“If I have to clean,I clean my own shop”: Migrant entrepreneurship as a form of emplacement in times of crisis: The example of Italy

Abstract

This article analyses the relation between European economic crisis and immigration. It does so by analysing the establishment of migrants’ entrepreneurship activities in Italy, and by looking at how these activities unravel subjects’ agency in confronting constraining socioeconomic conditions and restrictive immigration laws. In this perspective, entrepreneurship should be understood as a possibility for transforming a person’s own incorporated cultural capital into a resource and, consequently, into an opportunity for self-created work performance. Interpreting entrepreneurship as a personal response of migrants to the economic recession offers a new perspective in the existing literature on migrant entrepreneurship. Crisis, in this paper, is not seen as an abstract and supernatural phenomenon leading and controlling the capacity of individuals to act, but is understood as a constructed set of meanings comprising social interactions and relationships and consolidated within public discourses. This study is based on a qualitative-explorative research approach and was carried out in South Tyrol, Italy. For the data collection, different qualitative methods were used: narrative interviews, informal discussions and semi-structured interviews. Data analysis was based on the coding processes described within the Grounded Theory. As the results show, crisis as such represents, on the one hand, a critical moment of transition or transformation of normality and the constituted ways of acting and thinking and, on the other hand, it is perceived as a new opportunity to change individual behaviour and to initiate innovative counter-strategies that will maintain a person’s capacity to act even in critical personal and structural situations. Nevertheless, showing resilience, which is powerful and leads to change, depends not only on personal motivational forces but also to given opportunity structures.

Keywords

Migrant entrepreneurship crisis economic emplacement life-worlds

Introduction

In the last decades, European media coverage has been overflowing with news of crisis. In relation to recent occurrences like the European refugee crisis (European Commission, 2016), the Eurozone crisis (Tuori and Tuori, 2014) and the European financial crisis (Dabrowski, 2009), etc., the idea of ‘crisis’ has established itself not only on an institutional level but has become part of everyday life. This paper argues for a social constructionist understanding of the concept of crisis. According to this perspective, crisis is not framed as an ‘abstract entity’ (Murray-Leach, 2014), but as a result of social interactions or, more precisely, as a result of political and economic choices. Hence, crisis is seen as a powerful narrative, which produces meaning for a society and which is adopted by the inhabitants of that society with respect to how they view or deal with it (Hay, 2016). In line with this assumption, this paper explores how migrant entrepreneurs deal with crisis in their everyday lives and how they react to limiting economic, political and social circumstances. In particular, this paper is concerned with the repercussions of the economic situation on the working conditions of migrants, and thus with their coping strategies enabling them to act in times of economic recession, securitization and the increasing weakening of immigrant status in most European member states. Central to this concept is the manner in which migrants, as knowledgeable agents, use their understanding of the rules of interaction and use formal and informal networks to create new opportunities for action. Migrant entrepreneurship in this perspective can be understood as a ‘mode of emplacement’, in other words, as ‘migrant’s efforts to settle and build networks of connection within the constraints and opportunities of a specific locality’ (Glick Schiller and Caglar, 2013: 494). Following this line of argument and taking the example of Italy, this paper discusses migrant entrepreneurship as a valuable personal response to critical economic situations in the labour market. In so doing, this paper follows the sociological tradition of Giddens (1984), Habermas (2011) and Bourdieu (1983), and thus the epistemological assumption of reconciling agency with structure. According to this perspective, structures are understood as rules and resources which both enable and constrain an individual’s capacity for action. Following Giddens (1984), social actors use their knowledge of society and the structures of society to follow their goals. It is through individual and collective action that social structures are constantly reproduced and transformed. Linked to migration and the social position of most migrants, especially in the labour market, knowledge of social structures is unequally distributed. Nevertheless, as Giddens points out, ‘[even] the most seemingly “powerless” individuals are able to mobilize resources whereby they carve out “spaces of control”’ (1984: 197). Even the most marginalized populations are thus able to mobilize resources and respond creatively to critical, marginalized social positions.

Theoretical background

Critical global transformation processes

According to Murray-Leach (2014), the European crisis since 2008 has been seen merely as an economic and financial process, separate from its political and social context. However, particularly in southern Europe (Europe, Spain, Greece and Portugal), the economic and financial crisis has rapidly turned into an employment crisis, with severe social consequences predominantly for marginalized groups (Milio, 2014). Furthermore, considering the European refugee crisis, the European asylum crisis and the Eurozone crisis (to name but a few), contemporary Europe has been undergoing crises that are (also) profoundly social, cultural and political (Murray-Leach, 2014). Accordingly, the discussion of European crises, and particularly their meaning and consequences on a life-world level, cannot be isolated from a broader discussion on current global transformation processes and their impact on 21st century societies (Castles, 2010). In fact, from a sociological perspective, various European and global crises are all current examples of worldwide transformation processes with a new kind of structure. Thus, social action and ecological effects, as well as global processes and their local repercussions, are so tightly linked that the borderlines between society and nature, global and local, which up until now were perceived as clearly demarcated, are becoming increasingly blurred (Jahn, 2008). In fact, as highlighted by Jahn (2008: 4), actual transformation processes run ‘along different spatial, temporal and social scales – from local to global, from current events to long term consequences, from action in everyday contexts to the policies of worldwide regimes and multinational organizations’. In this perspective, the critical moments of transition described above show a highly global interconnectedness, with regional and local effects as well as a high degree of complexity, which cannot simply be reduced to its economic characteristics and limited to political (national and Unitarian) demarcation lines (Castles, 2010). Indeed, Beck (2006) describes these transformation processes as part of the ‘epochal break’ and the ‘paradigm shift’, which characterizes the transition from the first to the second modernity, according to which global processes have a direct impact on all areas of human life and shape constructed normalities as well as economic and cultural dichotomies (Castles, 2010). Castles (2010) links the concept of social transformation with a transformation of social relationships, which is related to ‘major shifts in dominant economic, political and strategic relationships’. Following this line of argument, globalization is not – and never has been – a solely economic/financial and somehow abstract process, but a process very much rooted in concrete societal, cultural and political contexts.

