Migrant entrepreneurship support in Europe: a PRISMA systematic literature review

1.1 Rationale

Migrant entrepreneurship in Europe has gained increasing attention in recent years as a means for individuals to pursue economic opportunities and contribute to the development of their host communities (Aki Harima and Freudenberg, 2020; Kachkar and Djafri, 2021; Lyon, Sepulveda, and Syrett, 2007). As migrants comprise an increasing proportion of the population in Europe, they are seen to be more likely to be entrepreneurial than the native population (Irastorza and Peña, 2007), especially in certain countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (Kushnirovich, Heilbrunn, and Davidovich, 2018). Migrant entrepreneurship can be defined as the process of starting and running a business venture by an immigrant in a host country (Communities, 2003), can have a positive impact on the economy of the host country (Meister and Mauer, 2019) and be a source of innovation, economic growth, and social cohesion, as well as a means of integration and personal development for the entrepreneur (Eraydin, Tasan-Kok, and Vranken, 2010). In addition, migrant entrepreneurship can build international connectivity and reinforce economic activity for the host country (Kourtit, Nijkamp, and van Leeuwen, 2013); Backman, Lopez, and Rowe (2021) see under-utilization of immigrants’ skills as waste of resources. Beyond the above considerations of migrant entrepreneurship, Europe is a unique area to study and merits a special focus for four main reasons: the first is the right to free movement of European Union (EU) citizens (Collett, 2013) and within the European Economic Area (EEA) (Peers, 2000); the second is the application of the Dublin agreement in processing asylum applications (Angenendt, Engler, and Schneider, 2013; Murray and Longo, 2018), combined with the dominance of EU/EEA amongst Western countries in receiving asylum applications, with more than 60% of the applications (Hatton, 2020). A third consideration is Europe’s position in 2015 concerning its ability to accommodate a significant influx of new arrivals from outside the EU/EEA, along with the resulting effects (Scipioni, 2017). Finally, scholars in Europe have recognized the need for a broader societal framework to understand migrant entrepreneurship, in order to account for the unique opportunity structures in Europe, by considering the role of economic and political factors on migrant entrepreneurship (Kloosterman and Rath, 2018).

An increase in people moving to Europe coincides with the demographic trends that require immigration to fulfill labor needs and support the pensions of those who will soon be retiring and those who have already retired (Marois, Bélanger, and Lutz, 2020). Some new arrivals express an interest in becoming entrepreneurs. For example 7% of Ukrainian refugees who settled in Norway report that they aim to become entrepreneurs (Hernes, Deineko, Myhre, Liodden, and Staver, 2022) and the European Commission has incorporated refugee entrepreneurship into its 2020 Entrepreneurship Action Plan and the European Union Qualification Directive 2011/95 (article 26 and 34) states that EU members must allow access to self-employment and consider the specific needs of refugees within integration programs (de Lange, Berntsen, Hanoeman, and Haidar, 2021). This SLR sees a knowledge gap surrounding the literature to support migrants of all kinds in their entrepreneurship journey, whether refugee or others. Considering that a literature review on entrepreneurship support by Ratinho, Amezuca, Honig, and Zeng (2020) shows a lack of defined evaluation of the outcomes of entrepreneurial support, this SLR aims to contribute by adding conceptual clarity to the body of literature on migrant entrepreneurship support in Europe. Therefore, with the objectives in the next section, we seek to map out the research issues on this topic. The need for this SLR is based on the context of the demographic trends of Europe, the increase in immigration to Europe, the desire of a portion of the immigrants to Europe to become entrepreneurs, and a lack of understanding surrounding the effectiveness of migrant entrepreneurship support in European contexts (Chliova, Farny, and Salmivaara, 2018; De Noni and Ganzaroli (2013); Lillevik and Sønsterudbråten, 2018), as well as a lack of trust by some migrants in government-run migrant entrepreneurship support programs (Ram, Theodorakopoulos, and Jones, 2008; Mwaura et al., 2019), and the call by Dheer (2018) for scholars to study policies for their impacts on migrant entrepreneurship.

1.2 Objectives

Given that the literature on migrant entrepreneurship is fragmented, with studies focusing on various aspects of migrant entrepreneurship such as ethnic enclaves, mixed embeddedness, motivations, challenges, and outcomes (Ilhan-Nas, Sahin, and Cilingir, 2011), a systematic review of the existing research will help synthesize the current knowledge on migrant entrepreneurship support in Europe and identify gaps for future research. Such a review will not only provide a comprehensive overview of the field, but also serve as a useful resource for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers interested in understanding and supporting migrant entrepreneurship in Europe.

This study aims at synthesizing current knowledge on migrant entrepreneurship support in Europe, by understanding the key issues that migrants in Europe face in their entrepreneurship endeavors and how these issues relate to key policy-making decisions. The study seeks, to develop a conceptual framework and identify research gaps that call for future inquiry. From the above objectives, we will address three research questions (RQs) in this study, which we divide into characteristics, challenges, and support mechanisms.

To the best of our knowledge, this work offers a most up-to-date and comprehensive view to discern migrant entrepreneurship support in the European context and positions the issues uncovered as the foundation for policymaking. Existing systematic literature reviews (SLRs) have called for further work to (1) identify governmental and support policies for migrant entrepreneurs (Malerba and Ferreira, 2020), and their impact on immigrant entrepreneurship (Dheer, 2018), (2) synthesize the potential impacts of regional contextual factors (Dheer, 2018) and country contexts (Dabić et al., 2020), and (3) focus on specific geographical areas. Our current study is the latest and most exhaustive secondary study that contributes to all these points.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the background, including definitions of relevant terms. Section 3 presents our research approach. Section 4 contains our findings. Section 5 shares our discussions and recommendations, and Section 6 concludes the paper.

2.1 Definitions of Migrant entrepreneurship

To provide further context surrounding the phenomena studied, it is important to define both the terms, ‘migrant’, and ‘entrepreneurship’. We start by clarifying that this study is not concerned with internal migration within the borders of a single country. The definition of ‘migrant’ in much of the academic literature, means that somebody is: 1) foreign-born and 2) a non-citizen (Gimeno-Feliu et al., 2019). Since the foreign-born can often acquire citizenship in their host country, foreign-born is a more suitable definition for this research. However, the non-citizen aspect is also important, since in addition to becoming citizen of a new country, an individual can be born abroad due to parents’ stay abroad; citizenship in country ‘A’ may also extend to the grandchildren of people who left country ‘A’ for country ‘B’, and in some cases, even to further generations back.

Some of the literature refers to migrant entrepreneurship (Berntsen et al., 2021; Hagos, Izak, and Scott, 2019; Sinkovics and Reuber, 2021; Solano, 2021; Szczygiel, Nunes, and Ramos, 2020), while some refers to immigrant entrepreneurship. (Abbasian and Yazdanfar, 2015a; Bolzani and Boari, 2018; Glinka and Hensel, 2020; Murphy, Bogue, and O'Flaherty, 2020; Širec and Tominc, 2017; Yazdanfar and Abbasian, 2013). For this paper, both ‘migrant’ and ‘immigrant’ literature are suitable, if the condition of foreign-born is met. Throughout this article, the authors will refer to migrants and immigrants, and sometimes switch from one term to the other. This is because of the 91 sources that are included in this systematic literature review, the sources themselves may sometimes be based on the term migrant, while at other times based on the term immigrant. For this study's sake, both terms are relevant, and that is why we include both terms throughout the study. Dabić et al., (2020) reported that ‘migrants’ are people who move to a different country from their usual residence, for a period of at least 12 months and that ‘immigrants’ are born abroad. Dheer (2018) emphasizes that the definition of immigrant denotes a move that is permanent and not transitory. However, for this study, we are interested in the phenomenon of migrant entrepreneurship support regardless of whether the intention is to stay permanently in the host country.

