Purpose Years of research into immigrant entrepreneurship motivation (IEM) call for a synthesis of the field to note field developments and identify thematic antecedents and measurement elements. The paper aims to fill this literature review gap in IEM field. Improving existing analytical frameworks and establishing a research agenda are also goals of the research. Design/methodology/approach Adopting the PRISMA procedure, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted. This produced 53 IEM research papers (internationally, from 1974 to 2020) from a database search and other sources, each of which was reviewed based on extracted variables, findings and suggestions. A well-accepted entrepreneurial motivation model is used for thematic measurement analyzes. Findings IEM research has gained attention over the past 25 years as to the number of publications, research foci and antecedent discoveries. The review suggests that there are six motivational thematic dimensions: individual characteristics, personal experiences and circumstances, personal values, business ideas and opportunities, goal-setting and self-efficacy and immigrant entrepreneurial ecosystem (IEE). The results also reveal a relationship between entrepreneurship motivations and the IEE which is one of the keys recommended future research strands. Research limitations/implications This research contributes to entrepreneurship literature by providing a chronological timeline of IEM field development and antecedent discoveries. The review suggests applying the IEE and its associated components to investigate host and home countries’ interactive effects on IEM. Practical implications The research provides guidance for policymakers and practitioners concerning available policy instruments and IEM determinants in addition to individual factors. Originality/value This study is the first SLR on IEM. It presents a holistic view of the IEM field.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Duan et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: