Does it really matter? Understanding the impact of engagement and
beliefs on immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurship.
H.P. de Vries
Department of Management, Marketing and Entrepreneurship
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, New Zealand
Corresponding author: herb.devries@canterbury.ac.nz
ABSTRACT
This research considers the importance of ethnic minority immigrant entrepreneurs’
engagement within and beliefs surrounding their host country experiences, and how this
impacts on entrepreneurial action. The relevance of such research is highlighted by an ever
increasingly global economy and as a consequence greater emphasis has been placed on
understanding the entrepreneurial behaviour of persons moving across cultural, economic
and national borders. This paper is derived from a grounded theory study of narratives from
ethnic minority immigrant entrepreneurs in New Zealand, and resulted in a conceptual
framework which considers the impact of engagement and beliefs on actions within the
entrepreneurial process. The conclusion of this study is that there is an interdependent
relationship which warrants further investigation and this paper offers insights into that
relationship and a framework for further empirical study.
Key Words: ethnic minority, immigrant entrepreneurs, beliefs, engagement.
INTRODUCTION
In an effort to understand entrepreneurial behaviours within ethnic minority immigrant
communities the current literature has predominantly focused on their action orientation, as in
their social and economic engagement with the host country environment. Studies have
examined diverse issues such as immigrant entrepreneurs’ business entry practices (Zhou,
2004), mixed embeddedness (Kloosterman, Van de Leun, & Rath, 1999) blocked mobility
(Piperopoulos, 2010), and agency (Ram, Jones, Edwards, & Nitu, 2013). This engagement
with the host environment has often been considered from a process perspective such as the
entrepreneurial timeframe espoused by Waldinger, Howard, Ward, & associates (1990).
However, scarce consideration has been given to the specific way an immigrant ethnic
minority entrepreneur’s beliefs surroundings their host country experiences impact on their
entrepreneurial decisions and actions.
The relevance of expanding our understanding of entrepreneurial research is
highlighted by an ever increasingly global economy, where there are greater movements of
products, services and labour worldwide. As a consequence greater emphasis has been placed
on understanding the entrepreneurial behaviour of persons moving across cultural, economic
and national borders (Levent, Masurel, & Nijkamp, 2003). Furthermore a major conclusion of
the literature on ethnic minorities is that entrepreneurship is a significant form of economic
activity (Clark & Drinkwater, 2010), and a promising springboard for immigrants’ social
integration (Hiebert, 2003). This paper builds on research into the entrepreneurial activities
1
within immigrant ethnic minority groups, and is derived from a grounded theory study (de
Vries & Hamilton, 2013) undertaken in New Zealand: a prominent migrant receiving country
with well-established ethnic minority communities.
The study’s principal findings drew conclusions on the nature of immigrant ethnic
minority entrepreneurs’ embeddedness in four constructs – migration, settlement, identity and
business - that impacted on the propensity for enterprise formation within different ethnic
communities. Further discovery, based on grounded theory principles, resulted in a
conceptual model that represents immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurs’ engagement
(participation and involvement in society) and beliefs (assumptions of their world); and
considered the influence of these variables on the four constructs and the ensuing
entrepreneurial actions. This paper draws conclusions on the later findings by outlining an
emergent theory which argues that during the entrepreneurial process the immigrant ethnic
minority entrepreneurs are influenced by both their beliefs regarding: their environment,
relationships and self, and their social and economic engagement. The paper concludes with a
conceptual framework and offers some insight into how and when beliefs and engagement
may influence entrepreneurial actions, and recommends that further study be undertaken to
test and refine the findings.
LITERATURE
Ethnic entrepreneurship can be defined as “business activities in a certain area driven or
undertaken by people of a different ethnic or cultural origin than the indigenous population”
(Masurel, Nijkamp, & Vindigni, 2004, p. 78). Research in this field has a comparatively short
history (Barrett, Jones, McEvoy, & McGoldrick, 2002), yet its rise in prominence is reflected
in the increasing number of foreign ethnic minority migrants in urban and rural environments
who choose enterprise formation as a means of self-actualisation (Masurel et al., 2004).
