CfP RSA Annual Conference 2018 Special session on Transnational/International Entrepreneurship and Global Pipelines

0

 

CfP RSA Annual Conference 2018

Special session on Transnational/International Entrepreneurship and Global Pipelines

CfP Special session on TE IE (1)

Convenors: Dr Su-Hyun Berg (Business Consultant, Flensburg Germany), Dr Sarika Pruthi ((San Jose State University, California, USA), and Prof. Jay Mitra (University of Essex, UK)

Introduction

The study of transnational entrepreneurs (TEs) has attracted interest from academics, policy-makers and practitioners. TEs are acknowledged as an important source of innovation contributing to economic development in both host and home countries (Light, 2010; Terjesen and Elam,2009; Patel and Conklin, 2009; Portes et al., 2002; Wagner, Head & Ries, 2002). However, little is known about external knowledge sourcing of TEs; and how TEs create, accumulate, agglomerate and circulate new and existing knowledge through extra local linkages.

In this session, we seek to build upon and explore these dynamics of knowledge sourcing of TEs, which not only cross disciplinary boundaries, but have produced a diverse range of investigations into the different modes of knowledge creation and diffusion in both host and home countries. We focus on five key and related themes:

  • Ontological Freshness: Transnational Ontologies
  • Flows of Opportunity Development
  • Fluid Dual and Multiple Habitus
  • Reforming Institutions; and
  • Multidimensional Networks.

 

These themes are outlined below

Theme 1:Transnational and Migrant entrepreneurs –Varying and Mutating Ontologies

Transnational entrepreneurship can be conceptualized in both positivist (a phenomenon) and constructivist (a subjective abstraction) terms. This inherent conceptual duality mirrors the dual habitus presence of TEs. Crucially, it embraces other concepts of ethnicity, race, internationalization, globalization, migration and diasporas to name a few, all of which have merited attention in different studies on entrepreneurship. New research could, therefore, offer rich perspectives to enable a better, nuanced and critical understanding of this relatively less explored subject of our times

Theme 2: Flows of Opportunity Development

Research on migrant entrepreneurs makes clear distinctions between other types of migrant entrepreneurs and transnational entrepreneurs (TEs) that cross host country borders to commercialize a business idea in their home countries (Drori, Honig & Wright, 2009). The phenomenon of transnational entrepreneurship implies a distinct opportunity structure, which enables those migrants who found and maintain businesses to benefit from ‘two worlds’ as a crucial factor for survival, a way of breaking out, and/or a method for providing competitive advantage (Terjesen & Elam, 2009). Apart from enabling a globalization from below in developed host markets (McEwan, Pollard & Henry, 2005), TEs also make available, locally, a wide range of managerial, technical and international marketing skills through their ventures in emerging home markets (Breshnahan, Gambardella & Saxenian, 2001; Parthasarathy & Aoyama, 2006).

.

Theme 3: Fluid Dual and Multiple Habitus

Transanational Entrepreneurs (TEs) are focal actors in the creation, organization and growth of transnational and international new ventures (Autio, Sapienza & Almeida, 2005; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994). TEs can be seen to operate their dual structured activities between developed economies, between emerging economies, or between developed and emerging economies (Drori et al., 2009; Wright, Pruthi & Lockett, 2005). These different trajectories likely involve different challenges for TEs (Hoskisson et al., 2013; Kiss, Danis & Cavusgil, 2012). Entrepreneurial action of TEs is constrained by their home country endowments due to variations in home country institutional structures (Yeung, 2002, 2009). They also have to cope and adapt to, and form strategies shaped by, institutional constraints, political-economic structures, and dominant organizational and cultural practices in both previous and currently adopted countries in which they operate (Portes, 1995; Saxenian, 1999, 2002, 2005). There is a need to understand how varied institutional contexts and differences, rather than merely their personal attributes and innovative capacities, shape the way they operateThe literature on TEs of ethnic origin in developed markets describes the significance of ‘transnational communities’ for the transfer of knowledge back home. However, not all TEs form transnational ventures (TNVs) from the position of being based in the host country; they can also do so from being based in the home country (Drori et al., 2009) which can then influence or create new forms of cross-border institutional governance.