Migrants as the scapegoats of globalization

Accordingly, in times of rapid (and often incomprehensible) global changes, migrants have become the visible symbol of globalization (Castles, 2011). As Aysa-Lastra and Cachón (2016: 9) point out, a basic feature of most immigrant groups is their subordinate position in the social structure and the fact that their placement in this position tends to socially construct them as ‘subjects with objective vulnerability’, who are more easily exposed to acts of discrimination and stigmatizing processes (Portes, 2008). Even though these stigmatization processes (as well as securitization and criminalization of immigrants) preceded the economic crisis, restrictive migration policies have been substantially exacerbated since the global economic slowdown of 2008 (Kuptsch, 2012). In fact, the financial crisis has had an enormous effect on labour markets, especially in southern Europe, not only in terms of the workplace but also working conditions. In times of economic crisis, migrants tend to become one of the most vulnerable category of workers: migrants are an ideal cyclical and flexibility buffer for the economy (particularly in economies with a high proportion of seasonal jobs). Furthermore, their working conditions and working contracts do not always reflect national and European working standards (Meardi et al., 2012). Men have suffered particularly from the financial crisis, as they are employed in sectors which are especially sensitive to economic cycles, such as the construction sector, the manufacturing sector or the agriculture and catering sectors (Papademetriou, 2010). In contrast, women have been employed mostly in the health and domestic care sector, which has been less affected by economic fluctuations (Lutz, 2007). Following this line of argument, most European countries not only attempted to make the immigration process more difficult, but to weaken the situation of migrant workers already in the country (Castles, 2007). As underlined by experts, the measures implemented ranged from new systems for assessing immigration applications like the UK’s point-based system, adopted in February 2008 (Kuptsch, 2012), to stricter requirements in terms of illegal working and living conditions, such as France’s vacating policies (Kuptsch, 2012), Italy’s introduction of the criminalization of irregular immigration 2009 and restricted quotas for the recruitment of migrant workers in both Spain and Italy since 2008. Following this logic, voluntary return programmes have been introduced for unemployed but legally resident migrants, for example those in Spain and the Czech Republic (Awad, 2009). As Castles and Vezzoli (2009: 74) point out, government migration policies often see migrants as solely economic actors, who provide ‘labour in times of expansion and [go] away in recession’. In other words, they are seen as driven by income maximization motives rather than by social factors.

Migrant entrepreneurship as a response to the economic crisis?

As Murray-Leach (2014) outlines, the economic and financial European crisis has often been portrayed as a supernatural phenomenon with the power to spread over society and its inhabitants, limiting the possibility of individuals to shape social structure and to reconstruct social order in their life-worlds. According to this perspective, people themselves are portrayed as victims of these critical economic moments. From a sociological pragmatist perspective, individuals are not passive, but are eager to reproduce social order and normality. Accordingly, particularly in times of structural uncertainty, a constant attempt to create new meaning and find new strategies in order to remain capable of action can be observed. This means that, especially in times of recession, ‘migrants are likely to be more motivated to make their way in the host country’ (Castles and Vezzoli, 2009: 5). Considering Beck’s viewpoint (2008), within the ambivalence of global risk there lies the potential to create something new, something that goes beyond national container thinking and that understands everyday life as a ‘cosmopolitan moment’. Following Beck (2008), the ambivalence of global risks ‘opens up unintentionally (and often also unseen and unutilized) the (mis)fortune of a possible new beginning (which is no cause for false sentimentality)’. In this perspective, critical economic and social situations can lead to counter-tendencies and innovative strategies for action.