Immigration has generally been considered as economically and socially expansionary
(Chapple, Gorbey, & Yeabsley, 1994; Daniels, Radebaugh, & Sullivan, 2002; Elliott & Gray,
2000; Poot, 1993; Watts, White, & Trlin, 2004; Yeabsley, 1997) and has played a significant
role in the development of entrepreneurial activity within migrant receiving countries (Rath &
Kloosterman, 2003). A further conclusion of the literature is that entrepreneurship is a
promising springboard for immigrant ethnic minorities’ social integration (Hiebert, 2003).
Yet other studies have argued that it is an economic backwater, with ethnic minority
entrepreneurs operating into poorly rewarded sectors (Clark & Drinkwater, 2010).
Subsequently, researchers have placed emphasis on understanding the entrepreneurial
processes involved with persons moving across national borders into different cultural and
economic settings (Levent et al., 2003), and therefore stressing the importance of
understanding their transitional behaviours (Davidson, Low, & Wright, 2001) and its
environmental context (Clydsdale, 2008) in explaining the entrepreneurial actions of creating
and sustaining business ventures (Morris, 2002).
Masurel et al. (2004) alluded to a combination of cultural and structural approaches
that play a decisive role in the entrepreneurial process (p.79). They drew attention to the
importance of ethnic minority entrepreneurs’ engagement with both the host country and their
ethnic community’s cultural norms. Waldinger et al. (1990) had previously argued the
importance of migration history. They stated that each cultural group has a unique mix of premigration, migration, and post migration characteristics, and that this mix sets the parameters
for economic participation. A further contribution offered by Kloosterman et al. (1999)
2
suggested that immigrant entrepreneurs could only be understood effectively by taking into
account a concept of “mixed embeddedness”, which encompasses both their embeddedness in
social networks (their own formal and informal engagement), and their embeddedness in the
socio-economic and politico-institutional environment of the country of settlement. These
researchers recognised that immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurial activity cannot occur in
a vacuum. Instead it is a process deeply embedded in cultural and social activities (Krueger &
Brazeal, 1994). In practice the literature points to major variables such as limited employment
opportunities, blocked mobility, rates of unemployment, marriage, family, gender, enclaving,
length of time in a country, and rates of higher education, as influencing the business
formation outcomes (Basu, 2004; Clark & Drinkwater, 2010; Collins, 2003; de Vries &
Kantor, 2012; Hammarstedt, 2004; Hiebert, 2003; Ram, 1997; Smallbone, Ram, Deakins, &
Baldcock, 2003; Zhou, 2004). In any case, each immigrant ethnic minority group has its own
unique mix of pre-migration, migration, and post migration characteristics, and this
combination sets the parameters of their economic engagement (Waldinger et al., 1990).
Overall the literature stresses the understanding of the immigrant ethnic minority
entrepreneurs’ behavioural patterns whilst engaging with the opportunity structures of the
host country. By engagement we refer to the act of participating or becoming involved in the
host environment. Many of these behaviours are very context bound and offer greater
understanding of ethnic specific or country specific engagement (e.g. Smallbone, Bertotti &
Ekanem, 2005). However, this paper contends that how these entrepreneurs engage with their
social and economic surroundings is only part of the equation, as current literature does not
differentiate the engagement patterns from immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurs’ beliefs
regarding self and their surroundings.
Beliefs have been defined as part of a person’s cognitive organisation and
understanding of important concepts, entities and relationship in their life; in essence their
assumptions of the world (Nicholson & Wong, 2001). Similarly Smith, Caputi, and
Crittenden (2012) in their study of women’s glass ceiling beliefs used the term broadly in
stating that attitude and opinion are interchangeable with belief. Lingis (2012) cited Geertz,
1973 as referring to beliefs as a way of looking at life and a means of construing a picture of
the world. Lingis goes further to suggest that belief involves trusting in others and often
accepting “what is not known as though it were known” (p. 14). Importantly behaviourist
researchers have long considered beliefs to be a significant determinant in behaviour.
Existing research points to interesting findings on how an individual’s processing of
available information mediates the effects of environmental factors on their behaviour.
(Ajzen, 1991, p. 179). Decisions and actions can be influenced by ‘beliefs’ about self (e.g.
