Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Refugee entrepreneurship in the agri-food industry: The

Swedish experience
Henrik Barth *, Ghazal Zalkat
Center for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Learning research (CIEL), Halmstad University, Box 823, 301 18 Halmstad, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Following the recent mass migration of refugees to the European Union in 2015 and 2016, many EU countries
Refugee entrepreneurship took significant steps aimed at improving the socio-economic integration of the refugees. This study examines
Agri-food industry refugee entrepreneurship in rural areas in Sweden as evidenced in the agri-food industry. Entrepreneurship is
Entrepreneurial process
often considered a sustainable activity that can promote refugees’ economic independence and social integration.
Immigrant
Integration
The rural setting offers promising employment opportunities for refugees with agricultural backgrounds or in­
terest. Qualitative research methodology, based on 25 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with refugees, is used
to examine refugee entrepreneurs’ experiences in the various phases of the entrepreneurial process, from start-up
and growth to success/exit. The study found that refugee entrepreneurs are motivated and challenged variously
as they start and operate their entrepreneurial activities. For example, they are motivated by the discovery of
niche markets, previous entrepreneurial experience, and the availability of family and government support.
Challenges include legislative hurdles, management and technical problems, and insufficient financial and other
support. Factors both within and outside their control influence the survival of their entrepreneurship.

1. Introduction investments in agriculture and to use improved technologies as struc­

The migration crisis in the European Union (EU), which peaked in
2015 and 2016, created a new urgency in the effort to address the
numerous difficulties associated with mass migration (Ahad and
Banulescu-Bogdan, 2019).1 In 2017, EU countries granted protection
status to 533 000 asylum seekers. The EU countries that admitted the
most asylum seekers were Germany (325 400), France (40 600), Italy
(35 100), Austria (34 000), and Sweden (31 200) (Eurostat, 2018). In
2018, the EU countries granted protection status to nearly 333 400
additional asylum seekers (Eurostat, 2019). On a per capita basis,
Sweden admitted more asylum seekers than any other EU country.
Integrating these new arrivals – socially, culturally, and economically –
posed a major challenge for all these countries One solution was to
encourage and facilitate refugee entrepreneurship among immigrants
who showed entrepreneurial experience and interest.
Agriculture, which is among the world’s largest employment sectors,
employs over one billion people and accounts for 3% of global GDP.
According to the FAO (2018a), it is essential, however, to increase
tural and demographic changes in the sector take place. The agricultural
sector in the EU, for has become more market-oriented and entrepre­
neurial with its Common Agricultural Policy (Giannakis and Brugge­
man, 2015).
International migration can contribute to this development by
introducing diversified and sustainable employment solutions in rural
areas (FAO, 2018c; Findlay and McCollum, 2013; Nori, 2017). In
developed countries experiencing rural depopulation, immigrants can
contribute to the development of rural areas by filling labour shortages
(Eimermann, 2016). In Europe and North America, for instance, foreign
labour constitutes the backbone of agricultural production (FAO,
2018b). Such host countries increasingly promote immigration settle­
ment in rural areas, especially for immigrants with an agricultural
background or an interest in agricultural activities. International
migration thus contributes to economic development through the
introduction of new skills and jobs in both new and established in­
dustries and the creation of external networks and market connections
(Carson et al., 2016; Hedberg et al., 2012). Government support of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Henrik.Barth@hh.se (H. Barth).
1
It should be noted it is difficult to distinguish among refugees, economic immigrants, and immigrants with refugee backgrounds (Forsander, 2004; King and Lulle,
2016).The terms are used somewhat interchangeably.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.06.011
Received 27 May 2020; Received in revised form 19 April 2021; Accepted 10 June 2021
0743-0167/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Henrik Barth, Ghazal Zalkat, Journal of Rural Studies, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.06.011
H. Barth and G. Zalkat
immigrant entrepreneurship is repaid when immigrants fill in gaps in
the labour market and thereby better integrate into society (Fong et al.,
2007; Harima et al., 2019; Meister and Mauer, 2019).
Immigrant agricultural activity can also enrich the social and cul­
tural life of rural areas (Collantes et al., 2014). While immigrant en­
trepreneurs may successfully create and exploit entrepreneurial
opportunities with the economic support of local communities (Mun­
kejord, 2017a), researchers have also found that immigrants are more
likely to seek rural employment if social and cultural opportunities exist
within the local population (Hugo and Morén-Alegret, 2008; Vogiazides
and Mondani, 2019). Søholt et al. (2018) found that many Nordic rural
communities see immigrants as permanent additions to the local pop­
ulation as well as contributors to the local economy. According to
Stenbacka (2012), the numbers of both internal and international mi­
grants are increasing in rural areas in Sweden.
The contributions of immigrant entrepreneurship are particularly
relevant in European agriculture where “rurality” is considered “a dy­
namic entrepreneurial resource” (Stathopoulou et al., 2004). Entrepre­
neurial opportunities for immigrants exist in horticulture, in lamb,
sheep, and goat farming, and in small-scale food processing. However,
some unique factors related to rural areas may influence the emergence,
growth, and survival prospects of new businesses – what Clausen (2020)
describes as the “liability of rurality”. According to Welter (2011) and
Welter et al. (2018), these factors link to the entrepreneurial context in
which rurality can be seen as an actor that may penalize as well as
benefit the activities of immigrants. While rural areas can provide
immigrant entrepreneurs more freedom and a stronger sense of com­
munity (Vogiazides and Mondani, 2019), these areas may lack necessary
resources and growth-oriented traditions (Clausen, 2020).
While many entrepreneurship researchers have studied social net­
works and institutional contexts, they seldom examine the spatial
context (Korsgaard et al., 2015; Westlund et al., 2014). Spatial context
refers to the topographical, geographical, and infrastructural elements
as well as the meanings, experiences, and heritage of the locations of the
entrepreneurial opportunity creation process (Korsgaard et al., 2015).
Demographic and labour market characteristics should be considered
when estimating the contribution of immigrants to socio-economic
development in rural areas, especially with regard to the heterogene­
ity and diversity of the group (Hedberg and Haandrikman, 2014; Hed­
lund et al., 2017). For instance, refugee entrepreneurs require more
assistance in understanding the basic trends in entrepreneurship (Desai
et al., 2020).
Our study addresses refugee entrepreneurship in the Swedish agri-
food industry. Thus, the spatial context of our study is southern Swe­
den – a rural area known for farming and food production. We inter­
viewed refugee entrepreneurs because they represent a major group of
immigrants who have arrived in Sweden since 2015 (Swedish Migration
Agency, 2020). Extant migration and entrepreneurship research largely
focuses on immigrant entrepreneurs but not specifically on refugee en­
trepreneurs in the rural setting (Desai et al., 2020).
Much of the immigrant entrepreneurship research is quantitative
with a reliance on statistics. Despite its value, such research provides
limited insights into how immigrant entrepreneurship evolves in its
different phases (Dabić et al., 2020). Entrepreneurial motivation
research focuses in general on a specific phase of the business devel­
opment process whereas entrepreneurs experience many different
challenges throughout their entrepreneurial journey. A holistic frame­
work is needed to understand the various influences on the entrepre­
neurial process (Murnieks et al., 2019). Therefore, our qualitative study
aims to examine refugee entrepreneurs’ motivations and challenges in
the entrepreneurial phases in the rural setting.
1.1. Research questions
• What are the motivations and challenges for refugee entrepreneurs in
the start-up and growth phases of the entrepreneurial process?
2
Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx
• Why do refugee entrepreneurships survive in rural areas?
• What causes refugee entrepreneurs to exit their rural businesses?
