Business Dissertation Example – Best Dissertation Writers

Overview of this Business Dissertation Example

This business dissertation example with written by a team of writers from Best Dissertation Writers. The research explores the entrepreneurship gap between immigrant and native populations across multiple countries. By examining various factors such as cultural attitudes, access to resources, social networks, educational backgrounds, regulatory environments, and risk tolerance, the study aims to uncover the underlying reasons for differences in entrepreneurial activity. Through a comparative analysis of data from diverse national contexts, the research seeks to identify patterns and variations in the immigrant-native entrepreneurship gap.

Employing both quantitative and qualitative methods, including statistical analysis, surveys, interviews, and case studies, the study will provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing entrepreneurial success for both immigrant and native-born individuals. The findings of this research have significant implications for policymakers, potentially informing strategies to support entrepreneurship, foster economic growth, and address issues related to immigration and economic integration. Ultimately, this study contributes to our understanding of how diversity drives innovation and economic development in different national settings. This Business Dissertation Example follows the Dissertation Template and you can use it as a guide for writing your Business Dissertation papers.

Topic: Understanding immigrant & native entrepreneurship gap: A multi-country analysis

Introduction

Today, defining immigrants possess to be a challenge within entrepreneurship literature as the term ethnic and/or minority entrepreneurs includes immigrants but have different meanings to it respectively (Cubillo and Cervino, 2004). More specifically, according to Borjas (1997) immigrants are a self-selected group of people whose decision to move from their country of origin or home country to the selected host country, is derived from human capital and individual characteristics. Immigration is considered to be significant social force that and changes and consequently shape structures the demographic composition of many advanced economies.

By the end of 2016, the number of immigrants was estimated at 214 million and if this number persists to grow at the same rate as the previous two decades, it could finally reach 405 million by 2050 (International organization for Migration’s World Migration Report, 2017). Nonetheless, through the drastic increase, policy makers continuously beseech the problem of how immigrants can be integrated within their host countries and often an instant solution retrieved is through entrepreneurship.

Shane and Venkataraman (2000) describe entrepreneurship as a process that involves discovering, evaluating and exploiting business opportunities. These opportunities most commonly involve the creation of a business through producing new products, processes or markets (Kirzner, Boettke and Sautet, 2003). Immigrant entrepreneurship has become a vital socioeconomic phenomenon that evokes significant positive social effects in the host country through the creation of new jobs, wealth creation, innovativeness, knowledge share, competitiveness and economic development.

Nevertheless, the effects of immigrant entrepreneurship are not only limited to the economic aspect rather immigrants may bring in novel experiences, skills and networks from which the natives and the host country can benefit, which has only been considered recently (Honig and Drori, 2010; Portes, Guarnizo and Haller, 2002). Furthermore, immigrants themselves also benefit from engaging with entrepreneurial activity as advantages of socio-economic integration are present. Based on the Global Entrepreneurship report or GEM, the prevalence of entrepreneurial migrants in comparison to their native counterparts varies across world regions (Allen, Langowitz and Minniti, 2015). This is where the South and Central American and Sub-Saharan African economies display the uppermost rates in comparison to the Western European economies inducing the lowest rates.

These differences advise that the entrepreneurial framework conditions within each region such as economic, institutional and cultural circumstances have a similar influence on the entrepreneurial inclination of both migrants and non-migrants. Moreover, although a few initial studies have illustrated the existence of immigrant entrepreneurship, the gap between native-immigrant entrepreneurship has not received wide attention (Wilson et al., 2009; Koellinger et al., 2013; Lassalle and Mc Elwee, 2016).

These differences advise that the entrepreneurial framework conditions within each region such as economic, institutional and cultural circumstances have a similar influence on the entrepreneurial inclination of both migrants and non-migrants. Moreover, although a few initial studies have illustrated the existence of immigrant entrepreneurship, the gap between native-immigrant entrepreneurship has not received wide attention (Wilson et al., 2009; Koellinger et al., 2013; Lassalle and Mc Elwee, 2016). This is because apart from understanding the barriers faced by immigrants towards entrepreneurial activity, there are no individual nor contextual factors reporting that it influences such a gap.

