Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles, 1965-1982

1989, International Migration Review

In the N etherlan ds, a sign ificant pro portion o f the imm igrant po pulation has estab lished itself as self-employed entrepreneur in the past few years, a process which has caught the attention of researchers. This article critically examines the output of these researchers. It is concluded that althou gh resear ch in the Nethe rlands h as brou ght to ligh t a num ber of inte resting fac ts, it has not contributed a great deal to our understanding of immigrant entrepreneurship. The harvest is one-sided, local and theoretically not very far reaching. Research on immigrant entrepre neursh ip has b een do minated by social scie ntists, wh o show a great dea l of interest in ethno-cultural characteristics and processes of ethno-cultural incorporation. In so doing, they reduce immigrant entrepreneurship to an ethno-cultural phenomenon existing within an economic and institutional vacuum. It is suggested that researchers seek linkages with the latest deve lopme nts in inte rnationa l theory-bu ilding, an d that the y pay more systematic attention to the structural changes in the urban economy, and the institutional framework of the welfare state with in which en trepreneurs op erate. * The auth ors would like to th ank San na Ravestein-Willis for translating the tex t. 2 Outsiders' Business A Critical R eview of Res earch on Im migra nt Ent repren eursh ip

International Migration Review 2000, 34 (3) (forthcoming). Outsiders’ Business A Critic al Re view of Re sea rch o n Imm igran t Entr epre neu rship * Jan R ath Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies (IMES), University of Amsterdam Robert Kloosterman OTB Research Institute, Delft University of Technology Abstract In the N etherlan ds, a sign ificant pro portion o f the imm igrant po pulation has estab lished itself as self-employed entrepreneur in the past few years, a process which has caught the attention of researchers. This article critically examines the output of these researchers. It is concluded that althou gh resear ch in the Nethe rlands h as brou ght to ligh t a num ber of inte resting fac ts, it has not contributed a great deal to our understanding of immigrant entrepreneurship. The harvest is one-sided, local and theoretically not very far reaching. Research on immigrant entrepre neursh ip has b een do minated by social scie ntists, wh o show a great dea l of interest in ethno-cultural characteristics and processes of ethno-cultural incorporation. In so doing, they reduce immigrant entrepreneurship to an ethno-cultural phenomenon existing within an economic and institutional vacuum. It is suggested that researchers seek linkages with the latest deve lopme nts in inte rnationa l theory-bu ilding, an d that the y pay more systematic attention to the structural changes in the urban economy, and the institutional framework of the welfare state with in which en trepreneurs op erate. * The auth ors would like to th ank San na Ravestein -Willis for translating the tex t. 1 Outsiders’ Business A Critical R eview of Res earch on Im migra nt Ent repren eursh ip Introduction Although nearly all Dutch politicians are still very reluctant to acknowledge, the Netherlands has becom e und eniably a c ountry of im migration . For ove r three de cades n ow, the n umb ers imm igrants has exceeded that of emigrants. The composition of this immigration has been very heterogeneous in terms of countries of origin, causes of migration, in terms of endowment of human capital and also very different in socio-cultural orientation. Moreover, this composition has been anything but stable over the years. In the 1960s, for instance, so-called guest workers from Mediterranean countries constituted an important category of immigrants. More recently, immigrants from advanced econom ies (mainly other EU-memb er states and North America) and refugees from lessdeveloped countries main ly in Asia and A frica (e.g. Somali, Iran an d Iraq) are on the rise. This continuous and continuing immigration raises the question which socio-economic paths of insertion in Dutch society have been accessible for newcomers. This question is both relevant for obvious policy reasons as well as from a scientific point of view. For over most of the three decades of continuous immigration, both most policy makers and scientists in the Netherlands have been phrasing answers in terms of employment. Approximately 80 per cent of the immigrant labor force popu lation in th e Neth erlands in 1996 worked as an em ployee (C BS, 1 996:4 3). Th ose imm igrants who are not employed are commonly considered to be looking for a job and insertion is first and foremost to be achieved by providing employment for them. This—understandable—focus on salaried employment is however less and less justified as immigrants set up shop in increasing numb ers. In 1987 , 9,393 im migrants from the so-called target grou ps of minority po licies were selfemployed, a mere 3.3 per cent of the corresponding labor force.1 Ten years later, this number has almost trebled to 27,380 immigrant entrepreneurs, which amounts to 7.4 per cent of the corresponding labor force. The percentage of self-employed among Turks is rather higher and now even exceeds the national average: 12.2 per cent among Turks against 10.2 for the entire population (Tillaart and Po utsma, 19 98: 39-40 ). Notwithstanding the overall focus of mo st researchers on the employment of immigran ts, some stu dies hav e been d evoted to immigra nt entrep reneurs hip. In th is article, we w ill present a critical review of this research on self-employed immigrants. We will put this specific research in a 2 wider perspective to generate a better, more general, understanding of how immigrants are being studied. This will involve exploring the relationship of this research with societal developments and more specifically with policy priorities. In our view, immigrant entrepreneurship can be seen as located at the intersection of a number of rather different scientific disciplines: ethnic studies, sociology, urban studies, general and business economics, economic geography, management studies, political science and policy stud ies. But how does this turn ou t in practice? O ur meta-study will reveal sa lient differe nces in re sponsiv eness of th ese fields o f (Dutch ) social scien ces with respect to the contemporary rise of immigrant entrepreneurship. In what f ollows, w e will exp lore wha t kinds of research h ave bee n carried out, wh at was the ir focus, what were their findings and what has been ignored. We start with a brief overview on the development of immigrant entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. This is followed by a historical review o f scientific res earch on this phe nome non. W e will con clude w ith formu lating five str ategic research perspectives that will not only encompass the various scientific disciplines, but which may also serve as an international, comparative research program of immigrant entrepreneurship. The dev elop men t of im mig rant e ntrep rene ursh ip The increase in the number of immigrant entrepreneurs in the Netherlands can be seen all along the line. A closer look reveals a marked pattern with respect to its distribution among the different groups of immigrants as well as to its spatial pattern. Certain categories of immigrants—e.g. Chinese a nd Tu rks—sh ow great fervor for en trepreneursh ip. It has also been sh own that selfemployment of Ghanaians, Egyptians and Pakistanis, groups that are (still) too small to be included in these ‘large’ surveys, is also above the national average (Choenni, 1997). Other categories seem to lag behind (see table 1). << table 1 about here >> If economically successful, immigrant entrepreneurship provides w ork and income exac tly for those members of categories of the population who face, on average, substantial obstacles on the labor market which leads to their persistently high rates of unemployment. The economic impact of immigr ant entre preneu rs is even m ore imp ortant tha n just p roviding jobs for th emselve s and th eir employees because they may indirectly contribute to employment opportunities for immigrants by 3 networking along the suppliers’ chain. The National Advisory Body of Turks (IOT) concluded that the grow th of em ploymen t under the Tu rkish po pulation betwee n 198 6 and 1992 was du e mostly to self-employed entrepreneurship.2 The Bureau for Economic Argumentation, which—without much proof though—assumed that ethnic minority entrepreneurs employ on average three workers and thus calculated the total effects on employment for the Netherlands to be roughly 50,000 extra jobs (BEA 1994:iv-v). 