2. Refugee and immigrant entrepreneurship
According to the Swedish Migration Agency (2020), the flow of
immigrants to Sweden substantially increased in the 2000s. Sweden
experienced its largest immigration influx in 2015 when nearly 163 000
asylum seekers entered Sweden of whom 71 562 were granted protec­
tion in 2016 (Skodo, 2018). See Fig. 1. The refugee crisis of 2015 and
2016 was the immediate cause of recent changes in Sweden’s previous
relatively liberal immigration laws and policies. With new its border
controls and a more restrictive asylum and reunification law, Sweden
today finds itself in an immigration era that is much different than its
guest-worker era of the mid-1900s.
Entrepreneurship appeals to immigrants as a partial solution to the
initial difficulties they encounter with socio-economic integration in
their host countries (Brzozowski, 2017). When immigrants perceive they
are socially excluded and/or discriminated against in the labour market,
they are more willing to try new business ventures in their host countries
(Evansluong et al., 2019). However, minority entrepreneurs such as
immigrants have traditionally faced greater business challenges than
non-minority entrepreneurs when they engage in such ventures (Bates,
2001; Tamang, 2015). The challenges facing immigrant entrepreneurs in
the entrepreneurial process (Barth and Zalkat, 2020; Hagos et al., 2019)
often weaken their entrepreneurial performance and prevent success
(Kordestani et al., 2017).
2.1. Research strands in entrepreneurship research
Two research strands in particular are observable in the entrepre­
neurship research that includes immigrant and refugee entrepreneur­
ship: (1) research that takes a theoretical approach to the discussion of
entrepreneurial motivations and challenges; and (2) research that takes
an empirical approach to entrepreneurship, including research on
foreign nationalities in host countries. According to Nazareno et al.
(2018), researchers have focused on immigrant entrepreneurship
because of the importance and difficulties of integrating new arrivals
into society and the workforce of their host countries.
The entrepreneurship literature often proposes that entrepreneur­
ship can advance immigrant integration in host countries. For example,
Miao (2020) found that immigrants to Sweden from Middle Eastern
countries are more likely than native-born Swedes to become entre­
preneurs when the rate of local unemployment increases. Chrysostome
and Lin (2010) found that immigrants can create new market opportu­
nities and can advance a host country’s economic development through
their entrepreneurial activities. Wauters and Lambrecht (2006; 2008)
concluded that entrepreneurship is a means to integrate new arrivals as
well as to boost domestic entrepreneurship. Furthermore, immigrant
entrepreneurs play an important role in labour market integration
because they create jobs for themselves and for other immigrants who
Fig. 1. Asylum applications received and granted protection in Sweden
2011–2019. Source: Swedish Migration Agency (2020)
H. Barth and G. Zalkat
may have difficulty finding work (Hammarstedt and Miao, 2020).
Much of the entrepreneurship literature addresses immigrant entre­
preneurship broadly rather than refugee entrepreneurship specifically
(Desai et al., 2020; Naudé et al., 2017; Peri, 2016). Yet, as researchers
have found, refugee entrepreneurs strongly perceive entrepreneurship
as a way to contribute to the well-being of their communities as well as
to the economic development of their host countries (Bizri, 2017;
Kushnirovich, 2015; Tumen, 2016). Refugees often link their entrepre­
neurial motivations to their experience with host country challenges
such as cultural differences, language barriers, and lack of market
knowledge (Collins, 2017). The unique refugee experience may create
an especially strong determination to overcome these challenges
(Mawson and Kasem, 2019).
3. Agri-entrepreneurs and agri-entrepreneurships; A literature
review
Various definitions and descriptions of agri-entrepreneurs and agri-
entrepreneurships as well as the use of different terms are found in the
literature [e.g., see Lans et al. (2013; 2017) on “agricultural entrepre­
neurship”; Vik and McElwee (2011) on “farm diversification”.]. Raman
et al. (2014) define the agri-entrepreneur as a financial risk-taker who
operates an agricultural activity using cost-conscious practices and
modern agri-technology. In reviewing the development of the “agri­
preneurship”, Otache (2017) lists the “agripreneur’s” characteristics:
the ability and willingness to recognize viable agricultural business
opportunities, to gather resources, and to establish and manage a busi­
ness. According to Pindado and Sánchez (2017), agriculture ventures
that are “new” to the European agriculture sector reveal the use of more
entrepreneurial skills and orientation than “existing” agriculture ven­
tures even though these new agricultural ventures exhibit fewer entre­
preneurial capabilities than non-agricultural ventures.
Stenholm and Hytti (2014) identify the commonality among
“entrepreneur farmers” as their need to construct an identity outside
prevailing norms and institutions. According to Lans et al. (2017), this
new identity requires agri-entrepreneurs to adapt to new challenges
such as changes in consumer habits, food safety requirements, and
biotechnology advances.
Other researchers have further enlarged the scope of agri-
entrepreneurship to include entrepreneurial opportunities such as new
products (e.g., organic and functional foods) and new innovations in
business processes, distribution, and marketing (EIP-AGRI, 2016; Vik
and McElwee, 2011). Seuneke et al. (2013), who stress the importance of
entrepreneurship in modern agriculture, focus on the learning process as
an essential component of multifunctional agriculture. Furthermore,
agri-entrepreneurship plays an important role in job creation and in
rural tourism innovation (Carson and Carson, 2018; Newbery and Bos­
worth, 2014; Newbery et al., 2017).
3.1. Agri-entrepreneurship in Sweden
Some researchers who have studied immigrant agri-
entrepreneurship claim that agri-entrepreneurs contribute positively to
the Swedish economy and society. Such entrepreneurs diversify the
agrarian workforce and increase the variety of products and services
available to the public (Barth, 2018).“Countryside capital,” according to
Eimermann (2016), is an important aspect of social-economic integra­
tion in rural Sweden. Hedberg and Haandrikman (2014) and Hedlund
et al. (2017) examined globalisation in terms of the repopulation of the
Swedish countryside. In an aptly titled article (“When the world goes
rural”), Hedberg et al. (2012) addressed the beneficial potential of
immigrant migration for the rural Swedish labour market. Much of this
research describes the immigrant entrepreneurs’ various and complex
motivations for entering the agri-food industry.
However, other observers of rural immigrant migration in Sweden
have focused on the special challenges immigrant agri-entrepreneurs
3
Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx
face. For example, Kordestani et al. (2017) studied immigrant entre­
preneurs in Sweden from the perspective of exclusion and prejudice.
Barth and Zalkat (2020), who examined “the liability of newness” as it
relates to immigrant entrepreneurship in Sweden, identified various
limitations to the growth and success of immigrant-owned businesses:
lack of resources (including financing) and customer resistance to ethnic
products. Eimermann and Karlsson (2018) conclude that the
socio-economic potential of immigrants’ rural settlement has not yet
been fully realized in the Swedish countryside.
4. Theoretical approach
Previous research has addressed opportunities for immigrant
employment and socio-economic integration in rural areas (e.g., Hugo
and Morén-Alegret, 2008; Salleh and Sidek, 2011; Vogiazides and
Mondani, 2019). Some of this research has focused on immigrant (and
refugee) entrepreneurs’ motivations, challenges, and success factors as
they start and grow their businesses. In this section we explore three
themes that emerge from this literature that have relevance for the
theoretical approach of our study.