Evidence of migrant self-employment as a form of resilience to the economic/financial crisis can be found in a number of articles (Apitzsch and Kontos, 2003; Evans and Jovanovic, 1989; Hatziprokopiou, 2008). Accordingly, in their work, Apitzsch and Kontos (2003) interpret the self-employment of migrants as a possible strategy to overcome structural unemployment and irregular income. In this perspective, resilience can be seen as an ‘empowerment’ model as opposed to a ‘coping’ model when dealing with difficult living situations (Shih, 2004). Going one step further, Hillman (2008) introduces migrant entrepreneurs as possible actors of social innovation processes. From her perspective, the action strategies of migrant entrepreneurs are, in themselves, strategies of social innovation. Following Zapf (1989: 89), social innovations are ‘new ways of doing things, especially new organizational devices, new regulations, new living arrangements, that change the direction of social change, attain goals better than older practices, become institutionalized and prove to be worth imitating’. From this perspective, social innovation processes do not always take place on a large scale; most of the time they develop as processes from below. Consequently, social innovation processes are often less apparent, yet equally powerful and effective (Mulgan, 2006). When dealing with social innovations, authors do not focus solely on the outcomes or the products of innovation; they are more interested in the processes that drive social change and social transformation, which lead to new action strategies and new organizational forms that deviate from familiar schemes (Mulgan et al., 2007; Pol and Ville, 2009). This is especially true in times of economic crisis, ‘when old approaches do not work, creative decisions are being accepted faster, new ideas are not stuck in routine processes, and people are ready to take more risks’ (Dubina et al., 2012: 10). By becoming self-employed, migrants develop new responses to structural societal challenges such as unemployment and discrimination. Their actions are strictly rooted in their life-worlds and closely depend on social networks and family ties (Portes et al., 2002). According to Granovetter (1985: 487), migrant entrepreneurs as ‘actors do not behave or decide as atoms outside a social context, nor do they adhere slavishly to a script written for them by the particular intersection of social categories that they happen to occupy. Their attempts at purposive action are instead embedded in concrete, ongoing systems of social relations’ (Granovetter, 1985: 487). The quote has its basis in the concept of embeddedness, which dates back to Polanyi (1979) and is based on the understanding that people do not act in a social vacuum, but that their economic action is embedded in social (transnational) contexts. Being embedded in a transnational way of life, they produce multiple social positions (Nowicka, 2013 ‘that can range from being embedded in a single-space, shifting between countries, and overlapping in a transnational social space’. Nevertheless, as various scholars demonstrate (Hatziprokopiou, 2008; Labrianidis and Hatziprokopiou, 2011; Piperopoulos, 2010), migrant entrepreneurs are also embedded in the opportunity structure of the host country. From an analytical perspective, these two levels have to be combined, as argued by Kloosterman and Rath (2003) as part of their concept of mixed embeddedness. Following this line of argument, not only the embeddedness of migrants in social networks but also their embeddedness in the socio-economic and politico institutional environment of their country of settlement, have to be considered as constitutive.

Methodology

Research setting

South Tyrol, the northernmost province of Italy, is one of five Italian autonomous provinces with a special statute. The Autonomy Statute forms the legal basis for the territory, as the backbone of the protection of the German and Ladin minorities. South Tyrol has a relatively short history of migration. Since the 1990s, the province has become a migration destination for non-EU citizens, and immigration has become a key feature also in the Province of South Tyrol and, as such, it does not distinguish itself from other regions in Europe anymore. The difficulty of the integration of new minorities is represented by the late legislation of the phenomenon. In fact, the province was one of the last territories in Italy to stipulate a territorial immigration law, doing so only in 2010. The challenge to shape immigration is clearly twofold, since the Province is already marked by three autochthonous linguistic groups living in the territory. New diversity mixing itself into the already existing one challenges the self-conception and self-understanding of the traditional groups and their identities. Hence, the effort towards facilitating integration on a political level is based primarily on knowing one another in relation to cultural specificity, on the sensitization towards different ways of living and on the language learning opportunities offered by the host country. In fact, rarely is (dependent or independent) economic subsistence, as one of the most important elements of integration, placed centre stage.

Data collection and data analysis

This study takes a qualitative-explorative research approach; it is divided into two research phases. Within the first phase (2014–2015), a total of 10 migrant entrepreneurs were accompanied about their daily work over a period of 18 months. In this period, participant observation and narrative interviews were conducted (Table 1).

Furthermore, a total of 15 interviews were conducted with experts in politics, the economy and civil society. During the second research phase (2015–2016), statistical data have been collected and analysed. Whereas the quantitative analysis considered the national territory, the case study was carried out in Italy’s northernmost province of South Tyrol. The semi-structured interviews were arranged as open dialogues. The interviews lasted from one to one and a half hours on average. The data analysis aimed for a reconciliation of the different social levels (micro, meso and macro levels) and to facilitate an understanding of the interplay between them. The analysis of the data was based on the coding processes described by Corbin and Strauss (2008), which involves three levels of analysis: open coding, axial coding and selective coding. During the open coding phase, the researchers constantly compared interview transcriptions and the questions asked. In this first phase, different categories were developed, the properties and dimensions of which were recorded in document memos. During axial coding, parts of interviews of note were pieced together in new ways, which allowed bringing new issues and perspectives into the process of analysis. Finally, during selective coding, core categories were defined and connected to other categories by looking for similarities and relationships between the categories. The findings of this paper focus on the following core categories and respective codes: labour market integration of migrants (discrimination/crisis related policies/migrants’ status), resilience (personal responses/structural challenges) and migrant entrepreneurship (crisis/potential/challenges).