Therefore, the aim of the paper is to advance the understanding of the native-immigrant gap within entrepreneurship. More specifically, founded on the concept of mixed embeddedness’s in the economic, social and institutional environment of their host country, the paper evaluates the factors that explain under what conditions the effect of immigrant versus native entrepreneurial activity is strong or weak (Meza and Webb, 1987; Kloosterman, Van Der Leun and Rath, 1999; Kloosterman, 2003; Wang and Warn, 2013). The study also offers a useful framework for understanding the extent to which environment supports entrepreneurship in terms of the host country’s economic (market opportunities), social (immigrant networks) and institutional (entrepreneurial policies) factors on the native-immigrant entrepreneurship gap. Consequently, at the end of the study, the following research questions will be explored:

• Is there a prevalent gap between native and immigrant entrepreneurial activity in host countries?
• To what extent do economic, social and institutional factors affect the immigrant and native entrepreneurship gap?

Moreover, in line with previous literature, overall, it is hypothesized that a supportive environment influences the relationship between native and immigrant entrepreneurship that benefits immigrants; where there will be a smaller gap with a more supportive environment for total entrepreneurial activity and vice versa. Furthermore, to test the hypotheses, both individual and country level data is obtained from 78,280 immigrants located in 40 countries. This improves the evidence base concerning country[1]level drivers of immigrant entrepreneurship since previous literature only focuses on singular country studies, our study focuses on a more significant representative of data to advance the current state of knowledge on country-level factors influencing immigrant entrepreneurship. Lastly, the study is the current debate on immigrant entrepreneurship in two stages. Firstly, following an interactionist approach, it will be discussed how a supportive environment enhances entrepreneurial activity amongst immigrant and secondly by employing a contextual perspective, the theoretical model permits a better understanding of the native-immigrant gap in entrepreneurship (Welter, 2011; Sevak and Baker, 2014).

Literature Review

The importance of entrepreneurship

It can be rather tedious to define the term ‘entrepreneurship’ since there are various differences and focused accounts within the sectors and the informal economy that requires to be taken into consideration (Praskier and Nowak, 2012). Moreover, the literature based around the concept is highly heterogeneous: where the social science research aspect including economics, business and psychology have multi perspectives of defining what entrepreneurship is (Ely, 2013, Kirkley, 2016). Early definitions of entrepreneurship illustrated that it should be comprehended by focusing on the ‘entrepreneurial role’ lens. This is where Amit, Glosten and Muller (1993) and de Vries (1977) evaluates entrepreneurship as an occupation in the economy that drives innovation through creating new combinations and alterations in the economy or takes risk through inducing uncertainty in society. This is associated with the Cantillon or Knightian entrepreneur.

On the other hand, a more recent definition from Kaushik and Bhatnagar (2009) elucidates that entrepreneurship is the procedure where individuals or teams create something ground-breaking and new by capitalizing time and effort. From this, entrepreneurs then attain incentives such as financial, personal satisfaction and independence (Pasour, 1982). This is related with Schumpeterian entrepreneur school of thought and is associated with innovation because he or she accelerates the generation, dissemination and application of innovative ideas. Nevertheless, regardless of the perspective of the definition, the entrepreneurial function remains the same. According to Shane and Venkataraman (2000), entrepreneurship is a multi-phase process that includes the detection, assessment and utilisation of opportunities that is carried out through an entrepreneurial orientation.

The entrepreneurial orientation signifies the methodologies, practices and decision-making activities that result in distinctive detention of the opportunity which ultimately leads to the establishment of a new venture (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Furthermore, it is necessary to discern the supply and demand side influencers that act as a medium for entrepreneurial activity which is essential for the entrepreneurship process (Fraboni and Saltstone, 1990; Davidsson, 2008). The demand side factors comprise of the need for commodities and services and the comparative cost of input resources. However, Laufente and Salas (1989) suggest that these do not assure the mentioned influencers will be recognized and exploited consequently due to the constant fluctuations in the market.

