Power relations and outsider entrepreneurship: facets of marginalisation tendencies towards migrant entrepreneurs

Entrepreneurship is not merely an economic activity; it is deeply embedded in social relationships and power dynamics. In the context of minorities – particularly migrant entrepreneurs – these dynamics play a critical role in shaping opportunities and constraints, especially within hierarchically organised entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) (David and Terstriep, 2024). EEs have gained increasing scholarly attention as dynamic environments where resources, networks and institutions interact to influence entrepreneurial success (Freiling and Baron, 2017; Stam, 2015). Notable cases such as Silicon Valley, Berlin and Tel Aviv underscore the significant contributions of migrant entrepreneurs to innovation and economic growth (Saxenian, 2009).

Despite their contributions, migrant entrepreneurs often face experiences that differ substantially from those of the majority population. Their access to ecosystem resources is frequently restricted by social, cultural and legal barriers (Bolzani and Mizzau, 2019; Neumeyer et al., 2019). While mainstream research tends to emphasise inclusion within start-up and founders' communities, it often overlooks persistent forms of discrimination and exclusion in EEs (Roundy et al., 2018). Moreover, there is limited empirical insight into how migrant entrepreneurs navigate, resist or even reshape these constraining and resistant environments (David and Terstriep, 2024). Current debates in migrant entrepreneurship research highlight the structural inequalities that inhibit migrants' participation. Migrant entrepreneurs are frequently positioned as socio-cultural “outsiders” (Yavuz, 2011), facing exclusion from key networks, limited access to resources and discriminatory practices that deepen their vulnerability (Bullough et al., 2022; Martinez Dy et al., 2020). Scholars have therefore called for a critical lens that integrates power and inequality into analyses of the migrant-EE relationship (Audretsch and Fiedler, 2023; Brändle and Kuckertz, 2023).

This study addresses the gap in understanding how power relations in local EEs influence migrant entrepreneurs' engagement and marginalisation, and how these entrepreneurs exercise agency in navigating or challenging these dynamics. We therefore ask: What facets of marginalisation are evident among migrant entrepreneurs within power relations in local EEs, and how do they navigate these constraints?

Drawing on power theory and 23 in-depth interviews with migrant entrepreneurs in a German municipality, this study examines how structural power relations shape entrepreneurial opportunities and limitations. In doing so, it contributes to the growing discourse on power in entrepreneurship (Audretsch and Fiedler, 2023), advancing understanding of how EEs function for marginalised actors. It also demonstrates the agency of migrant entrepreneurs in responding to exclusionary practices (Pidduck and Tucker, 2022). By identifying three core dimensions of exclusion – knowledge, language and network affiliation – and revealing corresponding strategies of adaptation and resistance, the study offers both theoretical insight and practical recommendations for more inclusive and equitable ecosystem development (Hameed et al., 2023).

The theoretical considerations examine the positioning of migrant entrepreneurs within EEs, conceptualised as socially structured fields shaped by power relations, institutional norms and access to capital. While rooted in migrant entrepreneurship literature, the discussion engages broader theoretical debates on structure, agency and power.

In social theory, structure refers to enduring institutional arrangements and patterned relations that enable and constrain agency (Durkheim, 1895; Giddens, 1984). Power has been theorised variously – as coercive domination (Weber 1978), symbolic capital within fields (Bourdieu, 1986) or a dispersed and productive force embedded in discourse and practice (Foucault, 1977). Foucault and Bourdieu are employed here for their complementary analytical strengths: Foucault's emphasis on the discursive constitution of subjects and the omnipresence of power enables a fine-grained understanding of how entrepreneurial agency is shaped, while Bourdieu's focus on capital, habitus and field captures the structural reproduction of inequality. While Foucault and Bourdieu relied on different theoretical assumptions when conceptualising what exactly power is, whether and how to observe it, whether and how it is “possessed” and exercised, we reconcile both schools of thought recognising (1) the diffuse quality of power as being everywhere (Foucault) in social systems, while (2) recognising the value of field theories and the presence or lack of capital of individual agents in these fields to shape concrete social relationships (Bourdieu). Despite differing epistemological foundations, their frameworks intersect productively for our purposes in illuminating how power operates simultaneously at the micro-level of subjectivation and the macro-level of social positioning.

Both Foucault and Bourdieu conceptualise power as relational and embedded in social practices, but their ontological assumptions diverge. Foucault foregrounds power as dispersed, productive and immanent to discourse and practice, operating through micro-relations and disciplinary regimes (Foucault, 1978). In contrast, Bourdieu locates power more explicitly in structured fields, mediated through the accumulation and conversion of capital, and reproduced via habitus (Bourdieu, 1986; Swartz, 1997). Reconciling these perspectives requires acknowledging that power in entrepreneurial ecosystems is simultaneously discursive and structural. In so doing, it is enacted in everyday interactions and meaning-making processes, while also being sedimented in institutional arrangements, resource distributions and symbolic hierarchies. Foucault's focus on subjectivation processes helps illuminate how migrant entrepreneurs internalise or resist normative expectations around legitimacy, professionalism or innovation. At the same time, Bourdieu's framework explains how durable inequalities are reproduced through unequal access to social, cultural and economic capital, which conditions entrepreneurial trajectories (Harima, 2022). This reconciliation suggests a layered ontology of power: discursive regimes (after Foucault) shape what is thinkable and sayable within EEs, while field structures and capital distributions (after Bourdieu) condition the material and symbolic resources entrepreneurs can mobilise. Bringing these together offers a richer theoretical account of how power operates in entrepreneurship – capturing both the subtle, performative constitution of entrepreneurial subjects and the persistent reproduction of structural inequalities.

Bourdieuian and Foucaultian perspectives underpinning this work isolate two key elements of a working definition of power being “everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere” (Foucault, 1978, p. 93) – its relational and systemic qualities. Therefore, this article follows at the one hand Foucault's view of power as diffuse and omnipresent, not confined to hierarchies, but circulating through norms, knowledge systems and institutional routines.

Foucault's framework is particularly apt for tracing how entrepreneurial subjectivities are constituted and regulated within bureaucratic and normative contexts. On the other hand, Bourdieu's approach, by contrast, reveals how unequal distributions of economic, social and symbolic capital shape access, legitimacy and recognition within entrepreneurial fields.

While theorists such as Weber (1978), Giddens (1984) and Hurrelmann (1997) offer influential accounts of domination and structuration, Foucault and Bourdieu provide sharper analytical tools for interrogating the interplay of discourse, identity and embeddedness. Their relational and embodied conceptions of power illuminate how agency is enacted under conditions of structural inequality. Foregrounding these authors, the article contributes to wider debates on social stratification, the constitution of agency and the politics of economic participation.