In a review of the literature on self-employment and entrepreneurship, Szaban and Skrzek-Lubasińska (2018) position self-employment within the entrepreneurship paradigm. Amongst authors included in our review, definitions of entrepreneur include creating or establishing a business (Glinka and Hensel, 2020; Širec and Tominc, 2017; Solano, 2021), owning a business (Abbasian and Yazdanfar, 2015; Yazdanfar, Abbasian, and Brouder, 2015), managing one’s one business (Szczygiel et al., 2020), and having an aim to succeed at business (Hagos et al., 2019). Given that migrants who are just getting started in their host countries and seeking support from government entrepreneurship initiatives may not have established a business yet, the broader definition by Hagos et al., (2019) seems the most comprehensive for this study.

Since this research aims to study phenomena of migrant entrepreneurship in a broad sense of business activity and migration across national borders, we recognize that migrants may fall into categories that include the following: moving to the country of citizenship inherited from a parent or grandparent, fleeing a warzone as a refugee, joining a partner in a different country with whom they are in a romantic relationship, repositioning to the host country as an employee, trailing spouse, son or daughter, and staying on as an entrepreneur, seeking better economic conditions, seeking political asylum, adoption as a child by new parents in the host country, and staying in the host country after having studied abroad. Dheer (2018) defines immigrant entrepreneurs as those who “identify, create and exploit economic opportunities to start new ventures in their destination nations” (p. 558).

Some of the literature engages in a narrow focus of migrant entrepreneurship; examples include articles that exclusively study tech startups as well as a single case study of a cheese factory. However, there are many categories of entrepreneurial ventures, and they can overlap. This literature review is interested in all forms of business classifications to encompass entrepreneurship; examples include: business to business, business to government, business to consumer, software tech, hardware tech, deep tech, and consulting services, with offerings as either a service or a physical product. Another context is the locations in the studies we will be reviewing. The academic literature includes primarily studies with advanced economies (Dheer, 2018), although Duan, Kotey, and Sandhu (2021) note a trend since 2012 for research to include emerging economies. Our study aims to gather knowledge from the overall European context, regardless of how advanced the economy is.

2.2 Common characteristics of migrant entrepreneurship

Existing literature suggests that immigrants to a new country are lacking in several areas, such as credentials, cultural understanding, and language skills, which create challenges that may push them to seek to earn a living by becoming entrepreneurs (Ensign and Robinson, 2011). Li (2000) also notes that immigrants are often driven into entrepreneurship due to obstacles finding employment in their host countries. In addition, Cobas (1986) and Evans (1989) suggest that immigrant groups arriving in some countries have a greater tendency to become self-employed, while some groups of immigrants tend to make more successful entrepreneurs than others (Zhou, 2010). Given that successful entrepreneurship activity drives economic growth (Carree and Thurik, 2010; Schumpeter, 1949), that immigrant entrepreneurs can help the economies of their host countries (Barth and Zalkat, 2021), that the rate of entrepreneurs is often higher for immigrants than amongst native populations (Dheer and Lenartowicz, 2020), and that foreign-born entrepreneurs bring unique resources yet face specific challenges that the native population does not (Bijedic and Piper, 2019), it follows that policymakers have an interest in helping improve the likelihood of entrepreneurial success for immigrants.

2.3 Existing literature reviews

To understand the need for a new systematic literature review on migrant entrepreneurship, we first conducted an ad hoc review of six systematic literature reviews on this topic. We examined the background information to help develop our research questions. The six literature reviews are by: Aliaga-Isla and Rialp (2013), Dabić et al., (2020), Dheer (2018), Duan et al., (2021), Malerba and Ferreira (2020), and Sithas and Surangi (2021). Table 1 displays the number of studies reviewed, the years covered, the main goals establishing prior to conducting the reviews, key findings, and the authors’ recommendations. Aliaga-Isla and Rialp (2013) extracted primary studies’ objectives, theoretical frameworks, and methodologies, finding that most studies took place in the United States, followed by Europe and Oceania, and that studies from Germany and the Netherlands were dominant for Europe and that Europe had a greater prevalence of empirical studies. Dabić et al., (2020) plot the studies they reviewed into four quadrants by geographical scope, major research themes, methodological approaches, and theoretical approaches, with Europe leaning toward more qualitative studies and the use of embeddedness theory. Dheer (2018) outline the factors influencing the outcomes of immigrant entrepreneurship at the micro, meso, and macro levels, in addition to the process and its outcomes. In addition to the details covered in Table 1, Duan et al., (2021) extracted elements including article type, citation rate, methodology, and extra context (such as gender or generation). The study documented a trend in 2012 for emerging economies to conduct research in immigrant entrepreneurship, as well as a trend starting in 2007 for publications in business and entrepreneurship to cover the phenomenon. They find that push-pull theory dominates the field, with its application in 28 of the 62 articles. Malerba and Ferreira (2020) make a novel contribution with a larger search scope (adding Scopus) and the new focus on the identification and exploitation of opportunities by immigrant entrepreneurs, which Dheer (2018) identified as a key issue for future research. Sithas and Surangi (2021) find that most studies concentrate on immigrant communities in the host countries rather than on ethnic differences inside the native country. They reported a dominance of literature of immigrants from African and Asian countries to Western and European countries and that the dominant theories in the literature are community of practice theory, cultural theory, effectuation theory, and ethnic enclave theory, and demonstrate the interactions of these theories between individual members and the greater community, noting that the ethnic enclave extends support to the individual, while also accounting for factors that enhance the individual’s personality traits. There appears to be some overlap with ethnic enclave theory and Community of Practice Theory and Cultural Theory, since all three postulate that the ethnic group has an impact on the individual member’s personality traits, with effectuation having its place to explain the back-and- forth between the individual and the community (Sithas and Surangi, 2021).

The six literature reviews we examined provided insight into the topics, theoretical perspectives, empirical contexts, and methodologies employed in current research on migrant entrepreneurship, as well as identified gaps for future research. While there is a growing body of literature on migrant entrepreneurship in Europe, these reviews have not limited themselves to the topic of support, nor have they extensively covered the European context, which are the distinctions of our review. In addition, both Dheer (2018) and Malerba and Ferreira (2020) emphasize the importance of the impact of policies on migrant entrepreneurship, yet none of the literature reviews set out to do so. We see that immigration is getting more attention from both policymakers and scholars in Europe (Dheer, 2018). While new ventures that immigrants establish in their host countries can help lead to economic development and a decrease in unemployment, we also realize that some of the immigrants get stuck in low-margin businesses, while others fail at their businesses (Dheer, 2018). Considering the above, our literature review will fill the gaps in existing research by examining the characteristics and challenges of migrant entrepreneurs in Europe, as well as the policies and support mechanisms that impact their experiences in host countries and how ecosystems influence these policies.

3.1 Search protocol

The eligibility criteria helps with the search strategy to derive relevant literature from the main RQs, with our search string has three parts: MIGRANT (C1), ENTREPRENEUR (C2), and SUPPORT (C3). Under this search string, the idea is to cover migrant under diaspora, refugee, immigrant, exile, displaced or asylum, and to cover entrepreneurship under various forms and include self-employment, startup, venture, new business, enterprise, new firm, or similar, and to cover support under training, as well as forms of acceleration or incubation. The synonyms to these terms were identified in the context of either information systems or entrepreneurship research by interviewing field experts. We presented the list of synonyms related to migrant entrepreneurship support to our colleagues. Two of these experts came from the information systems domain, while one had a background in entrepreneurship. We asked them to contribute to the list of synonyms based on their knowledge. Each conversation occurred individually, informally and lasted for circa ten minutes. Their feedback was documented and resulted in a revised list of synonyms. The two authors conducted several trial searches to adjust the scope of the search string, so that we do not include many irrelevant studies from different research fields. The most important information is the supporting mechanisms that were provided to address challenges that migrant entrepreneurs confront. On the other hand, we want to include as many studies as possible. After several trials, we culminated with the list of search words as shown in Table 2. The search string is formed as the formula: C1 AND C2 AND C3.