Results

The weakening of migrants in the Italian labour market

The situation of migrant workers in Italy is currently framed by the third and current immigration law Bossi-Fini from 2002, which compels migrants to have a regular work contract in order to obtain a temporary residence permit. In 2009, when the economic crisis was approaching its peak, the Italian Parliament adopted a major reform of immigration law (Security Act 94, 2009). This law rendered illegal immigration into Italy a criminal act, punishable with a fine and a detainment of up to six months in a holding centre (Di Martino et al., 2003). Additionally, Italian quotas for migrant workers were almost completely phased out in 2009 – only seasonal agricultural workers and tourism workers were admitted (OECD, 2009). These restrictive measures are in line with the logic of securitization that has pervaded immigration policies and public discourse, not only on a national but also on European and global levels, especially after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (Campesi, 2014). Following this line of argument, it can be stated that the national migration policy strategy after 2008 is in line with the immigration policy adopted before the crisis. Accordingly, the economic slowdown, in conjunction with the logic of securitization, gave political and public legitimization to take illegal immigration ‘under control’, as well as to weaken the status of migrants already in the country. In fact, these restrictive measures, together with the increasing risk of unemployment resulting from the consequences of the economic crisis on the gainful employment market, have forced many migrants to accept any working conditions on this employment market. Hence, particularly in times of economic crisis, conditions in Italian workplaces reflect the three Ds: dirty, dangerous and demanding. In fact, as pointed out by Ambrosini (2016), migrants – especially in times of economic crisis – tend to be segregated in unskilled occupations associated with a lower social status and a higher risk of injury. Often, these low-skilled workplaces go hand in hand with deskilling processes, as the next quote shows: ‘I have understood that there they only offer migrants certain types of work, like cleaning or apple picking. Their own work experience does not count for anything’ (IP8, pseudonym, interviewed by the author).

In this context, human resources are tightly linked to the economic interpretation of capital, namely a tool to promote the strengthening of the economy and to respond to the needs of a free market.

Resilience in the migration process

According to the narrative interviews, migrants describe the economic slowdown and its repercussions for the labour market as one changing circumstance within a more general situation of uncertainty, risk and precarious existence, which is reflected within the experience of migration itself (i.e. the processes of emigration and immigration). Following this view, migrants are constantly asked to develop coping strategies in order to deal with (often) unknown and changing economic, political and social circumstances:

People just talk about this economic crisis. For me, this situation is even better than elsewhere. Since leaving my country, I have constantly been in crisis. I never know what is coming next. I want a normal life for me and my family – and I have to find a job to achieve this. (IP8, pseudonym, interviewed by the author)

Accordingly, the process of migration itself reflects a turning point in one’s life. From a psychological perspective, Bhugra (2014: 129) underlines that the process of emigration and immigration ‘involves not only leaving social networks behind (which may or may not be well established) but also includes experiencing at first a sense of loss, dislocation, alienation and isolation’. This line of argumentation is also reflected in the next quote: ‘Leaving my country was the most difficult decision of my life. Now I am here and it is difficult again, but I have to carry on—for my family’ (IP1, pseudonym, interviewed by the author).

Sayad (2002) defines this sense of loss and isolation as the main element of the suffering of immigration. In fact, the misery of immigration derives on the one hand from societal exclusion from a new society in which he is seen merely as another member of the workforce and, on the other hand, from the denial of this difficult situation to their compatriots, encouraging them to join them. From this contradictory situation, immigration reproduces itself, as stated by Sayad (2002).

From a microsociological perspective, even under adverse circumstances, people are constantly endeavouring to reproduce a kind of normality and to develop resilience (Goffman, 1961): ‘Since coming here I have never been calm, I always have to think about what’s coming next. You always have to reinvent yourself ’ (IP9, pseudonym, interviewed by the author).

By using the verb ‘reinvent’, the interviewee places emphasis on the necessity of becoming more flexible to deal with changing circumstances. In other words, people initiate reaction and resistance to social structures, which tend to construct vulnerable subjects (see Aysa-Lastra and Cachon, 2016). Through their resilience, migrants present another picture than that of passive individuals, i.e. the picture of an individual who can critically reflect on existing structures and who is potentially capable of action, as the next interview quote shows:

I have 25 years of work experience. The employment agency said that I have to change my line of work. Sorry? I cannot change my experience or what I do. For what? To do cleaning? It would be better to return to my country. It would be better, but I cannot. It is not that cleaning is a bad job, but it is not my job. I am trained to do something different and you (the state) have to look for me—you have to use my experience. (IP8, pseudonym, interviewed by the author)

As this quote shows, the interviewee reflects critically on the existing possibilities for action and the limitations of structural forces, in particular the non-recognition of the institutional cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1983). Accordingly, from the interviewee’s perspective, social structure is not perceived as something rigid, only controlling and directing social action, but as both the medium and the outcome of social action as defined by Giddens (1984: 45) in his theory of structuration. According to this perspective, the individual can potentially open up new possibilities and spaces for action. Consequently, resilience is understood as an individual attitude which is strictly linked to social structure and, more precisely, to the opportunities for action available to migrants:

When I lost my job, I knew that I had to change something. I cannot wait until others do something for me. I myself have to change my life. This also means looking for new ways of doing so. This is not an easy task if you are alone […] and coloured. (IP10, pseudonym, interviewed by the author)

As the quote highlights, from the ascribed subordinate social position of migrants in the host country, migrants begin to act. On the one hand, they are looking for a means of escape from this vulnerable situation and, on the other hand, they are trying to find solutions in order to improve their situation (King, 2012). In Hirschman’s words (1970), this means

to change, rather than to escape from, an objectionable state of affairs, whether through individual or collective petition to the management directly to change, through appeal to a higher authority with the intention to forge a change in management, or through various types of actions and protests, including those that are meant to mobilize public ( p. 30)

As the interview results show, the way of self-employment can be seen as a valuable alternative to the social consequences of the economic crisis on the gainful employment market and, in particular, to the restrictive policies which have tended to weaken the status of migrants in Italy over past few years:

If I want to stay in the country, I have to work. After not finding a job in my sector, I understood, OK, I have to open a shop and create my own work. If I have to clean I will do it in my shop, but I can’t clean for others. (IP4, pseudonym, interviewed by the author)

Migrant entrepreneurship – The Italian boom

A recent study undertaken by the Venice-based Fondazione Leone Moressa (FLM) shows a boom in the number of new migrant entrepreneurs in Italy over the crisis years. In fact, the statistical data confirm that, between 2010 and 2015, migrant-run businesses have increased by 20% (FLM, 2016). In particular, extra-EU entrepreneurs have increased by 24% since 2010. In contrast, the number of Italian-born entrepreneurs has decreased by 7.4% during the same period. Following the data, migrant entrepreneurs represent 8.7% of the total number of national entrepreneurs (about 7.6 million) (FLM, 2016). Most are largely concentrated in the retail sector, wholesale trade or the construction sector, and around 35% of new businesses created by migrants in the last five years target the personal services sector. Moreover, the top three immigrant entrepreneur nationalities in Italy are Moroccan (11%), Chinese (10%) and Romanian (9.5%). Moreover, although Italian society is fragmented into people from a diverse range of origins, the top 10 nationalities of foreign-born entrepreneurs represent about 68% of the total. In contrast to the national picture of migrant entrepreneurship, self-employment among migrants in the northernmost region of Italy (Trentino-Alto Adige) is quite a new phenomenon, and less attention has been given to migrant economies in recent years, in terms of both policies and research.

In contrast to other Italian regions, the province of South Tyrol comprises a low number of migrant entrepreneurs. This can be traced back to its limited history of (international) migration and its geographic position. Nevertheless, there has been an increase of +25.7% in migrant entrepreneurs since 2009, which also indicates the growing importance of migrant entrepreneurs in the northernmost province of Italy – especially in times of economic crisis. Moreover, migrant entrepreneurs do play a significant role supporting the small business community in South Tyrol, given that a decline of −0.4% in autochthonous entrepreneur registrations was recorded for the same period (Chamber of Commerce, 2016).

Table 1.

Social and demographic data of the interview partners.

	Country of origin	Age	Gender	Kind of business	Success	Main support chains	Reasons for success/non-success
IP1	Morocco	32	M	Phone centre	Opened in 2010 closed in 2013	Religious community, NGO	Unfavourable position, not attractive for customers
IP2	Morocco	40	M	Grocery	Open in 2011, closed in 2014	Family in Morocco and in South Tyrol, religious community	Unfavourable position, not attractive for customers
IP3	Morocco	35	M	Kebab stand	Open since 2013	Family in Morocco and in South Tyrol, religious community	Favourable position, market niche, attractive for customers
IP4	Bangladesh	40	M	Souvenir shop	Open in 2010, closed in 2016, reopened since 2017	Family and woman from South Tyrol, ethnic community	Favourable position, low number of customers, high rental costs
IP5	Bangladesh	36	M	Apparel shop	Open since 2013	Family and a family in South Tyrol	Favourable position, market niche, relative high number of customers
IP6	Pakistan	41	M	Grocery	Open 2012, closed in 2014	Ethnic Community in South Tyrol, religious community and family	Unfavourable position, not attractive for autochthonous customers
IP7	Pakistan	30	M	Grocery	Open since 2013	Ethnic Community in South Tyrol, religious community and family	Favourable position, relative high number of costumers, not attractive for autochthonous customers
IP8	Iran	42	M	Photography business	Open in 2012, closed first time in 2013, Reopened in 2013, definitely closed in 2015	Family in South Tyrol and sister in Verona	Unfavourable position, too much competition, not attractive for customers
IP9	Pakistan	32	M	Barber	Open since 2012	Ethnic Community in South Tyrol, religious community and family	Market niche, attractive for community and autochthonous customers, unfavourable position
IP10	Pakistan	35	M	Barber	Open since 2012	Ethnic Community in South Tyrol, religious community and family	Market niche, attractive for community and autochthonous customers, unfavourable position

The study, carried out by the Fondazione Leone Moressa (2016), interprets the increase of migrant entrepreneurs in the country as a reaction to cope with the difficult situation of migrants on the gainful employment market (unemployment, working conditions, etc.), which has been due to the economic crisis rather than a deliberate choice to move into self-employment. This slightly contradicts the results of the qualitative research presented within this paper. In fact, as stated by the interviewees, the crisis on the gainful employment market can also be seen as a new impetus to realize a personal dream:

‘My wife always wanted this shop. So when we lost our jobs in a factory, we decided to finally realize my wife’s dream (IP6, pseudonym, interviewed by the author).’

In order to understand the organization of the everyday working routine of migrant entrepreneurs, one of the most characteristic elements is the organization of their economic activities within social networks (Levitt and Jaworsky, 2007; Granovetter, 1985), migrant entrepreneurs do not only act within a rational economic perspective, but they rather embed their economic action in social contexts. In other words,

actors do not behave or decide as atoms outside a social context, nor do they adhere slavishly to a script written for them by the particular intersection of social categories that they happen to occupy. Their attempts at purposive action are instead embedded in concrete, on-going systems of social relations’. (Granovetter, 1985: 487)

According to this perspective, social networks can be seen as crucial for contributing to the resilience of individuals, as they build a sense of belonging, identity and social (emotional and practical) support. As the results confirm, social networks are perceived as crucial for opening one’s own shop and, hence, represent an important structure for new opportunities for action: ‘My family was very important when I started this business. It would have been impossible without the help of my friends and my family’ (IP1, pseudonym, interviewed by the author).