3 This d oes not m ean, ho wever, th at all imm igrants de sire to work with the ir compatriots. Half of the Turks interviewed by Veraart (1996:87-88) adamantly did not wish to do so. Immigrant entrepreneurship, although becoming more diverse, is still strongly oriented towards specific segments of the opportunity structure. About 60 percent of all immigrant entrepreneurs can be foun d in sectors such as wholesale, retail and restaurants (for recent studies, see Choenni, 1997; Kloosterman, van der Leun and Rath, 1997a and 1997b; Rath, 1995, 1999a and 1999 c; Rath a nd K loosterm an, 19 98; Tilla art and P outsma 1998 ). With in these se ctors, they ten d to gravitate to the lower end. Barriers of entry for setting-up businesses are relatively low in these sectors where fledgling firms do not always require large outlays of capital and sophisticated skills. Restaurants and shops can be small scale in operation, make use of simple technology, and can performs with a high labor input relative to that of capital. By employing family members and others from their own social netw orks, thes e immig rants entre preneu rs are in m any cases a ble to increase flexibility and reduce costs. Many immigrants enter these markets through mom-and-pop stores thereby partially replacing businesses of indigenous entrepreneurs through so-called vacancy chains. They often cater for the ‘captive market’ of co-nationals or co-ethnics, although many entrepreneu rs after a while tend to cater for a broader clien tele. Because o f these low barriers of e ntry, the markets in w hich these im migrant entrep reneurs operate are generally highly competitive. The main competitors are often co-nationals or co-ethnics and competition is largely based on prices rather than on quality. Consequently, immigrant entrepreneurs frequently have to accept small profit margins, while some are forced to close down after a relatively short period. To survive in these markets, they do not always conform to the prevailing laws and regulations, so that some of their activities may take on a (semi-) informal characte r (Klooste rman, v an der L eun & Rath 1 998 a nd 19 99). A s such, th is inform al start is anything but exceptional—many fledgling businesses go through such a phase—but the subsequent phase of growth which is necessary to formalize often does not materialize. The national and mun icipal gov ernme nts, and various ad visory bod ies and se ctor associa tions hav e tried, diffe ring in levels of inv olveme nt, to profe ssionalize immigra nt entrep reneurs hip with , up un til now, rela tively 4 little success. Having said this, it cannot be denied that besides the large numb er of mere survivors, some immigrant entrepreneurs are doing extremely well (Tillaart and Poutsma, 1998; Lof, 1997; Tinnem ans, 198 9). Research development One of the first social-science studies on immigration in the Netherlands was carried out by the sociographer Frederik van Heek. Th is study, Chinese Imm igrants in the Netherland s was published in 193 6 (van H eek, 19 36; see a lso Wu bben , 1986 ). Describ ing the p osition of C hinese s eamen in their so-called ‘colonies’ in the Katendrecht neighborhood in Rotterdam and around the Bantamme rstraat in Amsterdam, van He ek also paid attention to sundry Chinese bu sinesses. These businesses ranged from bo arding houses, laundries, import firms, eating places, pharm acies, barbers , small casin os, opiu m trader s to, notab ly, Chine se pean ut cookie vendo rs. Altho ugh h e only superficially touched upon the economic-sociological aspects of these Chinese entrepreneurs, van Heek w as the first rese archer to g ive seriou s attention to immig rant entre preneu rship. H is pioneering role becomes evident when we consider that it took almost half a century before other researchers were paying attention to im migrant entrep reneurship . Admittedly, nearly all research on contemporary immigrants in the Netherlands is a rather recent phenomenon. Apart from a few (overview) studies on repatriates from Indonesia (Kraak et al., 1957 ), Amb oinese (A mbon ezen, 1 959) n ot much attention w as paid to immigra tion in ge neral. This started to change towards the end of the 1970s and in the early 1980s, when the Dutch government began to display a growing awareness of the more permanent character of the recent settlers (compare Rath, 1991 and 1993). Accordingly, the government took the initiative for extensive research on guest workers and Surinamese (Verwey-Jonker, 1973; Penninx, 1979; van Ame rsfoort, 19 82). In th ese stud ies next to no attentio n was p aid to self-em ploymen t.4 Even the Society and Business Foundation (SMO), sponsored by employers’ associations, in their report on guest workers, made no mention of immigrant entrepreneurship (SMO, 1972). This neglect is all the more remarkable, as immigrants were already setting up their bu sinesses—albeit still in modest num bers. G uest wo rkers’ ho stels ran b y immigra nts them selves attrac ted attentio n from th e media and the authorities for being fire hazards, but social scientists had no eye for them. Neither did they see the emergence of—partially informal—Turkish and Moroccan Islamic butchers (Rath et al., 1996:74-75 ), or register the fact that the lower social classes were finding their way to Chinese take-away restaurants, where, at very low cost, huge portions of exotic food were served 5 (Rijkschroeff, 1 998). Th ese nascent b usiness activities on th e part of immig rants stayed, how ever, outside the view of researchers at that time. During the ‘leftist’ 1960s and early 197 0s, entrepreneurship was definitely unfashionable. Moreover, many considered small businesses and, consequently, self-employment to be something more from the past than from the future. It was only in the ‘neo-liberal’ 1980s, that explicit research on entrepreneurship was undertaken. In 1981 two undergraduate students of from the University of Amsterdam, under the supervision of the cultural anthropologist, Frank Bovenkerk, wrote an article on the ‘exceptional ways of making a living’ by Chinese entrepreneurs in the restaurant business (Blom and Romeijn, 1981 ). In their intro duction they argue d again st the rathe r strong p reoccup ation of th e Dutc h pub lic with Chinese crime. They also criticized the so-called ‘ethnic minorities researchers’, who apparently did not judge the ‘predicament’ of these Chinese to be interesting enough and thus completely ignored their specific economic activities. A year later, Bovenkerk (1982a) himself took a stand against scientific experts and social workers from the emerging and government-sponsored ‘ethnic minorities industry’. They were clearly blind to the fact that a growing number of immigrants ‘were able to find the key to success on their own, without the help of the welfare state’. This ‘negligence’ was all the more conspicuous since, in a typical immigration country such as the Unit ed Sta tes, self-e mplo ymen t is custo marily c onsid ered a s a class ical rou te for so cial mo bility. Bovenkerk advan ced five explanations for this blind spot on the part of social researchers. Firstly, the fact that one of the largest categories of immigrants—the M editerranean guest workers— were purp osely recruited for (temp orary) employme nt. Second ly, researchers (incorrectly) assumed that small businesses inevitably would have to make way for larger enterprises. Thirdly, they tended to associate immigrant entrepreneurship with ‘a number of obviou sly illegal practic es’. Fou rthly, imm igrant en treprene urs them selves ha d not attem pted to draw the attention of policy makers in marked contrast to immigrant workers. Fifthly, the tendency of the ‘minorities industry’ to be more attuned to ‘social needs’ than to ‘independent initiatives of this sor t’. Bo venk erk’s c riticism of the s ocial sc ience s was ri ght on target, b ut he, remar kably, omitted econom ics from h is critique. E conom ists and stu dents of manag ement w ere com pletely absent in research on immigrant entrepreneurs, a subject which, ideally, should be part and parcel of their field. Bovenkerk’s article, still worth reading today, seems to have initiated a series of research on self-employed im migrants. W e mention th e most impo rtant of these. To start w ith there were Bovenkerk’s own theoretical deliberations (Bovenkerk, 1982b and 1983) and his empirical research on Italian ice-makers, plasterers, chimney sweeps and terrazzo workers (Bovenkerk, Eijken and 6 Bovenkerk-Teerink, 1983; Bovenkerk and Ruland, 1984 and 1992). In addition, Boissevain and Grotenbreg (1984, 1987a, 