Guest editorial: Past, present and future changes in migrant entrepreneurship landscape

Migrant entrepreneurship refers to the process of venture creation by refugees, forced labor, immigrants, expats and ethnic minority, i.e. individuals, teams, groups or families who were born abroad (1st generation), or were born in the host country, but at least one of their parents was born outside of the host country (2nd generation) (Hamilton et al., 2008). Research on entrepreneurship by immigrants, refugees, ex-pats, ethnic minorities and returnees has developed since the 1970s and gained both academic and practitioner attention in the last few decades. The landscape of migrant entrepreneurship has witnessed major changes in the nature and scope of the ventures and how migrant entrepreneurs establish and run businesses for the last few decades (e.g. Silva et al., 2026; Chitac et al., 2025; Elo et al., 2025; Glinka and Freiling, 2024; Elo et al., 2022; Dabić et al., 2020; Ram et al., 2017; Dana, 1997; Dana, 1996).Migrant, refugee, expat, ethnic minority and returnee entrepreneurs have transformed ecosystems and changed the relations in various businesses and social networks (Adeel et al., 2026; David et al., 2025; Light et al., 2025; Baron and Harima, 2019; Schäfer and Henn, 2018). By doing so, they also influence the ways other companies are managed and integrated into an ecosystem. Migrant entrepreneurship has shifted from enclave ventures to break-in the country of residence's ethnic market, for instance, ethnic restaurants or ethnic food stores, nail-shops which primarily served the need of the intra-ethnic communities (Huq and Biru, 2026; Bagwell, 2018; Dana, 2007; Kloosterman and Rath, 2001) to mainstream businesses to break-out and break-through creating new trends and setting new standards in serving the country of residence's market, for instance, high-end restaurants which offer fusion food with high-quality interior design attracting inter-ethnic customers (Evansluong et al., 2025; Evansluong et al., 2019; Griffin-El and Olabisi, 2018). The role of migrant ventures has moved from filling in the labor shortage and outsourcing services to developing services and technologies for the local businesses in the country of residence's market as well as for the global market (Machado and Freiling, 2023; Saxenian, 2000).These developments do not suggest that liabilities have simply disappeared or been replaced by advantages. Persistent institutional, market-related and intersectional constraints may coexist with entrepreneurial agency and opportunity development, while attempts to move beyond established markets may themselves create new tensions (Huq and Biru, 2026; Ram et al., 2017, 2026; Kabbara et al., 2025; Vershinina and Rodgers, 2019). Rather, the changing landscape points to a more complex and multilevel reconfiguration shaped by opportunity structures, moderating conditions and interactions across different types of networks (Glinka et al., 2023; Sinkovics and Reuber, 2021; Kloosterman and Rath, 2001).Migration-related experiences, identities, relationships and resources may constrain access to knowledge, finance, legitimacy and networks (David et al., 2026; Ivanova-Gongne et al., 2026; Kabbara et al., 2025; Polychronopoulos et al., 2025; Ram et al., 2017), while the same elements may become productive entrepreneurial resources when they are combined, performed, recognized and institutionally enabled in particular ways (Glinka et al., 2023; Elo et al., 2022). The central question is therefore not whether migrant-related characteristics constitute liabilities or assets in themselves, but when, how and for whom they acquire either quality.This editorial is organized as follows. First, we introduce the eight articles included in the special issue and highlight their individual and collective contributions to understanding the changing migrant entrepreneurship landscape. We then synthesize their insights through three analytical viewpoints: Liability-Centered Accounts and Continuing Liability Bounding, Liability–Asset Reconfiguration and the Conditions of Asset Enabling. Rather than treating past, present and future as stages in a universal temporal progression, we use them to distinguish historically influential perspectives, contemporary processes of reconfiguration and future-oriented questions concerning the organizational and institutional conditions under which migration-related resources may become entrepreneurial assets. We conclude by outlining the implications of this synthesis for organizational change and future migrant entrepreneurship research.The eight articles included in this special issue illuminate the changing landscape of migrant entrepreneurship from multiple theoretical, contextual and analytical perspectives. Together, they advance our understanding of how migrant entrepreneurs create, mobilize, govern and leverage resources across different geographical, organizational and temporal contexts. Rather than presenting the contributions as isolated studies, we organize them around four thematic conversations: the changing knowledge landscape of migrant entrepreneurship; changing forms of embeddedness and entrepreneurial networking; changing resource configurations, finance and family governance; and changing migration pathways, opportunity structures and ecosystem power relations.Alka et al. (2025) provide a systematic review of major themes and trends in migrant entrepreneurship research. Using BERTopic modeling, they analyze 2,142 publications on migrant entrepreneurship retrieved from the Scopus database for the period from 1995 to 2024. Their