Our linguistic capabilities meant that we could include studies published in the following languages: Danish, English, French, Greek, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Swedish. However, nearly all articles in the search were published in English, with a few appearing in Spanish. By the time we had concluded the inclusion/exclusion process, we had one article in Spanish and 90 in English. The authors considered several electronic databases, including Scopus, ISI Web of Science, IEEE Explore, Current Contents, Kluwer Online, Computer Database, Science Direct, Springer Link, Inspec and ACM Digital Library. Considering the popular databases within the entrepreneurship research, previous experiences of reviewers, flexible formulation of search strings with unlimited clauses and easily exporting paper lists in various formats, we decided to select Scopus and ISI Web of Science. The search ranges from 1970 to March 2022. We screened the sources based on the title, abstract, and keyword metadata to help us select studies relevant to our RQs.

3.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

To prepare for the next stage in the process of the eligibility criteria, we developed the following inclusion and exclusion criteria:

Inclusion criteria:

Exclusion criteria:

For completeness, we also excluded papers that were published in 2022 because it was March of that year at the start of the search, and we could not fully represent 2022 within the review.

3.3 The study selection process

Concerning information sources, the only databases used to search for sources were Scopus and Web of Science. The beginning of our search yielded 803 results in Scopus on 27 March 2022 and 312 results in Web of Science on 7 April 2022. After merging the results to eliminate the 223 duplicate papers that appear in both Scopus and Web of Science, we were left with 803 Scopus sources and 89 results from Web of Science, for a total of 892 results. We conducted the selection process as shown in Figure 1.

Remove non peer-reviewed documents: after removing the duplicates, we removed four titles published in 2022. We then removed 78 records for not being in the category of articles, book chapters, or conference papers. This left us with a total of 810 records for further screening.

Prior to applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the two reviewers performed pilot runs, i.e., pretest, to improve homogeneity. The aim was to ensure that the reviewers had the same interpretation of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, which meant that there was a good understanding of the type of studies that needed to be included and excluded. The first pilot consisted of 20 papers, which the authors chose for their mix of theory, entrepreneurial incubation, policymaking, migrant integration, and refugee topics in their titles. At this stage the authors were not yet focused on excluding non-European settings. The reviewers were able to retrieve 19 articles of the 20 articles and held meetings to discuss the them after reading through them. Fleiss’s kappa for agreement on inclusion in the review was 0.84 for the two reviewers (Fleiss, 1971). The kappa value between 0.81 and 1.00 represents an almost perfect agreement (Fleiss, 1971), suggesting a very good agreement among the authors. In case a decision could not be made by two reviewers, we kept on-going discussion until consensus was reached. Eleven of the studies made it past the original pilot review and eight of them did not. Primary studies use different research designs, data collection and analysis methods, which leads to a threat of validity of synthesis process. To reduce the variety in primary studies, we used an extraction form, which is driven by the research questions. The form had been initiated by studies in the initial pool and validated during the trial search process. Only studies that addressed at least two RQs made it through the first pilot review.

The next step was to eliminate sources that did not cover the European context. At this step, five sources made it through to be amongst the total of 91 studies included in this SLR. They are the following sources: 1) Solano, 2021, 2) Berntsen, de Lange, and Kalaš, 2021, 3) Harima, Freudenberg, Halberstadt, and Hanoeman 2020, 4) Bruzelius, 2020, and 5) Evansluong and Ramírez-Pasillas, 2019.

Select by title and abstract: we removed articles that clearly have no connection to the topic of migrant entrepreneurship, as well as those articles which clearly were beyond the scope of the European context. Here we excluded articles from the Kazakh, Russian and Turkish local contexts as well, given that most of the landmass of these three countries falls in Asia rather than in Europe, and given our expectations that the conditions surrounding migrant entrepreneurship support in these three countries would differ significantly from those of the rest of Europe, considering not only their geography, but their cultural traditions and political structures. By considering the three research questions as we moved forward, we could identify documents that did not cover aspects of migrant entrepreneurship such as characteristics, policies, support, challenges, and success factors. At this stage the authors reviewed the titles and abstracts to decide upon which articles to include and which to exclude. Figure 1 below displays the study selection process.

Geographical context was not always evident from the titles and journals. Thus, the authors recognize that in the next step they would need to check for geographical context in the abstracts. This process allowed us to eliminate 609 sources, leaving us with 201 documents for further scrutiny. At this stage the authors reviewed the titles and abstracts to decide on which articles to include and which to exclude.

Select by full text: when the selection could not be determined with abstract and titles, it was accomplished by reading full texts. Both authors assessed the papers and sought to understand migrant entrepreneurship support as an emerging line of research in the business literature and to understand the success factors and moderators of success. We looked for articles that would help answer the research questions based on the following list:

This stage of the review brought us to 108 articles for further scrutiny, with all publication years known and the oldest being from 1994, while 62 of the articles were published from 2018 to 2021. Sweden was the most frequently appearing European country, with 17 articles, followed by Italy at 11, and the United Kingdom at 10. Some articles also covered multiple countries and included European and non-European contexts. We also discovered a duplicate article within Scopus, with the same title, but published in two different journals. ‘A new career in a new town: Entrepreneurship among Syrian refugees in Germany and the Netherlands’, in both the International Journal of Entrepreneurship (Johnson and Shaw, 2019a) and the Journal of Legal, Ethical, and Regulatory issues (Johnson and Shaw, 2019b).

Further evaluation and selection: the next step was to read through all the articles whose geographical contexts were still unknown, and to include them only if they covered the European context. After sorting through the articles where the geographical context was not available in the abstract, we were able to eliminate another 10 sources. This brought us to 98 articles for further scrutiny with an updated list providing geographical context, with Sweden, UK, Germany, and Italy appearing most frequently. At this stage we went through further examination on the inclusion criteria and found that five of the articles were not close enough to the topic, which are:

We also detected one study which was not a peer-reviewed article and one study that was withdrawn from the published journal. Furthermore, for three articles we cannot access their full text from our universities, which are 1) ‘Diaspora Africans and entrepreneurial characteristics: A focus on Nigerians in the UK’, 2) ‘Self-employment work and small enterprises as channels of integration for immigrants: The case of the Province of Trent’, and 3) ‘Recent refugee migrations to Western Europe: asylum seekers and refugees in Italy and Greece’. In addition, our Scopus search included a book chapter from Female Immigrant Entrepreneurs: The Economic and Social Impact of a Global Phenomenon (Halkias et al., 2016b). After borrowing the book from the university library system, it emerged that the book contained four chapters which are relevant to this SLR, given that each separate chapter is devoted to a specific country context: Cyprus, Greece, France, and the United Kingdom. By adjusting this from single source to four separate sources, it raised the number of sources by three.

At the end of this step, we emerged with the final set of 91 peer-reviewed sources, of which 90 are in English and one is in Spanish.

3.4 Data collection process, data items, and bias assessment

The authors created a spreadsheet to record specific data items from the articles. These data items include the database from which the article was located (Scopus or Web of Science), the year published, the title, the unit(s) of analysis, the authors, the retrieval method (PDF, print, or loan from library), the host country/countries, the reason(s) for inclusion criteria, the source title (name of book, conference, or journal), the characteristics of the migrant entrepreneurs studied, the home country/countries (if mentioned) and whether the study focused on refugees, the policies and support mechanisms to help migrants succeed as entrepreneurs, the challenges migrants face in their host countries, theoretical framework(s) and/or key concepts, research type (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, or theory exploration), the abstract, author keywords, and document type (article, book chapter, or conference proceedings). The authors collected the above details and manually input them into the spreadsheet. No automation tools were used in this process. The authors took an inductive approach to explore the input from the 91 articles and it emerged from content of the article collection that a breakdown of financial, human, and social capital would provide a framework for analysis in terms of answering the research questions, building a conceptual framework, and sharing key takeaways with the readers. The authors created a table for each form of capital: financial, human, and social, and filled it in with the details from the articles. The authors went through the tables together to discuss the contents of the tables. Through a process of several meetings, the two authors worked on the tables so they would be compact and clear enough for specific details to emerge that help answer the three research questions:

The authors followed guidelines with a systematic approach to reduce individual bias and influence on the data selection process, so that others who follow the same search protocol and procedures outlined in this SLR’s sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, should achieve the same results.