As recognised by Audretsch and Fiedler (2023), Foucault (1972) emphasises the pervasive nature of power, which is evident in deliberation across various disciplines in social sciences and management, including organisation studies and economics. In the entrepreneurship literature, power has hitherto been examined from sparse and scattered vantage points. Santos and Eisenhardt (2009) focus on entrepreneurial agency, demonstrating how entrepreneurs leverage relationships and negotiate boundaries to influence markets and create opportunities. Dey and Steyaert (2016) critique traditional views of power as merely agency and control, arguing that it is relational and experienced through everyday practices. Studies by Finn (2021), Fleming and Spicer (2014) or Hardy and Thomas (2014) demonstrate the complexity of power in entrepreneurial contexts, focusing on market positions, strategies, individual or firm relations. This diversity underlines the need for moving beyond top-down models and a mere interest in hierarchies, towards field approaches of linking agents, firms and context in a dynamic negotiation and embodiment of power (difference).

Despite its significance, power (difference) remains underexplored in entrepreneurship research regarding minority groups, likely due to historical neglect and a focus on individual traits. However, contemporary perspectives acknowledge the role of power in shaping entrepreneurial activities for marginalised and minority entrepreneurs (David et al., 2024). Notably, scholars rarely adopt a power perspective in analysing entrepreneurial processes and systems (Audretsch and Fiedler, 2023).

To further understand the intersection of power and entrepreneurship, it is crucial to position this study within the broader context of (1) EEs as social-relational systems that may dis- or enable the social process (Jack and Anderson, 2002) of entrepreneurship and (2) the governance and structure of EEs. Regarding social-relational systems, entrepreneurship is widely recognised as a social practice that involves engaging with and accessing opportunity structures embedded within EEs. These ecosystems functionally allocate and channel resources towards entrepreneurs (Mack and Mayer, 2016; Roundy and Fayard, 2019). Recent evidence, particularly from the last five to ten years, has underscored how entrepreneurship, like other social practice processes, exhibits patterns of exclusion (Blackburn and Ram, 2006; Neumeyer et al., 2019). Aligning with the topical quest for uncovering the mechanisms of EEs (Wurth et al., 2023), observable patterns in real-world EEs provide insights into their functioning. These patterns shape the conditions of EEs but also influence and frame entrepreneurs' experiences, encompassing inputs, functioning, outputs and outcomes (Stam et al., 2021). Pertaining to governance and structure, the configurations of EEs, research by Colombelli et al. (2017) and Jacobides et al. (2018) offer valuable insights into how transformative technologies and evolving platform ecosystems shape governance, business models and the dynamics of entrepreneurial activity. These studies emphasise social and cultural factors shaping power relations within EEs, which are deeply intertwined with the structural shifts brought about by digital advancements and evolving governance models.

Colombelli et al. (2017) highlight how digital advancements drive innovation processes, foster the development of novel products and services, and disrupt existing market structures. These findings underscore the challenges and opportunities digital transformation poses for entrepreneurs and firms at the micro and macroeconomic levels. In parallel, Jacobides et al. (2018) explore how platform ecosystems are reshaping value creation, competition and governance within networks of firms. Their analysis focuses on the strategic importance of governance structures and decision-making processes in achieving platform success. This suggests that such dynamics are key to understanding how ecosystems evolve and support entrepreneurial activity.

Together, these studies offer a comprehensive understanding of the shifting landscape of business driven by digital and platform-based innovations. In the context of migrant entrepreneurship, they suggest that understanding governance within these ecosystems is crucial for assessing how power dynamics, resource allocation and the structure of networks impact the inclusion and exclusion of migrant entrepreneurs.

This omission is surprising, considering the substantial evidence of marginalisation impacting entrepreneurship and the economic agency of socio-cultural outsiders. The systemic and pervasive nature of marginalisation underscores the necessity of linking a sociological perspective of power with entrepreneurship in traditionally marginalised communities (Martinez Dy, 2020; Martinez Dy and Agwunobi, 2018).

EEs foster innovation through regional networks that provide access to critical resources (Mason and Brown, 2014; Spigel, 2017a). However, EE policies often prioritise high-growth firms, overlooking the contributions of so-called “invisible entrepreneurs” (Baker et al., 1997; Welter et al., 2017). Focusing on marginalised entrepreneurs is therefore essential, as the intersection between disadvantaged entrepreneurship and EE research remains underdeveloped (Audretsch and Belitski, 2017). Mainstream studies tend to neglect social embeddedness (Roundy and Lyons, 2023), while the absence of a sociological discourse on power limits progress in contextual entrepreneurship (Martinez Dy, 2020; Welter and Baker, 2021) and evolutionary economics (Audretsch and Fiedler, 2023; Keim et al., 2024).

Migrant entrepreneurs often experience structural barriers in EEs that lead to outsider status (Kloosterman et al., 1999; Abumuamar and Campbell, 2024). The notion of “migrantness” captures how social group membership can both enable and constrain entrepreneurial activity, while “outsidership” signals a lack of access to privileged networks and resources (Granovetter, 1985). Similar exclusionary dynamics apply to other identity markers such as gender (Santos and Neumeyer, 2021), race (Wingfield and Taylor, 2018), and class (Brändle and Kuckertz, 2023), often resulting in marginalisation and unequal entrepreneurial outcomes. As such, a shared framework for understanding non-traditional forms of entrepreneurship is needed (Bakker and McMullen, 2023).

Understanding power dynamics in the relationship between migrant entrepreneurs and EEs is crucial for recognising and supporting marginalised groups. While links between marginalised entrepreneurship and outcomes like poverty alleviation have been acknowledged (Morris and Tucker, 2023), their complexity is often overlooked, highlighting the need for more nuanced insights to guide policy and research (Harima, 2022; David et al., 2024). In this regard, the recent introduction of intersectionality into entrepreneurship research has proven particularly valuable (Ram et al., 2017; Dana and Vorobeva, 2021). This emerging literature stresses that multiply minoritised entrepreneurs – such as migrant women or racialised individuals from working-class backgrounds – cannot be adequately understood through single-axis analyses. Instead, their marginalisation is compounded by overlapping social identities (Vorobeva, 2022).

Crucially, intersectionality also illuminates how these compounded identities interact with structural conditions and institutional logics, shaping both access to resources and recognition within EEs. Such an approach highlights that disadvantage is not additive but relational, arising from the interlocking nature of racism, classism, gender norms and regulatory regimes (Collins, 2015; Crenshaw, 1991). These intersections condition entrepreneurial agency by constraining opportunity structures while simultaneously producing unique forms of resilience and innovation (Essers and Tedmanson, 2014). By extending beyond categorical descriptions of disadvantage, intersectional perspectives expose the mechanisms through which exclusion and opportunity are co-produced and maintained in everyday entrepreneurial practice.

Positioning intersectionality at the core of entrepreneurship studies also enriches theorisations of power by linking structural inequalities with lived experience and agency. It reveals how power functions not simply as a structural backdrop but as a dynamic and performative force embedded in discourses, networks and practices (Foucault, 1978; Bourdieu, 1986; Altersyke et al., 2023). Such an approach foregrounds the ways in which migrant entrepreneurs navigate, negotiate and sometimes subvert exclusionary arrangements within EEs.

