponding p-value for each test carried out on the variables of demographic profile and those relative to business activity, as well as their degree of significativity. In light of the results, the relevance of the area of origin is notable as is the gender of the entrepreneur, as this affects almost all aspects related to business activity. For example, except for the home help sector, where women dominate, it is the man who is mainly involved in business activity, and is the only one to do so in the construction sector. The area of origin also affects entrepreneurs who work in the service industry:

Variables Construct Demographic profile

Dimensions Business activity

P1 gender P2 area of origin P3 age when the firm was founded P4 age on arrival in Spain P5 marital status when the firm was created P6 no of children P7 years living in Spain P8 years living in this city P9 years in Spain before beginning this activity P10 previous residence ion the area before starting the activity

P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 Main motivation for creating the firm P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 P28 P29 Process followed for creating the firm P30 P31 P32 P33 P34

sector business activity legal structure turnover employees employees in the family family information on management business future competitive strategy percentage of sales to compatriots main reason for starting the activity previous attitude towards entrepreneurship family business antecedents success in family businesses main place of activity motives for firm location intention to open another business Intention to return to the country of origin future of the firm on return to country of origin most frequent activity before starting own business sources of financing for creating the firm initial capital knowledge of state aid family information during the process of firm creation

those from Eastern Europe and South America primarily opt for activities related to construction and home help, while Africans prefer the clothing trade. Gender also has an influence on the chosen activity. The majority of women do care work; looking after the elderly, sick or very young, as confirmed by the 72 percent female domination of this activity in comparison with the 21 percent of women that make up the overall sample. Turnover also depends upon the entrepreneur’s area of origin and gender. Thus, those commonly found among firms with an annual turnover of less than e10,000, are those run by Rumanians and Bulgarians, while those run by male Moroccans tend to have an annual turnover of more than e10,000. The same thing occurs with numbers of employees, where men commonly employ a larger number of workers; precisely 90 percent of entrepreneurs that have between one and four employees are men, and results indicate

Immigrant entrepreneur

385

Table I. Dimensions and construct

Table II. Relationships established between demographic profile and business activity 0.000 * * 0.000 * * 0.358 0.911 0.049 * 0.043 * 0.072 0.079 0.666 0.103

0.006 * * 0.000 * * 0.792 0.175 0.557 0.285 0.749 0.720 0.134 1.000

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

P12

P11 0.564 0.000 * * 0.554 0.226 0.002 * * 0.013 * 0.267 0.905 0.013 * 0.396

P13 0.000 * * 0.000 * * 0.689 0.467 0.365 0.038 * 0.181 0.085 0.504 0.246

P14 0.000 * * 0.000 * * 0.647 0.614 0.402 0.122 0.782 0.996 0.876 0.109 0.054 0.000 * * 0.274 0.232 0.255 0.459 0.600 0.835 0.899 0.063