Bandura, 1982, 1991), cultural disposition (e.g. Pantouvakis, 2013; Pio & Dana, 2014), and
trying to make sense of their environment (e.g. Mills & Pawson, 2006; Nicholson & Wong,
2001). To this end Bandura, Adams, Hardy, and Howell’s (1980) study of maths students
suggested that people’s behaviour is strongly influenced by their belief that they can perform
to expectation. Ajzen (1991) suggested that it is our salient beliefs that are determinants of
our intentions and actions. Although Ajzen argued that there are significant relationships
between behavioural beliefs and attitudes toward the behaviour, the exact form of these
relations is still uncertain (p. 206).
In returning to salient beliefs, Bandura (1982) referred to self-efficacy beliefs as
greatly influencing choice, perseverance and effort. In contrast Bandura said that people with
beliefs that reinforce inefficaciousness in coping with the environment dwell on their personal
efficiencies and imagine greater difficulties, even if they do not exist. Beliefs bring in a level
of subjectivity and Kor, Mahoney, and Michael (2007) reaffirmed the subjective nature of
3
entrepreneurial discovery and creativity. They argued that the significant difference in firm
performance is influenced by the heterogeneity in belief systems. For example, the Pio and
Dana (2014) study of Indian immigrants in New Zealand refers to hesitancy in their belief that
exporting would benefit them. They conclude that this has impacted negatively on Indian
entrepreneurial activity. So uncovering to what extent ‘beliefs’ - as in assumptions, attitudes
and views regarding self and their ethnic and host norms - are prevalent and how those beliefs
are structured will help us understand the conditions which will nurture immigrant ethnic
minority entrepreneurial activity.
Finally, recent entrepreneurial research has been undertaken to better understand
entrepreneurial perception, and such research supports the view that beliefs influence
entrepreneurial action (Tang & Rothenberg, 2009). Each individual’s belief system
contributes to different perceptions regarding the opportunities structures within a host
country (Kor et al., 2007), and therefore play a role in enterprise formation (Edelman & YliRenko, 2010). Yet few attempts have been made to integrate insights from the theories on
social and economic conditions, entrepreneurial engagement and the entrepreneur’s belief
systems. The conceptual framework presented in this paper attempts to debate that gap.
METHODOLOGY
The conceptual framework for this study was derived from a grounded theory methodology.
This considered the proposition of defining the ethnic minority immigrant entrepreneurship
process within the complex socio-cultural and environmental context in which it exists. A
grounded theory approach was adopted because of its inductive process of ‘discovering’
theory from data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
For sampling purposes this study referred to the broad range of small business
activities undertaken by immigrants of differing ethnic backgrounds in New Zealand; a
country with a dominant European culture with 74% of people stating they are of European
decent. However, one in four residents was born outside of the country (Statistics New
Zealand, 2013). New Zealand’s immigration trends are comparable to those of other major
receiving countries, and its immigration policies have also evolved to reflect global trends in
labour mobility, the emergence of Asian economies, and global social and political changes.
The country has a large small business sector (Cameron & Massey, 1999) in which businesses
with 19 or fewer employees contribute to 30% of the country’s total workforce and GDP
(Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, 2014). New Zealand also has unique
characteristics such as a small population of 4.55 million (Statistics New Zealand, 2014)
disperses across a country of 268,021 square kilometres (larger than the United Kingdom),
and hence small and dispersed ethnic minority communities. It is a scenic but isolated country
in the South Pacific, sharing no boarders and is two thousand kilometres from its nearest
markets. Therefore labour and product mobility are not as fluid as the migrant receiving
countries of the Americas, Southern Africa or Europe and may be considered a microcosm of
immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurial behaviour.
Data which forms the basis of this paper was generated via seventy seven semistructured in-depth and follow-up interviews with forty two respondents, who were immigrant
ethnic minority entrepreneurs in New Zealand. A conceptual framework emerged through the
continuous interaction between data collection, coding, analysis and indexing as prescribed in
grounded theory principles (Glaser, 1992, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Goulding, 2002).
The research captured the respondents’ thoughts and experiences through their own voice and
4
the principle finding was an ethnic resource profile with four embeddedness constructs Migration, Settlement, Identity and Business (de Vries & Hamilton, 2013) - that interlinked in
defining an ethnic community’s ability to access a host country’s opportunity structures
(Kloosterman, 2010).
