Moroccan entrepreneurs in Amsterdam and Milan: social

networks and business practices

Giacomo Solano(Università di Milano-Bicocca & Eindhoven University of Technology)

Sunbelt 2015Brighton, June 23 –28, 2015

1

Introduction

• Immigrant entrepreneurship & transnational business practices

• Comparison between cross-border entrepreneurs (TEs) and local entrepreneurs (LEs)

• Role of social networks in shaping these two forms of immigrant entrepreneurship

2

Past literature

• Only a few studies focus on social network and cross-border businesses

• Not still clear peculiarities of cross-border entrepreneurs (TEs):

- more geographically dispersed network, contacts with c. of immigration and of origin(e.g. Portes et al., 2002; Patel, Conklin, 2009; Chen, Tan, 2009)

- More relevant help of family (e.g. Mustafa, Chen, 2010)

3

Aim

• What is the role of social networks in immigrant entrepreneurial practices? Are there differences between TEs and LEs?

• Differences in terms of:- network composition (e.g. nationality, place of

residence), - type of relationship - structure- use of the network- support received

4

Methodology/1

• 70 Moroccan entrepreneurs:– 40 Milan 30 Amsterdam– 35 TEs 35 LEs

• Similar educational level (medium-high)

• Not statistically but socially representative sample

5

Methodology/2

• Mixed methods (qualitative interview + PNA)

• Questions: past work and life experience, educational background, business description and path, support received, etc.

• Ego-centered network of 30 alters- N=1988 alters- Business contacts= 963- Support contacts= 490

6

Type of relationship (business network)

Relationship TEs LEs

Weak ties 65.2 64.4

Strong ties 34.8 35.6

Total (%) 100 100

Total (ab. val.) 575 388

Association τ =0.008

7

Network composition

• Business network: TEs have network more geographically dispersed and diversified in terms of nationality (V=0.440**)

• This is confirmed also for the support network (V=0.456**)

8

Support network

LEs

Local supports

9

Support network

(TEs)

Transnational support

Local support

10

Network composition TEs

• 42% of the business contacts (40% TEs; 44% LEs) and 53.5% of support ones (55% TEs; 50% LEs) met before start-up

• TEs more diversified network in terms of country of residence and nationality also before the business start-up:

Business network V=0.413**

Support network V=0.455**

“I had some contacts abroad, inFrance, my girlfriend and onecousin…so I decided to startimporting all kind of stuff fromItaly to France and the other wayaround, also thanks to thesecontacts” (TE6)

11

Composition: spatial scales

* p<0.05 **p<0.01

TEs LEs TEs LEs

Business network Support networkSame region (IT-NL)

77.1 85 76.2 83.5

τ =0.111* τ=-0.091*Same city (IT-NL) 61.5 75.9 61.9 77.7

τ =0.155** τ=-0.164*Same neighbour. (IT/NL)

30.8 38.9 40.4 29.9

τ =0.084* τ=-0.113**

12

Structure (business network)

TEs

• Larger (19)• Sparse (D=0.220)• Bridging

LEs

• Smaller (12)• Dense (D=0.500)• Bonding

13

Support received

* p<0.05 **p<0.01

Financial help Labour help Informational help

TEs Work-rel. contacts (78.8) Relatives (65.2) Work-rel. contacts (49)

LEs Work-rel. contacts (73) Friends (31.3) - Relatives (31.3) Work-rel. contacts (55.6)

Ass. (V) 0.153 0.359** 0.148

TEs Weak ties (65.9) Strong ties (87) Strong ties (52.3)

LEs Weak ties (70.3) Strong ties (62.7) Weak tie (40)Ass. (τ) -0.043 -0.267** -0.119*

TEsNatives (32.9) Moroccan immigrants (52.2) Natives (37)

Internationals (32.9) Origins (19.6) Origins (19)

LEsNatives (58.8) Moroccan immigrants (64.2) Natives (47.8)

Moroccan immigrants (37.8) Natives (23.9) Moroccan immigrants (31.1)

Ass. (V) 0.472** 0.451** 0.460**

14

More in particular…

More fundamental role of TEs’ contacts (in particular relatives)

Labour help Informational help

TEs Manage the abroad part of the business

Provide the key pieces of info for exapanding the

business abroad

LEsOccasional help (e.g. helping

with keeping the shop opened)

Bureaucratic info

15

Conclusions/1

• LEs’ business network is less dispersed ingeographical terms, more local and morehomogeneous concerning alters’ nationality andmore dense

• TEs’ business network is more geographically dispersed and nationally heterogeneous, more sparse with structural holes

16

Conclusions/2

• TEs’ contacts (in particualar strong ties) contribution is more qualified they manage or provide the key pieces of information for the abroad side of the business

17

18