3.5 Synthesis methods and reporting bias assessment

The authors coded each source from S1 to S91 and created a table for each of the three research questions. Table 7 refers to RQ1 and includes human and social capital as the characteristics mentioned in the primary studies. Table 8 refers to RQ2 and includes financial, human, and social capital, as well as external factors as challenges for migrant entrepreneurs. Table 9 refers to RQ3 and includes financial, human, and social capital, as well as external factors as supporting initiatives and policies for migrant entrepreneurs in Europe. Here the ethnic group itself is sometimes mentioned as having its own social capital and this is noted in Table 9. Therefore, during the scanning of the full texts, the authors identified relevant paragraphs and texts and labeled them with codes that refer to the three research questions, with one table for each research question to record the relevant information from all of the 91 sources included in the SLR. In addition, the authors created tables to record the distribution by country, categories of journals, list of conferences and journals appearing at least twice.

As for reporting bias assessment, Elshater and Abusaada (2022) emphasize that bias can hinder researchers from creating a proper roadmap for their literature reviews, and define bias as favoring or disapproving a particular topic or author’s perspective. To address these issues, during the synthesis process, the authors worked closely together iteratively by regularly revisiting the research questions, the Tables 7, 8, and 9 where the data was recorded in answer to the research questions, and discussed and returned to the primary studies. The authors updated the tables several times and agreed to add external factors to Tables 8 and 9 (challenges and support) in order to complement the three forms of capital that emerged from the sources: financial, human, and social capital. In addition, the authors merged some of the references to Bourdieu’s forms of capital, such as cultural and economic capital into this framework, with economic capital appearing as financial capital in the tables and the analysis, while cultural capital appears either as human or social capital, depending on the context.

4.1 Study characteristics

For each of the 91 studies included in this SLR, the authors created a unique identifier starting with the letter S for ‘study’ and a number from 1 to 91. The table displays the studies in chronological order from most recent to oldest, based on the order of appearance in the original Scopus search. The studies from Scopus are labeled with codes S1 to S86, followed by the same logic for sources from Web of Science, which received codes S87 to S91. Table 11 displays the codes S1 to S91, the authors and publication years, the host countries, the research type (qualitative, secondary qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, or theory exploration), the type of document (article, book, book chapter, or conference paper), the home countries (if mentioned) and other key characteristics of the migrant entrepreneurs studied (whether the study focused on refugees or a specific gender), and theoretical frameworks used if mentioned explicitly.

As for the distribution of the selected primary studies across geographical context, Table 3 demonstrates that some countries have a greater research interest in the topic of migrant entrepreneurship support than others. Sweden is not only the country that appears the most frequently in the European literature on migrant entrepreneurship support, but it was also the first country to appear in chronological order within our 91 sources, with a publication dating from 1994 (See Figure 2 for the distribution of publication years). It is also of merit to note that Sweden has a significantly smaller population than the next five countries that top the list in sources about migrant entrepreneurship. This means that Sweden alone represents more than 17 percent of the weight in the results of the SLR, despite representing just more than 2 percent of the population of the European Union. It is also worth noting that 11 of the 91 studies consider more than one country. For example, Solano (2021)’s study is a review of measures that foster migrant entrepreneurship in countries across the European Union and Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Figure 2. Distribution of primary studies over publication years.

Ten additional sources also cover multiple countries. 1) Wade (2020) studies the Fresh Start program and migrant education in Belgium, Netherlands and UK, 2) Glinka and Hensel (2020) provide an analytical framework from contexts of Belgium, Netherlands, Poland and USA, 3) Johnson and Shaw (2019) look specifically at Syrian refugees in Germany and the Netherlands, 4) Williams and Krasniqi (2018) explore human and social capital for migrant entrepreneurs from conflict zones and in several countries, mostly in the EU, 5) Eroğlu (2018) studies Turkish entrepreneurs in Western Europe, 6) Thandi and Dini (2010) use an interdependent perspective to examine secondary data of migrant entrepreneurship in Europe, 7) Van Delft, Gorter, and Nijkamp (2000) study comparative policy in various cities across six different European countries, 8) Širec and Tominc (2017) study growth determinants in 13 European countries, with an aim to cover less developed and more developed areas for comparative purposes, and 9) Bruzelius (2020) investigates local policy responses in Gothenburg, Hamburg, and Stockholm, for EU citizens moving to these locations. 10) Qin (2021) synthesizes the literature on cognitive dissonance, multiple embeddedness and hospitality to explain the implications on entrepreneurship and refugee business support in developed European economies.

In addition to discussing the geographical contexts of the host countries for studying phenomena surrounding migrant entrepreneurship support, we also wish to share some details about the nature of the studies in terms of gender, refugee status, and home country. Of the 91 studies, 41 were not specific to gender, refugees, or home country. In terms of home country focus, 23 of the studies were specific to a single home country, two of the sources studied two home countries, and 66 of the studies covered three or more home countries; in total 29 of the studies had a specific home country or set of home countries. The most frequent home country studied was Turkey, which appeared in seven of the studies, followed by Syria which appeared in four studies and Morocco and Pakistan which appeared in three studies each. Fourteen of the studies were specific to female entrepreneurs while one was a case study of a specific male Syrian refugee entrepreneur. An additional 16 sources investigated refugee entrepreneurs.

In Figure 2, we can see that the first publication is an outlier. This is the study by Najib (1994) on migrant entrepreneurship in Uppsala, Sweden, which was labeled in Scopus as an article but when borrowed from the university library system, it turned out to be a peer-reviewed booklet. We note that in the United States, there were studies published during the gap between 1994 and 2000, but none for Europe that met our inclusion criteria. This would demonstrate that while Sweden is at the vanguard of migrant entrepreneurship support in Europe, that Europe in general followed behind the uptick in migrant entrepreneurship support literature in the United States. Figure 2 shows several gaps in publications about migrant entrepreneurship support in Europe until 2006, at which point annual publications on the topic are the norm.

With Sweden as an outlier both in terms of its early arrival into the migrant entrepreneurship support literature, as well as with its volume of studies over time, it is worth looking into possible reasons for its prolific position. First of all, Sweden has high immigration rates compared to other European countries (Evansluong and Ramírez Pasillas, 2019). Backman, Lopez, and Rowe (2021) state that Sweden had the largest share of asylum seekers between 2002 and 2013, which is one aspect that could help explain the large volume of literature covering the Swedish context. Secondly, Sweden has specific integration policies that emphasize new arrival’s first job (Webster and Zhang, 2020), along with a rigid labor market and generous support system (Backman, Lopez, and Rowe, 2021), with government organizations providing dedicated advice about entrepreneurship to immigrants (Andersson, 2021; Högberg, Schölin, Ram, and Jones, 2016; Yazdanfar, Abbasian, and Brouder, 2015). A third factor is the change in immigration rules in 2015, where Sweden stopped recognizing credentials from the Middle East, thus resulting in higher rates of self-employment amongst impacted new arrivals (Barth and Zalkat, 2021).