Theme 4: Reforming Institutions

TEs are not passive adherents to institutional constraints; they actively mould them to suit their own unique initiatives. They leverage opportunities arising from their dual fields and networks, optimizing resources where they may be most effective (Drori et al., 2009). Unlike EEs, TEs go beyond ethnic ties in venture founding, using class or national resources to expand business contacts beyond their ethnic group (Gold & Light, 2000). TEs open up a new frontier to develop insights on the nature of global and local networks that link individual resources at the micro level with structure at the macro level (Chen & Tan, 2009). As employees of multinational corporations (MNCs), diasporas often encourage their employers to investigate the possibility of investing in the diasporan’s country of origin (Kotabe et al., 2013). TEs’ prior experience of entering the home country with a former employer may impact the nature of social capital in venture founding in the home country (Pruthi & Wright, 2017a). An understanding of TEs’ social and human capital in venture founding opens up the possibility for new insights regarding the behaviour and contribution of migrant entrepreneurs (Yang, Ho & Chang, 2012). An established stream of literature (e.g., Deakins et al., 2007; Light, Rezaei & Dana, 2013; Portes & Zhou, 1992) explores the role of personal or ethnic ties in venture founding by EEs, mainly in their new country of residence. Where entrepreneurs’ connections in both host and home countries are explored, they are mainly in the context of internationalizing EEs that extend their firms to the home country (Chung & Tung, 2013), or REs that draw on their connections abroad to found new ventures upon returning home (Lewin & Zhong, 2013; Lorenzen & Mudambi, 2013; Nanda & Khanna, 2010; Pruthi, 2014; Wadhwa et al., 2011). In contrast, we know little about the link between migrant entrepreneur’s and TEs’ social and human capital, or how they use social ties to overcome resource constraints in venture founding or institutional reform. As the role of social capital in venture founding is quite diverse among ethnic communities in developed markets, even in the same host country (Nwankwo, Akunuri & Madichie, 2010), entrepreneurs from different ethnic groups need to be systematically studied to understand the nature of their social capital in transnational activities. . Is it possible that flows across borders generate capabilities for reforming existing or creating new institutions that mix spatial perspectives with individual or collective motivation impacting on inter-regional development?

Theme 5: Multidimensional Networks

Compared to other international entrepreneurs, differences in migrant entrepreneurs’ behaviour may stem from their unique social networks, market specific knowledge and experience (Elo & Volovelsky, 2017; Riddle, Hrivnak, & Nielsen, 2010), or even cultural, linguistic and religious features that represent particular resources and competences for internationalization (e.g., Brinkerhoff, 2016). Recent research has explored the role of migrant decision makers in the internationalization of their ventures to their home countries (Chung & Tung, 2013). Studies have also explored the motivations, typology (Drori et al., 2009; Elo, 2016; Portes, Haller, & Guarnizo, 2002) and economic contribution of TEs to their host and home countries (Portes et al., 2002; Wagner, Head & Ries, 2002). However, little is known about networks and capabilities, locational dynamics, mechanisms and processes that migrant entrepreneurs employ in identifying and exploiting opportunities in multiple institutional contexts (Brinkerhoff, 2016; (Elo & Freiling, 2015; Tung, 2008).

Also less understood is the link between the structure of TEs’ social networks and pattern of growth (Pruthi & Wright, 2017a, 2017b). Founded by migrants and continued by their descendants, some family businesses, for example, grow to become leading firms and expand beyond their countries of residence (Discua Cruz, Howorth & Hamilton, 2013). These firms often connect back to their countries of origin from their very outset and involve a collective approach by members of one or several migrant family generations, a process supported by hard to imitate resources nurtured by transnational family networks from various parts of the world over time (Sirmon & Hitt, 2003). While the entrepreneurship literature advocates the role of non-family, weak ties for growth (Jack, 2005), the IE literature suggests that entrepreneurs that first enter their home country to found a TNV are more likely to found ventures that are ‘born global’ (Oviatt & McDougall, 1994, 2005). Therefore, research may examine the performance of TNVs in TEs’ home country, and whether TEs that complement family ties with other ties are more successful than others. Prior research on migrant entrepreneurs has looked at migrants that are either first generation or undifferentiated in their embeddedness in the host country (Janjuha-Jivraj, 2003). While first-generation migrants may be embedded in their home country based on strong family connections, second-generation migrants are likely to be more integrated with their host country (Bachkaniwala, et al, 2001). Therefore, a related research question is whether there is a difference in use of social ties and performance of TNVs depending on whether focal actors from family are the first or second-generation migrants.

TNVs offer a fertile opportunity to explore the nature of control and co-ordination outside the context of MNCs (Dabic, González-Loureiro, & Harvey, 2015; Massingham, 2010). Saxenian and Hsu (2001) suggest that the transnational linkages of TEs may supersede conventional international business relationships, and the MNC may no longer be the preferred organizational vehicle for transferring knowledge or personnel across geographic boundaries. Yet, little is known about the organization and co-ordination of transnational activities or performance of their ventures (Discua Cruz & Basco, 2017). It may be interesting to understand the way TEs and their managers apportion responsibilities and build social capital in a situation of commitment to two different work units in host and home countries (Collings, Scullion, & Harvey, 2009; Harvey, Novicevic, & Garrison, 2005).