Migrant entrepreneurs face persistent challenges in EEs, including discrimination in funding, limited market access and reduced engagement opportunities (Bakker and McMullen, 2023; Neville et al., 2018; Santos and Neumeyer, 2021; Pidduck and Clark, 2021; Pinto et al., 2021; Freiling, 2022). Biases and stereotypes (Gurău et al., 2020; David and Terstriep, 2023; Rashid and Cepeda-García, 2021), along with language barriers, restricted networks, legal limitations and skill gaps (Guerrero and Wanjiru, 2021; Solano et al., 2022; Ram et al., 2017), further inhibit their participation. Addressing these power asymmetries is key to building ecosystems where migrant entrepreneurs can flourish (Solano et al., 2023). Inclusive EE research increasingly shows the value of diversity for resilient and effective systems (Hameed et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2021), yet the lived constraints faced by migrant entrepreneurs continue to hinder their potential (Neumeyer et al., 2019; Gittins and McElwee, 2023).

Recognising the contributions of migrant entrepreneurs is vital for developing inclusive and adaptive EEs. Recent studies have begun to highlight their role in shaping ecosystems. Brown et al. (2019), for instance, explore how accelerator programmes support transnational entrepreneurship by providing critical resources and networks. These programmes enable migrant entrepreneurs to leverage their embeddedness across different contexts, maximising their opportunities. However, the authors also note the difficulty of replicating such initiatives in weaker ecosystems, calling for context-sensitive approaches. Similarly, Harima et al. (2021) show that transnational entrepreneurs contribute to ecosystem development by injecting resources, triggering institutional change and enhancing resilience. These findings illustrate the significant role migrant entrepreneurs play in fostering sustainable, long-term ecosystem growth – particularly in emerging economies.

EEs ideally foster innovation by providing essential resources (Spigel, 2017a). Within these ecosystems, migrant entrepreneurs navigate complex social landscapes shaped by power dynamics. A sociological perspective reveals how power influences resource allocation, affecting marginalised groups (Avelino and Wittmayer, 2015; Avelino, 2021).

Migrant entrepreneurs often face barriers to integrating into EEs (Rath and Kloosterman, 2000; Kloosterman et al., 1999; Abumuamar and Campbell, 2024). Knowledge, language proficiency and network affiliation impact their visibility and ability to leverage skills, while linguistic barriers hinder communication and cultural differences restrict engagement (Malecki, 2018). Understanding these dynamics is crucial for fostering inclusive development in EEs, as diverse perspectives enhance policy and decision-making (Roundy, 2017). Examining the intersection of power, migration and entrepreneurship reveals mechanisms driving socio-economic change. Harima (2022) emphasises the need to analyse marginalised economic agents to address stagnation in entrepreneurship research regarding social hierarchies. This perspective considers (dis-)embeddedness issues and builds on growing evidence of how migrant and refugee entrepreneurs – like other socio-cultural outsider groups in entrepreneurship – engage in entrepreneurial activities. Such concerns are dimensions of gender (e.g. Martinez Dy, 2020), social class (Brändle and Kuckertz, 2023) or age (e.g. Mallett and Wapshott, 2015; Maritz et al., 2021).

The interplay of knowledge, language and affiliation is foundational for exploring power dynamics. Bourdieu's (1974) framework links inequality to social structures, demonstrating how cultural artefacts such as education and language reinforce hierarchies (Bourdieu, 1984). Fraser (2023) discusses the social production of inequality, while Bourdieu (1986) asserts that cultural capital maintains these structures. In marginalised entrepreneurship, social recognition enhances capital value.

Language is both a means of communication and a source of social capital, significantly impacting migrant entrepreneurs' navigation of their environments. Linguistic proficiency is considered crucial in the globalised economy (Duchêne et al., 2013), where effective communication enhances the value of language skills (Allan, 2013). However, dominant languages can reinforce hierarchies. Newcomers may struggle with the host language, while international students often find English more accessible (Hirschfeld et al., 2021). Second-generation migrants face fewer barriers but encounter cultural ambiguities (David et al., 2024).

Affiliation is key to identification with EEs, often shaped by language acquisition and embedded knowledge (Ozkazanc-Pan, 2022; Lassalle and Johnston, 2018). Increasingly, EEs are conceptualised from an affiliation perspective (Donaldson et al., 2024; Adner, 2017), emphasising the critical role of relational dynamics in EEs (Roundy and Bayer, 2018). Power dynamics are influenced by the social groups with which entrepreneurs identify (Scott et al., 2022; Ram, 1994). The presence, absence, transmission and (re-)cycling of contextual and entrepreneurship-specific knowledge are central to explaining entrepreneurial activity and success. Linking sociological theory to real-world entrepreneurial practice through contextual knowledge and intergenerational knowledge transmission is well supported in family business research, particularly in knowledge-sharing among (extended) family members across generations (Woodfield and Husted, 2017; Dou et al., 2022; Capolupo et al., 2024; Martinez et al., 2016). Multi-family linkages and communities play a crucial role in developing, sharing, and transmitting knowledge across generations (Randers et al., 2021), offering a promising research avenue aligned with established perspectives on migrant entrepreneurship within micro-communities (Hack-Polay et al., 2020), co-ethnic networks (Rezaei, 2011) and enclaves (McEvoy and Hafeez, 2008).

In the context of migrant entrepreneurship as an integral part of broader entrepreneurial activity, prior studies have examined the formation and reconfiguration of social and cultural capital in response to migration (cf. Tolciu, 2011). Recent conceptual advancements, such as “multifocality” (Solano et al., 2022), highlight (1) the disruptive impact of migration on individual entrepreneurs and (2) the importance of embedding within or establishing connections to local institutional and social environments to navigate business contexts and foster success (Harima, 2022). The development of symbolic and contextual knowledge is essential for business and everyday social navigation, as first observed by scholars investigating how migrant communities generate and exchange intangible (e.g. knowledge) and tangible support (Kloosterman et al., 1999; Rath and Kloosterman, 2000).

Evansluong et al. (2024) stress the heterogeneity of migrant entrepreneurial families, highlighting their diverse knowledge pools, which may enhance entrepreneurial capacity. Context-specific knowledge, shaped by social affiliation and in-group membership, is a key determinant of migrant entrepreneurial success. Its presence fosters trust, collaboration, and opportunity recognition within EEs, whereas its absence may hinder access to systems and markets due to cultural and linguistic barriers persisting across generations. This underscores the need to explore power relationships as distinct knowledge-driven dimensions in migrant entrepreneurship research.

Operationalising power through knowledge, language and affiliation provides a framework for understanding complex dynamics in EEs. This approach encourages discussions about discrimination, including self-discrimination, to foster equitable environments. By examining these interconnections, we aim to empower marginalised entrepreneurs and enhance their integration into local economies, following constructs identified by Smith et al. (2014) and Smith and Sparkes (2020).

Drawing on qualitative semi-structured interviews with migrant entrepreneurs, we examine how power relations manifest within local EEs through the dimensions of knowledge, language and affiliation. These dimensions were initially derived deductively from existing interdisciplinary literature on power, social organisation and coordination (e.g. Foucault, 1978; Bourdieu, 1986), serving as sensitising concepts for the first phase of the study. A qualitative approach – particularly suitable for unpacking complex, context-dependent phenomena (Javadian et al., 2020) – was employed to illuminate how these abstract constructs translate into the lived realities of migrant entrepreneurs.