In line with grounded principles a further emergent theme resulted which identified a
relationship between engagement and beliefs, which became the basis for this paper. Selective
coding was then applied (Urquhart, 2013) across the constructs to the emergent themes of
engagement and beliefs and a matrix classification was applied to the 6018 separate blocks of
coded interview data obtained from the seventy seven transcripts. Each block of code was
analysed in terms of the two axes which had emerged from grounded theory induction process
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Goulding, 2002). The first axis had two elements, firstly whether
statements referred to specifically held beliefs of the immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneur
with respect to their environment, self and interpersonal relationships. For example, in
referring to the identity construct factor of ‘working long hours’ a respondent said of self:
“we were brought up with a Christian work ethic and that was that - you are responsible to
work hard.” Secondly, the axis refers to the actual engagement by the immigrant entrepreneur
with their social and economic environment. Again if we use the example of ‘working long
hours’ a respondent said:
I would get up at six in the morning and I would catch a bus to the city to my University.
My lectures start at eight in the morning for two hours. I finish at ten, then I catch a bus
back to Takapuna, I open my shop at ten thirty and close my shop at five thirty and then I
shoot back to town for a six to nine pm class. And, you know, I have my dinner maybe at
nine thirty - ten o’clock at the local food court just before they close, catch a bus about
ten fifteen, get home just before eleven because there is a bit of distance to walk. So I did
that for four and a half years. The hours were quite long, then when I finish University I
was still putting in similar sort of hours but purely concentrating in business.”
The second axis included the classifications of the data, in terms of their fit within the
framework of Migration, Settlement, Identity and Business (de Vries & Hamilton, 2013)
which is discussed in the next section.
CONCEPTUALISATION
In this study of the immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurial experiences questions arose
within the inductive methodology. First, can the engagement activities and belief patterns be
mapped against the unique stages of the entrepreneurial process (e.g. Waldinger et al., 1990)?
That is, the entrepreneurs’ engagement with or beliefs about their social networks (both
formal and informal), and the socio-economic and politico-institutional environment of the
host country (Kloosterman et al., 1999). Second, if so, can this be used as a means of
understanding catalysts and influences in the entrepreneurial process? The author considered
the nature of engagement and beliefs during the development of an immigrant ethnic minority
entrepreneurship profile that stressed four main constructs as encompassing the immigrant
entrepreneur experience (de Vries & Hamilton, 2013); and this facilitated consideration of
engagement and beliefs at various stages of the entrepreneurship process. In brief these
constructs consist of:
5
1. The Migration construct: how and why homeland influences, such as geographic origin,
cultural and religious values, language, and personal connection, influence whether a
group embeds in pre- or post-migration traditions.
2. The Settlement construct: captures the influence of societal and employment fit on
integration, and determines whether an ethnic minority group embeds in its ethnic or its
host community.
3. The Identity construct: shows different skills and business capabilities and affects whether
groups embed either in a singular identity or in a dual ethnic/host identity.
4. The Business construct: how the individual agency factors of confidence, and other
human and financial capitals, produce a business-ready orientation that can embed in the
opportunity structure and spawn entrepreneurship.
This study asserts that each construct contributes to the entrepreneurial process in a
sequentially linked manner to the overarching outcome as to what extent immigrant ethnic
minority entrepreneurs access the business creation opportunity structures in the host country
(Figure 1). This paper proposes that within each construct the propensity for engagement and
beliefs can vary, and that an understanding of such variances offers some new insights into
the nature of immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurship. In exploring these relationships the
entrepreneurs’ personal statements relating to either engagement or beliefs were mapped
against the constructs. The individual blocks of coded data were interpreted in line with its
categorisations and lead to conclusions with respect to the impact of beliefs versus
engagement at the different stages of the entrepreneurship process.