4.1. Entrepreneurial motivation: Theme 1
Entrepreneurial motivational factors influence immigrants to engage
in agricultural (and other) entrepreneurial activities (Barth and Zalkat,
2019). These factors may influence their willingness to enter, continue,
or exit their businesses (Staniewski and Awruk, 2015). Tamang (2015)
categorizes immigrant entrepreneurial motivations into push factors (e.
g., job dissatisfaction and unemployment) and pull factors (e.g., desire
for independence and dream fulfilment). Wauters and Lambrecht (2006;
2008) found that refugee entrepreneurs view entrepreneurship as a
fast-track to economic security and social integration. Other researchers
point to self-realization and self-satisfaction (Staniewski and Awruk,
2015) and to family encouragement and support as motivational factors
(Alsos et al., 2014; Evansluong and Ramirez Pasillas, 2019).
Recent research provides an unbalanced treatment of motivational
factors during the entrepreneurship phases. According to Murnieks
et al.’s (2019) literature review, 68% of the entrepreneurial motivation
literature focuses on the venture initiation phase, 27% focuses on the
growth phase, and only 5% focuses on the exit phase. Each phase of the
entrepreneurial process depends on individual characteristics and on the
physical, social, and economic environment (Stathopoulou et al., 2004).
Tonner and Wilson (2015), who investigated strategies for farm
diversification generally, call for a deeper examination of entrepre­
neurial motivations. In our study, we respond to that call in the context
of refugee motivations in agri-entrepreneurship.
4.2. Entrepreneurial challenges: Theme 2
Entrepreneurial challenges can present hindrances, even threats, to
entrepreneurships (e.g., Kordestani et al., 2017). Minority-owned firms,
including immigrant/refugee-owned firms, have traditionally faced
greater challenges than non-minority-owned firms. They often lack the
ability and/or size to compete in mainstream markets (Bates, 2001).
Collins (2017) lists the following challenges to refugee entrepreneur­
ship: cultural differences, language barriers, lack of market knowledge,
ethnic/racial discrimination, and complex laws and regulations. In
explaining the refugee gap, Bakker et al. (2017) and Obschonka et al.
(2018) describe the lack of start-up capital as a particularly serious
challenge for refugee entrepreneurs [see also Levenson and Willard
(2000) for a general discussion on the difficulties of new business
financing]. Other researchers point to the challenges posed by market
competition (Bates, 2001), technological change (Acs and Audretsch,
2003) and institutional barriers (Hagos et al., 2019).
Another major challenge for rural immigrant/refugee-owned entre­
preneurships is what Clausen (2020) refers to as the “rurality of
H. Barth and G. Zalkat Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx

geographical space”. Given the importance of this challenge to our entrepreneurships of our study (see Section 6 “Results”). As the model
study, we separately list “entrepreneurship and rurality” as the third illustrates, we examine motivations and challenges in the start-up and
theme. growth phases that lead to exit or survival

5. Material and methods

4.3. Entrepreneurship and rurality: Theme 3
This study is based on 25 interviews with refugee entrepreneurs who
In his recent study, Clausen (2020) explores the concept of “rurality”
started a business or who planned to start a business in Sweden at some
from a theoretical perspective. He uses rurality, which in its broadest
time during the ten years preceding our investigation that was con­
sense refers to a rural (vs. an urban) characteristic, in a new concept:
ducted in 2018. We interviewed eight entrepreneurs in the start-up
“the liability of rurality.” Clausen then associates this concept with
phase, twelve entrepreneurs in the growth phase, and five entrepre­
smallness and newness in the concept of “new venture viability” in order
neurs in the exit phase. The entrepreneurs were located in southern
to guide rural entrepreneurship research. He concludes that “rurality
Sweden where the growing season is longer and the land is more arable
represents a penalty along the different stages of new venture creation”
than in other areas of the country. The fertile plains of southern Sweden
(p. 121). In an earlier article, Korsgaard et al. (2015) had noted the scant
have almost 60% of Sweden’s arable land (Swedish Board of Agricul­
research on the role of spatial context in relation to rural entrepre­
ture, 2018).
neurship at the conceptual and practical levels.
A qualitative research methodology was used for this study. Quali­
Various researchers have explored entrepreneurships in rural set­
tative research provides valuable insights into study participants’ atti­
tings. In a survey of 181 articles on rural entrepreneurship published in
tudes, values, and beliefs as well as their behavioural patterns (Patton,
journals indexed in Scopus, Pato and Teixeira (2016) revealed that rural
2002). We used an interview guide that permitted semi-structured
entrepreneurship, essentially a European concern, is an emergent topic
questions. Given this flexibility, the interviewer could ask spontaneous
of research interest (see also Stathopoulou et al., 2004). For example,
questions not listed on the interview guide as unforeseen topics of in­
Newberry et al. (2017) examined the opportunities and constraints of
terest arose (Gill et al., 2008; Leedy and Ormrod, 2005).
rural entrepreneurship in the developing and developed world; Eliasson
We used purposeful sampling to select candidate respondents (Pat­
and Wesrlund (2013) researched self-employment influences in urban
ton, 2002, 2015). We began our respondent search by contacting busi­
and rural Sweden.
ness incubators and organizations that support refugee entrepreneurs.
The rural setting is an entrepreneurial environment that has partic­
Because of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), these
ular physical, social, and economic attributes. Despite the positive at­
groups were unable to provide information about any refugees. How­
tributes of this environment, much of the research highlights its negative
ever, when personnel at the incubators suggested that some refugee
attributes. Naldi et al. (2007) describe how the unpredictability of the
entrepreneurs might contact us, two refugee entrepreneurs did so and
weather discourages risk-taking among farmers. Ranjan (2015) exam­
agreed to participate in our study. We identified additional candidate
ines rural entrepreneurism through the lens of climate change-related
respondents in local newspaper articles about refugee entrepreneurs in
water scarcity. Stenholm and Hytti (2014) describe how the lack of
the agri-food industry. We used social media platforms such as Facebook
land availability impedes the growth of immigrants’ farms. Barth et al.
and Instagram to contact these candidate respondents. We recruited
(2017) caution against the tendency of immigrants in the agri-sector to
other candidate respondents using snowball sampling (Atkinson and
act more as producers than entrepreneurs.
Flint, 2001) with various social media and personal networks. As noted
In sum, additional research on immigrant/refugee entrepreneurial
above, 25 individuals agreed to participate in our study.
motivations and challenges in the rural setting would develop this field.
We conducted all interviews in the autumn and early winter of 2018.
In particular, more empirical research is needed to supplement the
All respondents (four women and 21 men) were refugees. Most were
theoretical literature. The scope of this empirical research could be
married to an individual from their home country. Some were engaged
enlarged to focus on the entrepreneurial start-up, growth, and exit
in various agriculture ventures such as crop or dairy farming or honey or
phases. Empirical case studies of immigrant/refugee entrepreneurships
mushroom production. Others operated various agri-food businesses
that have survived (compared to those that have not survived) would
such as cafeterias, restaurants, food trucks, bakeries, grocery stores, and
give us a better understanding of the factors that lead to business success
florist shops. In general, all the entrepreneurships were small with fewer
or to business exit.
than ten employees. Most respondents (19) had previous entrepre­
Fig. 2 presents our analytic model of the refugee entrepreneurial
neurial experience acquired in their home countries, Six respondents
process in the rural setting. The model presents a visual representation
had no previous entrepreneurial experience. Their educational levels
of the entrepreneurial process we use to examine the 25
ranged from “low” to “high” (in general terms, from primary/secondary
school to university). The majority of the respondents had fewer than
twelve years of education. See Table 1.
The interviews were conducted either face-to-face in workplace
settings or by telephone. Each interview lasted from 60 to 90 min. After
explaining the purpose of our research to the respondents, we asked
them about their background, education, family, previous work expe­
rience, and current work experience in the Swedish agri-food industry.