1987b, 19 88 and others; see further Boissevain, Choenni and Grotenbreg 1984) undertook studies on self-employed Surinamese. Pennings published on self-employed Greeks (Vermeulen et al., 1985), and Pieke (1987) on Chinese restaurants. Tap (1983) pioneered research on Turkish contractors in the garment industry; followed by his collaboration with Bakker on Islamic butchers (Bakker and T ap, 1985). Veraart (198 7) explored Turkish coffee h ouses. Dijst et al. (1984; see also Cortie et al., 1986) took the Amsterdam inner-city neighborhood Oude Pijp as their starting point for research on immigrant businesses. Jeleniewski (1984 and 1987), who compared the Oude Pijp with the Schilderswijk, a neighborhood in The Hague, took the same approach. Moreover, general overviews on immigrant entrepreneurs in the Netherlands, paid for by the Dutch government, were produced by van den Tillaart and Reubsaet (1987; see also van den Tillaart, 1993). Additionally, magazines pub lished special issues (among others Kroniek, 1984), workshop s were organize d and disc ussion pap ers published (Gowrich arn, 1985 ). Most of these studies were centered on, what was considered the ethnic nature of the immigrant b usinesses. Ethnic loyalties and ethnic markets were assumed to be the hallmark of immigrant entrepreneurship. Furthermore, many of these studies were one way or the other, funded by the D utch go vernm ent. Th e Min istry for Econ omic A ffairs led th e fund ing of rese arch in th is field, but other departments followed suit. Immigrant entrepreneurship came to be seen as a form of socio-economic self-help that snugly fitted in with the among policy makers prevailing neo-liberal views on ways of incorporation of immigrants. More pragmatically, it seemed to provide a cheap and easy solution for the staggering high rates of unemployment among immigrants at that time. In the second half of the 1980s, however, euphoria ebbed as entrepreneurship clearly was not just a bed of roses for every immigrant. The research now seemed to emphasize the other side of the coin. Studies appeared, such as that of Bloeme and van Geuns (1987 a and 1987b; see also van Geuns , 1992) on informal activities, in particu lar in the Turkish contractors in the ga rment indu stry in Am sterdam . Immigra nts had manag ed to pen etrate into th is sector of m anufac turing m ore than in any other economic sector and this had not gone unnoticed by self-proclaimed political spokesmen, interest gro ups an d journ alists. The y publish ed indig nantly ab out the u nequ al balanc e of pow er in the industry as a whole and about the abuses in the Turkish factories in particular (for example, van Putten and Lucas, 1985; Smit and Jongejans, 1989; Smit, 1994; Stichting Opstand, 1993; Zeldenru st and van E ijk, 1992 ). In the 19 90s, pa rallel with th e then m anifestly stron g growth in entrep reneurs hip in g eneral, interest in th e subje ct increase d again . Studie s were car ried out b y both ren owned and lesse r well7 known commercial consultants again paid for by government agencies. Coopers & Lybrand (Setzpfand, Engels and Linssen, 1993), the Bureau for Economic Argumentation (1994), Regioplan (Hulshof and Mevissen 1985) and Kybele Consultants (Bayraktar and van der Weide, 1996) undertook research projects. In 1996, the fully state-sponsored Social and Cultural Planning Bureau for the first time paid attention to ‘ethnic entrepreneurship’ in their yearly report (Tesser, van Dugteren and Merens, 1996). Furthermore, van den Tillaart and Poutsma (1998) provided another general overview on immigrant entrepreneurs. Finally, Choenni (1993 and 19 97), van der Meulen and H eilbron (1 995) a nd R ijkschro eff (199 6) researc hed the develop ment of entrepre neursh ip among specific immigrant groups. Starting point of most of these studies was still the (real or alleged) ethnic character of the business activities of immigrants. Recently, research into immigrant entrepreneurship has entered a new phase. Researc hers— influen ced by m ore enco mpass ing view s on imm igration an d socio-ec onom ic developments such as has been undertaken by Sassen (1991) and Waldinger (1996)—have moved away from this foc us on ethn o-cultural endo wment an d have started to p ay attention to the mo re structural economic or sociological embeddedness of immigrant entrepreneurs. Rekers (1993) has explored the role of the urban economic structure within which immigrant entrepreneurs operate. Others (Bruin, Hellingman and de Lange, 1997; Kloosterman, van der Leun and Rath 1997a, 1997b and 1998; and Rath 199 5, 1999b and 199 9c) have taken into account the role of the institutional framework (welfare state arrangements and its concomitant specific set of rules and regulations) on immigrant entrepreneurship. Finally, Raes (1996 and 1999) has examined the impact of international market developments on immigrant entrepreneurs. A similarly wide perspective can be found in the studies of Bu rgers et al. (1996) on urban marginality, of Kehla, Engbersen and Snel (1997) on immigrant entrepreneurs in a weekly market in Rotterdam, of van Delft, Gorter and Nijkamp (1988) on entrepreneurship in an Amsterdam neighborhood, and in the study of Bovenkerk and Fijnaut (1996) on criminal entrepreneurs. The commissions for research during this period are mostly from the national government (and particularly from the Ministries of Economic Affairs and Internal Affairs) and municipal governments (especially Amsterdam and Rotterdam), but also from advisory bodies such as the Temporary Scientific Comm ittee on Minority Policy (TWCM ). During this period, business institutions such as sector/trade organizations, associated companies or Chambers of Commerce,—although concerned— kept fairly quiet. Exceptions to the rule here are the Association of Butchers (Bakker and Tap, 1985), the Dutch Bakers’ Foundation (Swinkels, 1991), the Board of Trade for the C lothing In dustry, w hich w as only look ing for arg umen ts to settle for on ce and fo r all 8 with the Turkish c.q. illegal clothing contracting industry (BEA, 1992), and the Royal Association of Restaurants (Bruin et al., 1997; van Brussel and Vennin ckx, 199 7). Much research has thus been strongly policy-driven and to a much lesser extent undertaken out of purely scientific interest. Research objectives and questions have been, accordingly, mainly based on policy priorities allowing for only limited theoretical reflection. Many social scientists, faced with poor employment opportunities themselves, were only too eager to go along with the prevailing political agenda. Historians, also struggling on the labor market but lacking in contract research assignments, could safely ignore the policy makers’ wishes. They have researched the activities of self-employed craftsmen, hawkers, tradesmen and man ufacturers of variou s origins, such as im migrants from the South ern Nethe rlanders (curren t Belgium ), Portug uese an d East E uropea n Jews , French Hugu enots, R oman Catho lic Westphalians and gypsies (see for example, Berg, Wijsenbeek and Fischer, 1994; Knotter 1995; M erens, 199 6; Miellet, 19 87; Schro ver, 1996 ; Rath, 199 8 and 19 99a). One-sided, local and theoretically not far reaching Whic h pattern s can be discerne d in this sh ort history of re search in to immig rant entre preneu rship in the Netherlands? Firstly, we n otice that th e field of co ntemp orary researc h on th e immig rant entre preneu rship has bee n dom inated b y social scien tists, such a s cultural a nthrop ologists, soc iologists an d econ omic geograp hers. Ec onom ists have b een no tably absen t, althoug h there ar e many in teresting ec onom ic aspects to study, ranging from the fast rise in numbers to innovations in various entrepreneurial activities. As far as the latter is concerned, the introduction of—in the Netherlands—unknown products, the discovery of new distribution lines and the servicing of under-served markets, such as that of the immigrants themselves, can be called to mind (Kloosterman, van der Leun and Rath, 1997a). This conspicuous absenteeism of economists is not confined to the Netherlands nor to the study of immigrant entrepreneurship. Contemporary economists have given short shrift to the study of entrep reneurs hip mo re in gen eral “exa ctly becau se of the b ias to the ass ump tion that p rofitable activities automatically take place” (Granovetter, 1994:453). Neo-classical economics has thus deproblematized entrepreneurship altogether by making it endogenous in their models: opportunities for entrepreneu rs will be perceived and, subse quently, seized b y rational econom ic actors (cf. Block, 1 990; L ight and Rosen stein, 19 95). T he