Conversely, the supply side factors include psychological characteristics such as differences in country origin, culture, family upbringing, age or individual characteristics (Bacq and Lumpkin, 2004). Furthermore, these personal characteristics have been documented as a forefront national agenda element and have prospered to entice the attention of legislators, development agencies along with educationists (Sobel and King, 2008). Furthermore, the outcomes from aiding the entrepreneurship process through the demand and supply can include personal financial incentive (Hisrich, Langan and Grant, 2007). However, there is empirical literature that shows the rewarding outcome of entrepreneurship which also includes

economic and noneconomic benefits. According to Schumpeter’s (1961) theory of economic development, entrepreneurship leads to an cascading effect by stimulating business related sectors through the personal potential that aids innovation, whether it is a product, service or methodology. It is a vital promoter for innovation and technological expansion of an economy since it acts as an enabler for productivity and eventually economic progression in the long run (Schumpeter, 1981; Braunerhjelm et al., 2009; Audretsch, 2012). One of the reasons for economic growth is because entrepreneurship creates job opportunities. Based on previous literature, it is evaluated that entrepreneurial firms have an inexplicably high impact on the creation of jobs. Through explicit data, Fritsch and Storey (2014) showcased a positive connection between start-up rates and employment advancement rates within German industries in the late 1990s. Similarly, Acs and Mueller (2007) illustrate a remarkably similar pattern within the United States where the greater the start-up rate within a specific region, there will be a greater regional growth through the creation of opportunities.

This links to the displacement effect theory that is the strongest in the first year where the number of jobs created are the highest, thereafter reduce to zero after a few years and increases eventually after a few years. Additionally, according to Wennekers et al (2007) and Gries and Naude (2009), the contribution of entrepreneurship to an economy is dependent on specific phases of economic development. One of the most researched projects in this area is GEM. Within the report, it is identified that as economic development spreads, there is an upsurge in industrialisation and the build-up of scale manufacturing and commerce (Audretsch and Keilbach (2004). This is where organizations seek to maximize returns through higher efficiency and economies of scale which is applicable to efficiency-driven economies. Thus, typically these are new niches that would commence in industrial supply chains which provides further opportunities for entrepreneurial activity and new venture (Allen, Langowitz and Minniti, 2015).

The emergence of immigrant entrepreneurship

Population movements and entrepreneurship are constantly being evaluated as forces for economic growth. Immigrant entrepreneurs have also been exposed to contribute suggestively to the technology and engineering sectors of the economy. Further research conducted by Honig, Drori and Wright (2010) examines spillover effects from immigration into innovation that is deliberated by the number of patents, licenses and publications. Economists such as Wennekers et al. (2007) and Peri (2012) have also investigated the economic contribution of immigration and suggests there is a positive impact of migrants in the quickening of productivity progression which stimulates innovations and competition especially in high-income countries (Eraydin, Tasan- Kok and Vranken, 2010; Audretsch, 2012). More specifically, out of all the new entrepreneurs in 2016 within the US, 29.5 per cent were immigrants and additionally in 2015 immigrants owned 16 per cent of the country’s five million business with paid employees (Ram et al., 2017). Another example of this is the Indian population migrating to East Africa to develop railways and commerce in East Africa. This then, in turn, had a major impact of the Kenyan economy, especially in the banking, textiles and retailing sectors.

Moreover, Honig, Drori and Right (2009) identified immigrants as individuals, to move from one country to another but continue to maintain associations with both original and adopted countries. Several theories have been aimed to elucidate differential entry rates for employment in comparison to engaging and commencing a new business amongst different migrant groups. The disadvantaged worker theory by Light and Dana (2013) draws resemblances to Shapero’s (1975) perception of the displaced and uncomfortable entrepreneur. The theory eludes that migrant groups have a higher chance of being discriminated in comparison to the local labour market. This is simply because they are either outsiders or because are uncompetitive because of their low skills, lack of knowledge of the local labour market or unrecognized qualifications. Therefore, they are hard-pressed into self-employment as a hopeful mechanism in order to maximize their salary, given their skills and aspirations. On the contrary, Graham (2015) explains that immigrants might face more disadvantages than natives on only some of the mentioned mentions not on all of them.