Business activity P15 P16

0.689 0.200 0.891 0.602 0.819 0.885 0.625 0.961 0.425 0.407

P17

0.003 * * 0.195 0.751 0.057 0.169 0.055 0.006 * * 0.027 * * 0.796 0.397

P18

0.909 0.000 * * 0.239 0.348 0.150 0.031 * 0.895 0.988 0.011 * 0.340

P19

386

H1 Perfil demogra´fico

0.049 * 0.000 * * 0.013 * 0.262 0.012 * 0.343 0.025 * 0.581 0.249 0.248

P20

JOCM 23,4

that the need to be successful is 10 percent above the average for men, a particularly notable trend in those that have lived in Spain for a long time. With regard to the strategy adopted, this is also affected by the origin of the entrepreneur. East Europeans are those that choose to lower prices more, whilst Moroccans tend to opt more for quality and customer care. Table III shows the level of the relationships (those corresponding to p-values) between different aspects of the demographic profile and business motivation, which corresponds to H2 on demographic profile. Once more the area the entrepreneur comes from shows up as a key factor in business motivation. In terms of motivation to create a new firm, South Americans mainly look for independence through creating their own business even though conditions may be harder, while east Europeans aspire to earning more money. Amongst those that most often have family antecedents in business are the Moroccans (21 percent greater frequency than the average) and this collective is also the most likely to continue their business in cases where they decide to return to their country of origin (25 percent above the average). Table IV shows the levels of the relationships between the different aspects of the demographic profile and the process followed in creating the firm. The area of origin is, once again, an influential factor in the process followed in firm creation. Regarding this topic, the most common activity prior to creating the firm for South Americans is the search for financing and among Moroccans the search for information on the market. With regard to the initial capital input, entrepreneurs from Eastern Europe were those that began their business with the most capital, with an initial capital greater than their counterparts from other nations in 62 percent of cases. Knowledge of help available from the state is low, with a frequency of 17 percent amongst respondents, although knowledge of this type among Moroccans is worthy of note. Conclusions The process of globalization and the internationalization of economies and markets is provoking increasingly sizeable and intense international migration (Wauters and Lambrecht, 2007). This is an enormously important question and has a growing influence on political and governmental decisions the world over (Chrisman et al., 1987; Chotiegeat et al., 1991; Tress, 1998; Kloosterman, 2003; Lerner et al., 2005; Boswell, 2007; Hix and Noury, 2007), given that the immigrant population contributes to generating the wealth of a country, although the greater the level of training and education that exists in a particular country, the more restrictive support policies for immigrants tend to be (Scheve and Slaughter, 2001). Our study has analyzed the influence of demographic profile on the ethnic entrepreneur with regard to business activity, the main motivation for creating a new firm and the process followed in creating the firm. We have gone a step further than analyzing who has or has not created the firm and have focused on those that have been involved in firm creation. From the results of the research, the conclusions indicate the difficulty inherent in generalizing on the influence of all the factors of the dimensions analyzed. The area of origin of the entrepreneur is the only demographic factor that shows a significant relationship with the majority of the factors that make up the dimensions analyzed, and thus, this factor is the one that mainly influences

Immigrant entrepreneur

387

Table III. Relationships between profile and business motivation 0.055 0.000 * * 0.047 * 0.409 0.081 0.016 * 0.635 0.565 0.005 * * 0.460

P23 0.263 0.000 * * 0.289 0.861 0.003 * * 0.323 0.364 0.200 0.213 0.772

P22 0.034 * 0.000 * * 0.264 0.014 * 0.001 * * 0.002 * * 0.464 0.346 0.019 * 1.000 0.687 a 0.022 * 0.605 0.033 * 0.059 0.869 0.661 0.198 0.178

0.988 0.000 * * 0.839 0.294 0.150 0.437 0.464 0.569 0.002 * * 0.552

0.300 0.000 * * 0.872 0.325 0.671 0.367 0.982 0.883 0.027 * 0.078

Main reason for firm creation P24 P25 P26

P27 0.003 * * 0.692 0.078 0.639 0.294 0.594 0.140 0.647 0.014 * 0.526

Notes: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01; a, test not possible due to lack of sample resulting from the crossover of categories

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

P21

0.005 * * 0.013 * 0.969 0.498 0.134 0.647 0.184 0.472 0.116 0.054

P28

388

H2 Demographic profile

0.442 0.000 * * 0.100 0.147 0.197 0.428 0.887 0.625 0.570 0.975

P29

JOCM 23,4

H3 Demographic profile P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

P30 0.033 * 0.000 * * 0.525 0.197 0.028 * 0.111 0.173 0.699 0.904 0.855

Process of creating the firm P31 P32 P33 0.364 0.847 0.350 0.089 0.223 0.649 0.878 0.781 0.886 0.327

0.477 0.001 * * 0.380 0.031 * 0.661 0.722 0.368 0.571 0.088 0.697

1.000 0.000 * * 0.916 0.912 0.381 0.284 0.316 0.250 0.875 0.550

P34 0.772 0.319 0.329 0.443 0.504 0.935 0.010 * * 0.192 0.635 0.273

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

the elements that characterize business activity, the motivation for starting up a business and the process followed in doing so. Ensuing studies should take a deeper look at this analytical perspective considering different groups of factors or other constructs that help to add greater detail and precision to understanding the factors that determine a particular activity, and the motives and processes in the creation of a new firm on the part of the ethnic entrepreneur, repeating the analysis in other areas or bearing in mind other factors not contemplated here, including the influence of particular aspects of the environment (Portes and Rumbaut, 1990; van de Ven, 1993; Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994), personal characteristics of the entrepreneur, forms of cooperation (Portes and Bach, 1985) or the influence of political power, among others. Notes 1. Bonacich (1973) calls those immigrants that do not expect to spend a long time away from their countries of origin “sojourners”. 2. These sources of information include the main data (name of the firm and the owner, principal activity, town, postal address, contact number, and, in some cases, a web site address). The data were gathered thanks to the control of business activities undertaken by these institutions.