The interviews addressed the respondents’ motivations for entering the
agri-food industry in rural areas, the challenges they faced in their en­
trepreneurships, and the factors behind their entrepreneurial successes.
Where relevant, we also asked why the respondents had exited their
entrepreneurships. The respondents who were in the start-up phase
could provide information on their motivations and challenges related
to this phase while respondents in the growth and exit phases could
provide information from their experience in all phases. All respondents
Fig. 2. Analytical model for the refugee entrepreneurial process in the rural commented on the success factors in the different entrepreneurial pha­
setting [Based on research by Clausen (2020), Stathopoulou et al. (2004), and ses; five entrepreneurs described why they had exited their businesses.
Wauters and Lambrecht (2008)]. The interviews, which were tape-recorded, were primarily

4
H. Barth and G. Zalkat Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1
Demographic characteristics of the respondents.
Nr Age Gender Orig. Family Nr. of Educ. Back- Entrep. Est. Lang. Type of firm Time in REVENUE
sit. children levela ground Exp year ** Sweden tkr 2018

Start-up 1 45 Woman Syria Married 6 Middle Dairyman Yes – Low Dairy 6 years –
phase 2 55 Man Palest. Married 5 High Farmer Yes – Middle Farm 4 years –
3 39 Man Leban. Married 2 High Food prod. Yes – High Honey 2 years –
production
4 53 Woman Syria Married 7 Low Farmer Yes 2018 Low Farm 3 years –
5 26 Man Syria Married 1 High Dairyman Yes – Middle Dairy 3 years –
6 48 Man Syria Married 3 Low Farmer Yes – Low Farm 4 years –
7 58 Man Syria Married 5 Low Farmer Yes – Low Farm 7 years –
8 53 Man Syria Married 6 Low Farmer Yes – Low Farm 3 years –
Growth 9 39 Man Syria Married 4 High Eng. No 2017 Middle Farm 3 years <1 tkr
phase teacher
10 37 Man Syria Married 4 Low Farmer Yes 2018 Low Farm 5 years –
11 33 Man Palest. Married 5 High Elec.eng. No 2016 Middle Dairy 6 years 6885
12 57 Man Palest. Married 4 High Art No 2010 High Dairy 14 years 4128
teacher.
13 36 Man Syria Married 7 Low Farmer Yes 2017 Low Mushroom 5 years 215
production
14 68 Man Syria Married 6 Middle Farmer Yes 2017 Low Farm 4 years –
15 40 Woman Syria Married 4 Middle Food prod. Yes 2017 Low Restaurant 4 years –
16 40 Man Syria Married 3 Middle Trade Yes 2018 Low Ice cream 5 years –
cafeteria
17 45 Woman Syria Married 2 Middle Food prod. Yes 2017 Middle Food truck 3 years –
18 53 Man Syria Married 4 Middle Contractor Yes 2016 Low Farm 7 years –
19 58 Man Syria Married 4 High Agri. Eng. Yes 2018 Middle Grocery 3 years –
20 55 Man Syria Married 6 Low Farmer Yes 2018 Low Farm 4 years –
Exit 21 34 Man Syria Single – High Account. No 2017 Low Bakery 3 years –
phase 22 51 Man Syria Married 3 Middle Trade Yes 2017 Middle Honey 5 years <1 tkr
production
23 43 Man Syria Married 4 Middle Florist Yes 2016 Middle florist 5 years 700–999
24 42 Man Syria Married – High Agri.eng. No 2016 Middle Farm 3 years 100–199
25 22 Man Syria Single – Middle Student No 2016 Middle meat and 5 years 240
chicken
a
Education level: Low – fewer than 12 years in school, Middle – 12 years in school, High - university study. **Language ability: Low – only first language, Middle –
basic knowledge in Swedish language, High – fluent in Swedish or/and more languages.

conducted in Arabic languages. In the “Results” section, we quote re­

Table 2
spondents (in English translation) in order to present and support our
Motivations and challenges in two entrepreneurial phases.
findings (Elo and Kyngas, 2008). To identify the respondents in our
research, we used a numbering system that preserved their anonymity. Motivations Challenges
We used content analysis to interpret the interview data. Content Rurality
analysis is the examination of interview transcripts to identify themes in Start-up Discovery of a niche market Capital: start-up finance, land.
respondents’ answers. In this analysis, we used the software programme phase Financial aids and support from or place
NVivo 11 to categorize relevant words, opinions, and sentences from the the government and/or family Acquire information to run the
interviews. The first and second categories are the challenges and mo­ Entrepreneurship as a way out of business, poor knowledge of
unemployment business
tivations relevant to the respondents’ entrepreneurial ventures. The
Higher income Lack of language competency
third and four categories are the reasons for the success of or exit from Business development and Lack of professional experience
the entrepreneurial activity. Frequently mentioned themes were iden­ consultancy services Legislative hurdles: laws,
tified as important data (Brinkmann and Kvale, 2015; Bryman, 2008). Personal characteristics and permission, regulations, and
entrepreneurial experience in this approvals
We also categorized the interview data according to entrepreneurship
industry Health issues
phase: the start-up phase, the growth phase, and the exit phase. Lack of credentials

Rurality
6. Results
Growth Support from the Arabic market Competition
phase Financial gain Managing customers’ and
In this section we present the results of our interviews with the
Ability to develop suppliers’ relationships
refugee entrepreneurs. We categorize these results in four sub-sections: Making a positive impact Absence of networks and
motivations, challenges, success factors, and exit factors. We align these Making a profit advisors
results with the three phases of the entrepreneurial process: the start-up Product acceptance by Swedish Emergency situations
phase, the growth phase, and the exit phase. customers Labour shortage
Taxation
Weather unpredictability
6.1. Refugees’ entrepreneurial motivations High prices for basic goods
Products are unfamiliar to
The respondents were variously motivated to start and continue a Swedish customers
Access to the local markets
business in the agri-food industry. Some motivations had an economic
basis while others had a social-cultural basis. See Table 2.

5
H. Barth and G. Zalkat
6.1.1. The start-up phase: Motivations
The motivation to start a business might come from surprising
sources. For example, one respondent (a former art teacher) who started
a dairy and cheese factory described how he discovered a niche market.
He was inspired by his children’s request: “Mother! Dad! Can we make
the cheese we ate at home with grandma and grandpa in Nablus?“2 The
art teacher had neither entrepreneurial skills nor an agricultural
background.
“I immigrated to Sweden with my family more than 10 years ago.
When my children told me and my wife that they missed the cheese
their grandparents made in our home country, my wife started
making this cheese at home –for us and for our friends and neigh­
bours who couldn’t find this special product in the Swedish market.
This is how we began. Now we have a well-known dairy and cheese
factory. We sell our products to many Swedish customers.”
The access to business guidance, training, and instructions that
governmental and non-governmental organizations provide was an
important initial motivation for most respondents. Some local commu­
nities and towns have set aside farmland for refugees while some gov­
ernment agencies provide financial support (Stathopoulou et al., 2004).
For example, a respondent (a mushroom producer) described the sup­
port he received from the consultancy services.
“ After I had my idea about growing mushrooms, I contacted a person
who worked in business development consultancy services. He spoke
the same language as I. He helped me with my business plan on how
to start a business. The consultancy services provided me with in­
formation, training, and advice for starting my own business, free of
charge. This assistance motivated me a lot.”
Local municipalities allotted farm acreage to four respondents as
start-up assistance and as an intended integration solution [see Søholt
et al. (2018) who argue for local facilitation of refugees’ integration in
rural areas]. This acreage was sufficient for the respondents to grow
vegetables that were new to Swedish consumers.
