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 Kevin Reuther and Yngve Dahle examines this diversity more closely and asks when
entrepreneurship support is actually perceived as valuable by migrant entrepreneurs.
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 (link to our news item on SEAM and to the SEAM paper)
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.