__________________________
Figure 1 about here
__________________________
FINDINGS
In this study the emerging conceptual framework relating to engagement and beliefs sought to
establish some preliminary connections between two existing streams of entrepreneurial
thought. The first well established in the literature; as in entrepreneurs’ interaction or
engagement with their social and structural environment (e.g. Clark & Drinkwater, 2010;
Collins, 2003; Ram, 1997; Smallbone, Bertotti, & Ekanem, 2005); and the second - less
defined - subjective entrepreneurial beliefs about their environment (e.g. Edelman & YliRenko, 2010; Kor et al., 2007; Mills & Pawson, 2006; Tang & Rothenberg, 2009). These
connections were the basis for introducing a conceptual framework which considers the
influence of beliefs and engagement on migration, settlement, identity and business
constructs. The preliminary finding are summarised as follows:
Migration construct
Discussion of engagement within their homeland environment was prominent. Factors of
urban origins, geographic diversity, permanent migration, and limited resources were
highlighted in this construct as influencing entrepreneurial action: “One thing I hated in
6
[homeland] was bureaucracy and the corruption I had to deal with.” To a lesser degree the
family work ethic and maintaining the family value systems influenced immigrant
entrepreneur’s actions: “up at 5.30 ..... would work until 10 at night just about every night.”
Whereas there was only a weak relationship within the migration construct to statements
relating to beliefs. The one strong identifiable belief was that the receiving country would
offer a better quality of life for themselves and their children: “mainly for the education
system for our daughter and the better lifestyle.”
Settlement construct
Strong engagement statements relating to urban assimilation or adaptation and attainment of
employment were identified as influential in entrepreneurial action, for example: “it isn’t that
long ago that I would speak somewhere and say ‘us Kiwis’ and people would laugh at me.”
To a lesser degree the construct highlighted the impact of barriers to career opportunities, as
in: “I was hoping to find a job as a travel agent quite easily, but I found out it is not true.”
The strongest belief patterns emerged within this construct. It identified beliefs surrounding to
coping with discrimination within the host country: “of course yes, some, but it happens
everywhere. It happens in Hong Kong, it happens in Scotland. I don’t take it very serious;”
and overall positive perception of the receiving country and its people: “absolutely, love it,
couldn’t live anywhere else.”
Identity construct
Strong engagement patterns with respect to achievement orientation, a strong work ethic,
strong family dynamics, and family business involvement emerged as contributing to
entrepreneurial action. An example of family involvement is: “my wife and I are totally
involved in the business. Everything we do is collectively done.” Belief factors influencing
entrepreneurial action were a strong belief in the benefits of family-business dynamics, the
belief that they had good people skills, and a positive view toward hard work and long hours.
Comments included: “I have always been brought up – you sort of get stuck in and do it
yourself,” and “my feeling is that everybody can achieve anything if you really try hard
enough and persevere.” They did have some concerns over a perceived mixed sense of
national identity: “I myself can never be one hundred percent Kiwi.”
Business construct
The most prominent features influencing entrepreneurial action within this construct were the
engagement factors such as formal learning, application of practical experience, fiscal
responsibility, and financial support from family, customer focus, and long days spent in the
business. A formal learning example is: “Actually I was trained as a bio-chemist, so I ended
up with a MChem in bio-chemistry and then I did a bachelor degree in commerce as well;”
and a family financial support example is: “we borrowed the money from China, from my
parents and my sisters.” Ease of business start-up was also identified as a positive factor,
although the level of regulation and the unsupportive business infrastructure restricted their
entrepreneurial actions. To a lesser degree, the construct underscored the importance of
beliefs related to quality of life over material gain, being seen as behaving ethically and
valuing experience over formal training, for example: “I think it is life experiences more than
the academic experiences that moulds you.”
7
DISCUSSION
The question was posed: does it really matter whether we understand the impact of both
engagement and beliefs on immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurship? The findings of this
study conclude that understanding does matter, although the degree of importance and the
influence of engagement and beliefs vary significantly at different stages of the
entrepreneurial process. This paper has attempted to conceptualise the impact of engagement
and beliefs on the immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurial process (Figure 2) as expressed
through the migration, settlement, identity and business constructs devised by (de Vries &
Hamilton, 2013). In terms of practical application of this conceptual framework, the following
conclusions were drawn.
__________________________
Figure 2 about here
__________________________
Firstly the prominence of the engagement factors across all four constructs was a dominant
feature of this study and supporting existing literature which dominates current thinking (e.g.