The respondents also emphasized the importance of community
support for their businesses in the start-up phases (see Alsos et al., 2014;
Bizri, 2017; Dana et al., 2019; Evansluong and Ramírez Pasillas, 2019;
Munkejord, 2017b). According to Westlund et al.’s (2014) research on
municipal entrepreneurship start-ups in Sweden, such social capital has
a stronger influence in rural areas than in urban areas.
6.1.2. The growth phase: Motivations
The respondents’ motivation to continue a business in the growth
phase had various sources. A respondent (a former English teacher)
explained his motivation to continue with his ecologic farm.
“Now I have customers from both ethnic and native-born groups. I
am motivated to make my products desirable to all of them.”
The dairy and cheese factory owner had the same motivation.
“Our main customers now are from the Swedish native-born popu­
lation as the Swedish market makes up 80% of our customers. We are
motivated to grow further.”
6.2. Refugees’ entrepreneurial challenges
The respondents identified several challenges in the start-up and
growth phases – some general in nature and some more specific to their
situation as irefugee entrepreneurs. See Table 2.
2
Nablus is a city in the northern part of the West Bank, Palestine.
6
Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx
6.2.1. The start-up phase: Challenges
Because of the high cost of the arable land in Sweden, the re­
spondents usually rented farmland. However, there is a shortage of such
rental land. Of the eleven respondents who rented land, four re­
spondents rented from local municipalities, and seven respondents
negotiated rental agreements with Swedish farmers. The respondents’
lack of banking legitimacy and of financial resources increased the
complexity of these rental negotiations.
A respondent who operated a dairy activity was only able to start his
business with a friend’s financial support.
“Because I could not get financial [bank/government] support at the
beginning, a friend offered me support. I had other bureaucratic
challenges such as the lack of credentials and required approvals.
Also, I can’t speak Swedish, and I don’t understand the different
system [business/taxation]. ”
In addition, the respondents faced an array of laws and regulations
that govern and regulate the agri-food industry in Sweden. The re­
spondents, most of whom understood little Swedish, found these laws
and regulations complex, confusing, and far more bureaucratic than
their previous experience had prepared them for. For example, the
refugee farmers were generally unfamiliar with the Swedish laws that
control the use of fertilizers and pesticides.
6.2.2. The growth phase: Challenges
Respondents in the growth phase listed the same operational, day-to-
day challenges that many other new businesses face. However, other
challenges derived from their status as refugee entrepreneurs. For
example, the respondents had the challenge of marketing ethnic prod­
ucts unfamiliar to Swedish consumers – often at prices that could not
compete with the prices of similar products sold in the Swedish market.
For example, one respondent grew a special mushroom variety not
available in Swedish supermarkets.
“I grow a mushroom variety that is not sold in the Swedish market. It
costs a lot to grow these mushrooms because of the required sup­
plement. I can’t compete with the price of other mushroom
varieties.”
Other challenges in the growth phase fall into the category that
Clausen (2020) describes as “the liability of rurality”: the agricultural
challenges that include the unpredictability of the weather, the lack of
irrigation, and the damage caused by pests.
6.3. Refugees’ entrepreneurial success factors
We recognize the difficulties inherent in measuring success given
that “success” has many definitions – some of which are imprecise,
personal, or even not fully explained. Leković and Marić (2015), in their
article on measures of small business success/performance, report that
owners/entrepreneurs/managers use numerous criteria to measure
success – for example, objective measures (financial performance) and
subjective measures (entrepreneurs’ personal ambition achievement).
They admit defining success is “a delicate task.” Therefore, given the
controversial nature and multiplicity of success definitions, we limit our
interpretation of entrepreneurial success for purposes of this study to
survival beyond the start-up phase. If a business has survived beyond its
start-up phase, it has shown it has customers for saleable products and
services.
The respondents whose businesses had survived the start-up phase
attributed their success to a variety of factors. See Table 3.
Some respondents emphasized their education was a necessary and
critical factor in the survivability of their business as it helped them
understand the challenges and exploit the opportunities in their host
countries [see Chrysostome and Arcand (2009) on the “survival of ne­
cessity” for the immigrant entrepreneur]. As Kim et al. (2006) found,
H. Barth and G. Zalkat
Table 3
Refugee entrepreneurs in the rural setting: Success and Exit factors.
Success factors Exit factors
Self-sufficiency Unfamiliarity with the Swedish
Education market
Previous entrepreneurial experience Lack of business planning and
Managing and marketing skills technical skills
Mentoring, training, and counselling Lack of financing or investor activity
programmes Price competitiveness – high
The ability to develop products or service competition
Financial support Taxation
Satisfying the customers Technical problems
Good business performance Management problems
Networks Business is unprofitable, low revenues
Poor location
people’s education level often determine their success or failure in a
business venture. A respondent (a honey producer) said:
“I have studied and worked with marketing for a long time. This
helped me a lot in my new business in Sweden. I use social media. I
created a website for my business that has helped me target both the
ethnic and the Swedish markets.”
The respondents also stated that success may depend on factors over
which they have little or no control. For example, they may be unable to
exert control over access to training, mentoring, and counselling pro­
grammes or to financial support. Nor can they control market or weather
conditions. In some sense, success can sometimes be attributed to sheer
good fortune. Nevertheless, the respondents are unwilling to think of
themselves as helpless pawns They stressed the importance of knowing
and targeting local markets. They understand what is needed to create
value if they are to survive. A respondent (a cheese factory entrepre­
neur) said:
“We began by selling our products to the Arabic stores in Sweden. As
our business grew, we tried to sell our products to Swedish stores. We
participated in many marketing events where we gave the public a
chance to taste our cheeses including Halloumi cheese. It was diffi­
cult at the beginning, but gradually the Swedish people developed a
taste for our cheeses. Nowadays, we sell our products to many
Swedish stores.”
6.4. Refugees’ entrepreneurial exit factors
The respondents who exited their businesses after the start-up phase
listed a number of factors. See Table 3.
Five of the 25 respondents in our study were in the entrepreneurship
exit phase. One respondent who had a flourishing business exited his
business in order to start a different business. This respondent (with a
bakery business) said:
“I created a successful business in Sweden that was my first business
in Sweden as an experiment to discover a new market in a host
country. Now I think I can try another industry and develop a new
business idea.”
The other four respondents exited their businesses because of various
factors that are typical of many small business ventures: inadequate
funding, low sales, poor planning and management. and insufficient
technical skills. Yet the respondents identified several factors that seem
specific to the refugee entrepreneur: unfamiliarity with Sweden’s laws,
regulations, and taxation system in addition to the language barrier.
These four respondents also emphasized the issue of ineffective
marketing and cultural distance as contributing factors to their decision
to exit their businesses. They had limited familiarity with Sweden’s
consumer market in part because their relatively isolated, rural location
prevented their broader interaction with the general population. Their
7
Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx
cultural distance from the general population also limited their knowl­
edge of market preferences and tastes. A respondent (a farmer) said:
“I have grown a lot of vegetables, but I could not sell all my produce
because I am not familiar with the Swedish market. Also, my farm is
far away from the market.”
Another respondent (a florist) exited his business due to high
competition. He said:
“Large flower companies sell their flowers at low prices I can’t
compete with.”
In sum, refugee entrepreneurs who pass through the three entre­
preneurial phases (start-up, growth, exit) are motivated and challenged
in ways that are both similar and dissimilar from the motivations and
challenges that other (non-immigrant) entrepreneurs experience. Like
other small businesses, some refugee entrepreneurships survive while
others do not. In the next section, we draw our conclusions regarding the
special motivations behind refugee entrepreneurs’ decisions to start
businesses in their host countries, the special challenges these entre­
preneurs face as they try to grow their businesses, and the various factors
that lead to continuing or exiting their business activity.