References Alpar, P. and Spitzer, D.M. Jr (1989), “Response behaviour of entrepreneurs in a mail survey”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 31-44. Altinay, L. (2005), “The intrapreneur role of the development directors in an international hotel group”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 403-19. Altinay, L. and Altinay, E. (2006), “Determinants of ethnic minority entrepreneurial growth in the catering sector”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 203-21. Altinay, L. and Altinay, E. (2008), “Marketing strategies of ethnic minority businesses in the UK”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1183-97. Amo´n, J. (1986), Estadı´stica para psico´logos, 4th ed., Pira´mide, Madrid.

Immigrant entrepreneur

389 Table IV. Relationships established between demographic profile and the process of firm creation

JOCM 23,4

390

Barrett, A.G., Jones, T.P. and McEvoy, D. (1996), “Ethnic minority business: theoretical discourse in Britain and North America”, Urban Studies, Vol. 33, pp. 783-809. Barrett, A.G., Jones, T.P., McEvoy, D. and McGoldrick, C. (2002), “The economic embeddedness of immigrant enterprise in Britain”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 8 Nos 1/2, pp. 11-31. Basu, A. (1998), “An exploration of entrepreneurial activity among Asian small businesses in Britain”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 10, pp. 313-26. Basu, A. and Altinay, E. (2002), “The interaction between culture and entrepreneurship in London’s immigrant businesses”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 371-93. Basu, A. and Goswami, A. (1999), “South Asian entrepreneurship in Great Britain: factors influencing growth”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 5, pp. 251-75. Basu, D. and Werbner, P. (2001), “Bootstrap capitalism and the culture industries: a critique of invidious comparisons in the study of ethnic entrepreneurship”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 236-62. Bates, T. (1987), “Self-employed minorities: traits and trends”, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 68, pp. 539-51. Becker, G.S. (1995), Accounting for Tastes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Bian, Y. (2008), “Born out of networks”, in Wong, R. (Ed.), Chinese Entrepreneurship in a Global Era, Routledge, London, pp. 166-82. Bloodgood, H., Sapienza, H.J. and Carsrud, A.L. (1995), “The dynamics of new business start-ups: person, context, and process”, in En Katz, J.A. and Brockhaus, R.H. (Eds), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth, Vol. 2, JAI Press, Stamford, CT, pp. 123-44. Body-Cendrot, S. and Ma Mung, E. (1992), “Entrepreneurs entre deux mondes”, Revue Europe´enne des Migrations Internationales, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 16-28. Bonacich, E. (1973), “A theory of middlemen minorities”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 38, pp. 583-94. Borooah, K.V. and Hart, H. (1999), “Factors affecting self-employment among Indian and Black Caribbean men in Britain”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 111-29. Boswell, C. (2007), “Theorizing migration policy: is there a third way?”, International Migration Review, Vol. 41, pp. 75-100. Brown, S.M. (2000), “Religion and economic activity in the South Asian population”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 23, pp. 1035-61. Brunet, I. and Alarco´n, A. (2005), ¿Quien crea empresas? Redes y empresarialidad, Talasa, Madrid. Busenitz, L.W. and Lau, C.M. (1996), “A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture creation”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 20, pp. 25-39. Carroll, S.J. and Gannon, M.J. (1997), Ethical Dimensions of International Management, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Cavalcanti, L. (2007), “Negocios e´tnicos: Importacio´n y repercusiones de una categorı´a”, in En Santamarı´a, E. (Ed.), Los retos epistemolo´gicos de las migraciones transnacionales, Antrophos, Barcelona, pp. 154-68. Chaganti, R. and Greene, P. (2002), “Who are ethnic entrepreneurs? A study of entrepreneurs’ ethnic involvement and business characteristics”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 126-43.