Kloosterman, 2010; Kloosterman & Rath, 2001; Wang & Altinay, 2012; Zhou, 2004). Within
the migration construct the study revealed that the entrepreneurial action is influenced by the
immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurs’ pre-migration homeland engagement
characteristics, as also highlighted by Waldinger et al. (1990). Therefore they were more
likely to bring with them a propensity for entrepreneurial behaviour from previous homeland
experiences. This was then re-enforced by engagement patterns within the business (start-up)
construct in which constant learning in their new environment, ease of business setup, and the
application of their practical experience were prominent engagement factors in their
entrepreneurial action. Furthermore, within the identity construct it was clear that
entrepreneurs were networking within their ethnic and host communities, engaging family in
their activities, and displaying entrepreneurial characteristics; which also yielded stronger
entrepreneurial actions. These findings serve to re-enforce existing literature of immigrants
environmental engagement, such as embeddedness (Jack & Anderson, 2002), adding value to
society (Dhaliwal & Adcroft, 2005), and facilitating network connections (de Vries &
Hamilton, 2013; Ram, Abbas, Sanghera, & Hillin, 2000). It therefore reinforces the
importance of host countries adopting policies that attract entrepreneurial peoples and
facilitating a climate for entrepreneurial opportunities.
Secondly the study identified that belief patterns were less defined within the
constructs and only displayed prominence in the settlement construct. This construct indicated
positive perceptions of the host country and its people, and an indifference to or acceptance of
existing barriers (such as discrimination) as facilitating entrepreneurial action. These finding
reinforce the existing literature pronouncement of the importance of self-efficacy beliefs
(Bandura, 1982). The only other significant evidence within the constructs were beliefs in the
importance of a unified family and a strong work ethic, which were highlighted as influencing
factors of entrepreneurial action within the identity construct. This would suggest attracting
people with a positive attitude towards self and adapting to their host country, and those that
8
display a strong family orientation are significant factors in encouraging entrepreneurial
action.
At this stage it is noteworthy to emphasize that the objective of this paper was not to
delve deeply in the specific impact of various beliefs but more to highlight the pervasiveness
and influence of beliefs and engagement as part of immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurs’
behavioural patterns. For example in the previous paragraph we inferred that beliefs were an
influencer on entrepreneurial actions within the settlement construct. The data confirmed that
there was a belief that discrimination was prevalent in the host society. Yet this was countered
by an associated belief that such discrimination could be overcome, which in turn had a
positive impact on entrepreneurial behaviours, as in “I have not come across a single
individual who has failed in business because of these so-called racist factors.” Furthermore,
the study not only infers that beliefs and engagement contribute to behaviours but that they
are also interdependent. To explain this, if we return to the example of discrimination the
engagement factor was often experiencing discrimination, as in “came back one night and all
the locks were changed and all our baggage and belongings were outside.” This re-enforced
the belief of social injustice, as in “until there is some kind of evolution of recognising people
as New Zealanders and not as [ethnic identity], we will always find ourselves left out;” but
the self-efficacy belief (Bandura, 1982) fortified the entrepreneurial behaviours to
engagement in business formation, and in some cases to prove ‘them’ wrong, as in “if
someone says I couldn’t do it, then I showed them I could!” Such findings point to a need for
future studies that could consider in greater depth the impact of immigrant ethnic minority
entrepreneurs’ specific beliefs or belief systems, and the interdependence of beliefs and
environment engagement.
CONCLUSION
In considering the relationship between entrepreneurship, engagement and beliefs, this paper
has - through a qualitative study - offered a conceptual framework (Figure 2) which can be
used to shed light on the influence and connectedness of engagement and beliefs in
influencing entrepreneurial behaviour. The study concluded that any policy-making within
migrant receiving countries, which are targeted at promoting immigrant ethnic minority
entrepreneurial activity, needs a balance between what can be done to enhance the
infrastructure of the host country and the establishment of an appropriate immigrant profile.
Within the conceptual framework developed in this study, the findings point to engagement
factors holding greater prominence than beliefs as facilitators of entrepreneurial action in
most constructs, but the inter-relationships were significant enough to warrant further
investigation. However, the limitations of this study are that it only refers to the existence of
belief and engagement relationships within the various stages of the entrepreneurial process,
and highlights the variable impact of those interconnected relationships on entrepreneurial
action. Therefore any conformation of these relationships and how they positively or
negatively influence entrepreneurial action would require further empirical investigation, and
to that end, this paper contributes a framework for doing so.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour Organisational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes 50, 179-211.