Phase I of our research followed a deductive logic, starting with a theoretically informed literature review and the development of interview guidelines rooted in prior conceptual work. This phase aimed to explore how theoretical constructs of power might empirically materialise within the entrepreneurial contexts of migrant actors. However, empirical engagement revealed unanticipated narratives and practices that exceeded our initial theoretical expectations. In response, Phase II adopted an inductive approach, grounded in the principles of abductive reasoning (Dubois and Gadde, 2002), which emphasises the iterative movement between data and theory. This allowed for refinement and extension of our conceptual understanding based on the emerging empirical material. Through systematic coding and thematic analysis, we identified patterns and insights that had not been anticipated during the initial design phase.

Our goal was to develop a contextually grounded yet theoretically robust understanding of how power is experienced and negotiated by marginalised migrant entrepreneurs within EEs. The abductive process facilitated a progressive and reciprocal engagement with the data, generating new theoretical insights into the ways knowledge, language and affiliation intersect in shaping entrepreneurial agency and exclusion.

The unit of analysis is migrant entrepreneurs operating within a city-level EE in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany's most populous federal state, where migrant self-employment constitutes a significant economic factor. As of mid-August 2023, 12,322 self-employed individuals holding foreign passports aged 18 to 64 were registered in the city, accounting for approximately 14.9% of the total foreign population in this age group. This mid-sized city is characterised by a significant immigrant population, a high rate of migrant entrepreneurship, and a specific migration history, most notably through the recruitment of so-called guest workers during the 1960s. These contextual features make the city a prototypical case for urban migrant entrepreneurship in Germany (David and Terstriep, 2024).

In line with interpretive research paradigms (Gephart, 2018), our study emphasises rich contextual engagement and close collaboration with research participants. Semi-structured, in situ interviews (Flick, 2018) were conducted in participants' entrepreneurial environments to elicit situated perspectives on power relations. The aim was not statistical generalisation, but the development of theoretically meaningful insights grounded in participants' lived experiences. The abductive research design – oscillating between theoretical frames and empirical data – enabled us to advance a nuanced understanding of how structural and symbolic forms of power shape migrant entrepreneurship in contemporary urban ecosystems.

The operationalisation of power in this study is grounded in three key dimensions – knowledge, language and affiliation – systematically developed to capture the lived experiences of migrant entrepreneurs within their ecosystems. This framework is guided by the research questions and informed by the theoretical foundations of Foucault (1972, 1978) and Bourdieu (1986), which offer robust insights into power relations in marginalised groups, including migrant entrepreneurs. Following Smith et al. (2014) and Smith and Sparkes (2020), we identified constructs for each dimension:

1. Knowledge: We examined how dominant epistemic frameworks become accessible to migrant entrepreneurs, drawing on concepts such as “discursive formation” (Foucault, 1972) and “fields of cultural production” (Bourdieu, 1993). In line with prior research (Ozkazanc-Pan, 2022; Lassalle and Johnston, 2018; Dou et al., 2022; Capolupo et al., 2024; Martínez et al., 2016; Harima, 2022; Kloosterman and Rath, 2001), we explored how entrepreneurs navigate, acquire and contribute to knowledge in entrepreneurial practice. Interview data revealed that formal knowledge networks are often difficult to access, making informal or alternative information sources pivotal.

2. Language: Drawing on linguistic capital (Bourdieu, 1986), linguistic habitus (Bourdieu, 1977) and symbolic violence (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990), we investigated how language can perpetuate inequalities. Consistent with Duchêne et al. (2013), Allan (2013), and Hirschfeld et al. (2021), our analysis showed that limited language proficiency impedes participation in local business discussions, client negotiations and integration into the entrepreneurial ecosystem, highlighting exclusion due to linguistic barriers.

3. Affiliation: In exploring affiliation, we focused on the role of social networks and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Donaldson et al., 2024; Adner, 2017). Our findings revealed that migrant entrepreneurs often encounter obstacles in forming networks because of cultural differences or social marginalisation, undermining their ability to embed themselves in local entrepreneurial environments and forge key stakeholder relationships.

The identification of specific factors within each dimension was iterative and inductive. An initial review of the literature on power dynamics in entrepreneurial ecosystems and marginalised groups (Foucault, 1972; Bourdieu, 1993) guided our conceptual framework. We then refined these dimensions based on data from in-depth interviews with 23 migrant entrepreneurs across various sectors. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded inductively, beginning with broad thematic categories that were subsequently refined into subcategories (e.g. “linguistic capital” versus “language as a barrier”).

To enhance the robustness of the coding process, we employed peer debriefing (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Creswell and Poth, 2018), ensuring alignment between the emergent factors and participants' lived experiences. Data triangulation (Flick, 2004) involved consulting multiple sources – publicly available company websites, business records and research notes documenting non-verbal cues and contextual observations. This cross-validation provided a more comprehensive perspective on the power dynamics within entrepreneurial ecosystems.

We also conducted member checking, inviting selected interviewees to review and comment on the preliminary findings (Campbell et al., 2013). This step clarified potential misunderstandings and reinforced the accuracy of our interpretations. We applied standardised interview protocols (Miles et al., 2014) to ensure reliability and maintained a detailed audit trail throughout data collection, coding and interpretation. Inter-coder reliability was established through consensus-building sessions within the research team, resolving discrepancies in coding and promoting a shared understanding of the data.

By employing this iterative and transparent approach, we derived conceptually grounded and empirically substantiated factors. These findings provide valuable insights into how knowledge, language and affiliation shape power relations for migrant entrepreneurs, thereby informing broader debates on inclusive entrepreneurship and social justice.

Between February and September 2023, twenty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with first- and second-generation migrant entrepreneurs aged 28 to 58 (median age: 43). Each interview lasted 40–90 min and took place at the entrepreneurs' premises. Generic purposive and snowball sampling methods (Bell et al., 2019; Creswell and Creswell, 2017; Yin, 2018) were used to select participants based on criteria such as migrant background, business location, registration and gender representation. Initial interviewees were identified through online searches, personal connections and referrals from job centres, chambers of commerce and economic development agencies, while subsequent participants were recruited via recommendations.

Ethical guidelines were strictly followed, ensuring participant confidentiality and informed consent. An interview guide, informed by relevant theory and pre-tested with three migrant entrepreneurs using the “thinking aloud” method (Güss, 2018), included a mix of closed and open-ended questions, probing socio-demographic factors, entrepreneurial activities and engagement within the EE. Interviews conducted in German were recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised with unique identification numbers. Original quotes were translated into English and back-translated into German to maintain accuracy. Research notes and data from company websites were incorporated to contextualise the entrepreneurs' narratives. Participant characteristics are summarised in Table 1.

The interviews were audio-recorded in full and transcribed verbatim. In the initial phase, the transcripts were imported into MAXQDA (Rädiker and Kuckartz, 2019), which facilitated a systematic engagement with the data. This step was essential for familiarising ourselves with the material while deliberately bracketing prior assumptions. Through close reading of the transcripts, we identified patterns, themes and meanings that emerged organically from participants' accounts, allowing for inductive insights grounded in the empirical material.