From an actor perspective, social networks can be considered as structures of opportunity for innovation, where individuals and social groups use and adapt networks to their advantage (Bantilan and Padmaja, 2008). Accordingly, because of their embeddedness in social networks, migrant entrepreneurs are able to transform a person’s own incorporated cultural capital into a resource, and therefore into a new opportunity: ‘My family supported me with money and my wife and my children helped me with the logistical things. Now I can finally continue with what I have learned. My father was a barber himself’ (IP2, pseudonym, interviewed by the author).

As the quote highlights, by becoming self-employed, migrants counteract alienation and the deskilling process. By having the possibility of reusing their own incorporated and institutionalized cultural capital, the subject becomes a central element in the definition of work. This perspective goes beyond the economic understanding of work intended as a solely productive, rational-instrumental activity (Arendt, 2001). As emphasized by Portes et al. (2002), social networks can be interpreted as new opportunity structures on the one hand but, on the other, he underlines elements within social networks which not only provide new possibilities but also new constraints. Portes (1995) explains this other side of the coin within the concepts of ‘bounded solidarity’ and ‘enforceable trust’. Thus, concerning the latter concept, the will of individual members is subordinated to collective expectations. Furthermore, Blaschke and Ersoz (1986) define migrant entrepreneurs ‘as products of an “economy of poverty”, which can only be sustained through a high degree of self-exploitation and the self-exploitation of family members’ (cited in Kontos, 2007: 450):

Me and my wife, we work hard until late at night, and then the next day is the same. But what else shall we do once we’ve started’ [or] Every member of our family helps us with the shop. We all work hard, much more than eight hours per day. But that’s normal. (IP5, pseudonym, interviewed by the author)

When using the term ‘self-exploitation’, the authors refer to Schmiz (2013: 60),

as a condition in migrant self-employment that is highly precarious. It involves long working days, a weekly load of more than 60 hours, marginal working shifts, a lack of free time and breaks during work as well as the unpaid support of family members.

Self-exploitation in this perspective can be interpreted as a direct consequence of precarious working conditions (low earnings, indebtedness, financial insecurity) and increases the risk of personal exhaustion and poor health (Sennett, 2000). In fact, becoming and remaining an entrepreneur in a difficult national economic situation is a challenging task. Following statistical data from the province of South Tyrol, for example, the balance of openings and closings is extremely high in the territory. In 2014, 99 openings and 88 closings were registered in the construction sector. Considering the commerce sector, closings even exceed openings (76 openings) (Chamber of Commerce, 201). This precarious existence can be related to bureaucratic challenges and a lack of information on consultancy, existing financial support and other assistance services in the province for all entrepreneurs. If the project of self-employment fails, migrant entrepreneurs often have no social safety net: ‘Being self-employed is completely different from being employed. You are always in a safe position if you earn your money. By becoming self-employed things, become more difficult’ (IP7, pseudonym, interviewed by the author).

As is stated in this article, showing resilience, which is powerful and leads to change, depends not only on personal motivational forces but also to given opportunity structures. According to this perspective, migrant entrepreneurship is related to an individual’s environment, understood as opportunities to perform which are beyond the entrepreneur’s control (Blumberg and Pringle, 1982). In this perspective, and related to the concept of migrant entrepreneurship, opportunities are environmental and contextual mechanisms which enable action. In other words, they are conditions which provide the necessary support and avenues for migrant entrepreneurs to express themselves economically. Considering the capability approach, Nussbaum (2010), to a greater extent than Sen (1999), sees the crucial importance of governance institutions for providing opportunity structures that give individuals the capability to act.

Conclusion

Through linking critical global transformation processes with their repercussions on life-worlds, the phenomenon of migrant entrepreneurship is discussed as a valuable personal response to critical economic, social and cultural circumstances. In this perspective, entrepreneurship should be understood as a possibility to transform a person’s own incorporated cultural capital into a resource and, consequently, into an opportunity for self-created work performance. Furthermore, the way to self-employment can be related to the desire to give continuity to one’s own employment biography and to give sense to one’s own activity (Arendt, 2001). Work here is not intended as a merely productive, rational-instrumental activity but, drawing on Hannah Arendt, as a human activity, where the subject itself and the personal attribution of meaning become a central element in the definition. Following this line of argumentation, on the one hand, migrant entrepreneurs gain more freedom to act but, on the other hand, their activity is embedded in new formal and informal constraints.

Crisis, in this paper, is not seen as an abstract and supernatural phenomenon leading and controlling the capacity of individuals to act, but is understood as a constructed set of meanings comprising social interactions and relationships and consolidated within public discourses. Following this line of argument, discourses shape, influence and structure people’s thoughts, ideas, beliefs, values and identities. Linked to migration, discourses discuss the ‘we’ and the ‘otherness’ by providing access to knowledge, which decide whether people belong to us. Who is a migrant and what role they have in society is defined very clearly within discourses on migration and within existing (national) boundaries. These discourses are powerful, because they are constantly produced and reproduced by politics, the media, economy and civil society (Mecheril et al., 2013: 12). Following this line of argument, definitions are not neutral: defining someone or something by its foreign origin is in itself a (powerful) choice, as outlined by Pécoud (2009: 61).