9
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
37(2), 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social-cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. (1980). Tests of the generality of
self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4(1), 39-66.
Barrett, G. A., Jones, T. P., McEvoy, D., & McGoldrick, C. (2002). The economic
embeddedness of immigrants enterprises in Britain. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 8(1/2), 11-31.
Basu, A. (2004). Entrepreneurial aspirations among family business owners. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 10(1/2), 12-33.
Cameron, A., & Massey, C. (1999). Small and medium-sized enterprises. A New Zealand
perspective. Auckland: Longman.
Chapple, S., Gorbey, S., & Yeabsley, J. (1994). Literature review on the impact of
immigration. Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Economic Research.
Clark, K., & Drinkwater, S. (2010). Recent trends in minority ethnic entrepreneurship in
Britain. International Small Business Journal 28(2), 136-146.
Clydsdale, G. (2008). Business immigrants and the entrepreneurial nexus. Journal of
International Entrepreneurship, 6(3), 123-142.
Collins, J. (2003). Australia: Cosmopolitan capitalists down under. In R. Kloosterman & J.
Rath (Eds.), Immigrant entrepreneurs: Venturing abroad in the age of globalisation
Oxford, UK: Berg.
Daniels, J. D., Radebaugh, L. H., & Sullivan, D. P. (2002). Globalization and business.
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Davidson, P., Low, M., & Wright, M. (2001). Low and MacMillan ten years on:
Achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, 25(4), 5-15.
de Vries, H. P., & Hamilton, R. T. (2013). Ethnic minority self-employment: An inter-group
comparison of embeddedness. Paper presented at the ISBE, Cardiff, Wales.
de Vries, H. P., & Kantor, R. (2012, 10-13 June). Is the face of Chinese ethnic minority
entrepreneurship in New Zealand changing? Paper presented at the The International
Council for Small Business Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.
Dhaliwal, S., & Adcroft, A. (2005). Sustainablity and ethnic minority businesses: An
examination of the Asian business sector in the UK. Journal of Asia
Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 1-19.
Edelman, L., & Yli-Renko, H. (2010). The impact of environment and entrepreneurial
perceptions on venture-creation efforts: Bridging discovery and creation views of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 3(5), 833-856.
Elliott, S., & Gray, A. (2000). Family structures: A report for the New Zealand Immigration
Service. Wellington. Wellington: Department of Labour.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emerging vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine.
Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and
market researchers. London: Sage.
Hammarstedt, M. (2004). Self-employment among immigrants in Sweden – An analysis of
intragroup differences. Small Business Economics, 23(2), 115-126.
Hiebert, D. (2003). Canada: A false consensus. In R. Kloosterman & J. Rath (Eds.),
Immigrant entrepreneurs: Venturing abroad in the age of globalisation (pp. 39-60).
Oxford UK: Berg.
Jack, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (2002). The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial
process. Journal of Business Venturing 17(5), 467-487.
10
Kloosterman, R. (2010). Matching opportunities with resources: A framework for analysing
immigrant entrepreneurship from a mixed embeddedness perspective.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 22(2), 25-45.
Kloosterman, R., & Rath, J. (2001). Immigrant entrepreneurs in advanced economies: mixed
embeddedness further explored. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27(2), 189201.
Kloosterman, R., Van de Leun, J., & Rath, J. (1999). Mixed embeddedness: In formal
economic activities and immigrant businesses in the Netherlands. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(2), 252-266.
Kor, Y. Y., Mahoney, J. T., & Michael, S. C. (2007). Resources, capabilities and
entrepreneurial perceptions. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1187-1212.
Krueger, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18(3), 91-104.
Levent, T., Masurel, E., & Nijkamp, P. (2003). Diversity in entrepreneurship: ethnic and
female roles in urban economic life. International Journal of Social Economic
30(11), 1131-1161.
Lingis, A. (2012). Belief. In P. Case, H. Hopfl & H. Letiche (Eds.), Belief and organization
(pp. 14-30). New York, NY Palgrave Macmillan.
Masurel, E., Nijkamp, P., & Vindigni, G. (2004). Breeding places for ethnic entrepreneurs: A
comparative marketing approach. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
16(1), 77-86.