Concurrently, the data were interpreted through the lens of existing theoretical frameworks. This involved juxtaposing emergent themes with theoretical expectations in a continuous, abductive process of reflection and reinterpretation (cf. Dubois and Gadde, 2002; Adu, 2019). Rather than testing theory in a linear manner, we sought to refine and expand conceptual understandings by engaging them with the lived experiences of our participants.

Paraphrasing and clustering similar statements across interviews resulted in 437 thematically grouped citations. A consensus-building session within the research team was subsequently conducted to resolve inconsistencies and ensure interpretive alignment. Through this collaborative process, the material was distilled into 13 first-order codes. These were then synthesised into broader analytical categories aligned with the dimensions of language, knowledge and network affiliation. These categories encapsulate the complex and multifaceted nature of power relations and offer valuable insight into how such dynamics influence migrant entrepreneurs' positioning and strategic agency within their entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Drawing on the insights from the interviews, we developed a model that captures power dynamics, knowledge, language and network affiliation within EEs. This model emphasises the challenges and coping strategies employed by migrant entrepreneurs, particularly those who, as socio-cultural outsiders, must navigate a local EE marked by knowledge deficits and language barriers. It comprises four interrelated elements: knowledge acquisition, language and power dynamics, network affiliation and access to support systems.

Migrant entrepreneurs frequently lack the tacit contextual and business knowledge necessary to navigate EEs. Our findings indicate that their ability to access general and entrepreneurship-specific symbolic knowledge strongly influences how they connect with valuable material, social, and cultural resources in these environments. This gap persists even among second-generation migrants, who, despite growing up in the host country, often inherit limited entrepreneurial knowledge from their parents.

Earlier migrant generations often had restricted access to key business structures and networks due to language barriers, cultural differences or institutional obstacles (Kloosterman et al., 1999; Ram et al., 2008). Consequently, the “contextual proficiency” of the first generation may delimit the frames of reference, opportunity horizons and imaginaries of later generations, shaping their entrepreneurial engagement and access to resources in EEs. As a result, second-generation entrepreneurs may struggle with understanding nuanced business practices and legal frameworks, including taxation, regulations and contractual obligations, especially when pursuing ventures that are more complex, technology-oriented or growth-driven compared to those of their parents. This pattern has been observed in multiple qualitative case studies across Central Europe.

Interview data also reinforce that second-generation migrants frequently face critical knowledge gaps in business initiation and management, even when they possess general knowledge of the German start-up landscape. This deficit is partly due to their parents' limited exposure to the German entrepreneurial environment, which restricts the transmission of crucial knowledge, such as navigating bureaucratic and financial systems (Kloosterman et al., 1999; Ram et al., 2008). A second-generation Palestinian entrepreneur summarised this situation: “It's not that I learned it before, but I gained knowledge through apprenticeships and working up to a management level” (ID: I/I5). Similarly, another interviewee, a café owner, noted: “They said there were subsidy programmes, but they never applied to me. Why? I don't know” (ID: VII/S2). These accounts highlight the inadequacy of existing support systems, as migrant entrepreneurs often perceive formal programmes as inaccessible or poorly communicated.

To mitigate these structural disadvantages, migrant entrepreneurs employ various coping mechanisms, often drawing on practical experience and heuristics – rules of thumb, workarounds or learned shortcuts. One key mechanism is work experience gained through hands-on engagement in relevant industries via internships, apprenticeships or prior employment. These experiences provide sector-specific knowledge, business practices and informal norms, facilitating the internalisation of key entrepreneurial strategies.

A Kurd entrepreneur explained: “I didn't come from a surrounding that knew about contracts or taxes. My first business was for years in Istanbul. So, I learned here [in Germany] bit by bit, making mistakes, asking questions. Even when we had visits from representatives of the city, I still asked them if I was doing it correctly. I developed my shortcuts; what I call my ‘rules of thumb’. Like always double-checking invoices and relying on trusted friends and my wife for advice.” (ID: III/A3).

Another crucial mechanism to overcome barriers is the use of interpersonal networks, including connections with native Germans, business mentors, or experienced entrepreneurs. These networks serve as important channels for accessing informal advice and strategic insights. An Afghan grocery owner described this approach: “I built relationships with local business owners here in this street and mentors from other ethnic communities [Turks] who didn't speak my language but showed me in a mix of German and English how to navigate regulations and customer expectations. Those connections were key to surviving the early days, especially here on this shopping street, where one business is right next to another.” (ID: III/A5). Through these adaptive strategies, migrant entrepreneurs compensate for inherited gaps in symbolic and contextual knowledge, crafting their pathways within EEs.

Long-term orientation, reciprocity and favour exchange also play a significant role in knowledge acquisition, particularly in the absence of sufficient formal business support structures (Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp, 2009). Additionally, entrepreneurs engage in trial and error, refining their strategies through experiential learning, decision-making and adapting to challenges, failures and unforeseen obstacles. A Syrian entrepreneur recalled: “I opened this snack bar twice. The first location didn't get much foot traffic. Then I took a closer look at the neighbourhood and, within six months, opened again in a different spot—next to a bigger store. Now it's doing well.” (ID: VII/S1). While this “learning by doing” approach fosters resilience, it also entails financial risk, as errors can lead to substantial losses.

Migrant entrepreneurs also show ingenuity in building access to local markets through creative forms of mediation. A female Turkish entrepreneur, for example, responded to inequalities in accessing commercial space by involving a German friend, who helped her establish trust with local actors. She explained: “When I didn't know how to find a place because I kept getting rejections, he made the calls for me and explained that I'm a ‘good’ Turkish woman, someone they could confidently rent to.” (ID: III/A1). This demonstrates how informal, trust-based relationships can help navigate exclusionary dynamics and enable access to otherwise unavailable resources.

In line with Ram et al. (2017), these findings suggest that the lack of accessible, targeted knowledge about entrepreneurial support, particularly in the early stages of business development, contributes to a cycle of disadvantage for migrant entrepreneurs. Targeted support programmes that emphasise mentorship, formal training and structured knowledge-sharing are essential to mitigate these risks and bridge persistent knowledge gaps.

Language barriers pose significant challenges to migrant entrepreneurs, including those with advanced education or language proficiency. This issue becomes particularly acute in knowledge-intensive sectors where technical terminology is often highly specific and not easily translated. Essential resources – such as legal documents, contracts and governmental regulations – are predominantly available in German, placing non-native speakers at a disadvantage when navigating bureaucracy, securing funding or accessing institutional support systems.

Even highly skilled entrepreneurs in sectors such as technology report significant language-related obstacles. As noted by Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp (2009), language remains a critical hurdle to business success. One Indian tech entrepreneur expressed frustration with the inefficiency of bureaucratic procedured: “[In the US], I would have my visa in 18 h and be ready to work. Here, bureaucracy is great, but it takes too much time, and nobody speaks English” (ID: B1). Similarly, an Iranian entrepreneur highlighted the lack of multilingual access to essential resources: “The start-up process should at least be offered online in different languages, so I know I can get all the info from one source” (ID: B3).