Chotiegeat, T., Balsmeier, P.W. and Stanley, T.O. (1991), “Fueling Asian immigrants entrepreneurship: a source of capital”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 29, pp. 50-61. Chrisman, J.J., Chu, J.H. and Steier, L.P. (2002), “The influence of national cultural and family involvements on entrepreneurship perceptions and performance at the state level”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 26, pp. 113-30. Chrisman, J.J., Hoy, F. and Robinson, B.R. Jr (1987), “New venture development: the costs and benefits of public sector assistance”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2, pp. 315-28. Cole, A.H. (1959), Business Enterprise in its Social Setting, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Corkill, D. (2001), “Economic migrants and the labour market in Spain and Portugal”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 828-44. Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 75-87. Cummings, S. (1980), Self-help in Urban America: Patterns of Minority Economic Development, Kenikart Press, Port Washington, NY. Curran, J. and Blackburn, R.A. (1993), Ethnic Enterprise and the High Street Bank: A Survey of Ethnic Businesses in Two Localities, Small Business Research Center, Kignston. Curran, J. and Burrows, R. (1988), Enterprise in Britain: A National Profile of Small Business and the Self-employed, Small Business Research Trust, London. Dalhammar, T. and Brown, T.E. (2005), “Industrial effects on resource acquisition: immigrant enterprises in Kista, Stockholm”, working paper, Centre of Excellence for Studies in Science and Innovation, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, available at: www. infra.kth.se/cesis/cesis/publications/working_papers/index.htm (accessed February 7, 2006). Dhaliwal, S. (2006), “The take-up of business support by minority ethnic enterprises: the experience of South Asian businesses in England”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 79-91. Engelen, E. (2001), “‘Breaking in’ and ‘breaking out’: a Weberian approach to entrepreneurial opportunities”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 27, pp. 203-23. Fisher, L.D. and van Belle, G. (1993), Biostatistics: A Methodology for Health Sciences, Wiley, New York, NY. Fisher, R.A. (1954), Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 12th ed., Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh. Fleiss, J.L., Levin, B. and Paik, M.C. (2003), Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York, NY. Gnyawali, D.R. and Fogel, D. (1994), “Environments for entrepreneurship development: key dimensions and research implications”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 18, pp. 43-62. Gouch, P. (1984), Location Theory and Multi-plant Firm: A Framework for Empirical Studies, Canadian Geographer, Montreal. Hambrick, D.C., Geletkanycz, M.A. and Fredickson, J.W. (1993), “Top executive commitment to the status quo: some test of its determinants”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 401-18. Hammarstedt, M. (2001), “Immigrant self-employment in Sweden – its variation and some possible determinants”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 13, pp. 147-61. Hammarstedt, M. (2004), “Self-employment among immigrants in Sweden – an analysis of intragroup differences”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 23, pp. 115-26.