7. Conclusions
The mass migration crisis in the European Union that began in 2015
created an urgent need in Sweden (and in other EU countries) to address
the socio-economic integration of the new arrivals, many of whom were
refugees from the Middle East. Governmental authorities concluded one
solution would be to encourage and support refugee entrepreneurship in
the agri-food industry. Rural areas were viewed, among other things, as
favourable re-settlement locations for refugees where more social and
cultural resources would facilitate their integration into Swedish social
and economic life (Vogiazides and Mondani, 2019).
Based on an empirical study of 25 refugee entrepreneurships in
southern Sweden, this paper uses as its framework a model that analyses
the influences of rurality on the phases of the entrepreneurial process:
the start-up, growth, and exit phases. Motivations for and challenges to
refugee entrepreneurship are examined. Factors that lead to the survival
(or non-survival) of the entrepreneurships are also examined. The rural
setting is always in focus with respect to these entrepreneurships.
We draw several main conclusions from our study. First, rural set­
tings present both advantages and disadvantages for refugee entrepre­
neurs. Rural communities, which offer work opportunities for refugees
with farming experience and skills, are often more welcoming than
many urban communities. However, the very nature of rural areas –
their rurality – can create obstacles to refugee entrepreneurship when
technical and distribution resources are not as modern as in urban
areas.3
Second, while immigrant entrepreneurs, especially refugee entre­
preneurs, experience many of the same motivations and challenges that
non-immigrant entrepreneurs do, they also are motivated and chal­
lenged in other ways. For example, because refugees are more likely to
be unemployed or underemployed in their host countries than native-
born individuals, they are drawn to entrepreneurship. They hope that
independent business ownership will provide a path to economic self-
sufficiency and societal integration.
Third, because refugee entrepreneurs have less access to business
networks and financial institutions, they must rely strongly on family
and personal networks for support. They may be unaware of government
support systems.
3
Eliasson and Westlund (2013) have called for a special entrepreneurship
policy for the rural areas in Sweden that promotes modernization of their in­
dustrial structure.
H. Barth and G. Zalkat
Fourth, refugee entrepreneurs’ business success or exit depends on
many internal and external factors (i.e., on manageable and unman­
ageable factors). Refugee entrepreneurs bring certain success factors to
their business activities: their work ethic and attitude, their relevant
experience and education, and their knowledge and creativity. Howev­
er, they cannot control competitive forces, consumer taste, economic
conditions, and the rules and regulations that govern how they produce,
market, and sell their products and services. The weather and the lack of
available farmland are also out of their control.
This study contributes to our knowledge of refugee entrepreneurs in
rural settings with its contextualization of the entrepreneurial process
and its visual representation of the entrepreneurial process in an
analytical model. The study’s results and its analytic model, which help
us understand the influence of various motivations and challenges in the
start-up and growth entrepreneurial phases, thus offer insights that
policymakers can use to promote and support refugee entrepreneurship.
Furthermore, this study may be of practical use to refugees who are
planning to start a business in host countries as they can learn from
others’ experience. The identification of commonalities and differences
is a recommended strategy in business as in life.
We recognize certain limitations of our study. Given EU regulations,
we were unable to access more relevant cases (i.e., additional refugee
entrepreneurships). Our limited access to databases and reliable sources
meant our selection of cases was less diverse than we would have liked.
For example, Brieger and Gielnik (2020), who took a gender perspective
on immigrant entrepreneurship, reported different motivations and
challenges than we found.
Author statement
Henrik Barth: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Software, Supervision, Validation, Resources, Writing-Reviewing and
Editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Ghazal Zalkat:
Writing- Original draft preparation, Investigation and Visualization.
References
Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., 2003. Innovation and technological change. In: Acs, Z.J.,
Audretsch, D.B. (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston, MA, pp. 55–79.
Ahad, A., Banulescu-Bogdan, N., 2019. Communicating Strategically about Immigrant
Integration: Policymaker Perspectives. Migration Policy Institute. January 2019.
www.migrationpolicy.org/research/communicating-strategically-immigrant-integ
ration.
Alsos, G.A., Carter, S., Ljunggren, E., 2014. Kinship and business: how entrepreneurial
households facilitate business growth. Enterpren. Reg. Dev. 26 (1–2), 97–122.
Atkinson, R., Flint, J., 2001. Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: snowball
research strategies. Soc. Res. Update 33, 1–5.
Bakker, L., Dagevos, J., Engbersen, G., 2017. Explaining the refugee gap: a longitudinal
study on labour market participation of refugees in The Netherlands. J. Ethnic
Migrat. Stud. 43 (11), 1775–1791.
Barth, H., 2018. Diversity as a competitive advantage? A case study of immigrant labour
in Swedish agriculture. J. Leadership, Accountabil. Ethics 18 (4), 130–137.
Barth, H., Ulvenblad, P.-O., Ulvenblad, P., 2017. Towards a conceptual framework of
sustainable business model innovation in the agri-food sector: a systematic literature
review. Sustainability 9 (9), 1620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091620.
Barth, H., Zalkat, G., 2019. Business values and motives of immigrant agricultural
entrepreneurs in Sweden. In: International Conference "Economic Science for Rural
Development" No 50 Jelgava, pp. 21–28. https://doi.org/10.22616/ESRD.2019.002.
LLU ESAF, 9-10 May 2019.
Barth, H., Zalkat, G., 2020. Immigrant entrepreneurship in Sweden: the liability of
newness. Sustainability 12 (16), 6478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166478.
Bates, T., 2001. Minority business access to mainstream markets. J. Urban Aff. 23 (1),
41–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2166.00074.
Bizri, R.M., 2017. Refugee-entrepreneurship: a social capital perspective. Enterpren. Reg.
Dev. 29 (9/10), 847–868.
Brieger, S.A., Gielnik, M.M., 2020. Understanding the gender gap in immigrant
entrepreneurship: a multi-country study of immigrants’ embeddedness in economic,
social, and institutional contexts. Small Bus. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-
019-00314-x.
Brinkmann, S., Kvale, S., 2015. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research
Interviewing, 3rd. ed. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bryman, A., 2008. Social Research Method. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Brzozowski, J., 2017. Immigrant entrepreneurship and economic adaptation: a critical
analysis. Entrepreneurial Bus. Econ. Rev. 5 (2), 159–176.
8
Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx
Carson, D.A., Carson, D.B., 2018. International lifestyle immigrants and their
contributions to rural tourism innovation: experiences from Sweden’s far north.
J. Rural Stud. 64 (2018), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.08.004.
Carson, D.A., Cleary, J., de la Barre, S., Eimermann, M., Marjavaara, R., 2016. New
Mobilities–New Economies? Temporary Populations and Local Innovation Capacity
in Sparsely Populated Areas. Settlements at the Edge: Remote Human Settlements in
Developed Nations. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 178–206. Cheltenham.
Chrysostome, E., Arcand, S., 2009. Survival of necessity immigrant entrepreneurs: an
exploratory study. J. Comp. Int. Manag. 12 (2), 3–29.
Chrysostome, E., Lin, X., 2010. Immigrant entrepreneurship: scrutinizing a promising
type of business venture. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 52 (2), 77–82.
Clausen, T.H., 2020. The liability of rurality and new venture viability. J. Rural Stud. 73
(2020), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.12.005.
Collantes, F., Pinilla, V., Saez, L.A., Silvestre, J., 2014. Reducing depopulation in rural
Spain: the impact of immigration. Popul. Space Place 20, 606–621. https://doi.org/
10.1002/psp.1797.