Mills, C., & Pawson, K. (2006). Enterprising talk: a case of self construction. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 12(6), 328-344.
Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. (2014). The small business sector report
2014. Wellington: New Zealand Government.
Morris, M. H. (2002). Revisiting “who” is the entrepreneur. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 5-7.
Nicholson, J. D., & Wong, Y.-Y. (2001). Culturally based differences in work beliefs.
Management Research News, 24(5), 1-10.
Pantouvakis, A. (2013). Travellers’ behavioural intentions depending on their beliefs: an
empirical study. International Journal of quality and Service Sciences, 5(1), 4-18.
Pio, E., & Dana, L. P. (2014). An empirical study of Indian entrepreneurs in Christchurch,
New Zealand. International journal of entrepreneurship and small business, 22(1),
17-24.
Piperopoulos, P. (2010). Ethnic minority businesses and immigrant entrepreneurship in
Greece. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(1), 139-158.
Poot, J. (1993). Adaptations of migrants in the New Zealand labour-market. International
Migration Review, 27(1), 121-139.
Ram, M. (1997). Ethnic minority enterprise: an overview and research agenda. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 3(4), 149-156.
Ram, M., Abbas, T., Sanghera, B., & Hillin, G. (2000). "Currying favour with the local”:
Balti owners and business enclaves. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, 6(1), 41-55.
Ram, M., Jones, T., Edwards, P., & Nitu, S. (2013). Making the best of bad jobs: The agency
of new migrant workers. Paper presented at the Institute for Small Business and
Entrepreneurship Conference, Cardiff, Wales.
Rath, J., & Kloosterman, R. (2003). The Netherlands: A Dutch treat. In R. Kloosterman & J.
Rath (Eds.), Immigrant entrepreneurs: Venturing abroad in the age of globalisation
(pp. 123-146). Oxford, UK: Berg.
Smallbone, D., Bertotti, M., & Ekanem, I. (2005). Diversification in ethnic minority business:
The case of Asians in London’s creative industries. Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 12(1), 41-56.
Smallbone, D., Ram, M., Deakins, D., & Baldcock, R. (2003). Access to finance by ethnic
minority businesses in the UK. International Small Business Journal, 21(3), 291-314.
11
Smith, P., Caputi, P., & Crittenden, N. (2012). How are women’s glass ceiling beliefs related
to career success? Career Development International, 17(5), 458-474.
Statistics New Zealand. (2013). Introducing ethnic labour force statistics by age. Wellington:
Retrieved
from
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-andwork/employment_and_unemployment/ethnic-labour-force-stats-by-age.aspx.
Accessed 26 Nov 2013.
Statistics New Zealand. (2014). Population clock
Retrieved July 28, 2014, from
http://www.stats.govt.nz/tools_and_services/population_clock.aspx/
Tang, Z., & Rothenberg, S. (2009). Does perceptual acuity matter? – An investigation of
entrepreneurial orientation, perceptual acuity, and firm performance. Journal of
Enterprising Culture, 17(1), 79-102.
Urquhart, C. (2013). Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Waldinger, R., Howard, A., Ward, R., & associates. (1990). Ethnic Entrepreneurs: Immigrant
Business in Industrial Societies. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
Wang, C. L., & Altinay, L. (2012). Social embeddedness, entrepreneurial orientation and firm
growth in ethnic minority small businesses in the UK. International Small Business
Journal, 30(3), 3-23.
Watts, N., White, C., & Trlin, A. (2004). The cultural capital contribution of immigrants in
New Zealand. Palmerston North, NZ: New Settlers Programme.
Yeabsley, J. (1997). Settling policy issues in migrant choice of settlement. Wellington: New
Zealand Institute of Economic Research.
Zhou, M. (2004). Revisiting ethnic entrepreneurship: convergencies, controversies, and
conceptual advancements. The International Migration Review 38(3), 1040-1074.
12
Figure 1:
Immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurial journeys
Settlement
Migration
Business
Host country
opportunity
structures
Identity
Journey towards business formation
Figure 2:
The Beliefs and Engagement Framework
Influence of Beliefs
Entrepreneurial
Behaviour
Settlement
Migration
Business
Identity
maximisation
of opportunity
structures
within host
country
Influence of Engagement
Immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurship process
13