Immigrant entrepreneur

391

JOCM 23,4

392

Hammarstedt, M. (2006), “The predicted earnings differential and immigrant self-employment in Sweden”, Applied Economics, Vol. 38, pp. 619-30. Hix, S. and Noury, A. (2007), “Politics, not economic interests: determinants of migration policies in the European Union”, International Migration Review, Vol. 41, pp. 182-205. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London. Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Johansson, E. (2000), “Self-employment and the predicted earnings differential – evidence from Finland”, Finish Economic Papers, Vol. 13, pp. 45-55. Johnson, J.P., Mun˜oz, M. and Alon, I. (2007), “Filipino ethnic entrepreneurship: an integrated review and propositions”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 69-85. Kilby, R.W. (1993), The Study of Human Values, University Press of America, Lanham, MD. Klemm, M.S. and Kelsey, S.J. (2004), “Ethnic groups and the British travel industry: servicing a minority?”, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 115-28. Kloosterman, R.C. (2000), “Immigrant entrepreneurship and the institutional context: a theoretical exploration”, in En Rath, J. (Ed.), Immigrant Businesses, the Economic, Political and Social Environment, Macmillan, London, pp. 90-106. Kloosterman, R.C. (2003), “Creating opportunities: policies aimed at increasing openings for immigrant entrepreneurs in The Netherlands”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 15, pp. 167-81. Kloosterman, R.C., van Der Leun, J. and Rath, J. (1999), “Mixed embeddedness: (in)formal economic activities and immigrant businesses in The Netherlands”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 23, pp. 253-67. Kluckhohn, C. (1951), “Values and value orientation in the theory of action”, in En Parsons, T. and Shields, E.A. (Eds), Toward a General Theory of Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 388-433. Langlois, A. and Razin, E. (1989), “Self-employment among ethnic minorities in Canadian metropolitan areas”, Canadian Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 12, pp. 335-54. Le, A.T. (2000), “The determinants of immigrant self-employment in Australia”, International Migration Review, Vol. 34, pp. 183-214. Lerner, M., Menahem, G. and Hisrich, R. (2005), “Does government matter? The impact of occupational retraining, gender and ethnicity of immigrants’ incorporation”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 192-210. Light, I. (1972), Ethnic Enterprise in America, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Light, I. (1979), “Disadvantaged minorities in self-employment”, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 20, pp. 31-45. Light, I. (1984), “Immigrant and ethnic enterprise in North America”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 7, pp. 195-216. Light, I. and Bonacich, E. (1988), Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles, 1965-1982, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Light, I. and Gold, S. (2000), Ethnic Economics, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Light, I. and Rosenstein, C. (1995), “Expanding the interaction theory of entrepreneurship”, in En Portes, A. (Ed.), The Economic Sociology of Immigration, Sage, New York, NY, pp. 166-212. Lipset, S.M. (2000), “Values and entrepreneurship in the Americas”, in En Sweedberg, R. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship: The Social Science View, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 21-33. Luthans, F., Stajkovic, A.D. and Ibrayeva, E. (2000), “Environmental and psychological challenges facing entrepreneurial development in transitional economies”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 35, pp. 95-110. McGrath, R.G., MacMilland, I.C. and Scheinberg, S. (1992a), “Elitists, risk-takers, and rugged individualists? An exploratory analysis of cultural differences between entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 7, pp. 115-35. McGrath, R.G., MacMilland, I.C., Yang, E.A. and Tsai, W. (1992b), “Does culture endure, or is it malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 7, pp. 441-59. Ma Mung, E. (1992), “L’expansion du commerce ethnique: Asiatiques et Maghre´bins dans la region parisienne”, Revue Europe´enne des Migrations Internationales, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 39-60. Marger, M. (1989), “Business strategies among East Indian entrepreneurs in Toronto: the role of group resources and opportunity structure”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 539-63. Metcalf, H., Modood, T. and Virdee, S. (1996), Asian Self-employment: The Interaction of Culture and Economics in England, Policy Studies Institute, London. Min, P.G. (1988), Ethnic Business Enterprise: Korean Small Business in Atlanta, Center for Migration Studies, Staten Island, NY. Min, P.G. (1992), “The structure and social functions of Korean immigrants churches in United States”, International Migration Review, Vol. 26, pp. 1340-94. Min, P.G. (1996), Caught in the Middle: Korean Merchants in New York and Los Angeles, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Min, P.G. and Bozorgmehr, M. (2000), “Immigrant entrepreneurship and business patterns: a comparison of Koreans and Iranians in Los Angeles”, International Migration Review, Vol. 34, pp. 707-38. Modood, T. (1992), Not Easy Being British: Colour, Culture and Citizenship, Runnymede Trust and Trentham Books, London. Moore, R.L. (1983), “Employer discrimination: evidence form self-employed workers”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 65, pp. 496-501. Mulligan, G.F. and Reeves, R.W. (1983), “The theory of the firm: some spatial implications”, Urban Geography, Vol. 4, pp. 156-72. Office for National Statistics (2001), Labour Market Trends, Vol. 109, Office for National Statistics, London, No. 1. Portes, A. and Bach, R. (1985), Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Portes, A. and Rumbaut, R. (1990), Immigrant America: A Portrait, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Portes, A. and Stephick, A. (1993), “City on the Edge: The Transformation of Miami”, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Rafiq, M. (1992), “Ethnicity and enterprise: a comparison of Muslim and Muslim owned Asian businesses in Britain”, New Community, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 43-60.