These structural limitations are compounded by the fact that key entrepreneurial materials and documents are often restricted to German. This reduces access to critical information and hampers collaboration. For example, a Kurdish entrepreneur noted cultural-linguistic divides even within migrant communities: “I can't cooperate with Syrians [ …] They don't even understand why I sell vegan food” (ID: III/A3). The reliance on monolingual systems effectively marginalises entrepreneurs who lack full proficiency in the host country's official language, thus reinforcing systemic exclusion.

Despite these barriers, migrant entrepreneurs actively develop and deploy strategies to cope with and often counteract linguistic disadvantages. One common approach is to run bilingual or multilingual operations that target both local German-speaking clients and broader ethnic or international markets. This allows entrepreneurs to navigate linguistic boundaries while expanding their customer base.

Hiring native German-speaking employees or co-founders is another strategy that facilitates interaction with authorities and mainstream customers. While this can introduce dependencies, it also helps ensure compliance and legitimacy. An Indian tech start-up founder described this tactic: “I'm not fluent in German legal jargon, so I found a native German co-founder – a kind of, just for solving German bureaucracy – who handles contracts and communication with institutions. So, I can focus on my product while ensuring we don't miss anything paper that is needed in Germany” (ID: B1).

Migrant entrepreneurs also strategically leverage their multilingualism to build inclusive business models. A female entrepreneur from Ghana explained, “[…] I bring IT professionals to Germany who are paid under German law. Since they work remotely, they remain in Ghana, allowing them to stay with their families. My multilingual communication is key here, as I mediate between these countries in terms of language, culture, attitudes and rules” (ID: B4).

These hybrid approaches enable entrepreneurs to transcend monolingual limitations and create translocal economic opportunities.

Some begin their ventures within ethnic networks to mitigate initial language barriers, but gradually aim for broader integration. As one Kurdish restaurateur reflected, “I started with help from my neighbours because they understand my problems. But I'm also learning German and pushing myself to know other businesses” (ID: III/A3).

These examples illustrate how migrant entrepreneurs negotiate power asymmetries embedded in language constraints through proactive strategies. They create multilingual and multicultural business models that not only accommodate linguistic diversity but also use it as a competitive asset. To support this agency, systemic changes – such as multilingual start-up portals, translated legal documents and targeted language training – are crucial.

Migrant entrepreneurs frequently develop strong bonds within their own ethnic or community networks, yet often lack access to broader, more diverse networks. This limits their ability to acquire bridging capital – connections that span different groups and provide access to varied resources, opportunities and support from outside their immediate community (Kloosterman and Rath, 2001). Such isolation reduces visibility and restricts the flow of information that could foster business growth beyond their ethnic circles. Many migrant entrepreneurs thus rely on intra-community networks, which offer emotional and financial support by facilitating connections with clients, collaborators and suppliers with common backgrounds. While these ties provide a crucial safety net, they may also confine entrepreneurs to narrower markets.

In addition, some entrepreneurs adopt informal networking strategies, partly due to scepticism or distrust of formal networking structures and organisations, thereby forgoing institutional support, mentorship and partnerships that could help them scale. Interview data underscore the challenges stemming from limited bridging capital. Although robust intra-community ties exist, they tend to be informal and insufficiently broad to connect entrepreneurs with native German networks or public institutions (Granovetter, 1985).

One Afghan restaurant owner expressed doubts about formal networking: “Networking? I'm not sure how much that brings because you're bombarded with information everywhere” (ID: III/A5). Furthermore, migrant entrepreneurs often lack meaningful engagement with formal networks such as Chambers of Commerce or government institutions beyond fulfilling basic legal obligations (Rath and Swagerman, 2016). As one Palestinian entrepreneur remarked: “I didn't even know I was registered with the IHK [ …] They never introduced themselves to me” (ID: I/I5). In line with Light (2004), the deficit of bridging capital, as evident in lacking formal networks, perpetuates marginalisation by limiting access to resources like financing, training and policy support (Light, 2004).

Despite these challenges, many migrant entrepreneurs develop proactive strategies to overcome barriers and gain access to a wide range of resources. Building diverse networks beyond ethnic communities is recognised as a key strategy for overcoming market limitations. A Turkish female psychologist said: “My family and friends supported me in the beginning, but I realised I had to connect with native German businesspeople to get contracts with more clients. It was hard at first. I didn't know where to start but joining the local network for the health sector helped me open those doors” (ID: I/W4).

This illustrates how migrant entrepreneurs actively seek bridging capital and purposefully step into new social spaces, even when these initially feel unfamiliar or exclusive.

A notable example of successful institutional engagement is provided by a Turkish-origin entrepreneur who strategically made use of her connection with the Chamber of Commerce (IHK): “I have been on the board ever since [ …] They have always kept me well informed and helped me a lot in my professional life [ …] I will have been a member of the IHK plenary assembly for 20 years” (ID: III/A1).

Such individual cases demonstrate that institutional structures can indeed offer access opportunities, provided they are designed to be inclusive and supportive.

These examples show that migrant entrepreneurs are far from passive subjects in a structurally exclusive environment. Rather, they develop context-specific and at times contradictory strategies to access markets, resources, and support structures.

Many migrant entrepreneurs – particularly those from the first and second generation – struggle to access formal support systems due to limited awareness, language barriers and the perception that available programmes are not tailored to their specific needs. Bureaucratic complexity, inadequate outreach and a misalignment between programme objectives and the lived realities of migrant entrepreneurs further reinforce their exclusion.

Public support systems often fail to communicate effectively or respond adequately to the circumstances of migrant entrepreneurs. Interview data confirm that these barriers persist, particularly for those less embedded in institutional networks (Ram et al., 2017). A second-generation female entrepreneur of Ghanaian descent described her experience: “Even my black sisters have never heard of the support available [ …] How can we know what we're entitled to if we don't even know it exists?” (ID: B4). This illustrates the gap between policy provision and community-level awareness. “I knew there was some kind of financial start-up support from the Employment Agency, but I didn't know the details. I slowly started self-employment on the side during my unemployment” (ID: III/A2) recalled a Turkish bakery owner. Consequently, many migrant entrepreneurs forgo formal programmes, instead relying on informal community-based networks. However, these networks, while supportive, are often insufficient to fully address complex business challenges. Reliance on others – such as family members or friends – to navigate bureaucracy may offer short-term solutions but can reinforce a sense of disconnection from mainstream support structures.

These findings underscore the pressing need for public institutions to improve outreach and accessibility. Strategies such as multilingual information provision, simplified administrative procedures and proactive engagement with marginalised communities are essential. As Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp (2009) argue, adapting institutional frameworks to better reflect the realities of migrant entrepreneurs is critical to fostering equitable access to business support.

In response to institutional barriers, migrant entrepreneurs demonstrate significant resourcefulness and adaptability. Many create parallel support systems within their communities to address unmet needs. A Ghanaian female entrepreneur recalled: “Then, I started to look for support within my African community, even though I was born in Germany. I found this start-up hub for Afro-Germans, and with the help of like-minded people, I even discovered that I could apply for specific grants” (ID: B4). These self-organised initiatives serve as informal incubators, offering both emotional and practical support.