When considering Table 3 for geographical patterns, taking the top six countries, which each have at least five sources dedicated to a single country: Sweden, United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Spain, it can be useful to compare them to gain further insights. For example, exclusive coverage of refugee entrepreneurship is absent from the examples from Spain, whereas an exclusive coverage of female entrepreneurship is absent from the examples from Germany. In-depth discussion on the topic of ethnic enclaves is also absent from the German sources, although ethnic communities and ethnic markets do provide context in the article by Bijedić and Piper (2019) and co-ethnic networks in the article by Meister and Mauer (2019) as well as ethnic communities, networks, and resources by Kontos (2003). Only Italy and the United Kingdom cover tech startups. The United Kingdom seems to have the highest rate of migrant entrepreneurship, with their rate being three times higher than native-born British (Osaghae and Cooney, 2020). Investigations into entrepreneurship in the agricultural sector appeared in the studies from Germany, Italy, and Sweden, while research on internationalization or transnational entrepreneurship appeared only in the articles from Italy and the Netherlands. Both Germany and Sweden have government organizations exclusively focusing on migrant entrepreneurship, and both countries have literature expressing concern of the ‘othering’ of migrants, creating an in-group/out-group and expectations of inferiority of migrant entrepreneurship compared to non-migrant entrepreneurship (Högberg, Schölin, and Ram, 2016; Mason, 2008; Rashid and Cepeda-García, 2021).

Of the 91 sources in this SLR, 81 are published in academic journals. Table 4 displays the categories of the journals where these articles have been published. We recognize that it is possible to classify some of the journals into more than one area and noticed that the greatest interest in the topic is from journals that focus on entrepreneurship. The authors developed their own journal categorization rather than using Scopus and Web of Science journal categories, because our coding recognizes the specific areas within management and social science fields to allow us to gauge publishing communities’ interest in migrant entrepreneurship support phenomena with more detail and to avoid an attempt at merging Scopus and WoS classification systems. For the journal classifications, which appear in Table 4, the authors checked specifically with the journal websites to read a description of the aims of each journal and created the categories based on these descriptions. While it is possible to classify some of the journals into more than one area, we noticed that the greatest interest in the topic is from journals that focus on entrepreneurship. Some disadvantages of our classification system are that we did not set clear boundaries since the categories overlap and are not mutually exclusive and there is some subjectivity in the authors’ interpretations of journal characteristics. However, we believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages because our classification allows for more detailed insight into the publishing communities that have an interest in migrant entrepreneurship support phenomena, allowing for a deeper understanding of the focus and alignment of journals covering the topic. In addition, our classification method allows for greater specificity to allow for a more nuanced understanding of which academic fields are covering migrant entrepreneurship support.

We see that most of the publications fit within the scope of the broader topic of management, which encompasses more specific areas such as entrepreneurship/business and human resources/organizational behavior. This means that 45 of the 91 sources are published in journals which fall under the topic of management, with 35 of the articles published in journals specific to entrepreneurship/business, five under human resources/organizational behavior, and five in journals that cover management issues on a broader level. The next two most common journal topics were immigration/ethnic studies and government/policy and immigration/ethnic studies with 13 articles and 12 articles respectively. The categories in Table 4 are not mutually exclusive, as there is much overlap between the categories. However, we aimed to be as specific as possible when larger volumes of articles are concerned, to demonstrate the range of scope from narrow to broad, based on the description of each journal. Table 4 covers only journal articles, which comprise 81 of the 91 sources in the SLR. Nine of the remaining sources consist of articles from conference proceedings and book chapters (Bashir, 2018; Hartmann and Schilling, 2018; Mason, 2008; Ong and Freeman, 2017; Szczygiel et al., 2020), with four of those book chapters published in Halkias et al. (2016b), and the final source is a peer-reviewed study from Uppsala University (Najib, 1994).

In Table 5, we see a list of conferences and journals that have published at least two of the 91 sources included in this study. Note that the most frequently appearing source, with five articles, is the International Migration, which is published on behalf of the International Organization for Migration. This is a social science journal with a worldwide geographical scope that covers the gamut of policy regarding international migration concerns (“International Migration Journal Overview,” 2023).

4.2 Data extraction and analysis

To synthesize findings and categorize studies based on their scope, an analysis of the different research streams was performed. The first step was to identify the relevant information from each study, using the authors’ original terms. The key information was then organized in a spreadsheet to enable comparison across studies and translation of findings into higher-order interpretations. The following information were extracted: information of the authors and meta-data of the paper, research objective, research method, research type (qualitative/quantitative/mixed), theories and frameworks and how they were applied, the sample size, the instruments used (e.g., surveys, interviews, observations) main findings, characteristics of migrant entrepreneurs, their challenges, supporting policies (and their effect). Regular working sessions were conducted by the two co-authors during the data extraction and synthesis step.

For extracting answers for RQs, we adopted a tailored thematic analysis with open coding, where the researchers decide which data to extract from the studies by following the research questions with the process to assemble the findings from the set of studies to draw conclusions (Popay et al., 2006). Of the goals for narrative synthesis outlined by Popay et al., (2006) that we have identified as key for this SLR, are: 1) developing a preliminary synthesis from the 91 studies’ findings and 2) exploring relationships within the data. The authors went through all the papers, extracted the relevant text, and labelled them (open coding). The labels were then renamed and merged across articles, resulting in a united set of first-order code. After that, the codes were grouped in a higher-order code scheme, which are then mapped into answers for RQs. This process is outlined in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Data synthesis steps.

4.3 Threats to validity

One common threat to systematic literature reviews is not to discover all relevant studies. The reason not to cover all seed studies may be that the search ranges in multiple disciplines, such as Information Systems, entrepreneurship, and business research and innovation management. To reduce this threat, we adopted a quite generic search protocol to retrieve as many documents as possible. This search protocol is outlined in this SLR’s sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 and is aimed to reduce individual bias, so others who follow the same protocol would achieve the same results. A relevant study may be misclassified into a removal group during the selection process and vice versa. To reduce the bias in selection of papers, we defined the review protocol with clear inclusion and exclusion criteria for each selection phases. Although the protocol was not reviewed by an independent reviewer, which would have added rigor to the review process, one of the co-authors has extensive experience in conducting secondary studies, which could reduce procedural risks. Prior to applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the two reviewers conducted a pilot review, as outlined in section 3.3 of this SLR.

In the pursuit of a comprehensive SLR, it is imperative to acknowledge and address potential sources of bias inherent within the studies themselves that comprise the SLR. The integrity of our synthesis is inherently contingent upon the methodological rigor and quality of the individual studies under review. Therefore, we recognize that the robustness of our findings cannot surpass the caliber of the selected primary studies. In our evaluation of the studies included in this SLR, a primary concern is the potential for bias to influence the outcomes and conclusions presented, due to the inclusion of studies with deficiencies in study design, participant selection, data collection and/or analytical procedures. Given that 81 of the 91 sources are from peer-reviewed journals and that the other sources also went through peer-review prior to publication, we believe our synthesis represents the overall quality of the studies selected.

5.1 RQ1: What are the characteristics of migrant entrepreneurs investigated in primary studies, in the European context?

5.1.1 Characteristics of migrant entrepreneurs in Europe

When discussing the characteristics of migrant entrepreneurs in Europe, it makes sense to revisit the definitions from the beginning of this SLR. We view migrant entrepreneurs as foreign born, following the definition by Dheer (2018), who writes they can “identify, create and exploit economic opportunities to start new ventures in their destination nations” (p. 558). We also mentioned that some of the literature uses the term immigrant entrepreneur while other literature uses the term migrant entrepreneur and that both terms are relevant to this SLR. A large number of studies included in our SLR did not explicitly share a definition of entrepreneur or accompanying adjectives such as ‘migrant’ or ‘immigrant’. Several sources in our SLR did not use the terms migrant entrepreneur or immigrant entrepreneur. They instead either used the term diaspora entrepreneur, ethnic entrepreneur, refugee entrepreneur, or referred to entrepreneurs by their home country. It was often the case that sources with a broader coverage of migrant entrepreneurship or immigrant entrepreneurship did not provide an explicit definition of these terms, despite using them as a focus in their studies. The sources that were most explicit with their definitions are listed on Table 6. Some of the definitions clash with ours, because we do not include second generation immigrants, who are born in the host country, as migrant entrepreneurs. Moreover, “country of origin,” as used by Širec and Tominc (2017), could be subject to interpretation. We also note that most of the 91 sources do not include explicit definitions on migrant or immigrant entrepreneurship. Table 6 displays an overview of the definitions. It is possible to categorize the characteristics revealed in the studies, into those that are unique to migrant entrepreneurs and those that apply to all entrepreneurs. Frequently studied characteristics that apply to all entrepreneurs include formal education, prior vocational experience, sector of business activity, gender, age, nationality, reasons for becoming an entrepreneur, marital status, and parental status. 10 of the studies that focus on migrant background investigate differences between first- and second-generation migrants and sometimes even into the third generation. This is not within the scope of this literature review, which only is concerned with first-generation migrants.

