Guest editorial: Past, present and future changes in migrant entrepreneurship landscape

Migrant entrepreneurship refers to the process of venture creation by refugees, forced labor, immigrants, expats and ethnic minority, i.e. individuals, teams, groups or families who were born abroad (1st generation), or were born in the host country, but at least one of their parents was born outside of the host country (2nd generation) (Hamilton et al., 2008). Research on entrepreneurship by immigrants, refugees, ex-pats, ethnic minorities and returnees has developed since the 1970s and gained both academic and practitioner attention in the last few decades. The landscape of migrant entrepreneurship has witnessed major changes in the nature and scope of the ventures and how migrant entrepreneurs establish and run businesses for the last few decades (e.g. Silva et al., 2026; Chitac et al., 2025; Elo et al., 2025; Glinka and Freiling, 2024; Elo et al., 2022; Dabić et al., 2020; Ram et al., 2017; Dana, 1997; Dana, 1996).

Migrant, refugee, expat, ethnic minority and returnee entrepreneurs have transformed ecosystems and changed the relations in various businesses and social networks (Adeel et al., 2026; David et al., 2025; Light et al., 2025; Baron and Harima, 2019; Schäfer and Henn, 2018). By doing so, they also influence the ways other companies are managed and integrated into an ecosystem. Migrant entrepreneurship has shifted from enclave ventures to break-in the country of residence's ethnic market, for instance, ethnic restaurants or ethnic food stores, nail-shops which primarily served the need of the intra-ethnic communities (Huq and Biru, 2026; Bagwell, 2018; Dana, 2007; Kloosterman and Rath, 2001) to mainstream businesses to break-out and break-through creating new trends and setting new standards in serving the country of residence's market, for instance, high-end restaurants which offer fusion food with high-quality interior design attracting inter-ethnic customers (Evansluong et al., 2025; Evansluong et al., 2019; Griffin-El and Olabisi, 2018). The role of migrant ventures has moved from filling in the labor shortage and outsourcing services to developing services and technologies for the local businesses in the country of residence's market as well as for the global market (Machado and Freiling, 2023; Saxenian, 2000).

These developments do not suggest that liabilities have simply disappeared or been replaced by advantages. Persistent institutional, market-related and intersectional constraints may coexist with entrepreneurial agency and opportunity development, while attempts to move beyond established markets may themselves create new tensions (Huq and Biru, 2026; Ram et al., 2017, 2026; Kabbara et al., 2025; Vershinina and Rodgers, 2019). Rather, the changing landscape points to a more complex and multilevel reconfiguration shaped by opportunity structures, moderating conditions and interactions across different types of networks (Glinka et al., 2023; Sinkovics and Reuber, 2021; Kloosterman and Rath, 2001).

Migration-related experiences, identities, relationships and resources may constrain access to knowledge, finance, legitimacy and networks (David et al., 2026; Ivanova-Gongne et al., 2026; Kabbara et al., 2025; Polychronopoulos et al., 2025; Ram et al., 2017), while the same elements may become productive entrepreneurial resources when they are combined, performed, recognized and institutionally enabled in particular ways (Glinka et al., 2023; Elo et al., 2022). The central question is therefore not whether migrant-related characteristics constitute liabilities or assets in themselves, but when, how and for whom they acquire either quality.

This editorial is organized as follows. First, we introduce the eight articles included in the special issue and highlight their individual and collective contributions to understanding the changing migrant entrepreneurship landscape. We then synthesize their insights through three analytical viewpoints: Liability-Centered Accounts and Continuing Liability Bounding, Liability–Asset Reconfiguration and the Conditions of Asset Enabling. Rather than treating past, present and future as stages in a universal temporal progression, we use them to distinguish historically influential perspectives, contemporary processes of reconfiguration and future-oriented questions concerning the organizational and institutional conditions under which migration-related resources may become entrepreneurial assets. We conclude by outlining the implications of this synthesis for organizational change and future migrant entrepreneurship research.