For this open session We welcome contributions from studies explore the global pipelines (Bathelt et al., 2004) of TEs. Specifically, we invite contributions to theorize how and what kind of extra local linkage is created, through time and space, and/or maintained. In this session, we look forward to diverse and indeed, conflicting or controversial perspectives and a lively debate on the role of institutional contexts, collaborative knowledge creation technology and transformative/alternative practices.

For further details please contact:

References

Autio, E., Sapienza, H.J., & Almeida, J.G. (2005). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 909–924.

Bachkaniwala, D., Wright, M., & Ram, M. (2001). Succession in South Asian family businesses in the UK.

International Small Business Journal, 19(4), 15–27.

Basu, A. (1998). An exploration of entrepreneurial activity among Asian small businesses in Britain. Small Business Economics, 10(4), 313–326.

———. (2011). From ‘break out’ to ‘breakthrough’: Successful market strategies of immigrant entrepreneurs in the UK. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 15, 1–24.

Breshnahan, T.,Gambardella, A.,&Saxenian, A.L. (2001). Old economy inputs for new economy outcomes: Cluster formation in the new Silicon Valleys. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4),835–860.

Brinkerhoff, J.M. (2016). Institutional reform and diaspora entrepreneurs: The in-between advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chen, W., & Tan, J. (2009). Understanding transnational entrepreneurship through a network lens: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), 1079–1091.

Chung, H.,&Tung, R. (2013). Immigrant social networks and foreign entry:Australia and NewZealand firms in the European Union and Greater China. International Business Review, 22(1),18–31.

Collings, D.G., Scullion, H., & Dowling, P.J. (2009). Global staffing: A review and thematic research agenda. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(6), 1253–1272.

Dabic, M., González-Loureiro, M., & Harvey, M. (2015). Evolving research on expatriates: What is ‘known’ after four decades (1970–2012). The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(3), 316–337.

Deakins, D., Ishaq, M., Smallbone, D., Whittam, G., & Wyper, J. (2007). Ethnic minority businesses in Scotland and the role of social capital. International Small Business Journal, 25(3),307–326.

Discua Cruz, A & Basco, R. (2017). A family perspective on Entrepreneurship, in Turcan R & Fraser, N (eds),

A Handbook of Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Entrepreneurship. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave. Discua Cruz, A., Howorth, C., & Hamilton, E. (2013). Intra-family entrepreneurship: The formation and member-

ship of family entrepreneurial teams. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(1), 17–46.

Drori, I., Honig, B., & Wright, M. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurship: An emergent field of study.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), 1001–1022.

Elo, M. (2016). Typology of diaspora entrepreneurship: Case studies in Uzbekistan. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 14(1), 121–155.

Elo, M., & Freiling, J. (2015). Transnational entrepreneurship: An introduction to the volume. American Journal of Entrepreneurship, 8(2).

Elo, M., & Riddle, L. (Eds) (2016). Diaspora Business. Oxford: Interdisciplinary Press.

Elo, M., & Volovelsky, E.K. (2017). Jewish diaspora entrepreneurs-the impact of religion on opportunity exploration and exploitation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 31(2),244–269.

Filatotchev, I., Liu, X., Buck, T., & Wright, M. (2009). The export orientation and export performance of high- technology SMEs in emerging markets: The effects of knowledge transfer by returnee entrepreneurs. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(6), 1005–1021.

Gold, S.J., & Light, I. (2000). Ethnic economies and social policy. In Research in social movements, conflicts and change (pp. 165–191). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Harvey, M., Novicevic, M.M., & Garrison, G. (2005). Global virtual teams: A human resource capital architecture.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(9), 1583–1599.

Hoskisson, R., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., & Peng, M. (2013). Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50(7),1295–1321.

Jack, S. (2005). The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1234–1259.

Janjuha-Jivraj, S. (2003). The sustainability of social capital within ethnic networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(1), 31–43.

Kiss, A.N., Danis, W.M., & Cavusgil, S.T. (2012). International entrepreneurship research in emerging economies: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 266–290.

Kotabe, M., Riddle, L., Sonderegger, P., & Täube, F. (2013). Diaspora investment and entrepreneurship: The role of people, their movements, and capital in the international economy. Journal of International Management, 19(1), 3–5.

Lewin, A., & Zhong, X. (2013). The evolving diaspora of talent: A perspective on trends and implications for sourc- ing science and engineering work. Journal of International Management, 19(1),6–13.