Zimmermann et al., (2008) also suggest that immigrants have an ‘inner ambition’ to flourish within the host country. They also have an instinctive ability and inspiration for economic advancement: since they have greater ambition, aggression and entrepreneurial vision versus their native residents in the same country (Chiswick, 1999). Immigrant entrepreneurs also have varied individual background characteristics in comparison to their counterparts. On average, they are more educated and also younger than their native counterparts. O’Connor, Cherry and Buckley (2007) also indicated other factors that either pull or push ethnic minorities or immigrants into entrepreneurship. These include discrimination in the labour market which forces some into self-employment being the only option as they cannot find alternative job opportunities and need a source of income. Additionally, these are uppermost in factor-driven economies. However, within countries that possess greater levels of economic growth, the proportion of potential entrepreneurs with obligation motives commonly decline.

Furthermore, ethnic enclaves offer trading opportunities for specialised goods and services specific to a minority population such as food and clothes (Saxenian and Edulbehram, 2012). Yet, on the other hand the push and pull dichotomy can be simplistic in nature as drivers will modify over a period of time and will be reliant on the context (Williams, Nadin and Rodgers, 2012). For instance, immigrants might choose the entrepreneurial path due to necessity however as they acquire further resource through the expansion of both human and social capital, they will then be introduced towards a greater opportunity-driven type of entrepreneurship, which is defined as establishing a business primarily to pursue an opportunity.

On the other hand, Howell (2017) through a multivariate model analysed that there are numerous factors as suggested by Saxenian and Edulbehram (2012) that stimulate immigrant entrepreneurship but do not define the problems that cause them to turn to entrepreneurship and consequently establish their business. Furthermore, most research focuses on macro-level analysis which includes the venture approach and venture implementation of immigrant entrepreneurial companies (Ndofor, 2011). However, there are no extensive analyses conducted on the supervision of the immigrant business and the approaches to grow in the market, which is known as the meso level analyses. Additionally, only a few studies describe and classify the range of problems and barriers that prevent immigrants from entrepreneurial activity, in comparison to natives. Yet, it is surprising that few researchers have paid close attention to the differences between natives and immigrants concerning the barriers and opportunities. (Fairlie and Lofstrom, 2014; Heilbrunn and Kushnirovich, 2007; Kloosterman, Van Der Leun and Rath, 1999; Kloosterman, 2010).

It can be agreed that there is greater preference towards immigrant entrepreneurship in some sovereign countries in comparison to others. This is fundamentally true as research demonstrates that the general rates of owning a business are far greater amongst the foreign-born and migrants in developed countries as opposed to developing countries. These include the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia. In the late 15th century, during the American New World beginning, immigrant entrepreneurship was classified as one of the animated factors that contribute to economic development (Carlsen and Bruggemann, 2017). This is because the group made critical contributions to the development of the labour market and regenerate as long as the immigration policy permits to do so. (Acs, 2006).

There are also factors that explain the disparities across the countries include the business environment such as the regulatory and institutional framework along with the sector distribution of migrant and native employment. This also explains the fluctuating rates of entrepreneurship amongst immigrants over some time. There is also contradictory evidence that illustrates immigrant entrepreneurs are more likely to see a low level of survival rates for their respective firms in comparison to natives. The fundamental reasons for failure are related to low levels of education, credit constraints, a region of origin and, especially in construction. Various longitudinal studies capture failure rate of entrepreneurship by measuring company survival rates (Levie, 2007; Rauch and Frese, 2007; Vershinina, Barrett and Meyer, 2011).

This is where in France, only 40 per cent of immigrant businesses formed in 2002 were still operating after five years of establishing, in comparison to the 54 per cent of corresponding native businesses (Allen, Langowitz and Minniti, 2015). It is imperative to note that these rates again vary based on economic conditions, where if the economy is booming, it is assumed that there will be very little difference in survival rates between immigrants and their counterparts.

In conclusion, entrepreneurship acts as a free process that allows immigrant entrepreneurs are a significant contextual factor. Entrepreneurs migrate to seek opportunities and immigrant populations are sometimes forced into entrepreneurship as the only way of finding work. Furthermore, the increasing trend to global entrepreneurship favours ethnic subgroups who are more probable to have international networks which will allow them to take advantage of trading across borders.

You can download and read complete version of this Business Dissertation Example below.