Hence, crisis as such represents, on the one hand, a critical moment of transition or transformation of normality and the constituted ways of acting and thinking and, on the other hand, it is perceived as a new opportunity to change individual behaviour and to initiate innovative counter-strategies that will maintain a person’s capacity to act even in critical personal and structural situations.

Furthermore, as the results show, migrant entrepreneurs become active in reacting to personal needs and developing new strategies of economic integration, which closely fit their own biography, work experience and educational training. According to this perspective, they overcome processes like deskilling or alienation. Against this background, they can be seen as socially innovative, as they are developing new dynamics, new organizational devices and new living and working arrangements. They open new spaces for negotiation and so open up the possibility of changes to their social relationships and living arrangements. Migrant entrepreneurship, in this perspective, can be seen as a locale defined by the rules and resources involved in social action and interaction within it (Giddens, 1990: 301). Locales, according to Giddens, are thus both arenas of interaction and containers of social power. Hence, they represent spaces for negotiation where the individual (agency) connects with social structure.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ambrosini

(2016) Europe: No Migrant’s Land ? Milan: ISPI.

Apitzsch

Kontos

(2003) Self-employment, gender and migration. International Review of Sociology 13(1): 67–76.

Arendt

(2001) Vita Activa Oder Vom Tätigen Leben. München: Piper.

Awad

(2009) The Global Economic Crisis and Migrant Workers: Impact and Response. Geneva: ILO.

Aysa-Lastra

Cachón

(2016) Immigrant Vulnerability and Resilie. Comparative Perspectives on Latin American Immigrants During the Great Recession. International Perspectives of Migration 11(5): 574–576.

Bantilan

MCS

Padmaja

(2008) Empowerment through social capital build-up: Gender dimensions in technology uptake. Experimental Agriculture 44: 61–80.

Beck

(2006) Living in the world risk. Economy and Society 35(3): 329–345.

Beck

(2008) Risk society’s ‘cosmopolitan moment’. Available at: www.labjor.unicamp.br/comciencia/files/risco/AR-UlrichBeck-Harvard.pdf (accessed 16 January 2018).

Bhugra

(2014) Migration, distress and cultural identity. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.497.727&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 15 September 2016).

10.

Blaschke

Ersoz

(1986) The Turkish economy in West Berlin. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 4(3): 38–47.

11.

Blumberg

Pringle

(1982) The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review 7(4): 560–569.

12.

Bonacich

(1973) A theory of middleman minorities. American Sociological Review 38(5): 583–594.

13.

Bourdieu

(1983) Ökonomisches kapital, kulturelles kapital, soziales kapital. In: Kreckel

(ed.) Soziale Ungleichheiten. Göttingen: Schwartz, pp.183–198.

14.

Campesi

(2014) Immigrant detention and the double logic of securitization in Italy. In: Labanca

Ceccorulli

(eds) The EU, Migration and the Politics of Administrative Detention. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.145–165.

15.

Castles

(2007) Twenty-first-century migration as a challenge to sociology. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33(3): 351–371.

16.

Castles

(2010) Understanding global migration: A social transformation perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(10): 1565–1586.

17.

Castles

(2011) Globalization, ethnic identity and the integration crisis. Ethnicities 11(1): 23–26.

18.

Castles

Vezzoli

(2009) The global economic crisis and migration: Temporary interruption or structural change? Pradigmes 2: 68–75.

19.

Chamber of Commerce (2016) Imprese registrate. Available at: http://www.hk-cciaa.bz.it/de/categoria-articoli-1%C2%B0-livello/registro-delle-imprese (accessed 13 September 2016).

20.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

21.

Dabrowski

(2009) The global financial crisis: Lessons for European integration. Available at: www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/128192/1/602482739.pdf (accessed 15 September 2017).

22.

Di Martino

Hoel

Cooper

(2003) Preventing Violence and Harassment in the Workplace. Luxembourg: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

23.

Dubina

Carayannis

Campbell

(2012) Creativity economy and a crisis of the economy? Coevolution of knowledge, innovation, and creativity, and of the knowledge economy and knowledge society. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1): 1–24.

24.

European Comission (2016) Refugee crisis in Europe. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/refugee-crisis_en (accessed 15 September 2016).

25.

Evans

Jovanovic

(1989) An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy 97(4): 808–827.

26.

Fondazione Leone

M (FLM)

(2016) Rapporto 2016 Sull’economia Dell’immigrazione. Bologna: ilMulino.

27.

Giddens

(1984) The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

28.

Glick Schiller

Caglar

(2013) Locating migrant pathways of economic emplacement: Thinking beyond the ethnic lens. Ethnicities 13(4): 494–514.

29.

Goffman

(1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company.

30.

Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481–510.

31.

Habermas

(2011) Theorie Des Kommunikativen Handelns. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

32.

Hatziprokopiou

(2008) Migrant entrepreneurship in Greece. Migrações Journal 3: 73–84.

33.

Hay

(2016) Good in a crisis: The ontological institutionalism of social constructivism. New Political Economy 21(6): 520–535.

34.

Hillman

(2008) How socially innovative is migrant entrepreneurship? A case study of Berlin. In: Mac Callum

Moulaert

Hillier

et al . (eds) Social Innovation and Territorial Development. Ashgate: Burlington, pp.102–105.