review shows how the intellectual landscape of the field has expanded from a strong emphasis on ethnic enclaves and traditional migrant businesses toward broader concerns with cross-cultural operations, identity, gender, ethnicity, transnational networks, resource mobility, economic integration and diaspora entrepreneurship. The study highlights emerging research themes relating to resilience, entrepreneurial ecosystems, transnational governance, sustainability and the relationship between liabilities and assets of foreignness.By mapping these thematic developments, Alka et al. (2025) provide a field-level perspective on the changing migrant entrepreneurship landscape. Their contribution offers an overarching point of reference for the seven empirical articles, which examine more specific changes in embeddedness, resource configurations, migration pathways, family involvement and entrepreneurial ecosystems.A second conversation concerns the changing meaning and composition of entrepreneurial embeddedness. Chang et al. (2025), Brambini-Pedersen et al. (2025) and Boers and Ljungkvist (2026) collectively challenge the assumption that migrant entrepreneurs are uniformly embedded in family, private, or co-ethnic networks. Instead, their studies show that the effects and functions of embeddedness vary across educational backgrounds, generations, network domains and stages of venture development.Chang et al. (2025) investigate the role of economic, social and institutional embeddedness in shaping entrepreneurial intentions among STEM and non-STEM individuals. Their study is based on 832 survey respondents from the United States, including migrants and ethnic minorities. The findings demonstrate that individuals with STEM backgrounds show stronger entrepreneurial intentions when supported by institutional and normative embeddedness. In contrast, non-STEM individuals, particularly those with diverse demographic characteristics, appear to benefit more from social embeddedness and market access. Distinct patterns among migrant and ethnic participants underscore that embeddedness does not operate uniformly but interacts with educational and demographic backgrounds.Brambini-Pedersen et al. (2025) compare first-generation immigrant, second-generation immigrant and indigenous entrepreneurs with regard to the size and composition of their networks as well as their networking patterns. Their quantitative cross-sectional study uses Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data from 39 countries and hierarchical linear modeling. The findings reveal that first-generation immigrant entrepreneurs tend to possess more extensive networks than indigenous entrepreneurs, particularly in transnational and professional spheres. Contrary to common assumptions, they do not rely more heavily on private networks than their indigenous counterparts. The study identifies important differences between first- and second-generation immigrant entrepreneurs, with the latter displaying a less pronounced transnational network presence.Boers and Ljungkvist (2026) examine how family and ethnic social ties support immigrant entrepreneurs in developing their businesses in the host country. Their inductive qualitative study is based on three cases of migrant-owned businesses in Sweden. The study identifies different functions of immigrant entrepreneurs' social ties, including control-based, responsibility-based, inclusive and ethnic urgency-based relationships. These ties provide varying forms of trust, labor, information, responsibility, control and support during venture development.Taken together, these three studies show that changing embeddedness should not be understood as a simple movement away from family and ethnic ties toward professional or mainstream networks. Rather, migrant entrepreneurs combine different relationships whose relevance and functions vary across individuals, generations, contexts and entrepreneurial activities.A third conversation concerns how migrant entrepreneurs and migrant-owned firms configure, mobilize and govern resources. Polychronopoulos et al. (2025) focus on combinations of human, social and financial capital in transnational entrepreneurship, while Nguyen et al. (2025) examine how migrant family ownership influences financial decision-making. Together, the articles show that entrepreneurial outcomes depend not only on whether resources are available, but also on how they are combined, governed and protected.Polychronopoulos et al. (2025) examine which forms of capital and which combinations of these forms constitute sufficient conditions for migrant entrepreneurs to start transnational ventures. They also investigate whether demographic clusters alter these configurations. The study employs qualitative comparative analysis to examine 30 migrant entrepreneurs participating in Norwegian entrepreneurship support programs. The findings suggest two different configurations associated with transnational migrant entrepreneurship. Both involve high levels of human capital, while one combines human capital with high financial capital and the other combines it with high social capital. The study therefore demonstrates that no single resource produces transnational entrepreneurship in isolation. Rather, different combinations of complementary resources can support similar entrepreneurial outcomes.Nguyen et al. (2025) examine how migrant family ownership influences financing strategies in publicly listed family firms. Their study is based on 1,301 listed family firms from Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore and includes 11,316 firm-year observations