Previous entrepreneurship literature follows the line of thought from Bourdieu (1984) by looking at the impacts of forms of capital on the establishment and maintenance of a business. Inspired by the cultural, economic, social, and symbolic capital of Bourdieu (1984), the studies covered in this SLR show a shift into three distinct forms of capital that frequently appear often in assessment of starting and running a business: financial, human, and social capital (Baklanov et al., 2014; Eroğlu, 2018; Grubbström and Joosse, 2021) . The concept of social capital is also inspired by Granovetter (1973) whose seminal work, The Strength of Weak Ties, researches how bridges across social networks relate to social mobility and social cohesion. Basit (2017) also cites Granovetter (1985) and Uzzi (1997, 1999), to share how social embeddedness is a framework by which to study economic activity, from which researchers investigate how social relations shape entrepreneurial activities and outcomes. Several sources in the SLR stress the importance of support mechanisms that build up both weak and strong ties, including Bouk, Vedder and Poel (2013), Harima et al. (2020), and Noor (2021). Waldinger (1995) also played an important role in earlier literature on social capital in migrant entrepreneurship, with his study on the construction industry in New York City, and is cited sources in the SLR by Bagwell (2008) and Barth and Zalkat (2020). This SLR uses the categories of financial, human, and social capital to classify the characteristics gathered from the studies. The literature stream considers primarily the positive impacts of the social capital from one’s ethnic group, as we did not encounter many pitfalls mentioned by Portes and Landolt (2000). However, the study by Andersson (2021), which is included in this SLR, does mention that entrepreneurship by new arrivals can depend on the extent of entrepreneurial engagement by co-ethnics already in the host-country. Andersson (2012) and another study included in the SLR, by García, Molina, and Lubbers (2014) also mention that ethnic enclaves can slow down the integration process and new arrivals’ ability to learn the host country’s culture and language.

For the sake of this study, emphasis is on the characteristics specific to migrant entrepreneurs rather than entrepreneurs in general. Table 7 shows the key factors studied. It is worth noting that the social capital factors are those that are the most specific to migrant entrepreneurs. The implication is that it is important for migrants to learn the local language and establish social capital by learning the local culture and by building up a local network, to establish and operate a business in the host country. It is also evident that it is more difficult for migrants to move to the host country and immediately start a business unless they already have business experience or relevant experience from their home countries (Barth and Zalkat, 2021). The more time a migrant spends in the host country, the easier it appears to establish and run a business in the host country.

5.1.2 Human capital

As mentioned in the background of this article, migrant entrepreneurs are people who have moved to a different country and have started businesses there, and they have an array of backgrounds and offer a unique set of characteristics, experiences, and skills to run their businesses.

Table 7 shows human capital factors that differentiate migrant entrepreneurs from native entrepreneurs. One of these factors is whether migrant entrepreneurs obtain their work experience in the home country or the host country. Mixed-country work experience can provide migrant entrepreneurs with unique perspectives on how to conduct business in cultural and economic environments and offer advantages by helping bridge gaps between the home country and the host country (Bolzani and Boari, 2018; Van Delft et al., 2000). In this respect migrant entrepreneurs have some advantages over native entrepreneurs, provided that they are embedded with the cultural norms and social networks of both the home and host country (Bolzani and Boari, 2018; Meister and Mauer, 2019). As with work experience in the host country, qualifications from the host country are also an important consideration. When a migrant entrepreneur has obtained educational qualifications and certifiable skillsets in the host country, such credentials not only help establish individuals as experts in their fields, but when the credentials are from the host country, it demonstrates a higher level of local embeddedness which means a larger local network and greater understanding of the local bureaucracy and regulations, which in turn can ease the processes of starting and running a business in the host country. Along these lines, the length of time in the host country and ability in the host country language are all key characteristics which contribute to this local embeddedness and higher level of local understanding, and which also appear on Table 7. Examples include a deeper understanding of the local market (Szczygiel et al., 2020) and a greater likelihood of established relationships with key players in the community. On the other hand, those who are newer to the country may have a fresh perspective and may be more open to trying new things. Whereas local language competence eases communications with customers and clients and may be more successful in building relationships within the community (Nijhoff, 2021). It also means that migrant entrepreneurs will be able to compete on a service level rather than merely on price (Valenzuela-García et al., 2014).

5.1.3 Social capital

Some migrants arrive in their host country with more social capital than others. As mentioned in the background section of this article, there are many reasons why people move to another country. Of the eight articles that explore this area further, the motivations for migration include one investigation of “lifestyle migrants” who have chosen to immigrate to a new country not primarily for economic reasons, but rather for personal or lifestyle reasons (Munkejord, 2017a). These entrepreneurs may be drawn to the country for its culture, climate, or other non-economic factors, and may be more interested in starting businesses that reflect their personal interests and passions. Seventeen studies focus on refugee entrepreneurship, where the motivation to move to another country is to flee dangerous conditions in the host country. This is also known as forced migration. The forced migration studies by Qin (2021) and Harima and Freudenberg (2020) are listed on Table 7 for their contributions. Harima et al., (2020) add that while entrepreneurship can be a path for the vocational integration of refugees, they need special support beyond what native entrepreneurs would require. Along with motivations for migration, it follows that scholars are interested in knowing whether people were joining family in the host country, entering the host country with others, or traveling alone.

An important part of building social capital is having legal status in the host country, with citizenship status being the highest level of inclusion. Legal status also frequently appears in the literature. When migrant entrepreneurs lack legal status, it means they are engaging in the underground economy with implications of missed tax revenue for the host country and missing social welfare benefits and protections for the migrant entrepreneurs. When considering legal status, it is also the case that some countries do not allow asylum seekers or refugees to work or engage in entrepreneurship until certain conditions are met (Lintner and Elsen, 2020). This can have severe implications on the integration process, especially if the migrants are kept apart from the host society in isolated processing centers or shelters for extended periods of time. Another study focuses on the European Union (EU) movement of people which makes it easy for EU citizens to gain legal status in other EU member states (Bruzelius, 2020).

A final social capital factor to note is the location in the host country. Some of the studies explore comparative relationships between different locations within the same host country. In some host country communities, a town or city may have a strong ethnic enclave in place (Andersson, 2021). Results show that ethnic enclaves frequently play a role on migrant entrepreneurship activities. For example, there may be an inclination to imitate other co-ethnics who appear to be successful entrepreneurs in a specific industry (Andersson, 2021). On one hand, co-ethnics may be able to help introduce and explain the host culture, society, and regulations to new arrivals and opportunities exist for migrant entrepreneurs to leverage the co-ethnic network to access the market of their co-ethnics (Van Delft et al., 2000). On the other hand, ethnic enclaves can also have an effect of slowing the integration process by hindering the speed at which new arrivals learn the local language and have contact with native society (Andersson, 2021; Valenzuela-García et al., 2014).

5.2 RQ2: What do we know about challenges that migrants face as entrepreneurs in European host countries?

Several challenges discussed in the literature are not specific to migrant entrepreneurs; these include issues with private life, gender discrimination, competition, marketing issues, and problems with advisors and lack of them, as well as a range of insufficiencies, including professional experience, skills and training, access to resources such as personnel, real estate, and financing. Financing, however, can be more central of an issue to migrant entrepreneurs than to native entrepreneurs, due to higher unemployment rates, a lack of access to bank loans, greater financial uncertainty, and difficulty in receiving funding from mainstream banks. As pertaining specifically to migrant entrepreneurs, Table 8 highlights the main points from the literature. The most frequently mentioned challenges specific to migrant entrepreneurs include discrimination and a lack of the following: cultural and social understanding, local network, proficiency in the local language, understanding local laws and regulations, and legal status in the host country.