Others navigate official systems through proxy strategies. A transnational travel agency owner from Turkey shared: “I asked my friend who was self-employed longer in Germany and Turkey to help me with paperwork, specifically during Corona times” (ID: I/H2). While such approaches can alleviate immediate barriers, they also reflect the enduring inaccessibility of formal structures.

By developing such strategies, migrant entrepreneurs work to fill the gaps left by institutional neglect. Their actions not only reveal existing deficiencies in public support systems but also point to opportunities for more inclusive policy design (see Figure 1).

The study's results illustrate that migrant entrepreneurs experience multiple layers of disadvantage, creating a vicious cycle of exclusion and marginalisation within EEs (see Figure 3). Their challenges – knowledge gaps, language barriers, restricted networks and limited access to formal support – interact in ways that perpetuate these disadvantages through causal mechanisms (see Figure 2).

As depicted in Figure 3, the knowledge acquisition mechanism (M01) reveals that a lack of formal business knowledge and support compels reliance on informal, experience-based learning, often resulting in inefficiencies and errors that further widen the knowledge gap. Concurrently, language barriers (M02) restrict access to critical information on local regulations, market conditions and government programmes, excluding entrepreneurs from broader networks and reinforcing their dependence on ethnic or informal connections. Concerning network affiliation, the restrictive networks and absence of bridging capital (M03) force an overreliance on intra-community ties that, while supportive, limit exposure to diverse resources and opportunities, thus perpetuating marginalisation from formal networks. Finally, the insufficient access to support systems mechanism (M04) shows that inadequate outreach and unresponsiveness of public support structures drive migrant entrepreneurs to withdraw into informal support channels, which fail to provide the comprehensive assistance required for sustainable business development. Together, these mechanisms elucidate the multifaceted barriers that collectively undermine the entrepreneurial potential of migrant entrepreneurs.

Each mechanism amplifies the others, creating a feedback loop that entrenches exclusion. For example, the knowledge gap hinders efficient business management and restricts growth potential, while language barriers limit access to crucial resources. Overreliance on intra-community ties, in turn, narrows opportunities for broader integration, and the inadequacy of public support systems heightens feelings of alienation, perpetuating the cycle of marginalisation for migrant entrepreneurs (Ram et al., 2017; Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp, 2009). This dynamic can be theoretically understood through several social science perspectives. From a systems theory viewpoint (Meadows, 2008), these feedback loops constitute positive reinforcement processes where each barrier intensifies the other, thereby stabilising social exclusion as a self-perpetuating system. Social capital theory further elucidates how an excessive dependence on “bonding” ties within one's own community restricts access to “bridging” networks beyond it (Bourdieu, 1986; Putnam, 2000), limiting economic opportunities and broader societal integration. Moreover, social exclusion theory (Silver, 1994) highlights how intertwined structural disadvantages – such as linguistic hurdles and insufficient institutional support – compound to create multidimensional marginalisation. Nevertheless, structuration theory (Giddens, 1984; Foucault, 1978) emphasises that migrant entrepreneurs are not merely passive victims of these structural constraints but exercise agency by devising creative strategies to circumvent barriers. These acts of agency enable them initially to navigate around obstacles and ultimately strive for deeper integration that supports their entrepreneurial endeavours (David and Terstriep, 2024).

This study explored how migrant entrepreneurs experience marginalisation within local EEs, using concepts from power theory. We aimed to answer the following question: What facets of marginalisation are evident among migrant entrepreneurs within power relations in local EEs, and how do they navigate these constraints? Based on 23 in-depth interviews with migrant entrepreneurs in a diverse neighbourhood of a municipality in the Ruhr Area, we developed an analytical framework that examines power through three connected dimensions: knowledge, language and network affiliation. These shape both entrepreneurial opportunities and how exclusion and agency unfold.

Our findings show that marginalisation often takes the form of knowledge gaps, especially when it comes to legal-administrative rules, funding opportunities or informal institutional norms. These are not just missing pieces of information – they reflect deeper inequalities. Many migrant entrepreneurs grow up without access to important business knowledge or networks, often due to structural disadvantage. To cope, they use practical strategies like peer mentoring, learning by doing, and relying on past work experience. But these strategies can't fully compensate for ecosystems that are not designed to support diverse ways of accessing and using knowledge.

Language plays a double role. On one hand, it acts as a barrier: official procedures often rely on complex, monolingual (usually German-only) communication, making it hard for migrants to understand rights, duties or support offers. This creates frustration and feelings of exclusion. On the other hand, some entrepreneurs turn language into a strength. They use bilingual outreach, hire multilingual staff or draw on their international networks to reach customers and partners. In doing so, they find ways to work around linguistic barriers and use their language skills as a strategic resource.

Network affiliation is another important dimension. Many entrepreneurs have strong community-based networks that provide emotional support and practical help. However, they often lack access to wider, more diverse networks, such as chambers of commerce, banks or cross-cultural business groups. Without these bridging networks, it is harder to scale up or find official support. Nevertheless, some participants actively try to build new connections, enter institutional spaces and even engage in collective efforts to improve local support structures.

Support systems – such as local business agencies or startup hubs – often reinforce exclusion by sticking to rigid procedures, using difficult language or failing to recognise diverse entrepreneurial paths. However, our research also shows that migrant entrepreneurs are not just passive actors. They mentor others, build intercultural business communities and participate in policy processes. In this way, they do not just navigate the system – they try to change it from within.

Our study highlights that migrant entrepreneurs are not simply victims of structural barriers. They are active agents who adapt to, resist, and influence their environments. In line with Avelino and Wittmayer's (2015) idea of relational power, they change the relationships and institutions around them through everyday actions. This also reflects Foucault's (1983) notion of subjectivation, where individuals reshape both themselves and the systems they are part of through practice and they try to draw a positive aspect from their situation that they can use to their advantage. This means that marginalisation and agency can exist at the same time. The same power structures that create exclusion also leave space for resistance and innovation. Many of the entrepreneurs we interviewed challenge mainstream norms through bilingual communication, informal mentoring or alternative business models, thus introducing more pluralistic, inclusive ways of being entrepreneurial.

Our framework – centred around knowledge, language and affiliation – builds on Bourdieu's (1986) concept of capital and contributes to ecosystem research (e.g. Spigel, 2017a; Bolzani and Mizzau, 2019). It offers a way to make power relations visible in ecosystems that are often seen as neutral or merit-based. In doing so, it helps explain how inequalities are reproduced – and how they can be challenged through everyday practice (David and Terstriep, 2024). These insights have practical consequences for how to design and improve entrepreneurial ecosystems. While there is growing interest in inclusive entrepreneurship, many support systems still fail to reflect on their role in reproducing exclusion. To move from rhetoric to action, inclusive ecosystems must adopt structural reforms that make access to knowledge, language and networks fairer. Tackling these inequalities is not only a matter of fairness or social justice (Volkmann et al., 2021); it also helps build more resilient and innovative ecosystems and productive entrepreneurship (Stam, 2015). Migrant entrepreneurs bring unique knowledge, networks, and hybrid practices that enrich local economies. Their active role in building networks, shifting power relations and reshaping norms shows that they are not just navigating the system – they are co-producing it.

