Call for Papers

Human migration has many faces and is increasing globally due to factors including conflicts and climate change (Cattaneo et al., 2019). It can be voluntary or forced, temporary or permanent, a burden or a privilege, driven by opportunity or necessity, and occur within or across national borders. Migration also gives rise to a myriad of organizational challenges, paradoxes, and opportunities for the individuals and communities involved, both sending and receiving. Although human history is explicitly one of migration, the convergence of increasing globalization and wicked societal problems makes current issues of migration more complex and relevant than ever before. For example, the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war has already caused the largest human displacement in Europe since World War II (OECD, 2023), while the number of people who were forced to leave their homes globally due to crisis events exceeds 100 million for the first time on record (UNHCR, 2023). In contrast, global travel restrictions related to COVID-19 recently put millions of contemporary and potential migrants in a state of immobility. While some remain indeterminately trapped in transit camps (Kodeih et al., 2023), others have indefinitely postponed their migration plans, since institutional barriers or a lack of resources prevent them from relocating.
 
Spatial (im)mobility comes with a number of challenges and opportunities for the societies and organizations where migrants are leaving from or moving to. Resourceful and skilled migrants are often perceived as a ‘brain gain’ in one context and alternatively as a ‘brain drain’ in another (Baruch et al., 2007), while ‘brain circulation’ represents yet a third theoretical alternative (Saxenian, 2005). Increasingly, populist arbiters frequently frame less resourceful and unskilled migrants as undesired interlopers who represent a threat to society (Klein & Amis, 2021) rather than as an important source of efficient or creative talent. Simultaneously, the immigration of cheap, low-skilled labour has become a necessary feature of contemporary capitalism whereby firms focus on profitability, thus producing social constructions of ‘deservingness regimes’ for different migrants and raising concerns regarding income inequality and labour exploitation (e.g., Bonizzoni, 2018).
 
Besides contributing to the base of salaried workers, individuals who make the decision to emigrate to more developed economies often carry an entrepreneurial mindset, which, combined with their accumulation of cross-cultural experiences, augments their ability to discover and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities overlooked by native individuals (Vandor & Franke, 2016). Many international migrants maintain connections to their home country or decide to return at some point in time, leveraging social networks to pursue international and transnational businesses (Honig, 2019) and diffusing international knowledge, bridging global communities, and contributing to a reduction of cross-national inequalities (Saxenian, 2005).
 
In this sub-theme, we welcome studies examining the super-diversity of migrant entrepreneurship (Ram et al., 2013). To date, management and international business research has largely maintained a path-dependency orientation in relation to the labour market integration of international migrants (Szkudlarek et al., 2021), leaving a broad variety of actors, contexts, and practices under-researched. Similarly, migrant entrepreneurship studies have typically focused on the disadvantages related to traditional, ethnic businesses or the advantages related to breaking out into mainstream businesses or transnational activities (e.g., Carter et al., 2015).
 
However, many issues remain neglected in this domain of research. For example, there is a strong imbalance in research examining spatial issues linked to entrepreneurship: the return of ‘nonelite’ entrepreneurs to their home countries has been largely neglected (Bolzani, 2023), and the prosocially motivated emigration of entrepreneurial actors to less developed countries has been equally overlooked (Koehne et al., 2022). As well, there exists a dearth of research examining how intersectional diversity creates and replicates privileges and inequalities as well as associated motivating factors governing entry into entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial performances (e.g., Dy et al., 2017). Moreover, there is a lack of research that problematizes the abundance of well-intended yet ineffectual policies and practices that aim to enhance the organizational and societal inclusion of migrants (Elo et al., 2022).
 
We invite a diverse group of scholars conducting impactful research that addresses and contextualizes pressing challenges and creative organizational solutions for, with, and by interacting actors in the multi-faceted context of human migration. Possible questions to examine may include, but are not limited to:

• How can entrepreneurial talent inherent in the super-diversity of international migrants be leveraged to address grand societal challenges?

• How do migrant entrepreneurs organize to escape, confront, or exploit forms of discrimination and structural disadvantages or privileges in different contexts?

• How do migrants engage in institutional entrepreneurship to reorganize social structures of inequality and privilege in host and home countries and/or transnationally?

• What are the organizational challenges and opportunities of migrant entrepreneurs residing in contexts outside of Europe and the USA?