The eight articles included in this special issue illuminate the changing landscape of migrant entrepreneurship from multiple theoretical, contextual and analytical perspectives. Together, they advance our understanding of how migrant entrepreneurs create, mobilize, govern and leverage resources across different geographical, organizational and temporal contexts. Rather than presenting the contributions as isolated studies, we organize them around four thematic conversations: the changing knowledge landscape of migrant entrepreneurship; changing forms of embeddedness and entrepreneurial networking; changing resource configurations, finance and family governance; and changing migration pathways, opportunity structures and ecosystem power relations.

Alka et al. (2025) provide a systematic review of major themes and trends in migrant entrepreneurship research. Using BERTopic modeling, they analyze 2,142 publications on migrant entrepreneurship retrieved from the Scopus database for the period from 1995 to 2024. Their review shows how the intellectual landscape of the field has expanded from a strong emphasis on ethnic enclaves and traditional migrant businesses toward broader concerns with cross-cultural operations, identity, gender, ethnicity, transnational networks, resource mobility, economic integration and diaspora entrepreneurship. The study highlights emerging research themes relating to resilience, entrepreneurial ecosystems, transnational governance, sustainability and the relationship between liabilities and assets of foreignness.

By mapping these thematic developments, Alka et al. (2025) provide a field-level perspective on the changing migrant entrepreneurship landscape. Their contribution offers an overarching point of reference for the seven empirical articles, which examine more specific changes in embeddedness, resource configurations, migration pathways, family involvement and entrepreneurial ecosystems.

A second conversation concerns the changing meaning and composition of entrepreneurial embeddedness. Chang et al. (2025), Brambini-Pedersen et al. (2025) and Boers and Ljungkvist (2026) collectively challenge the assumption that migrant entrepreneurs are uniformly embedded in family, private, or co-ethnic networks. Instead, their studies show that the effects and functions of embeddedness vary across educational backgrounds, generations, network domains and stages of venture development.

Chang et al. (2025) investigate the role of economic, social and institutional embeddedness in shaping entrepreneurial intentions among STEM and non-STEM individuals. Their study is based on 832 survey respondents from the United States, including migrants and ethnic minorities. The findings demonstrate that individuals with STEM backgrounds show stronger entrepreneurial intentions when supported by institutional and normative embeddedness. In contrast, non-STEM individuals, particularly those with diverse demographic characteristics, appear to benefit more from social embeddedness and market access. Distinct patterns among migrant and ethnic participants underscore that embeddedness does not operate uniformly but interacts with educational and demographic backgrounds.

Brambini-Pedersen et al. (2025) compare first-generation immigrant, second-generation immigrant and indigenous entrepreneurs with regard to the size and composition of their networks as well as their networking patterns. Their quantitative cross-sectional study uses Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data from 39 countries and hierarchical linear modeling. The findings reveal that first-generation immigrant entrepreneurs tend to possess more extensive networks than indigenous entrepreneurs, particularly in transnational and professional spheres. Contrary to common assumptions, they do not rely more heavily on private networks than their indigenous counterparts. The study identifies important differences between first- and second-generation immigrant entrepreneurs, with the latter displaying a less pronounced transnational network presence.

Boers and Ljungkvist (2026) examine how family and ethnic social ties support immigrant entrepreneurs in developing their businesses in the host country. Their inductive qualitative study is based on three cases of migrant-owned businesses in Sweden. The study identifies different functions of immigrant entrepreneurs' social ties, including control-based, responsibility-based, inclusive and ethnic urgency-based relationships. These ties provide varying forms of trust, labor, information, responsibility, control and support during venture development.

Taken together, these three studies show that changing embeddedness should not be understood as a simple movement away from family and ethnic ties toward professional or mainstream networks. Rather, migrant entrepreneurs combine different relationships whose relevance and functions vary across individuals, generations, contexts and entrepreneurial activities.