5.2.1 Social capital

Table 8 highlights the social capital factors that are challenges migrants face as entrepreneurs in European host countries. Here, lack of cultural understanding frequently appears as a challenge. This challenge can arise in several contexts, whether from the lack of understanding refugee resettlement policies in the host country (Qin, 2021), the creation of in-group/out-groups (Rashid and Cepeda-García, 2021), or a general disadvantage in establishing an enterprise in the host country (Bolzani and Boari, 2018). In addition, Meister and Mauer (2019) and Qin (2021) postulate that refugee entrepreneurs face a greater lack of social capital than other migrant entrepreneurs, which would require a specific support model for them, which is the case for the Fresh Start Programme, which also finds that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach for migrant entrepreneurship in various settings within Europe (Wade, 2020). Discrimination by the host community is another frequently mentioned challenge that migrant entrepreneurs face; this results in missed opportunities (Solano, 2021). Initiatives from civil society to increase contact between native and migrant populations can help build cross-cultural familiarity and reduce discrimination (Embiricos, 2020). Meister and Mauer (2019) focus on the refugee context and point out that discrimination creates a lack of trust that is a part of an overall negative societal perception of refugees, with the greater implications being limited socio-economic involvement and lack of engagement in the legal-institutional environment of the host country. Lack of network with natives in the host country is also frequently mentioned. Van Delft et al., (2000) note that this can lead to migrant entrepreneurs’ exclusion from the mainstream economic activity of the host country.

5.2.2 Human capital

Challenges in the area of human capital are also frequently mentioned in the literature. Lack of proficiency in the language of the host country is the most frequently mentioned issue. This has implications such as communicating with customers, suppliers, submitting tenders, ability to negotiate, and ability to comply with local laws, regulations, and tax regimes. Such issues are also frequently mentioned in the literature as a challenge for migrant entrepreneurs. In addition, lack of credentials can prevent entrepreneurs from being able to operate in areas of their expertise if their qualifications are not recognized in the host country. Lack of resources can fall into the human capital arena, either on an individual or ethnic group level. In other cases, the issue can fall under financial capital, as mentioned in the next paragraph.

5.2.3 Financial capital

Lack of resources in the financial capital area include lack of money, difficulty to afford housing, and lack of access to financing. Migrants face higher unemployment rates than the native population (Evansluong and Ramírez-Pasillas, 2019; Szczygiel et al., 2020) which can lead to a lack of financial capital. Barth and Zalkat (2020) point out a lack of financial expertise is also an issue for many migrant entrepreneurs. Financial training, while falling under the human capital area in the previous section, is an important consideration for policy makers and practitioners when looking at funding a new migrant entrepreneurship venture. Meister and Mauer (2019) emphasize that forced migrants are likely to face a lack of financial capital due to the nature of suddenly fleeing from their home country. In a study of migrant entrepreneurship support programs across six European cities, Van Delft et al., (2000) find that despite the financial challenges that migrant entrepreneurs face, programs that emphasize education and training appear to be the most successful, which reinforces the view that financial support should come after ensuring that human capital reaches a sufficient level for migrants to establish and run a business.

5.2.4 External factors

External factors are an issue when a migrant has refugee status, because of specific constraints such as rules that do not allow refugees to become entrepreneurs. If integration programs direct migrants to find a job and do not consider the individual desires and motivations of the migrants, who may be interested in entrepreneurship, then this can be a challenge that hinders entrepreneurship (de Lange et al., 2021; Harima and Freudenberg, 2020; Wade, 2020).

5.3 RQ3: What do we know about reported policies as support mechanisms for migrant entrepreneurship in the European context?

Financial capital initiatives include bank loans, donations, subsidies, and tax relief, with general access to finance, funding, or financial support most often mentioned in the literature. Human capital initiatives include programs that will help aspiring migrant entrepreneurs pass the necessary training for required certifications to operate in their chosen industry, entrepreneurial and language training, co-development between small migrant enterprises and larger companies, and specific support for internationalization. Social capital initiatives build cultural understanding, network, and provide helpful information about entrepreneurial support that is available locally and nationally. Table 9 shows that entrepreneurial training, language training and mentoring are the main activities as human capital support; the table also includes a number of external factors which are “opportunity structures” divided into market, regulatory, and state categories (Berntsen et al., 2021).

5.3.1 Human capital

Table 9 displays various human capital factors to consider for migrant entrepreneurship support initiatives and policies. Education and training, followed by mentorship and advice are the most commonly cited areas of support, followed by language training. The literature shows evidence that to establish and run a business in the host country, migrant entrepreneurs require adequate education and a relevant skillset to navigate the complexities of the local bureaucracy, tax rules, legal issues, and accountancy, in addition to the marketing know-how, resource management and leadership skills required to run a business. Research by Nijhoff (2021) in the Netherlands demonstrates that the issues of language and local bureaucratic complexities should be the first foundations to cover for migrant entrepreneurship support programs. Backman et al., (2021) also place language learning as a priority, in addition to cultural training to learn about the host country society. Beyond these foundations, relevant education and training can help to bring aspiring migrant entrepreneurs to a level of self-sufficiency to help them manage their businesses. Mentorship and business advice are also helpful to fill in knowledge gaps and to answer questions for specific areas where migrant entrepreneurs may need extra help. Although we see evidence that language learning is a cornerstone component in the journey of a migrant entrepreneur, it is less mentioned as a support area in the literature that is covered in the present SLR, and instead appears most often as a characteristic that is required to run a business in a new country. Wade (2020) emphasizes the need for language support and intercultural training to be a part of entrepreneurial support programs that are specific for migrant entrepreneurs, such as the case with the Fresh Start Programme.

5.3.2 Social capital

In Table 9, there are also social capital factors to consider for migrant entrepreneurship support initiatives and policy, with lack of local networks being a frequently mentioned factor. To set up and operate a new venture in the host country, migrant entrepreneurs will benefit from a local network comprised of both weak and strong ties (Bouk, Vedder, and Poel, 2013). One way that migrant entrepreneurs can build up both weak and strong ties is by joining a local accelerator (Noor, 2021), with Harima et al., (2020) and Meister and Mauer (2019) providing extra emphasis on business incubators for refugee entrepreneurs that explicitly incorporate the need for understanding and tapping into social capital in the host country. Bouk et al., (2013) examine the differences between strong and weak ties for migrant entrepreneurs and find that strong ties provide the key resources during the startup phase for those who have a network of entrepreneurs already in the host country. When migrant entrepreneurs’ business network in the host country is missing, they find that migrant entrepreneurs should build up weak ties to help them in the initial phases of their business journey. Research by Colombelli et al., (2021) shows that successful entrepreneurs as role models who are the same gender as the individual just starting out are also important. Therefore, entrepreneurial support programs should take this into consideration. Entrepreneurial support programs should also consider whether the migrant entrepreneur is married to a local of the host country, since there is an existing set of weak and strong ties from the local network of the spouse (Munkejord, 2017b). Furthermore, research by Mason (2008) demonstrates the need for entrepreneurship support initiatives to be bottom-up, that is to say, originating from the migrants themselves, because the research shows that top-down initiatives do not help migrant entrepreneurs create a viable business within a reasonable time frame, while Lyon et al., (2007) shows that entrepreneurship support should consider the individual social context of migrant entrepreneurs as well, since this leads to different qualities of entrepreneurship within a local host economy, regardless of ethnicity. Additionally, research by Van Delft et al., (2000) leads to the concern that migrant entrepreneurship support’s emphasis is on exploiting economic potential rather than focusing on the problems that migrants face when entering labor markets in their host countries. In this respect, it is important to consider other factors of social capital that appear in this SLR, such as training about the local culture and society (Johnson and Shaw, 2019; Qin, 2021) as well as providing emotional support (Hagos et al., 2019; A. Harima, Freudenberg, and Halberstadt, 2020).

5.3.3 Financial capital

Financial capital is another part of migrant entrepreneurship support initiatives which frequently appears in the literature. Research by Kontos (2003) shows that a specific support policy in Germany, known as a ‘bridging allowance scheme’ to finance the stabilization phase of a new business, appears to be of greatest benefit to female migrant entrepreneurs, who have been socialized toward self-employment.

5.3.4 External factors

Berntsen et al., (2021) suggest that we can break external factors into three “opportunity structures”: 1) market, 2) regulation, and 3) state. Of these three opportunity structures, those taking place at the state level appear most frequently in the literature, in particular concerning immigration and differentiated assimilation policies. Initiatives such as entrepreneurship visas for qualifying individuals (Noor, 2021) and the European Union’s free movement policies (Bruzelius, 2020) are examples of immigration policies that help qualifying migrant entrepreneurs to establish and run a business in the host country. As for market opportunity structures, a couple of articles provide examples of how new digital platforms have helped migrant entrepreneurs to access customers and formulate pricing models (Wang and Chen, 2021; Webster and Zhang, 2020). Examples of regulation opportunity structures include childcare services for women entrepreneurs (Bashir, 2018; Ozasir-Kacar and Essers, 2021) and educating banks to help migrant entrepreneurs with financing (Piperopoulos, 2010).

7.1 A conceptual framework of migrant entrepreneurship support

Figure 4 displays some of the key reflections from the findings relating to our research questions.

Figure 4. Conceptual framework that reflects the findings from the research questions.

On the left of the figure, supporting policies encompass key areas that migrant entrepreneurs require to establish, maintain, and grow a business in the host countries. These support areas cover the range of financial, human, and social capital. Evidence shows that cultural and language training are the first foundations necessary prior to building up the remaining support areas. The support then helps migrant entrepreneurs to face the challenges that the literature emphasizes, starting with cultural and language understanding and then tackling other areas such as acquiring local credentials, understanding local regulations, and building up a local network. Consideration of the migrant entrepreneurs’ previous professional and entrepreneurial experience and educational experience are key when considering what kind of entrepreneurial support to offer. Two key issues that also need to be considered are discrimination and legal status, which along with a migrant entrepreneur’s home country origin, have an impact on the path forward as migrant entrepreneurs. To this extent it is important to individualize the entrepreneurial support offered rather than lumping migrant entrepreneurs into one single group. This may help avoid an in-group/out-group scenario and may help overcome issues discrimination. The idea is that entrepreneurial support will then assist migrant entrepreneurs to establish and run a business that will help them become economically independent and contribute to the economies and societies of their host countries.

7.2 Implications for practitioners

For those running entrepreneurship support programs, it is important to include clear goals for the programs and to include metrics to evaluate their effectiveness according to the desired goals of the program. A takeaway from this SLR is that improved business performance would be a logical desired outcome for entrepreneurship program participants. So setting up ways to track improved business performance in terms of number of employees and profits are examples of metrics that can accomplish that. Other considerations are the catalysts that help generate improved business performance. Indications are that transnational entrepreneurship, defined as business taking place across national borders (Drori, Honig, and Wright, 2009) would be worth instilling into entrepreneurship support program participants long-term plans because transnational enterprises are more profitable than other forms of migrant entrepreneurship (Solano, 2016). The IntEnt non-profit incubator investigated in the Riddle, Hrivnak, Nielsen (2010) had the uniqueness of being dedicated to transnational diaspora entrepreneurship. Wang and Liu (2015) found that transnational firms have higher payroll per employee than other firms, regardless of whether the other firms are migrant or non-migrant. Entrepreneurship support programs can benefit from the findings by Meister and Mauer (2019) by providing access to network and resources to fill the gaps in structural constraints that migrant entrepreneurs experience in their host country, with the long-term aim of helping participants achieve transnational entrepreneurship.

7.3 Implications for policy makers

This study provides some thoughts for further investigation of key issues in the field which can help academics, policymakers, and practitioners, such as: 1) how to measure the levels of human and social capital that are optimal, prior to providing financial support? 2) how to incorporate human and social capital into entrepreneurial support programs? 3) how to balance human and social capital with the financial needs (employment/entrepreneurship) of migrants, within the integration processes of new arrivals into host countries? 4) how to help migrants become aware of the options open to them upon arrival into their host countries that will allow them to enhance human and social capital and allow them to reach their potential in their host countries to integrate culturally, economically, and socially? 5) how to properly assess migrants for their extent of human and social capital to help them fill in the gaps and/or support them in their efforts to become entrepreneurs? And 6) how to introduce a bottom-up approach to take into consideration the needs and wishes of the migrants themselves to support them on their entrepreneurial journeys?

7.4 Implications for future research

Moving forward, this review can also help scholars to formulate new research questions that contribute to the development of the fields of migration and entrepreneurship support, which will become ever more relevant as people continue to move to Europe or change countries within Europe. It is of merit to note that three of the sources also raise the question about whether the very construction of ‘migrant entrepreneurship’ creates an otherness which perpetuates stereotypes via the comparison to local/native entrepreneurs. There is a danger of lumping immigrants together in one group despite their uniqueness and individual differences (Högberg et al., 2016; Mason, 2008), which can create an in-group/out-group scenario (Rashid and Cepeda-García, 2021). An additional three sources (see Table 8) also touched on this by pointing out that uniform integration policies are not effective and that individual needs, including home country origins, need to be taken into consideration (Bijedic and Piper, 2019; Hartmann and Schilling, 2018; Ram et al., 2013). Moving forward, future research could investigate these issues and examine how to address the needs of migrant entrepreneurs while recognizing the uniqueness of each individual.

Our findings allowed us to propose a research agenda for practitioners and scholars to consider, along the lines of 1) facilitating human and social capital, 2) information sharing, 3) assessing human and social capital, 4) entrepreneurial support programs, 5) in-group / out-group bias in entrepreneurial support, and 6) a bottom-up approach to migrant entrepreneurship support. Table 10 provides an overview of potential research questions for these six research directions. Along the lines of point 1, facilitating human and social capital, the issue is to contribute to entrepreneurship outcomes which lead to employment and economic growth, rather than illegal entrepreneurship activities or low-margin businesses where migrant entrepreneurs compete only on price and work extremely long hours with low pay. As for point 2, information sharing, the key is helping migrants understand options available to them, that will help them learn the local language, customs, rules, regulations, educational and training opportunities, both inside and outside of entrepreneurship support. Regarding point 3, the concern is with how to assess the human and social capital of migrants to provide them with opportunities to help them build human and social capital in the host country. An example of a tool to help assess social capital is the Position Generator by Chen and Tan (2009), to gain an overview of a migrant’s network quality in both the home and host countries. Human capital can be assessed not only by diplomas and certifications, but also by testing for skillsets required for certain forms of employment and entrepreneurship. Concerning point 4, entrepreneurial support programs, there can be issues where attendees lack human and social capital, as well as motivation, to succeed at entrepreneurship. This is why it is important to assess for these factors and consider restricting access to entrepreneurial support programs unless certain conditions are met. With respect to point 5, several of the studies in our SLR raise concern that migrants are lumped into one category instead of being treated as individuals. It is worth investigating the extent that migrant entrepreneurship initiatives perpetuate stereotypes and create an in-group/out-group phenomenon, and to look at cases where migrants and natives can benefit from participating together in the same cohort of an entrepreneurship support program. As for point 6, since there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to entrepreneurial support, it would merit studies that include approaches such as co-creation (Torfing, Sørensen, & Røiseland, 2016; Van Praag, 2021), that adopt the input of the migrants themselves into how to design an entrepreneurial support program to best suit their needs.