New Study: Better Matching, Not More Targeting, Key to Migrant Entrepreneurship Support

Entrepreneurship support for migrant founders is often built around a simple assumption: because migrant entrepreneurs face specific barriers, they need specific programs. This is partly true, but it is also incomplete. Migrant entrepreneurs differ substantially in their business models, networks, market orientation, language needs and degree of embeddedness in the host country.

A new study by Dr. Kevin Reuther, Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, and Yngve Dahle examines this diversity more closely and asks when entrepreneurship support is actually perceived as valuable by migrant entrepreneurs. Dahle is an entrepreneur, researcher, and collaborator of the SEAM Research Institute.

The article, "Migrant Entrepreneurship Support – Design Influences on the Perceived Value of Norwegian Programs," builds on the authors’ broader research agenda on migrant and transnational entrepreneurship support. It complements their recent article in "Entrepreneurship & Regional Development," which showed that the distinction between transnational and non-transnational ventures can be more meaningful for support design than the broad distinction between migrant and non-migrant entrepreneurs. The new paper moves one step further and focuses specifically on migrant entrepreneurs: under which conditions do they experience support programs as useful, relevant and valuable?

Empirically, the study draws on 43 migrant entrepreneurs from nine structured entrepreneurship support programs in Norway. The analysis combines interviews with digital observational data from the SEAM database and applies qualitative comparative analysis, a method designed to identify combinations of conditions rather than isolated success factors. This approach is especially suitable for studying migrant entrepreneurship support, because the value of a program rarely depends on one feature alone. Instead, it emerges from how program design, facilitator background, cohort composition, co-creation and the entrepreneur’s own market orientation fit together.

The findings show that there is no single best model for migrant entrepreneurship support. Dedicated migrant programs can be highly valuable, but especially for entrepreneurs with strong home-country, diaspora or cross-border linkages. For these transnationally oriented entrepreneurs, migrant-specific programs, non-host-country facilitators, peer exchange with other migrants and language pragmatism can create a more relevant and trusted support environment. However, the opposite pattern also matters. Migrant entrepreneurs who are primarily focused on the host-country market may benefit more from open programs where they interact with local entrepreneurs, host-country facilitators and regional networks.

The central message is therefore not that migrant entrepreneurs always need separate support structures. Rather, support should be matched more carefully to the entrepreneur’s actual venture orientation and embeddedness. Treating migrant entrepreneurs as one homogeneous target group risks overlooking important differences within this population. Some entrepreneurs need support that connects them to local markets and institutions. Others need support that recognizes their cross-border networks and transnational business activities.

For policymakers, funders and entrepreneurship support organizations, the study offers a clear practical implication: inclusive entrepreneurship support should become more differentiated. Program design should pay closer attention to whether entrepreneurs are locally embedded, transnationally active or positioned between several markets and ecosystems. Better matching of participants, facilitators, peer groups and program content could improve the perceived value of support and help ensure that public resources reach entrepreneurs in ways that reflect their actual needs.

The article contributes to current debates on migrant entrepreneurship, transnationalism, mixed embeddedness, entrepreneurship support and entrepreneurial ecosystems. It also strengthens the case for evidence-based program design in entrepreneurship support, showing how observational data and configurational methods can help move the discussion beyond broad target-group categories toward more precise support models.