Immigrant entrepreneur

393

JOCM 23,4

394

Ram, M. and Deakins, D. (1995), African-Caribbean Entrepreneurship in Britain, University of Central England Business School, Birmingham. Ram, M. and Jones, T. (1998), Ethnic Minorities in Business, Small Business Research Trust, Open University Business School, Milton Keynes. Ram, M. and Smallbone, D. (2001), “Ethnic minority enterprise: policy in practice”, UK DTI Small Business Service Research Report, available at: www.sbs.gov.uk/SBS_Gov_files/embf/ Ethnic_Minority_Enterprise_Policy_In_Practice.pdf (accessed April 23, 2006). Razin, E. and Light, I. (1998), “Ethnic entrepreneurs in America’s largest metropolitan areas”, Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 33, pp. 332-60. Rinder, N.B. (1958), “Stranger in a strange land: social relations in the status gap”, Social Problems, Vol. 6, pp. 253-60. Rokeach, M. (1972), The Price of Paradise Lucky We Live in Hawaii?, Mutual, Honolulu, HI. Scheve, K.F. and Slaughter, M.J. (2001), “Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 83, pp. 133-45. Schwartz, S.H. (1992), “Universals in content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries”, in En Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 1-65. Shim, S. and Eastlick, A. (1998), “Characteristics of Hispanic female business owners: an exploratory study”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, p. 18. Smallbone, D., Fadahunsi, A., Supri, S. and Paddison, A. (1999), “The diversity of ethnic minority enterprises”, Comunicacio´n presentada en el RENT XIII, Londres. Song, M. (1997), “Children’s labour in ethnic family businesses: the case of Chinese take-away business in Britain”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 20, pp. 690-716. Steensma, H., Marino, L. and Weaver, K.M. (2000), “Attitudes toward cooperative strategies: a cross-cultural analysis of entrepreneurs”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 591-609. Taylor, M. (2001), “Enterprise, embeddedness and local growth: inclusion, exclusion and social capital”, in En Felsenstein, D. and Taylor, M. (Eds), Promoting Local Growth, Process, Practice and Policy, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 11-28. Theodorakopoulos, N., Ram, M., Shah, M. and Boyal, H. (2005), “Experimenting with supply chain learning (SCL): supplier diversity and ethnic minority businesses”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 461-78. Timmermans, H. (1986), “Locational choice behaviour of entrepreneurs: an experimental analysis”, Urban Studies, Vol. 23, pp. 231-40. Tress, M. (1998), “Welfare state type, labor markets and refugees: a comparison of Jews from the FSU in the USA and Germany”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 21, pp. 116-37. van de Ven, A.H. (1993), “The development o fan infrastructure for entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8, pp. 211-30. Vinogradov, E. and Kolvereid, L. (2007), “Cultural background, human capital and self-employment rates among immigrants in Norway”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 19, pp. 359-76. Waldinger, R. (1986), Through the Eye of the Needle: Immigrants and Enterprise in New York’s Garment Trades, New York University Press, New York, NY. Waldinger, R., Aldrich, H. and Ward, R. (1990), Ethnic Entrepreneurs: Immigrant Business in Industrial Societies, Sage, London.

Ward, R. (1983), “Ethnic communities and ethnic business: an overview”, New Community, Vol. 11 Nos 1/2, pp. 1-9. Ward, R. and Jenkins, R. (1984), Ethnic Communities in Business: Strategies for Economic Survival, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wauters, B. and Lambrecht, J. (2007), “Refugee entrepreneurship in Belgium: potential and practice”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 509-25. Werbner, P. (1990), “Renewing an industrial past: British Pakistani entrepreneurship in Manchester”, Migration, Vol. 8, pp. 7-41. Wong, R.S.K. (2008), Chinese Entrepreneurship in a Global Era, Routledge, London. Yoon, I.J. (1991), “The changing significance of ethnic and class resources in immigrant businesses: the case of Korean immigrants businesses in Chicago”, International Migration Review, Vol. 25, pp. 303-32. Yoon, I.J. (1997), On My Own: Korean Businesses and Race Relations in America, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Zhou, M. (1992), Chinatown, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA. Further reading Crant, J.M. (1996), “Proactive personality scales as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 42-51. Cromie, S. and Hayes, J. (1988), “Towards a typology of female entrepreneurs”, Sociological Review, Vol. 36, pp. 87-113. Cuba, R., Descenzo, D. and Anish, A. (1983), “Management practices of successful female business owners”, American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 8, pp. 40-6. Cui, G. (2001), “Marketing to ethnic minority consumers: a historical journey (1932-1997)”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 21, pp. 23-31. Lerner, M. and Khavul, S. (2003), “Beating the odds in immigrant entrepreneurship: how does founder human capital compare to institutional capital in improving the survival of immigrant owned businesses?”, Working Paper No. 4, Babson College, Wellesley, MA. Ram, M. and Smallbone, D. (2003), “Policies to support ethnic minority enterprise: the English experience”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 15, pp. 151-66. Viruela, R. (2002), “La nueva corriente inmigratoria de Europa del Este”, Cuadernos de Geografı´a, Vol. 72, pp. 231-58. About the authors Carlos Rueda Armengot is an Assistant Professor of Management at Universidad Polite´cnica de Valencia. He received his PhD from the University of Valencia. His current research is focused on the topics of entrepreneurship, human management resources, and organizational design. Carlos Rueda Armengot is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Frances Sole´ Parellada is a Professor in the Business Department and Director of the Innova Program for Entrepreneurship in the Technical University of Catalonia. He has published numerous papers presented at international congresses, publications (and books) in international journals. Joaquı´n Rieta Carbonell is a Principal Manager in SAI Wireless.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Immigrant entrepreneur

395