Based on the developed framework (see Figure 3) and the findings, this study advances our understanding of power relations, outsidership, and migrant entrepreneurship within local EEs. Three interrelated factors – language, knowledge and network affiliation – emerged as pivotal to shaping migrant entrepreneurs' integration into EEs, influencing individual entrepreneurial experiences and broader economic outcomes through their engagement with the ecosystem.

Despite possessing proficient German language skills, many migrant entrepreneurs report that ethnic background remains a stronger determinant of their business interactions, networking opportunities and sense of belonging. Power dynamics and social acceptance prove critical, and bridging network boundaries is often essential for success. Yet migrant entrepreneurs continue to face discrimination and social exclusion, constraining their participation and leading to social segregation.

The study's findings highlight the need to address power dynamics within EEs – an aspect often overlooked in entrepreneurship research. Although migrant entrepreneurs contribute substantially to innovation and economic growth, they frequently encounter marginalisation in EEs (McAdam et al., 2019; Vorobeva, 2022). This marginalisation is exacerbated by a dearth of scholarship on how power structures shape the design and functioning of EEs (Audretsch and Fiedler, 2023; Martinez Dy, 2020). This gap results in a limited understanding of the systemic challenges migrant entrepreneurs face, often reducing their visibility and limiting their ability to participate in EEs fully and also their ability to gain power in formal structures.

Traditional views have treated entrepreneurship as neutral or apolitical; however, our study underscores its inherent grounding in social relations and power (Spigel, 2017b; Fraser, 2023). This study, however, exemplifies how power extends beyond resource distribution to encompass how particular groups gain or lose access to entrepreneurial opportunities. By explicitly integrating power into EE analysis, we challenge the assumption that ecosystems function solely on meritocratic principles. Consequently, more contextually informed and critical research is required to examine social hierarchies, norms and power relations, especially regarding migrant entrepreneurship (Martinez Dy and Agwunobi, 2018).

This calls for a broader rethinking of entrepreneurship as a social process, influenced not just by individual agency but also by deeply entrenched structures of power that often exclude migrant entrepreneurs. Critical research that acknowledges and examines these power imbalances is essential for fostering more inclusive entrepreneurship models that recognise the diverse experiences and contributions of migrant entrepreneurs. Only through such an inclusive lens can we begin to design entrepreneurial ecosystems that actively embrace diversity and create opportunities for all entrepreneurs, regardless of their background.

For practitioners – including regional development agencies, chambers of commerce and administrative bodies – acknowledging and examining power imbalances is vital for formulating inclusive entrepreneurship models that recognise the diverse contributions of migrant founders. Concretely, this study indicates the importance of establishing transparent and equitable knowledge exchange mechanisms within EEs. Migrant entrepreneurs often lack access to formal channels through which local founders acquire tacit business knowledge and professional networks, exacerbating the knowledge gap and hindering their success. Many thus rely heavily on personal networks and mentorship, avenues often exclusive and challenging to access. To address these issues, gatekeepers in EEs (e.g. local entrepreneurs, business associations, and institutions) should adopt a more proactive role in facilitating migrant inclusion by establishing formal mentorship schemes, targeted knowledge-sharing platforms and events that specifically engage migrant entrepreneurs. This would help diminish barriers to information, leading to a more equitable distribution of business knowledge across the ecosystem.

Tackling power imbalances also requires altering entrenched discursive practices that may exclude or marginalise migrant entrepreneurs. Institutional biases – often subtle, embedded in organisational norms or manifested in language – can restrict access to essential resources and support. Overcoming these biases requires a cultural shift wherein institutions and established entrepreneurs actively embrace diverse perspectives and business models. Strategies may involve retraining gatekeepers and formulating policies encouraging a more inclusive business approach.

Finally, integrating migrant entrepreneurs into formal networks, such as Chambers of Commerce or industry associations, is critical for addressing power disparities. Such networks provide access to capital, strategic partnerships and market information, which enhance migrant entrepreneurs' visibility, contribute to trust-building, and improve access to critical resources, which facilitate their sustainability and growth. In turn, these networks benefit from the diversity, innovation and dynamism migrant entrepreneurs bring. Moreover, inclusive EEs will likely facilitate mutual learning and collaboration, enabling migrant and local entrepreneurs to share knowledge, experiences and opportunities. Such cross-cultural partnerships can yield more diverse, innovative and resilient EEs, in which one group's success fosters the success of others. As diversity within EEs grows, the ability of the entire ecosystem to adapt to new challenges and opportunities is enhanced, making it more competitive and sustainable in the future. Addressing these practical implications, actors within EEs can create more inclusive environments where migrant entrepreneurs survive and thrive. This requires a shift from tokenism to genuine integration, where the contributions of migrant entrepreneurs are recognised and supported as vital to the health and growth of local economies.

In sum, we propose practical interventions to address the challenges faced by migrant entrepreneurs: (1) mentorship schemes linking migrant and native-born entrepreneurs, (2) multilingual one-stop shops, (3) targeted outreach by Chambers of Commerce, avoiding tone deafness, (4) inclusive networking platforms and (5) community liaison roles within local economic development offices. These structural and capacity-building measures focus on the found obstacles for the migrant entrepreneur-EE interactions. They operate across local and regional policy domains and would involve coordination between municipal authorities, regional government and intermediary organisations. To move from recommendation to implementation, however, more explicit attention must be paid to resource requirements and operational design. For example, mentorship schemes require funding for coordination staff and incentives for mentors; one-stop shops necessitate sustainable language services and digital infrastructure; and outreach or liaison roles imply dedicated budget lines within development agencies. Without clarifying such resource allocations, recommendations risk remaining aspirational rather than actionable.

Although the qualitative interviews generated rich data, the relatively small, region-specific sample limits the generalisability of these findings, as interviewees represent only a fraction of migrant entrepreneurs within the municipality. Future research could expand the sample to encompass diverse regions, cities or countries, offering a broader perspective on the varied experiences of migrant entrepreneurs across different EEs. Moreover, this study focused primarily on relational power dynamics from a qualitative standpoint, which may not fully capture the complexity and variability of power structures. Longitudinal studies could illuminate how these dynamics evolve, exploring how migrant entrepreneurs adapt, resist or reshape their contexts. Comparative research that contrasts ecosystems differing in inclusivity and support structures would also deepen our understanding. Additionally, intersectional factors – such as gender, migration background and formal network memberships – warrant further investigation to reveal how power dynamics intersect with other dimensions of identity. Finally, reliance on self-reported data can introduce bias in producing and interpreting data on entrepreneurial experiences. Future studies would benefit from mixed-method approaches, including quantitative surveys or ethnographic techniques, to comprehensively understand how migrant entrepreneurs navigate EEs. Such insights would support more effective policy interventions across various domains (e.g. innovation, labour market policies), ultimately fostering an environment where migrant entrepreneurs can thrive and contribute to local economic growth.