35.

Hirschman

(1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Available at: www.labjor.unicamp.br/comciencia/files/risco/AR-UlrichBeck-Harvard.pdf (accessed 15 September 2017).

36.

Jahn

(2008) Transdisziplinarität in der Forschungspraxis. In: Bergmann

Schramm

(eds) Transdisziplinäre Forschung. Integrative Forschungsprozesse Verstehen Und Bewerten. Frankfurt /New York: Campus Verlag, pp.21–37.

37.

King

(2012) Theories and Typologies of Migration: An Overview and a Primer. Working Paper. Malmö: Malmö University.

38.

Kloosterman

Rath

(2003) Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Venturing Abroad in the Age of Globalization. Oxford, NY: Berg.

39.

Kontos

(2007) Immigrant entrepreneurs in Germany. In: Dana

(ed.) Handbook of Research on Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurs. Cheltenham and Brookfield: Edward Elgar, pp.445–463.

40.

Kuptsch

(2012) The economic crisis and labour migration policy in European countries. Comparative Population Studies 37(1–2): 15–32.

41.

Labrianidis

Hatziprokopiou

(2011) Migrant entrepreneurship in Greece: Diversity of pathways for emerging ethnic business communities in Thessaloniki. Journal of International Migration and Integration/Revue De L'integration et De La Migration Internationale 11(2): 193–217.

42.

Levitt

Jaworsky

(2007) Transnational migration studies: Past developments and future trends. Annual Review of Sociology 33: 129–156.

43.

Lutz

(2007) Vom Weltmarkt in Den Privathaushalt. Die Neuen Dienstmädchen Im Zeitalter Der Globalisierung. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.

44.

Meardi

Martín

Lozano Riera

(2012) Constructing uncertainty: Unions and migrant labour in construction in Spain and the UK. Journal of Industrial Relations 54 (1): 5–21.

45.

Mecheril

Thomas-Olalde

Melter

et al . (2013) Migrationsforschung als Kritik? Erkundung eines epistemischen Anliegens in 57 Schritten. In: Mecheril

Thomas-Olalde

Melter

et al . (eds) Migrationsforschung Als Kritik? Konturen Einer Forschungsperspektive. Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag, pp.7–55.

46.

Milio

(2014) Impact of the economic crisis on social, economic and territorial cohesion of the European Union. Available at: www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/529066/IPOL-REGI_ET%282014%29529066_EN.pdf (accessed 15 September 2017).

47.

Mulgan

(2006) The process of social innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 1(2): 145–162.

48.

Mulgan

Tucker

Ali

et al . (2007) Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. The Young Foundation. Available at: http://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-Open-Book-of-Social-Innovationg.pdf (accessed 15 September 2017).

49.

Murray-Leach

(2014) Crisis discourses in Europe media EU-phemisms and alternative narratives. Available at: www.gcsknowledgebase.org/europe/files/2014/07/CrisisDiscoursesinEurope.pdf (accessed 15 September 2017).

50.

Nowicka

(2013) Positioning strategies of Polish entrepreneurs in Germany: Transnationalizing Bourdieu’s notion of capital. International Sociology 28: 29–47.

51.

Nussbaum

(2010) Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

52.

OECD (2009) ITALY. Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Available at: www.oecd.org/dac/peer-reviews/44403908.pdf (accessed 15 September 2017).

53.

Papademetriou

(2010) Migration and immigrants two years after the financial collapse: Where do we stand? Available at: www. migrationpolicy.org/research/migration-and-immigrants-two-years-after-financial-collapse-where-do-we-stand (accessed 15 September 2017).

54.

Pécoud

(2009) Entrepreneurship and identity among German Turks in Berlin. Available at: http://intergraph-journal.net/enhanced/vol2_1/pecoud/pecoudframes.htm (accessed 15 September 2016).

55.

Piperopoulos

(2010) Ethnic minority businesses and immigrant entrepreneurship in Greece. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 17(1): 139–158.

56.

Pol

Ville

(2009) Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of Socio-Economics 38(6): 878–885.

57.

Polanyi

(1979) Ökonomie Und Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.

58.

Portes

(1995) The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

59.

Portes

(2008) Migration and social change: Some conceptual reflections. Available at: www.imi.ox.ac.uk/events/theories-of-migration-and-social-change/portes.pdf (accessed 15 September 2017).

60.

Portes

Guarnizo

Haller

(2002) Transnational entrepreneurs: An alternative form of immigrant economic adaptation. American Sociological Review 67(2): 278–298.

61.

Sayad

(2002) La Doppia Assenza. Dalle Illusioni Dell'emigrato Alle Sofferenze Dell'immigrato. Milan: Cortina Raffaello.

62.

Schmiz

(2013) Migrant self-employment between precariousness and self-exploitation. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization 3(1): 54–73.

63.

Sen

(1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

64.

Sennett

(2000) Der Flexible Mensch. Die Kultur Des Neuen Kapitalismus. Munich: btb Verlag.

65.

Shih

(2004) Positive stigma: Examining resilience and empowerment in overcoming stigma. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 591(1): 175–185.

66.

Tuori

(2014) The Eurozone Crisis: A Constitutional Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

67.

Zapf

(1989) Über soziale innovationen. Soziale Welt 40:170–183.