• How do migrants and natives organize themselves in culturally/ethnically diverse entrepreneurial teams?

• How are policies, practices, and places aimed at sustaining migrants' inclusion developed and implemented, and how can we evaluate their effectiveness?

• How can migrant and entrepreneurship support organizations enhance their effectiveness in different contexts?

• What are the political framings and media portrayals of particular migrant entrepreneurs and what are the implications of these portrayals?

• How can entrepreneurship encourage policy actors to ‘move the public needle’ from xenophobia to welcoming communities?

• To what extent does international migration lead to greater inequality, and if so, how can this be ameliorated through entrepreneurial ways of organizing?

References

• Aliaga-Isla, R., & Rialp, A. (2013): “Systematic review of immigrant entrepreneurship literature: previous findings and ways forward.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25 (9–10), 819–844.

• Amare, T.J., & Honig, B. (2023): “Returnee entrepreneurial entry decisions among forced and voluntary returnees in Ethiopia: A comparative study.” Africa Journal of Management, 9 (2), 177–205.
• Baruch, Y., Budhwar, P.S., & Khatri, N. (2007): “Brain drain: Inclination to stay abroad after studies.” Journal of World Business, 42 (1), 99–112.
• Bolzani, D. (2023): “Assisted to leave and become entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurial investment by assisted returnee migrants.” Academy of Management Discoveries, 9 (2), 261–279.
• Bonizzoni, P. (2018): “Looking for the best and brightest? Deservingness regimes in Italian labour migration management.” International Migration, 56 (4), 47–62.
• Carter, S., Mwaura, S., Ram, M., Trehan, K., & Jones, T. (2015): “Barriers to ethnic minority and women’s enterprise: Existing evidence, policy tensions and unsettled questions.” International Small Business Journal, 33 (1), 49–69.
• Cattaneo, C., Beine, M., Fröhlich, C.J., Kniveton, D., Martinez-Zarzoso, I., Mastrorillo, M., Millock, K., Piguet, E., & Schraven, B. (2019): “Human migration in the era of climate change.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 13 (2), 189–206.
• Dy, A.M., Marlow, S., & Martin, L. (2017): “A Web of opportunity or the same old story? Women digital entrepreneurs and intersectionality theory.” Human Relations, 70 (3), 286–311.
• Elo, M., Täube, F.A., & Servais, P. (2022): “Who is doing ‘transnational diaspora entrepreneurship’? Understanding formal identity and status.” Journal of World Business, 57 (1), 101240.
• Honig, B. (2019): “Exploring the intersection of transnational, ethnic, and migration entrepreneurship.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46 (10), 1974–1990.
• Klein, J., & Amis, J.M. (2021): “The dynamics of framing: Image, emotion and the European migration crisis.” Academy of Management Journal, 65 (5), 1324–1354.
• Kodeih, F., Schildt, H., & Lawrence, T.B. (2023): “Countering Indeterminate Temporariness: Sheltering work in refugee camps.” Organization Studies, 44 (2), 175–199.
• Koehne, F., Woodward, R., & Honig, B. (2022): “The potentials and perils of prosocial power: Transnational social entrepreneurship dynamics in vulnerable places.” Journal of Business Venturing, 37 (4), 106206.
• OECD (2023): International Migration Outlook 2023. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Ram, M., Jones, T., Edwards, P., Kiselinchev, A., Muchenje, L., & Woldesenbet, K. (2013): “Engaging with super-diversity: New migrant businesses and the research–policy nexus.” International Small Business Journal, 31 (4), 337–356.
• Saxenian, A. (2005): “From brain drain to brain circulation: Transnational communities and regional upgrading in India and China.” Studies in comparative international development, 40, 35–61.
• Szkudlarek, B., Nardon, L., Osland, J.S., Adler, N.J., & Lee, E.S. (2021): “When context matters: What happens to international theory when researchers study refugees.” Academy of Management Perspectives, 35 (3), 461–484.
• UNHCR (2023): Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2022. Copenhagen: UNHCR Global Data Service.
• Vandor, P., & Franke, N. (2016): “See Paris and… found a business? The impact of cross-cultural experience on opportunity recognition capabilities.” Journal of Business Venturing, 31 (4), 388–407.
•