covering the period from 2010 to 2022. The findings reveal that family firms in these ASEAN countries generally maintain lower debt ratios and higher working-capital ratios than non-family firms. The migrant background of family owners further amplifies these conservative financial behaviors, which safeguard the firms and generate patient capital. The study thus draws attention to the interaction between migrant ownership, family control, risk preferences, liquidity and financial governance.Together, these articles extend the resource perspective of migrant entrepreneurship by showing that resources do not generate entrepreneurial advantage automatically. Their effects depend on configurations of different forms of capital and on the governance arrangements through which firms balance resource access, financial risk, family continuity and control.A fourth conversation addresses the relationship between migration experiences, entrepreneurial aspirations, opportunity development and unequal institutional environments. Falcão et al. (2025) examine gendered migration and integration pathways among Brazilian migrants in Switzerland and Germany, while David et al. (2026) investigate power relations experienced by migrant entrepreneurs within entrepreneurial ecosystems in Germany. Both studies demonstrate that possessing education, experience, or entrepreneurial aspirations does not automatically provide access to entrepreneurial opportunities.Falcão et al. (2025) investigate the migration motivations, integration experiences, barriers and entrepreneurial aspirations of Brazilian migrants in Switzerland and Germany. Their exploratory online survey includes 617 respondents in Switzerland and 652 in Germany. The study highlights the feminization of migration and the comparatively high educational level of many respondents. family and as particularly important migration pathways, while more through Both groups associated with and The study shows that migration pathways, gender, and integration entrepreneurial aspirations and strategies in different et al. (2026) examine how power relations and differences in migrant entrepreneurs' processes and how entrepreneurs the Their qualitative study is by power and based on with migrant entrepreneurs in the The findings knowledge, and network as three central that entrepreneurs' power relations and influence their and migrant entrepreneurs agency by institutional and to balance power differences within entrepreneurial together, the two studies show that opportunity development is by more than individual or human capital. migration pathways, institutional network and unequal of knowledge and power influence whether entrepreneurial resources and aspirations can be into entrepreneurial the four thematic the articles reveal changes at the family, ecosystem and field They show that embeddedness across backgrounds and that family, professional and transnational ties different and complementary that entrepreneurial outcomes depend on the and governance of human, social and financial and that access to by migration pathways, institutional and unequal ecosystem power The contributions therefore do not support a simple of by Rather, they point to the and reconfiguration of migration-related liabilities and resources. The this collective through three analytical Liability-Centered Accounts and Continuing Liability Bounding, Liability–Asset Reconfiguration and the Conditions of Asset the changing migrant entrepreneurship we an inductive analysis of the eight articles included in this special we three major in the field from the past, present and to the Liability-Centered Accounts and Continuing Liability Bounding, Liability–Asset Reconfiguration and the Conditions of Asset refers primarily to a historically of migrant entrepreneurship in than to a empirical research ethnic entrepreneurship, legitimacy and liabilities of The articles in this special issue show that constraints they coexist with and more forms of embeddedness and Bounding, refers to a or in which migrant entrepreneurial in the host country are or by barriers to migration and relationships et al., These barriers host country barriers et al., social (David et al., from the host resource constraints et al., and elements of et al., are therefore toward these barriers to access to resources and networks as well as to establish legitimacy in the local (Evansluong et al., 2019; Griffin-El and Olabisi, 2018). do migrants different family ties, co-ethnic networks and migration-related et al., 2023; Evansluong and 2019). migrant entrepreneurship research has the experienced by migrants in environments. were as individuals who entrepreneurship they barriers in labor experienced social access to mainstream or liabilities associated with and legitimacy (Glinka and Freiling, 2024; et al., 2020; Dana, and Ljungkvist (2026) show that immigrant entrepreneurs in rely heavily on family relationships during the venture creation and development provide labor, and support when access to resources is In to family ties, Boers and Ljungkvist (2026) demonstrate that ethnic social ties provide access to information, and support that migrant entrepreneurs to in the host country. entrepreneurial are and through co-ethnic networks, particularly when local market access barriers access to opportunity structures and liabilities associated with Falcão et al. (2025) as a integration and entrepreneurial in Switzerland and Germany. David et al. (2026) demonstrate that influences entrepreneurs' access to information, networks, support structures and entrepreneurial important of David et al. (2026) show that migrant entrepreneurs in unequal access to information, legitimacy and ecosystem resources. Their findings reveal how entrepreneurial and within entrepreneurial entrepreneurial by access to local knowledge, networks and constraints also as a Nguyen et al. (2025) highlight the of financial access and resource in shaping entrepreneurial of migrant family firms in ASEAN Polychronopoulos et al. (2025) show that financial capital a that migrant entrepreneurs in to rely on resource combinations and support constraints are further by liabilities of David et al. (2026) show that migrant entrepreneurs associated with legitimacy and unequal access to entrepreneurial Brambini-Pedersen et al. (2025) demonstrate that immigrant influences entrepreneurial and access to broader professional networks. therefore functions as a than an legitimacy and access to entrepreneurial during this are primarily toward Nguyen et al. (2025) demonstrate how migrant-owned family firms conservative that continuity and Falcão et al. (2025) show that entrepreneurial are in to labor market barriers and integration in these contexts are primarily toward economic than or Reconfiguration refers to the processes through which migration-related experiences, relationships and barriers may acquire different entrepreneurial and Rather than that liabilities of access to or ethnic embeddedness simply this perspective that liabilities and assets may Migrant entrepreneurs may on migration-related and relationships to create while to and institutional constraints et al., 2026; Evansluong et al., 2025; and are therefore toward and conditions through institutional support structures, professional networks, entrepreneurial ecosystems, multiple forms of embeddedness and the of social and financial these migrant entrepreneurs may move beyond an focus on entrepreneurial toward opportunity development, this is (Glinka et al., 2023; Ram et al., 2017; Kloosterman and Rath, institutional support is one in which liabilities of or may be and resources more embeddedness can entrepreneurial that access to institutional support structures may entrepreneurs to more in opportunity and entrepreneurial development et al., entrepreneurship support in host can to the development of entrepreneurial and resource access, migrant entrepreneurs to with broader opportunity structures et al., institutional support does not automatically as effects depend on entrepreneurs' backgrounds, and access to and support et al., networking important of Migrant entrepreneurs may benefit from professional networks beyond co-ethnic These networks provide access to information, resources and that may not be within ethnic networks et al., networking may therefore entrepreneurs access to broader entrepreneurial does not that professional networks family or co-ethnic Instead, different forms of relationships may be and for different entrepreneurial ecosystems can further support reconfiguration among migrant David et al. (2026) show that ecosystem influences entrepreneurs' to access support structures and with ecosystem may migrant entrepreneurs to associated with and 2022). the same ecosystem does not into access, as access to knowledge, networks, legitimacy and support shaped by unequal power embeddedness of Chang et al. (2025), Polychronopoulos et al. (2025), Brambini-Pedersen et al. (2025) and Boers and Ljungkvist (2026) collectively demonstrate that migrant entrepreneurs do not rely on either ethnic or mainstream networks. Instead, they may on family ties, ethnic entrepreneurial ecosystems and professional and transnational networks. The of these relationships on their combinations and the contexts in which they are also a central role in the process of outcomes not simply from the of resources but from entrepreneurs' to combine human, social and financial capital et al., types of social ties are to support entrepreneurial and Nguyen et al. (2025) further show that migrant family ownership influences how financial resources are governed and how firms balance risk, family control and resources and relationships may therefore generate while constraints and agency further to the reconfiguration David et al. (2026) highlight how migrant entrepreneurs ecosystem constraints and pathways to entrepreneurial Chang et al. (2025) demonstrate that entrepreneurial intentions are shaped by the interaction between individual backgrounds and embeddedness Falcão et al. (2025) that high levels of and human capital do not automatically into entrepreneurial as gendered migration pathways, and integration entrepreneurial aspirations and development may become more within processes of Migrant entrepreneurs may focus on developing and than (David et al., 2026; Chang et al., 2025; Polychronopoulos et al., reconfiguration is and relationships may become productive resources under particular organizational and institutional but they may also be or generate new The central issue is therefore not whether liabilities are replaced by but under which conditions migration-related resources can be into entrepreneurial and refers to a future-oriented in which migration-related experiences, identities, relationships and resources may as assets that support entrepreneurial opportunity creation and should not be understood as a or Liability and Liability–Asset Rather, it attention to the institutional and ecosystem conditions under which migration-related resources can be into entrepreneurial and to Liability Bounding, entrepreneurial are by migration-related barriers and Liability Asset entrepreneurs to and migration-related constraints and Asset in which these resources entrepreneurial development and characteristics that may or be associated with liabilities as ethnic identity, and may become of entrepreneurial advantage under particular may therefore be toward these resources to create and support venture may transnational networks, resource configurations, developing entrepreneurial and creating between local and global opportunity resources may support entrepreneurial and Their depend on access to complementary institutional organizational support and entrepreneurs' within markets and entrepreneurial ecosystems et al., 2024; Glinka et al., 2023; Elo et al., 2022; et al., networking one important of Asset Enabling. Polychronopoulos et al. (2025) demonstrate that transnational migrant entrepreneurship is associated with configurations of human, social and financial capital that Their findings suggest that migrant entrepreneurs may leverage relationships and resources to entrepreneurial beyond local Brambini-Pedersen et al. (2025) show that first-generation immigrant entrepreneurs possess extensive transnational and professional networks. networks may provide access to information, relationships and and may therefore become assets for entrepreneurial development across further the of Asset Enabling. Polychronopoulos et al. (2025) show how migrant entrepreneurs combine resources and relationships in different contexts when transnational entrepreneurial and networks may therefore opportunity development than barriers to local should not be understood as an of migrant on the of human, social and financial capital as well as on institutional access and may also an important role in future processes of Asset Enabling. Alka et al. (2025) as an in migrant entrepreneurship research. may to that entrepreneurs institutional differences and resource should not be as an entrepreneurial associated with migration and can support on how they are supported and with other resources and is therefore than resources may support opportunity and ecosystem development when they are with complementary forms of capital and supported by organizational and institutional They may also be or generate new tensions across different markets and The future research challenge is to when, how and for whom migration-related and relationships can be into entrepreneurial and broader organizational and this the landscape of migrant entrepreneurship is broader changes in migration labor transnational and complex contexts. The articles included in this special issue important of these changes across family, ecosystem and field entrepreneurs are more diverse in of their backgrounds, motivations, migration pathways, forms of embeddedness and types of venture creation than migrant entrepreneurship research has moved beyond on ethnic entrepreneurship and development, does not that liabilities have disappeared or become Rather, contemporary research the of entrepreneurial transnational embeddedness, intersectional differences and resource together, the articles in this special issue show that migration-related experiences, identities, relationships and resources are liabilities assets in Their entrepreneurial effects depend on how they are combined, recognized and institutionally and ethnic ties may provide trust, labor, control and information, while also creating or and transnational networks may access to knowledge and but their across and institutional social and financial capital may support transnational venture creation when in complementary while access to ecosystem resources by network and unequal power perspective to organizational change research by showing that and entrepreneurial ecosystems are not contexts in which migrant entrepreneurship support financial professional networks and entrepreneurial ecosystems whether migration-related resources can be into entrepreneurial They may access and but they may also unequal and resource Migrant entrepreneurs, in are not simply of organizational and institutional their financing network and transnational they may and the organizational and ecosystem structures in which they migrant entrepreneurs' agency is therefore but agency should not be from the organizational and institutional conditions under which it is associated with or transnational may to resilience, and opportunity development under They may also be institutionally or generate across different markets and The question is not whether liabilities be replaced by but when, how and for whom migration-related resources can become productive and how entrepreneurial are developed research should investigate these processes and across multiple levels of attention is to the temporal development of resource configurations, the role of organizational and entrepreneurship support the interaction between agency and ecosystem power and cases in which resource or Research should also move beyond entrepreneurial and intentions to examine venture development, family governance and research should also investigate the of migrant entrepreneurs to to ecosystem and change when social and sustainability to and contributions to this special issue therefore point toward a research on the conditions of an migrant entrepreneurs either primarily as or as transnational Instead, it the and processes through which migration-related characteristics may or entrepreneurial to the for their contributions and research on the past, present and future changes in the migrant entrepreneurship landscape across diverse perspectives, and empirical contexts. The also extend their to for their and the review Their and have a role in the and contribution of this special the their to the of the of for and the development of this special