fact tha t econom ists have tak en so little trou ble to 9 examine entrepreneurship in general has hampered research into primarily economic aspects of immigrant en trepreneursh ip more in p articular. Secondly, the majority of researchers on immigrant entrepreneurship have displayed a great deal of interest in ethno-cultural characteristics and p rocesses of ethno -cultura l incorporation. Com pletely in lin e with D utch ‘eth nic min orities researc h’ (Ra th 199 1 and 1993 ), they tend to regard entrepreneurship first and foremost in ethnic terms, something which is illustrated by the indiscriminate use of the term ‘ethnic entrepreneurship’. Exac tly what distinguishes ethnic entrepre neursh ip from e ntrepren eurship in gener al is seldom or never (th eoretically) m ade exp licit: does this adjective refer to the origins of the entrepreneur, his or her managemen t strategies, personnel, clientele, products, or a combination of these? The majority of researchers just assume withou t any furthe r reflection th at there are real differences, just bec ause the y are dealin g with immigr ants. Ex planatio ns for eve ry aspect of im migran t entrepre neurial b ehavior a re directly related to eth no-cultu ral tradition s, ethnic m oral frame works an d ethnic behav ior pattern s, ethnic loyalties or ethnic markets. Thus, they reduce immigrant entrepreneurship to an ethno-cultural phenomenon existing within an economic and institutional vacuum. Choenni (1997) made an attempt to give body to the term ‘ethnic entrepreneur’—in a more general sense he uses the policy term ‘allochtonous entrepreneurs’. His search for entrepreneurship as route of incorporation, howev er, by no m eans rises a bove th e ‘ethnic minoritie s know ledge’. In stead of aff iliating with theoretical insights from economics or economic sociology, he sought refuge in culturalist notions and in van Am ersfoort’s thesis (1982) on the formation of ethnic minority groups. Thirdly, many researchers seem to neglect much of the more recent theoretical develop ments in internatio nal researc h on im migran t entrepre neursh ip. The anthrop ologists Boissevain, Bovenkerk, and Vermeulen (1991) are among the few Dutch researchers who have made h eadwa y, in so far as th ey have ex plored a rticulated theoretica l viewpo ints in (inte rnationa l) publications. The lack of theoretical depth has mu ch to do with the policy-driven character of most of the research so far. Most government agencies have little time for theoretical reflections and contract re search is stro ngly geare d toward s more p ragmatic question s. Thos e research ers that try to integrate theoretical insights mostly refer to the same sources. In general, they start with the viewpoints of Light (1972) and Bonacich (1973) and end with the interactive model of Waldinger and associates (1990). This interactive model—which is more of a classification than an explanatory m odel— is intended to ass ist the understan ding of ethnic strategies, whereby the strategies are conside red to be the prod ucts of gro up ch aracteristics a nd the s urroun ding op portun ity structures. The book, howev er, neglects a number of crucial questions: why are imm igrants a priori 10 depicted as unchanging ethnic subjec ts; why is the econom ic contex t within w hich the ir entrepre neursh ip deve lops view ed as m ore or less sta tic, and th e institution al contex t simply portrayed by the listing o f laws and regu lations (see more ex tensively Rath, 19 99b)? Notwithstan ding these criticism s, Ethnic Entrepren eurs, with contributions by a group of prominent international researchers (e.g. Blaschke, Boissevain, Light, McEvoy, Morokvasic, Phizacklea, Waldin ger and W erbner), is still a valuable book, illustrating the insights which were commonplace halfway during the 1980s. Viewing this book as a end-all and be-all of research on immigrant entrep reneu rship , make s one n ot only m iss the m ore rec ent de velop men ts in int ernatio nal the orybuilding (such as Light and Rosenstein, 1995; Waldinger, 1996), but also means forgoing a chance to make a contribution to the current international debate on the subject. More recently, we ourselves have initiated an ambitious research programme with an explicit international comparative dimension to try to advance this type of research in the Netherlands (see, for example, Kloosterma n, van der L eun and Rath, 19 98 and 1999; R ath, 1999 a and 19 99b). Fourth ly, in conju nction w ith the eth nic bias, m ost scientific researche rs have p aid little systematic a ttention to the und erlying struc tural cha nges of th e econo my in gen eral and specific markets more in particular. Neither have they paid much attention to the overall institutional framework of the corporate w elfare state within wh ich entrepren eurs operate. E xceptions are Boissevain and Grotenbreg (1986 and 1987b), Bloeme and van Geuns (1987), Kehla et al. (1996), Raes (1 996 a nd 19 99), R ekers (19 93) an d our ow n work (Klooste rman 1 999; K loosterm an, Ra th and van der Leun 1998; Rath 19 98, 1999a and 1999 b). When studying ethnic entrepreneurs, many research ers foun d it perfec tly sensible to implicitly assu me that m arket con ditions are of little importance . As if bakers, car-rep air, ice-cream parlors, garm ent factories and b ureaus for intercultural co mmu nication operate u nder m ore or less id entical m arket con ditions, h ave to de al with the same set regulations and of institutions and thus demand similar entrepreneurial skills and produce similar results. Obviously, this is not the case. Take for instance the strong rise of Turkish contractors in the Amsterdam garm ent contracting during the 198 0s and the beginnin g of the 1990s. The proliferation of contractors was very much linked to the changing consumption patterns and purchasing strategies of wholesalers and chain stores, as well as the fairly tolerant attitude of the relevant authorities towards informal practices. The collapse of the industry halfway through the 1990s was linked to the opening of new markets in East Europe and with the more rigorous control on illegal work and tax evasion. The political mobilization of the contractors and their political advoca tes brou ght no c hange . This ex ample s hows th e extent to which specific p rocesses e xternal to the entrepreneurs and their businesses, can thwart entrepreneurship within one sector. To obtain a 11 deeper insight on the functioning of entrepreneurship, a broad theoretical approach, which goes way beyon d ethn ic stud ies, is a n ecessity. In sum, we mu st conclu de that alth ough re search in the Neth erlands h as brou ght to ligh t a number of interesting facts, it has not contributed a great deal to a more thorough understanding of immigr ant entre preneu rship. T he harv est is one-sid ed, local an d theore tically not very in cisive. Th is deficiency is to a large extent explained by the specific combination of a particular rather recent tradition of doing research on minorities in the Netherlands with the fact that most of the research was commissioned by the Dutch government with the more or less explicit purpose to improve the socio-economic position of immigrants in the Netherlands after 1970. The absence of economists—general and business—has resulted in a neglect of underlying economic processes and a narrow focus on (real or alleged) ethnic factors. New directions for research The rise of immigrant entrepreneurship in the Netherlands during these past years has become ever more manifest. This development have prompted penetrating questions regarding the relationship of entrepreneurship with, for example, the immigrant’s social mobility or segregation of the housing market. As we have already seen, much researchers have approached these important questions from an ethno-cu ltural persp ective sho wing a c ertain pre ference fo r case stud ies of spec ific ethnic group s. This m ore paroc hial app roach to im migran t entrepre neurs an d to imm igrants in g eneral, will— in the en d— primarily re-a scertain es sentialist con ception s of ethnic ity and no t contribu te to the interrelationship between im migration and its wider contex t (cf. Cassarino, 19 97; Rath , 1999b ). In the case of immig rant entre preneu rship, w here ma ny strand s meet, w e propo se a mu ltidisciplin ary appro ach to asse ss this relation ship from a theoretica l perspec tive whic h allows explicit international comparison. We, therefore, seek linkages with economic-geographic or economicsociological viewpoints on entrepreneurship in particular, and business activity in general. Ethnocultural factors are not given a priori an independent role, but are integrated into a greater whole, while other variables are given their due attention. The change in the direction of the theoretical standpoint from ethno-cultural to more general econ omic, sociological or geographical perspectives, makes it possible to build on other, possibly more fruitful research traditions of related disciplines. Moreove r, we can imm ediately locate immigra nt entreprene urship in a b roader contex t with farreaching consequences. This line of reasoning constitutes no less than a plea for a break with the research tradition which has developed during the last fifteen years in the Netherlands. This, by 12 implication, also means at least an arms’ length distance from the government and its policy-driven contract research. To exp lore imm igrant en treprene urship , we sug gest linkin g up w ith a num ber of cu rrent. more theoretically-informed research perspectives. We start with a perspective which sees the entrepreneur first and foremost as an economic actor; following this we suggest a number of perspectives on meso-level and finish with an international comparative perspective. The first perspective views the entrepreneur as an individual actor: Schumpeterian entrepreneurship. This perspective is advocated by the so-called Austrian School ( Kirzner, 1997; see for a more critical view Light and Rosenstein, 1995). Central in this perspective is the question, to what extent the entrepreneur is really innovative and thus able to avoid the dictates of the market in the neo-classical sense. An entrepreneur can, through innovation of the product, the productionmethod, logistics, distribution or marketing, procure a monopoly—albeit generally short-term. Such an opp ortunity offe rs the entre preneu r the chan ce to temp orarily raise pr ices and make m onopo ly profits where other, non-innovative entrepreneurs have to accept the price and the lower rewards which ensue. To what extent are the immigrant entrepreneurs such ‘real entrepreneurs’? How do they create th eir mon opolies? To wh at extent a re they able to mainta in and e xploit th eir monopolies? To what extent—to use a concrete example—is the first Turkish baker in a neighborhood an innovative entrepreneur; if so, on the basis of what (product, market, organization of production, otherwise); and how long can he keep his monopoly—if it exists—intact; and which other bu sinesses e ventua lly usurp it? The second perspective lays emphasis on the social embedd edness of entrepreneurs , a subject which preoccupies the contemporary economic sociologists (Light 1999; Portes, 1995a; Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993; Waldinger 1996; Rath 1999b). The insight that entrepreneurs do not operate in a social vacuum, but that they are embedded in various social networks which they use and manip ulate for ec onom ic goals, ha s taken roo t. The term social cap ital is used in this context. Such social capital is an important prerequisite, but no gua rantee, for economic success. Each s ocial relation ship ha s its own sh ortcomin gs, as well a s inheren t material an d imm aterial costs (Flap, Kumcu and Bulder, 1999 ). Thus, embeddedness in—ethnic or other—social networks of workers can be strong, and the embeddedness in economically relevant networks of suppliers and financial institutions, weak. More systematic and theoretically grounded research on the distribution, density and working of such social networks is absolutely necessary for a good understanding of immigrant entrepreneurship. Research on the international distribution of such 13 networks an d their extent an d meanin g for transnationa l economies fits this p erspective (com pare Aktar and Ögelman , 1994; P ortes, 1995 b; Strijp, 199 7; Wallace, C hmouliar an d Sidoren ko, 1996 ). The third perspective is closely related, but has as starting-point the (line of) business and not the entrepreneur. It is based on general business studies and gives a pivotal role to firms in economic networks and value systems (Porter, 1990; Elfring and Foss, 1997). Economic networks can offer businesses various possibilities—for examp le, in the form of complementary assets: specific skills which in combination can lead to a more or less unique product -, but can also trap them in traditions w hich can hamp er innov ation. W hich po sition do im migran t busine sses occu py in such n etworks a nd valu e systems? To wh at extent d oes their im migran t backgro und d etermin e their position? Under what circumstances is this an asset or a disadvantage? The fourth perspective draws attention to the relationship between immigrant businesses and m ore gene ral transformation processes in advanced (urban) economies. Sassen’s work (1988 and 1991) for example, places the economic activities of immigrants in the larger context of chang es in the u rban ec onom ic structure . In the N etherlan ds also, an attempt h as been made in this direction (Kloo sterman, 19 96; Kloos terman, van der Leun and Rath , 1997b ; Rath, 199 5 and 19 99c). Further research will have to explore in more detail the relationship between immigrant’s activities and the rise of an urban service-economy. In this way, more precise information can be gathered on the exac t position w hich (im migran t) busine sses occu py in econ omic activ ities in spec ific econo mic sectors (compa re Raes, 19 96 and 1999). The fifth perspective focuses on the political-institutional framework. Althou gh this perspe ctive is often found in interna tional resea rch on u nemp loyment, it h as not yet take n hold in research on entrepreneurship. It makes sense to develop this research avenue. What kinds of relationships exist between the political-institutional framework (in particular, the nature of the welfare state) and (immigrant) entrepreneurship, both direct and indirect (for example via the labor market). With this latter viewpoint links can be made with the research initiated by EspingAndersen on the broad effects of the labor market’s institutional framework on the extent of employment in the post-industrial era (Kloosterman, 1999). The institutional framework includes the law a nd the is suing o f rules and regulation s concern ing econ omic activ ity and its implem entation (Freem an and Ögelm an, 19 98). T o what e xtent are rules and regulation s favorab le or unfav orable for entrepre neurs o perating in the m ore marg inal sectors of the eco nomy, an d to what extent are economic activities carried out in an informal atmosphere (Kloosterman, van der Leun an d Rath, 1 997b; R ath 1999 a)? 14 In principle, these meso-perspectives can be well combined with our last perspective, the international comparison. The ren aissance of entrep reneurs hip and the role of im migran ts is certainly no t just of con cern in th e Neth erlands. As stated , this deve lopme nt also take s place in other advanced economies. Until now almost no international comparative research has been carried out (for exceptions see Ward, 1987; Morokvasic, 1993; Morokvasic, Phizacklea and Rudolph, 1986; M orokvasic, W aldinger and Phizacklea, 1 990; Ra zin, 1993 ).5 This sca rcity is proba bly explained by the great conceptual complexity and problems involved with the gathering of comparable data (Kloosterman, 1998). The design and implementation of systematic international comparative research, for example, from within the institutional framework, could lead to the development of a new vision on immigrant entrepreneurship whereby new relationships may come to light. Entrepreneurship h as many facets; the ethno-cultural background of the entrepren eur is just one of th ese. W ith the ab ove me ntioned suggeste d persp ectives, it will b e possib le to link this specific facet systematically with others. Linking up with other perspectives to economic activities will allow fo r a broad er und erstandin g of imm igrant en treprene urship than is n ow pos sible and will, eventu ally, contrib ute mea ningfu lly to other dis ciplines in the Neth erlands a nd, m ore imp ortant, abroad. This step is in the long term not only fruitful for the incorporation of immigrant entrepre neurs in an adva nced ec onom y but for the emanc ipation o f those w ho do re search on this subjec t · 15 References Aktar, C. and N. Ögelman (1994). “Recent developments in East-West migration. Turkey and the petty traders”, International Migration, 32(2):343-354. Ambonezen in Nederland (1959). Rapport van de commissie ingesteld bij besluit van de Minister van Maatschappelijk Werk, d.d. 24 sept. 1957, Nr. U 2598. Den Haag: Staatsdrukkerij- en Uitgeversbe drijf. Amersfoo rt, H. van (19 82). Immigration and the Form ation of Minority Groups. The Dutch Experience 1945-1975. Cambridge: Ca mbridge Un iversity Press. Amsterdam in Cijfers. Jaarboek 1990. Dee l 1. (19 90). A msterd am: A msterd am M unici pality, Bureau fo r Research an d Statistics (O+S ). Amsterdam in Cijfers. Jaarboek 1994. (1994). Amsterdam: Amsterdam Mun icipality, Bureau for Research an d Statistics (O+S ). Atlas & T erp Ond erzoeksbure au (1991 ). Buitenlandse R estaurants en Allochton e Ondernem ers. The Hagu e: Ministry of Economic Affairs. BEA (1994). De Econom ische Betekenis van Minderheden voor de Arbeidsmarkt. Hoofddorp: Bureau fo r Econom ic Argum entation. Baetsen, P . and J. Vo skamp (1 991). Kopen en Verkopen op Zuid. Een Onderzoek naar de Omgang, Betekenis en Ontwikkeling van het Etnische Ondernemerschap in Rotterdam Oud-Zuid. Amersfoort: Stichting Werkgroep ‘2duizend. Bakker, E .S.J. and L .J. Tap (O nderzoeke rs Kollektief Utrech t) (1985). Islamitisc he Slag erijen in Nederland. Verslag van e en onderz oek in opd racht van B edrijfschap S lagersbedrijf. Mededelingenreeks nr. 40. The Hague: Hoofdbedrijfschap Ambachten. Bayraktar, O.S . and H. va n der W eide (1996 ). Kwestie van Etn iciteit. Kansen voor Turkse Ondernem ers, Kansen voo r Rotterdam N oord. Rotte rdam /Den Haag : Kybe le Con sultan cy. BEA (1992 ). Illegale Confectie-Ateliers. Een Geïntegreerde Bestrijding. Opgesteld in Opdracht van Vakraad voor de C onfectie-Industrie, Werkgroep bestrijding illegale confectie-ateliers. Hoofddorp: Bureau for Economic Argumentation. BEA (1994). De Econom ische Betekenis van Minderheden voor de Arbeidsmarkt. Hoofddorp: Bureau for Economic Argumentation. Becker, H .M. and J.A. de Jo ng (198 7). Drieëntachtig Ro tterdamse Etnische O ndernemers. Problemen en Oplossingen . Rotterdam: Stichting Buitenland se Werknem ers. 16 Berg, H., T h. Wijsen beek and E. Fischer (ed s.) (1994). Venter, Fabriqu eur, Fabrikant. Joo dse Ondernemers en Ondernemingen in Nederland 1976-1940. Amsterdam: Joods Historisch Museu m, NE HA. Block, F. (1 990). Postindustrial Possibilities. A Critique of Eco nomic Discou rse. Berk eley, CA: Un iversity of California Press. Bloem e, L. and R.C. v an Ge uns (19 87a). “ Loonk onfektie te rug in N ederlan d? Infor mele bedrijvighe id in ketens”, Tijdsch rift voor P olitieke E kono mie, 10(4):76-98. Bloeme, L . and R.C . van Geu ns (1987 b). Ong eregeld Ond ernem en. Een Ond erzoek n aar Info rmele Bedrijv igheid . Den Haag: Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid. Blom, E. and T. Romeijn (1981). “D e kracht van traditie. Hoe Chinezen succesvol opereren in het restaurantwez en”, Sociologische Gids, May/Jun e, 28(3):22 8-238. Boissevain, J . (1992). “ Les entreprises eth niques au x Pays-Bas”, Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales, (Special issue “Entrepreneur entre Deux Mond es” ed. by S. Body-Gentrot and E. Ma Mung), 8(1):97-106. Boissevain, J ., A. Cho enni and H. Groten breg (198 4). Een Kleine Baas is Altijd Beter dan een Grote Knecht. Surinaamse Kleine Zelfstandige Ondernemers in Amsterdam. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Anthropological-Sociological Centre. Boissevain, J. and H. Grotenbreg (1986). “Ondernemerschap en de wet. Surinaamse zelfstandigen in Amsterd am”, Migrantenstudies, 2(1):2-24. Boissevain, J. and H. Grotenbreg (1987a). “Ethnic enterprise in the Netherlands. The Surinamese of Amsterd am”, pp. 1 05-130 in R. Goffe e and R. S case (eds.), Entrepreneurship in Europe. The Social Processes. London: Croom Helm. Boissevain, J . and H. G rotenbreg (19 87b). “S urvival in spite of the law. Surinam ese entrepren eurs in Amsterd am”, Revue Européenne des M igrations Internationales, 13(3):199-222. Boissevain, J. and H. G rotenbreg (1988). “C ulture, structure and ethnic enterprise. The Surinam ese of Amsterd am”, pp. 2 21-249 in M. Cro ss and H. E ntzinger (eds.), Lost Illusions. Caribbean Minorities in Britain and the Netherlands. London: Routledge. Bonacich , E. (1973 ). “A theory of m iddleman minorities”, American Sociological Review, October, 38(5):583-594. Bovenkerk, F. (1982a). “Op eigen kracht omhoog. Etnisch ondernemerschap en de oogkleppen van het minde rhedencircu it”, Interm ediair , 26 February, 18(8):1-11. 17 Bovenkerk, F. (1982b). “Shylock of Horatio Alger. Beschouwingen over de theorie der handelsminderheden”, in Neveh Ya’akor. Jubilee Volume presented to Jaap Meijer. Assen: van Gorcum. Bovenk erk, F. (198 3). “De soc iologie van de etn ische ondern eming”, Sociologische Gids, (Special issue ‘Het midden- en kleinbedrijf’ ed. by A.L. Mok), 30(3-4):264-275. Bovenk erk, F., A. E ijken and W . Bovenke rk-Teerink (19 83). Italiaan s ijs. De o pmer kelijke histo rie van de Italiaanse ijsbereiders in Nederland. Meppel/Amsterdam: Boom. Bovenkerk, F. and C. Fijnaut (1996). Georganiseerde criminaliteit in Nederland. Over allochtone en buitenland se criminele groep en. Inzake Opsporing. Enquêtecommissie opsporingsmethoden. Bijlage VIII, Deel I, Onderzo eksgroep Fijnau t. Autochtone, allochton e en buitenlandse criminele groepen. Enquête Opsporingsmethoden. TK 1995-1996, 24 072, nr. 17. Bovenk erk, F. and L . Ruland (1984). “ De schoo rsteenvegers”, Interm ediair , 21 Dece mber, 20(51):23-39. Bovenkerk, F. and L. Ruland (1992). “Artisan entrepreneurs. Two centuries of Italian immigration to the Netherlan ds”, International Migration Review, Fall, 26(3):92 7-939. Bruin, H .J.E., K. H ellingman an d R. de L ange (199 7). Juridische Aspecten van Etnisch Ondernemerschap. NISER Working Paper 1997. Utrecht: NISER. Bruin, M ., I. Caljé, A. Gra vesteyn, J. de K uyer and B . van der Pu tten (1997 ). Imago Chinees Indisch e Bedr ijven. Ee n On derzoe k naa r het Ima go va n de C hinees In dische r estaura nts in Nederland. Maastricht: Hoge Hotelschool. Projectgroep IX. Brussel Th .H.H.F . van, and R .W.M . Veninck x (1997 ). Quick Scan Koninklijke Horeca Nederland Chinees-Indische Bedrijven. Nederweert: Grande Cuisine. Burgers, J., G . Engberse n, R. Kloo sterman and E. Snel (ed s.) (1996). In de Marges van de Stad. Research papers nr. 8. Utrecht: Onderzoekschool Arbeid, Welzijn en Sociaal-Economisch Bestuur. Cassarino, J.-P . (1997), The Theories of Ethnic Entrepreneurship, ad the Alternative Arguments of Socia l Action and N etwork Analy sis. EUI Working Papers SPS N o. 97/1. Florence: European University Institute. CBS (1996). Allochtonen in Nederland 1996. Voorburg/Heerlen: C entral Bureau for Statistics. Choen ni, A. (199 3). De Allochtone Ondernemers van Amsterdam. Een Sociaal-Geografische Inventa risatie. Amsterdam: A msterdam M unicipality, Department of Econom ic Affairs. Choen ni, A. (199 7). Veelsoortig A ssortiment. Alloch toon O ndern emersc hap in Amste rdam als Incorporatietraject 1965-1995. PhD d issertation Unive rsity of Amsterdam . 18 Cortie, C., M.J. Dijst, R. van Engelsdorp Gastelaars, R. van Kempen and W .P.R. van der Steen (1986). “ Marokka anse, Surin aamse en T urkse ond ernemers in A msterdam ”, K.N.A.G. Geog rafisch T ijdschrift , 20(2):169-182. Van Delft, H., C. Gorter and P. Nijkamp (1988). “Etnisch ondernemerschap als parpoort voor de stedelijke arb eidsmarkt”, Rooilijn , 31(2): 81-86. Dijk, S., R . van Geu ns and H . Noorderm eer (1993 ). Allochtone Ondernemers en het Bijstandsbesluit Zelfstandigen. The H ague: M inistry of So cial Affairs and E mploym ent. Dijst, M.J., M. Hessels, R. van Kempen, A.C. Looman, H.F.J. Nouw ens and W.P.R. van der Steen (1984). Onder de M arkt. Een Ond erzoek naar M arokkaanse, Su rinaamse en T urkse Ond ernem ers in de O ude P ijp. Publication no. 16. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Institu te for S ocial G eograp hy. Elfring, T an d N. Fos s (1997). Renew ing Ca pabilities Throu gh Inte rnal V enturin g and Spin-o ffs. Copen hagen: C openhag en Busin ess School. Flap, H ., A. K umcu and B . Buld er (199 9). “Th e social cap ital of ethn ic entrep reneurs and the ir business su ccess”, in J. Rath (ed.) Immigrant Businesses. The Economic, Political and Social Environment. Hound mills, Basingstok e, Hamp shire: Macm illan Press. (Forthc oming). Freem an, G. a nd N . Ögelm an (19 99). “S tate regula tory regime s and im migran t (informa l) econom ic activity”, in J. Rath (ed .). Immigrant Businesses. The Economic, Political and Social Environment. Hound mills, Basingstok e, Hamp shire: Macm illan. (Forthcom ing). Geuns, R. van (1992). “An aspect of informalisation of women’s work in a h igh-tech age. Turkish sweatshop s in the Neth erlands”, pp . 125-13 7 in S. M itter (ed.), Computer-Aided Manufacturing and W omen's Employm ent. The Clothing Industry in Four EC Cou ntries. London/Berlin: Springer Verlag. Granove tter, M. (199 4), “Bus iness Grou ps”, in N. S melser and R . Swedb erg (eds), Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 453-475. Gowrich arn, R.S. (1 985). Etnisch Ondernemerschap. Werkgelegenheid en E conomische Politiek. Discussienota Arbeidsproblematiek. Rotterdam: Stichting KROSBE. van Heek , F. (1936 ). Chineesche Immigranten in Nederland. Amsterda m: J. Em mering's Uitgev ers Mij. Hulshof, M .H. and J .W.M . Mevissen (1985). Starters Onder de Starters. Onderzoek naar de Ondersteuning van Allochtone S tarters, Nu en in de Toeko mst. Eindrapp ort. Regioplanpublikatienr. 187. Amsterdam: Regioplan. 19 Jeleniewski, M . (1984). Etnisch Ondernemerschap en de Stadsvernieuwing. Planologisch Memorandum 1984-3. Delft: Technische Hogeschool Delft, Vakgroep Civiele Planologie. Jeleniewski, M . (1987). Waar Vestigt zich de E tnische Ondernem er? Den Haag: Seinpost, Centrum voor Stedelijke Processen. Jong, J.A . de (1988 ). Kredietverschaffing aan Rotterdamse E tnische Ondernem ers. Tweedelijnspublikatie III. Rotterdam: Stichting Buitenlandse Werknemers Rijnmond. Kehla, J., G . Engberse n and E . Snel, ‘Pier 90’. Een Onderzoek naar Informaliteit op de Markt. The Hague: Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment/ VUGA. Kirzner, I.M. (1997), “Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process. An Austrian approach ”, Journal of Eco nomic Literature , 35:60-85. Kloosterman, R. (1996). “Mixed experiences. Post industrial transition and ethnic minorities on the Amsterd am labou r market”, New Com mun ity, (Specia l issue ‘G lobalisation and E thnic Divisions in European Cities’), October, 22(4):637-654. Kloosterman, R.C. (1999), “Immigrant entrepreneurship and the institutional context. A theoretical exploration”, in J. Rath (ed.) Immigrant Businesses. The Economic, Political and Social Environment. Hound mills, Basingstok e, Hamp shire: Macm illan Press. (Forthc oming). Kloosterma n, R.C., J.P . van der Leu n and J. R ath (1997 a). De Econom ische Potenties van het Immigrantenondernemerschap in Amsterdam. Een In ventarise rende e n Exp lorerend e Stud ie in het Kader van Ethnic Minorities Participation (or) Involvement in Urban Market-Economy (EM POR IUM ). Ams terdam : Amste rdam M unicip ality, Depa rtment o f Econ omic Affairs/Research; University of Amsterdam, Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies (IMES ). Kloosterma n, R., J. van d er Leun an d J. Rath (1 997b). Over G renzen . Imm igrante n en de Inform ele Econ omie . Een inventariserende studie in opdracht van de Tijdelijke Wetenschappelijke Commissie M inderhedenbeleid (T WCM ). Voorstudie 10. Am sterdam: Het Spinhu is. Kloosterman, R., J. van de r Leun and J. R ath (1998). “Ac ross the border. Economic op portunities, social capital and in formal busin esses activities of immigra nts”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 24(2):239-258. Kloosterman, R., J. van der Leun and J. Rath (1999). “Mixed embeddedness. Immigrant entrepreneu rship and in formal econo mic activities”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 23(2):252-266. Kloosterma n, R. and J. Rath (19 96). “G angsta’s parad ise in Holland ?”, Migrantenstudies, (Special issue ‘Concentratie en segregatie’ ed. by M. van Niekerk and J. Rath), 12(2):94-100. 20 Knotter, A. (1995). “ Vreemdelingen in Amsterdam in de 17e eeuw. Groepsvorming, arbeid en ondernem erschap”, Historisch Tijdschrift Holland, October, 27(4-5):219-235. Kraak, J.H . et al. (1957). De Repatriëring uit Indonesië. Een Onderzoek naar de Integratie van de Gerepatrieerden uit Indonesië in de Nederlandse Samenleving. Den Haag: S taatsuitgeverij. Kron iek van h et Amb acht/K lein- en M idden bedrijf (1984), January/April, 38(1-2):1-34. Light, I. (1972 ). Ethnic Enterprise in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Light, I. (1999 ). “Globalization And M igration Netw orks”, in J. Rath (ed.) Immigran t Businesses. The Economic, Political and Social Environment. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macm illan Press. (Forthc oming). Light, I. and C . Rosenstein (1 995). Race, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship in Urban America . New York: Ald ine de Gru yter. Lof, E. (1997). “Etnische elite. Allochtonen voorzien in toekomstige arbeidsbehoefte”, Management Team, 19(5):33-41. Merens, A. (1996). “De integratie van Italianen en Chinezen in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw. Een verge lijking”, pp. 1 35-149 in M. ‘t H art, J. Lucassen a nd H. S chmal (eds.), Nieuwe Nederlan ders. Vestigin g van M igranten d oor de E euwen Heen. Amsterdam: Stichting Beheer IISG en SISWO/Instituut voor Maatschappijwetenschappen. van der Meu len, A. and W . Heilbron (1995). “T he rise and drives of Surinamese an d Turkish entrepreneurs of Both Sexes in an Amsterdam Neighbourhood. The Case of Mu stafa”, Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1):63-78. Miellet, R.L. (1987). “Immigratie van katholieke Westfalers en de modernisering van de Nederlan dse detailhan del”, Tijdsch rift voor G eschied enis, 100:374-393. Moro kvasic, M . (1993 ). “Imm igrants in g armen t produ ction in P aris and B erlin”, pp . 75-96 in I. Light and P . Bhachu (eds.), Imm igration and E ntrepre neursh ip. Cu lture, Ca pital, and Ethnic Networks. New Brun swick and Lond on: Transaction Pub lishers. Morokvasic, M., A . Phizacklea and H. R udolph (198 6). “Small firms and mino rity groups. Contradictory trends in the French, German and British clothing industries”, International Sociology, 1(4):397-419. Morokvasic, M., R. Waldinger and A. Phizacklea (1990). “Business on the ragged edge. Immigrant and minority business in the garment industries of Paris, London, and New York”, pp . 157-17 7 in R. W aldinger, H. A ldrich, R. W ard and A ssociates, Ethnic Entrepreneurs. Immigrant Business in Industrial Societies. Newbury Park/London: Sage. 21 OEC D (199 5). Labour Force Statistics 1973-1993. Paris: OECD. Penn inx, R . (1979 ). “Naa r een alge meen e tnisch m inderh edenb eleid. Sc hets van de sociale positie in Nederland van Molukkers, Surinaamse en Antilliaanse Nederlanders en mediterrane werknemers en een inventarisatie van het Nederlandse overheidsbeleid. Voorstudie”, pp. 1174 in W RR, Etnische Minderheden. Rapp orten aan de Reg ering 17 . The H ague: S tate Publishing Office. Pieke, F. (19 87). “D e restaurants”, pp . 67-76 in G . Benton an d H. V ermeulen (e ds.), De Chinezen. Migranten in de Nederlandse Samenleving nr. 4. Muiderberg: Coutinho. Porter, M. (1 990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New Y ork: Free Press. Portes, A. (ed .) (1995a). The Econom ic Sociology of Immigration. Essays on Networks, Ethnicity, and E ntrepre neursh ip. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Portes, A. (19 95b). Transnational Communities. Their Emergence and Significance in the Contemporary Wo rld System. Working papers series #16. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ ersity. Portes, A. and J. Sensenbrenner (1993). “Embeddedness and imm igration. Notes on the social determinants of economic action,” American Journal of Sociology, 98(6):1320-1350. Putten, M . van and N . Lucas (19 85). Mad e in Hea ven. Vr ouw en en d e Vera nderen de Intern ationa le Arbeidsverdeling. Amsterdam: Evert Vermeer Stichting. Raes, S. (1996). “De Nederlandse kledingindustrie en het mediterrane gebied. Migrerende bedrijven en migranten ondernem ers”, Sharqiyyât, 8(2):143-165. Raes, S . (1999 ). “Reg ionalizatio n in a glob alizing w orld. Th e emerg ence of c lothing sw eatshop s in the Europ ean Un ion”, in J. Rath (ed.) Immigrant Businesses. The Economic, Political and Social Environment. Hound mills, Basingstok e, Hamp shire: Macm illan Press. (Forthc oming). Rath, J. (19 91). Minorisering: De Sociale Constructie van ‘Etnische Minderheden’. Amsterdam: Sua. Rath, J . (1993 ). “La co nstructio n sociale d es mino rités ethniq ues aux Pays-Bas et ses effets pervers”, pp . 17-41 in M . Martiniello and M. Pon celet (eds.), Migrations et Minorités Ethniques dans l’Espace Européen . Bruxelles: De Boeck. Rath, J . (1995 ). “Beu nhaze n van b uiten. D e inform ele econo mie als ba staardsfee r van soc iale integratie”, pp. 74 -109 in G . Engberse n and R . Gabriëls (eds.), Sferen van Integratie. Naar een G edifferen tieerd A llochto nenb eleid. Meppel/Amsterdam: Boom. Rath, J. (1998). “Een etnische stoelendans in Mokum. Over de economische incorporatie van immigranten en hun n akomelinge n in Am sterdam”, pp . 235-24 9 in A. G evers (ed.), Uit de 22 Zevende. 50 Jaar Sociaal-Culturele Wetenschappen aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Amsterdam: H et Spinhuis. Rath, J. (1999a). “A game of ethnic musical chairs? Immigrant businesses and the formation and succession of niches in the Amsterdam economy”, in: S. Body-Gendrot & M. Martiniello (eds .), Minorities in European Cities. The Dynamics of Social Integration and Social Exclusion at the Neighbourhood L evel. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hamp shire: Macm illan Press. (forthcom ing). Rath, J. (ed.) (1 999b). Immigrant Businesses. The Economic, Political and Social Environment. Hound mills, Basingstok e, Hamp shire: Macm illan Press. (Forthc oming). Rath, J. (1999c). “The informal economy as bastard sphere of social integration. The case of Amsterd am”, pp. 1 17-136 in: E. Eichen hofer (ed.), Migration und Illegalität. IMISSchriften Bd. 7. Osnabrück: Universitätsverlag Rasch. Rath, J. and R. Kloosterm an (1998 ). Rijp en Groen Het Zelfstandig Ondernemerschap van Immigranten in Nederland. Amsterdam: H et Spinhuis. Rath, J., R. P enninx, K . Groenen dijk and A . Meyer (199 6). Nederland en Zijn Islam. Een Ontzuilende Samenleving Reageert op het Ontstaan van een Geloofsgemeenschap. MESReeks 5. Am sterdam: Het Spinhu is. Razin , E. (1 993 ), “Imm igrant entrep reneu rs in Isra el, Ca nada , and C aliforn ia”, pp . 97-1 24 in I. Light and P . Bhachu (eds), Imm igration and E ntrepre neursh ip, Cu lture, Ca pital, an d Ethn ic Networks. New B runswick/L ondon: T ransaction Pu blishers Rekers, A.M. (1993). “A tale of two cities. A comparison of Turkish enterprises in Amsterdam and Rotterdam ”, pp. 45-6 6 in Crom mentuyn-O ndaatje, D . (ed.), Nethur School Proceedings 1992. Utrecht: Ne thur. Rijkschroe ff, B. (1996 ). “De keerzijd e van het etnisch ondernem erschap”, Migrantenstudies, 12(1):34-44. Rijkschroe ff, B. (1998 ). Etnisch Ondernemerschap. De Chinese Horecasector in Nederland en de Verenigde Staten van Amerika . Capelle a/d IJssel: Labyrinth. Sassen, S. (1 988). The Mobility of Labour and Capital. A Study in International Investment and Labor Flow. Cambridge/New York: Camb ridge University Press. Sassen, S. (1 991). The Global City. New York, Lond on, Tokyo. Princeto n, NJ: P rinceton Unive rsity Press. Schrover, M. (1996). “Omlopers in Keulse potten en pottentrienen uit het Westerwald”, pp. 101120 in M . ‘t Hart, J. Luca ssen and H . Schmal (ed s.), Nieuwe Nederlanders. Vestiging van 23 Migran ten door d e Eeuw en Heen . Amsterdam: Stichting Beheer IISG en SISWO/Instituut voor Maatschappijwetenschappen. SCP (1 996). Sociaal en Cultureel Rapport 1996. Rijswijk: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau. SER (1 998), Etnisch ondernemerschap; Advies 98/14. Den Haag: Sociaal-Economische Raad Setzpfand , R.H., W .M.C. E ngels and P .F.A.M . Linssen (19 93). Inventarisatie van Allochtone Ondernemers in Nederland. Deelrap port III bij he t onderz oek ‘O nbeke nd ma akt onb enut. Onderzoek naar de effecten van het beleid inzake het ondernemerschap van allochtonen’. Utrech t: Coop ers & Lyb rand M anagem ent Co nsultan t. Smit, M . (1994). Illegale Con fectie-Ateliers in Ned erland en België. Een Actualisering . In opdracht van Socrates, ten behoeve van het seminar ‘De confectiesector, zijn toekomst, zijn uitdagin gen’, B russels 24 -25 Oc tober. A msterda m: Stich ting On derzoek Multin ationale Ondern emingen (SOM O). Smit, M . and L. Jon gejans (19 89). C&A, de Stille Gigant. Van Kleding Multinational tot Thuiswerkster. 2e revised edition. A msterda m: Stich ting On derzoek Multin ationale Ondern emingen (SOM O). SMO (1972). Gastarbeid in Nederland. The Hague: Society and Business Foundation. Stichting O pstand (19 93). De Zwarte Draad. Amsterdam: Stichting Opstand. Strijp, R. (1997). “‘De mensen hier maken je gek’. Marokkaanse migranten en hun bindingen met Marokko ”, Migrantenstudies, 13(3):148-166. Swinkels, K . (1991). Beleid ten aanzien van Allochtone Ba kkers. Den Haag: D utch Bakers’ Foundation. Tap, L.J. (1 993). Het Turkse Bedrijfsleven in Amsterdam. MA Thesis State University of Groningen. Tesser, P.T .M., F.A . van Du gteren and A . Merens (1 996). Rapportage Minderheden 1996. Bevolking, Arbeid, Onderwijs, Huisvesting. Rijswijk: Social and Cultural Planningoffice. Tillaart, H . van de n (199 3). “Ze lfstandig ondern emersch ap van etnische groepen ”, pp. 1 60-18 4 in R. Gow richarn (ed.), Binnen de Grenzen. Immigratie, Etniciteit en Integratie in Nederland. Utrecht: De Tijdstroom. van den T illaart, H.J.M. an d E. Pou tsma (199 8), Een F actor va n Betek enis. Zelfs tandig Ondernemerschap van Allochtonen in Nederland. Nijmegen: Institute for Applied Social Sciences (ITS ). van den T illaart, H.J.M. an d T.J.M . Reubsae t (1988). Etnische Ondernemers in Nederland. Nijmege n: Institute for Ap plied Social S ciences (ITS). 24 Tinnem ans, W. (1 989). “D oorzetters. Immigran ten in hogere fu ncties”, Interm ediair , 17 F ebru ary, 25(7):39-49. Vellinga, M .L. and W .G. Wo lters (1973). “D e Chineze n”, pp. 21 9-233 in H . Verwey-Jon ker (ed.). Allochtonen in N ederland. Bescho uwingen o ver de gerepatrieerden, M olukkers, Surinam ers, Antillian en, Bu itenlan dse We rknem ers, Ch inezen, V luchtelin gen, B uitenla ndse S tuden ten in Onze Samenleving. Tweede herziene d ruk (1971). Den Haag: Staatsuitgeverij. Veraart, J. (19 87). “Tu rkse koffiehuizen in Nederlan d”, Migrantenstudies, 3(3):15-27. Veraart, J. (19 96). In Vaders Voetspoor. Jonge Turken op d e Arbeidsmarkt. Amsterdam: Th esis. Vermeu len, H. (19 91). “H andelsmin derheden . Een inleidin g”, Focaal, (Special issue ‘Handelsminderheden’), 15:7-28. Vermeu len, H., M . van Atteku m, F. Lind o and T. P ennings (1 985). De Grieken. Migranten in de Nederlandse Samenleving no. 3. Muiderberg: Coutinho. Verwey-Jon ker, H. (ed.) (19 73). Allochtonen in Nederland. Beschouwingen over de gerepatrieerden, Molukkers, Surinamers, Antillianen, buitenlandse werknemers, Chinezen, vluchtelingen, buitenlandse studenten in onze samenleving. Second revised edition (1 971). The H ague: State Pu blishing O ffice. Waldin ger, R. (199 6). Still the P romise d City. A frican-A merica ns and New Im migra nts in P ostindustrial New Yo rk. Cambridge, M A/London : Harvard University Press. Waldin ger, R., R. A ldrich, R. W ard and A ssociates (1990 ). Ethnic Entrepreneurs. Immigrant Business in Industrial Societies. Newbury Park: Sage. Wallace, C., O. Chmouliar and E. Sidorenko (1996). “The Eastern frontier of Western Europe. The mobility in the bu ffer zone”, New Com mun ity, April, 22(2):259-286. Ward, R . (1987). “ Ethnic en terprises in Britain an d Europ e”, in R. Go ffee and R. S case (eds.), Entrepreneurship in Europe. Lond on: Cro om H elm Wub ben, H.J .J. (1986). ‘Chineezen en A nder Aziatisch On gedierte’. Lotgevallen van C hinese Immigranten in Nederland, 1911-1940. Zutphen: De W alburg Pers. Zeldenru st, I. and J. van E ijk (1992 ). Op Zoek naar Scho ne Kleren. Strategieën voor het Verbeteren van d e Arbe idssitua tie in de C onfectie- Indus trie. Amsterdam: Stichting Onderzoek Multination ale Onde rneminge n (SOM O). 25 Table 1 Entrepreneurs in the Netherlands according to land of origin, and their share in the corresponding labour force, 1986, 1992 and 1997 Number of entrepreneursShare of entrepreneurs in the labour force (%) 198619921997198619921997 Surinam1,7254,1486,2332,04.55,4 Dutch Antilles/Aruba4051,0031,6292,94.66,3 Turkey1,8955,3857,4532,97,812,2 Morocco8661,9122,8443.35,05,9 Other Mediterranean countries 2,0743,2414,2044,97,77,9 Subtotal immigrant entrepreneurs from Surinam, Dutch Antilles/Aruba, and Mediterranean countries6,96515,68922,3633.36.07,4 China (incl. Hong Kong)2,3863,2244,794--Rest450,649541,087632,843--Total 460,000560,000660,0008,08,910,1 Source: van den Tillaart & Poutsma 1998: 39-40. 26 Notes 1 Surinamese, Dutch Antilleans and Arubans, Turks, Moroccans, immigrants from other Med iterranean countrie s, Chin ese (inclu ding th ose from Hong Kong ) constitute the maj ority of the so-ca lled target g roups o f minority p olicies as con ducted by the D utch go vernm ent. These target groups include second and third generation immigrants from these areas, but 2 3 exclude immigrants from oth er origins. Anno unceme nt by the IOT to one of the au thors (Novem ber 1994 ). BEA estimated roughly 1,.000 entrepreneurs from these target groups. Baetsen and Voskamp (1991:49), however, counted in their survey in Rotterdam a significantly smaller number of 4 employees: in total 126 jobs to 56 imm igrant businesses. We could only find a short passage on Chinese eating houses and restaurants in the contribution by Vellinga and Wolters to the collection Allochtonen in Nederland (1973:223- 5 224). Under the auspices of IMES, University of Amsterdam, international comparative research of immigrant businesses in the garment industry in Britain, France, The Netherlands and the United States is cu rrently bein g carried o ut. 27 View publication stats