Collins, J., 2017. From Refugee to Entrepreneur in Sydney in Less than Three Years. UTS
Business, Sydney.
Dabić, M., Vlačić, B., Paul, J., Dana, L.-P., Sahasranamam, S., Glinka, B., 2020.
Immigrant entrepreneurship: a review and research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 113, 25–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.013.
Dana, L.P., Gurau, C., Light, I., Muhammad, N., 2019. Family, community, and ethnic
capital as entrepreneurial resources: toward an integrated model. J. Small Bus.
Manag. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12507 published online before print.
Desai, S., Naudé, W., Stel, N., 2020. Refugee entrepreneurship: context and directions for
future research. Small Bus. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00310-1.
Eimermann, M., 2016. Two sides of the same coin: Dutch rural tourism entrepreneurs
and eountryside capital in Sweden. Rural Soc. 25 (2), 55–73.
Eimermann, M., Karlsson, S., 2018. Globalising Swedish countrysides? A relational
approach to rural immigrant restaurateurs with refugee backgrounds. Nor. J. Geogr.
72 (2), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2018.1450781.
EIP-AGRI, 2016. Focus Group New Entrants into Farming: Lessons to Foster Innovation
and Entrepreneurship. Resource Document. European Commission. Final Report,
May 2016.
Eliasson, K., Westlund, H., 2013. Attributes influencing self-employment propensity in
urban and rural Sweden. Ann. Reg. Sci. 50 (2), 479–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00168-012-0501-9.
Elo, S., Kyngas, H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62 (1),
107–115.
Eurostat, 2018. Asylum decisions in the EU: EU member states granted protection to
more than half a million asylum seekers in 2017: almost one-third of the
beneficiaries were Syrians. Eurostat. News Release, 67/2018 - 19 April 2018.
Eurostat, 2019. Asylum Decisions in the EU: EU Member States granted protection to
more than 300 000 asylum seekers in 2018 Almost 30% of the beneficiaries were
Syrians. Eurostat. News Release, 71/2019 - 25 April 2019.
Evansluong, Q.V., Ramírez Pasillas, M., 2019. The role of family social capital in
immigrants’ entrepreneurial opportunity creation processes. Int. J. Entrepreneurship
Small Bus. 36 (1–2), 164–188.
Evansluong, Q., Ramirez Pasillas, M., Nguyen Bergström, H., 2019. From breaking-ice to
breaking-out: integration as an opportunity creation process. Int. J. Entrepreneurial
Behav. Res. 25 (5), 880–899. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2018-0105.
FAO, 2018a. World Food and Agriculture - Statistical Pocketbook 2018. Rome, p. 254.
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
FAO, 2018b. The State of Food and Agriculture 2018. Migration, Agriculture and Rural
Development. Rome. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
FAO, 2018c. The Linkages between Migration, Agriculture, Food Security and Rural
Development. Rome, p. 80. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. http://www.fao.
org/3/CA0922EN/CA0922EN.pdf.
Findlay, A., McCollum, D., 2013. Recruitment and employment regimes: migrant labour
channels in the UK’s rural agribusiness sector, from Accession to Recession. J. Rural
Stud. 30, 10–19.
Fong, R., Busch, N.B., Armour, M., Heffron, L.C., Chanmugam, A., 2007. Pathways to
self-sufficiency: successful entrepreneurship for refugees. J. Ethnic Cult. Divers. Soc.
Work 16 (1–2), 127–159.
Forsander, A., 2004. Social capital in the context of immigration and diversity: economic
participation in the Nordic welfare states. J. Int. Migrat. Integrat. 5, 207–227.
Giannakis, E., Bruggeman, A., 2015. The highly variable economic performance of
European agriculture. Land Use Pol. 45, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2014.12.009.
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., Chadwick, B., 2008. Methods of data collection in
qualitative research. Interviews and focus groups. Br. Dent. J. 204 (6), 291–295.
Hagos, S., Izak, M., Scott, J., 2019. Objective institutionalized barriers and subjective
performance factors of new migrant entrepreneurs. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav.
Res. 25 (5), 842–858. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-06-2018-0405.
Hammarstedt, M., Miao, C., 2020. Self-employed immigrants and their employees:
evidence from Swedish employer-employee data. Rev. Econ. Househ. 18 (1), 35–68.
Harima, A., Freudenberg, J., Halberstadt, J., 2019. Functional domains of business
incubators for refugee entrepreneurs. J. Enterprising Communities People Places
Glob. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-11-2018-0081 ahead-of-print No. ahead-
of-print.
Hedberg, C., Forsberg, G., Najib, A., 2012. When the World Goes Rural: Transnational
Potentials of International Migration in Rural Swedish Labour, vol. 103. GeoJournal
Library, pp. 125–142.
Hedberg, C., Haandrikman, K., 2014. Repopulation of the Swedish countryside:
globalisation by international migration. J. Rural Stud. 34, 128–138.
H. Barth and G. Zalkat
Hedlund, M., Carson, D.A., Eimermann, M., Lundmark, L., 2017. Repopulating and
revitalising rural Sweden? Reexamining immigration as a solution to rural decline.
Geogr. J. 183, 400–413.
Hugo, G., Morén-Alegret, R., 2008. International migration to non-metropolitan areas of
high-income countries: editorial Introduction. Popul. Space Place 14 (6), 473–477.
https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.515.
Kim, P.H., Aldrich, H.E., Keister, L.A., 2006. Access (not) denied: the impact of financial,
human, and cultural capital on entrepreneurial entry in the United States. Small Bus.
Econ. 27, 5–22.
King, R., Lulle, A., 2016. Research on Migration: Facing Realities and Maximising
Opportunities. A Policy Review. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.
European Commission. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
https://doi.org/10.2777/109329, 2016.
Kordestani, A., Sattari, S., Peighambari, K., Oghazi, P., 2017. Exclude me not: the untold
story of immigrant entrepreneurs in Sweden. Sustainability 9 (9), 1–22.
Korsgaard, S., Ferguson, R., Gaddefors, J., 2015. The best of both worlds: how rural
entrepreneurs use placial rmbeddedness and strategic networks to create
opportunities. Enterpren. Reg. Dev. 27 (9–10), 574–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08985626.2015.1085100.
Kushnirovich, N., 2015. Economic integration of immigrant entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurial Bus. Econ. Rev. 3 (3), 9–27.
Lans, T., Seuneke, P.L.M., Klerkx, L.W.A., 2013. Agricultural entrepreneurship. In:
Carayann, E.G. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and
Entrepreneurship. Springer, New York, pp. 44–49. http://link.springer.com/refere
nceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_496.
Lans, T., Seuneke, P., Klerkx, L., 2017. Agricultural entrepreneurship. In: Carayann, E.G.
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship,
pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6616-1.
Leedy, P.D., Ormrod, J.E., 2005. Practical Research: Planning and Design, eighth ed.
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Leković, B., Marić, S., 2015. Measures of small business Success/Performance -
importance, reliability, and usability. Industrija 43 (2), 7–26. https://doi.org/
10.5937/industrija43-7209.
Levenson, A.R., Willard, K.L., 2000. Do firms get the financing they want? Measuring
credit rationing experienced by small businesses in the U.S. Small Bus. Econ. 14,
83–94.
Mawson, S., Kasem, L., 2019. Exploring the entrepreneurial intentions of Syrian refugees
in the UK. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 25 (5), 1128–1146. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJEBR-02-2018-0103.
Meister, A.D., Mauer, R., 2019. Understanding refugee entrepreneurship incubation – an
embeddedness perspective. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 25 (5), 1065–1092.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2018-0108.