Light, I., Rezaei, S., & Dana, L. (2013). Ethnic minority entrepreneurs in the international carpet trade: An empirical study. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 18(2),125.

Lorenzen, M., & Mudambi, R. (2013). Clusters, connectivity and catch-up: Bollywood and Bangalore in the global economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(3), 501–534.

Massingham, P. (2010). Managing knowledge transfer between parent country nationals (Australia) and host coun- try nationals (Asia). The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(9), 1414–1435.

McEwan, C., Pollard, J., & Henry, N. (2005). The ‘global’ in the city economy: Multicultural economic develop- ment in Birmingham. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 916–933.

Nanda, R.,&Khanna, T. (2007). Diasporas and domestic entrepreneurs: Evidence fromthe Indian software industry.

Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 19(4), 991–1012.

Nwankwo, S., Akunuri, J., & Madichie, N. (2010). Supporting black businesses: Narratives of support providers in London. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16(6), 561–580.

Oviatt, B.M., & McDougall, P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.

Oviatt, B.M., & McDougall, P.P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling economic development in Birmingham. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 916–933.

Parthasarathy, B., & Aoyama, Y. (2006). From software services to R&D services: Local entrepreneurship in the software industry in Bangalore, India. Environment and Planning, 38(7), 1269–1285.

Portes, A. (1995). Economic sociology and the sociology of immigration:Aconceptual overview. In A. Portes (Ed.),

The Economic Sociology of Immigration (pp. 1–41). New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.

Portes, A., Haller, W.J., & Guarnizo, L.E. (2002). Transnational entrepreneurs: An alternative form of immigrant economic adaptation. American Sociological Review, 67, 278–298.

Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1992). Gaining the upper hand: Economic mobility among immigrant and domestic minori- ties. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15(4), 491–522.

Pruthi, S. (2014). Social ties and venture creation by returnee entrepreneurs. International Business Review, 23(6), 1139–1152.

Pruthi, S., & Wright, M. (2017a). Social ties, prior experience and venture creation by transnational entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Small Business. Retrieved 10 May 2017 from http://www.indersci- ence.com/info/ingeneral/forthcoming.php?jcode=IJESB

———. (2017b). Social ties, social capital and recruiting managers in transnational ventures. Journal of East-West Business. Retrieved 10 May 2017 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10669868.2016.1270247

Ram, M., & Jones, T. (2008). Ethnic minority businesses in the UK: A review of research and policy developments.

Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(2), 352–374.

Riddle, L., Hrivnak, G.A., & Nielsen, T.M. (2010). Transnational diaspora entrepreneurship in emerging markets: Bridging institutional divides. Journal of International Management, 16(4), 398–411.

Saxenian, A. (2002). Transnational communities and the evolution of global production networks: The cases of Taiwan, China and India. Industry and Innovation, 9(3), 183–202.

Saxenian, A., & Hsu, J.Y. (2001). The Silicon Valley–Hsinchu connection: Technical communities and industrial upgrading. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 893–920.

Saxenian, A.L. (1999). Silicon Valley’s new immigrant entrepreneurs. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

———. (2005). From brain drain to brain circulation: Transnational communities and regional upgrading in India and China. Studies in Comparative International Development, 40(2), 35–61.

Sirmon, D.G., & Hitt, M.A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth crea- tion in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 339–358.

Terjesen, S., & Elam, A. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurs’ venture internationalization strategies: A practice theory approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(5), 1093–1120.

Tung, R.L. (2008). Brain circulation, diaspora, and international competitiveness. European Management Journal, 26(5), 298–304.

Wadhwa, V., Jain, S., Saxenian, A.L., Gerefti, G., &Wang, H. (2011). The grass is indeed greener in India and China for returnee entrepreneurs: America’s new immigrant entrepreneurs, Part VI. Kauffman: The Foundation for Entrepreneurship.

Wagner, D., Head, K., & Ries, J. (2002). Immigration and the trade of provinces. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 49(5), 507–525.

Wright, M., Pruthi, S., & Lockett, A. (2005). International venture capital research: From cross-country comparisons to crossing borders. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3),135–165.

Yang, X., Ho, E., & Chang, A. (2012). Integrating the resource-based view and transaction cost economics in immi- grant business performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(3), 753–772.

Yeung, H. (2002). Entrepreneurship in international business: An institutional perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(1), 29–61.

Yeung, H. (2009). Transnationalizing entrepreneurship: A critical agenda for economic geography. Progress in Human Geography, 33(2), 210–235.

A partager sans modération