Miao, C., 2020. Immigrant self-employment and local unemployment in Sweden. Manch.
Sch. 88 (3), 464–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/manc.12315.
Munkejord, M.C., 2017a. Becoming spatially embedded: findings from a study on rural
immigrant entrepreneurship in Norway. Entrepreneurial Bus. Econ. Rev. 5 (1),
111–130.
Munkejord, M.C., 2017b. Immigrant entrepreneurship contextualized: becoming a
female migrant entrepreneur in rural Norway. J. Enterprising Communities People
Places Glob. Econ. 11 (2), 258–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-05-2015-0029.
Murnieks, C.Y., Klotz, A.C., Shepherd, D.A., 2019. Entrepreneurial motivation: a review
of the literature and agenda for future research. J. Organ. Behav. 41 (2), 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2374.
Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjöberg, K., Wiklund, J., 2007. Entrepreneurial orientation, risk
taking, and performance in family firms. Fam. Bus. Rev. 20 (1), 33–47.
Nazareno, J., Zhou, M., You, T., 2018. Global dynamics of immigrant entrepreneurship:
changing trends, ethnonational variations, and reconceptualizations. Int. J.
Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 25 (5), 780–800.
Naudé, W., Marchand, K., Siegel, M., 2017. Migration, entrepreneurship and
development: critical questions. IZA J. Migrat. 6 (5) https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40176-016-0077-8.
Newbery, R., Bosworth, G., 2014. Chapter 1: the character of rural business relations. In:
Kasabov, E. (Ed.), Cooperation in Rural and Peripheral Areas: Conceptual Issues,
Approaches, and Challenges. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, pp. 29–48.
Newbery, R., Siwale, J., Henley, A., 2017. Rural entrepreneurship theory in the
developing and developed world. Int. J. Enterpren. Innovat. 18 (1), 3–4. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1465750316686232.
Nori, M., 2017. The Shades of Green: Migrants’ Contribution to EU Agriculture. Context,
Trends, Opportunities, Challenges. Migration Policy Centre, Florence.
Obschonka, M., Hahn, E., Bajwa, N., 2018. Personal agency in newly arrived refugees:
the role of personality, entrepreneurial cognitions and intentions, and career
adaptability. J. Vocat. Behav. 105, 173–184.
Otache, I., 2017. Agripreneurship development: a strategy for revamping Nigeria’s
economy from recession. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Stud. 8 (4), 474–483. https://doi.org/
10.1108/AJEMS-05-2017-0091.
Journal of Rural Studies xxx (xxxx) xxx
Pato, M.L., Teixeira, A.A.C., 2016. Twenty years of rural entrepreneurship: a bibliometric
survey. Sociol. Rural. 56 (1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12058.
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: a personal,
experiential perspective. Qual. Soc. Work 1 (3), 261–283.
Patton, M.Q., 2015. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Peri, G., 2016. Immigrants, productivity, and labor markets. J. Econ. Perspect. 30 (4),
3–30.
Pindado, E., Sanchez, M., 2017. Researching the entrepreneurial behaviour of new and
existing ventures in European agriculture. Small Bus. Econ. 49 (2), 421–444. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9837-y.
Raman, M.H.A., Asmuni, A., Idris, K., Saad, S., Azmin, V.A., 2014. An assessment of
entrepreneurship programme towards modern agri-technology usage in serdang,
selangor, Malaysia. Asian Soc. Sci. 10 (22), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.
v10n22p303.
Ranjan, R., 2015. Rural entrepreneurism and developmental outcomes under climate
change threats. Clim. Dev. 7 (4), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17565529.2014. 951016.
Salleh, M., Sidek, N., 2011. Rural entrepreneurship: challenges and opportunities of rural
micro enterprise (RME) in Malaysia. Interdiscipl. J. Contemp. Res. Bus. 2 (11),
573–658.
Seuneke, P., Lans, T., Wiskerke, J.S., 2013. Moving beyond entrepreneurial skills: key
factors driving entrepreneurial learning in multifunctional agriculture. J. Rural Stud.
32, 208–219.
Skodo, A., 2018. Sweden: by Turns Welcoming and Restrictive in its Immigration Policy.
Migration Policy Institute. December 2018. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti
cle/sweden-turns-welcoming-and-restrictive-its-immigration-policy.
Staniewski, M., Awruk, K., 2015. Motivating factors and barriers in the commencement
of one’s own business for potential entrepreneurs. Econ. Res. Ekonomska Istrazivanja
28 (1), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1083876.
Stathopoulou, S., Psaltopoulos, D., Skuras, D., 2004. Rural entrepreneurship in Europe. A
research framework and agenda. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 10 (6), 404–425.
Stenbacka, S., 2012. “The Rural” Intervening in the lives of internal and international
migrants: migrants, biographies and translocal practices. In: Hedberg, C., do
Carmo, R. (Eds.), Translocal Ruralism. GeoJournal Library, vol. 103. Springer,
Dordrecht.
Stenholm, P., Hytti, U., 2014. In search of legitimacy under institutional pressures: a case
study of producer and entrepreneur farmer identities. J. Rural Stud. 35, 133–142.
Swedish Board of Agriculture, 2018. Statistics Sweden, Agricultural Statistics 2018.
Swedish Migration Agency, 2020. Asylum Statistics. Retrieved from. https://www.
migrationsverket.se/English/About-the-Migration-Agency/Statistics/Asylum.html/.
(Accessed 17 November 2020).
Søholt, S., Stenbacka, S., Nørgaard, H., 2018. Conditioned receptiveness: Nordic rural
elite perceptions of immigrant contributions to local resilience. J. Rural Stud. 64
(November), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.05.004.
Tamang, T., 2015. Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Finland: Motivations, Challenges and
Supports Case: Nepalese Entrepreneur. Bachelor’s Thesis in the Degree Program in
Business and Culture, Business Management, Bachelor’s Degree in Business
Administration. Lapland University of Applied Sciences, School of Business and
Culture.
Tonner, A., Wilson, J., 2015. Farm retailing: motivations and practice. Int. J. Entrepren.
Innovat. 16 (2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.5367/ijei.2015.0181.
Tumen, S., 2016. The economic impact of Syrian refugees on host countries: quasi-
experimental evidence from Turkey. Am. Econ. Rev. 106 (5), 456–460.
Vik, J., McElwee, G., 2011. Diversification and the entrepreneurial motivations of
farmers in Norway. J. Small Bus. Manag. 49 (3), 390–410.
Vogiazides, L., Mondani, H., 2019. A geographical path to integration? Exploring the
interplay between regional context and labour market integration among refugees in
Sweden. J. Ethnic Migrat. Stud. 46 (1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1369183X.2019.1588717.
Wauters, B., Lambrecht, J., 2006. Refugee entrepreneurship in Belgium: potential and
practice. Int. Enterpren. Manag. J. 2 (4), 509–525.
Wauters, B., Lambrecht, J., 2008. Barriers to refugee entrepreneurship in Belgium:
towards an explanatory model. J. Ethnic Migrat. Stud. 34 (6), 895–915.
Welter, F., 2011. Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways
forward. Enterpren. Theor. Pract. 35 (1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2010.00427.x.
Welter, F., Xheneti, M., Smallbone, D., 2018. Entrepreneurial resourcefulness in unstable
institutional contexts: the example of European Union borderlands. Strate. Entrep. J.
12 (1), 23–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1274.
Westlund, H., Larsson, J.P., Olsson, A.R., 2014. Start-ups and local entrepreneurial social
capital in the municipalities of Sweden. Reg. Stud. 48 (6), 974–994.