A third conversation concerns how migrant entrepreneurs and migrant-owned firms configure, mobilize and govern resources. Polychronopoulos et al. (2025) focus on combinations of human, social and financial capital in transnational entrepreneurship, while Nguyen et al. (2025) examine how migrant family ownership influences financial decision-making. Together, the articles show that entrepreneurial outcomes depend not only on whether resources are available, but also on how they are combined, governed and protected.

Polychronopoulos et al. (2025) examine which forms of capital and which combinations of these forms constitute sufficient conditions for migrant entrepreneurs to start transnational ventures. They also investigate whether demographic clusters alter these configurations. The study employs qualitative comparative analysis to examine 30 migrant entrepreneurs participating in Norwegian entrepreneurship support programs. The findings suggest two different configurations associated with transnational migrant entrepreneurship. Both involve high levels of human capital, while one combines human capital with high financial capital and the other combines it with high social capital. The study therefore demonstrates that no single resource produces transnational entrepreneurship in isolation. Rather, different combinations of complementary resources can support similar entrepreneurial outcomes.

Nguyen et al. (2025) examine how migrant family ownership influences financing strategies in publicly listed family firms. Their study is based on 1,301 listed family firms from Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore and includes 11,316 firm-year observations covering the period from 2010 to 2022. The findings reveal that family firms in these ASEAN countries generally maintain lower debt ratios and higher working-capital ratios than non-family firms. The migrant background of family owners further amplifies these conservative financial behaviors, which safeguard the firms and generate patient capital. The study thus draws attention to the interaction between migrant ownership, family control, risk preferences, liquidity and financial governance.

Together, these articles extend the resource perspective of migrant entrepreneurship by showing that resources do not generate entrepreneurial advantage automatically. Their effects depend on configurations of different forms of capital and on the governance arrangements through which firms balance resource access, financial risk, family continuity and control.

A fourth conversation addresses the relationship between migration experiences, entrepreneurial aspirations, opportunity development and unequal institutional environments. Falcão et al. (2025) examine gendered migration and integration pathways among Brazilian migrants in Switzerland and Germany, while David et al. (2026) investigate power relations experienced by migrant entrepreneurs within entrepreneurial ecosystems in Germany. Both studies demonstrate that possessing education, experience, or entrepreneurial aspirations does not automatically provide access to entrepreneurial opportunities.

Falcão et al. (2025) investigate the migration motivations, integration experiences, barriers and entrepreneurial aspirations of Brazilian migrants in Switzerland and Germany. Their exploratory online survey includes 617 respondents in Switzerland and 652 in Germany. The study highlights the feminization of migration and the comparatively high educational level of many respondents. Among women, family reunion and marriage emerge as particularly important migration pathways, while men more commonly enter through employment-related visas. Both groups experience challenges associated with language acquisition and cultural adaptation. The study shows that migration pathways, gender, age, education and integration experiences shape entrepreneurial aspirations and settlement strategies in different ways.

David et al. (2026) examine how power relations and differences manifest in migrant entrepreneurs' founding processes and how entrepreneurs address the resulting challenges. Their qualitative study is informed by power theory and based on 23 in-depth interviews with migrant entrepreneurs in the German Ruhr Area. The findings identify knowledge, language competence and network affiliation as three central dimensions that shape marginalized entrepreneurs' power relations and influence their perceptions, behaviors and outcomes. Despite structural disadvantages, migrant entrepreneurs exercise agency by navigating institutional barriers, bridging divides and seeking to balance power differences within entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Taken together, the two studies show that opportunity development is conditioned by more than individual motivation or human capital. Gendered migration pathways, language competence, institutional recognition, network affiliation and unequal distributions of knowledge and power influence whether entrepreneurial resources and aspirations can be translated into entrepreneurial actions.

Across the four thematic conversations, the articles reveal changes at the individual, family, firm, network, ecosystem and field levels. They show that embeddedness varies across backgrounds and generations; that family, ethnic, professional and transnational ties fulfill different and partly complementary functions; that entrepreneurial outcomes depend on the configuration and governance of human, social and financial capital; and that access to opportunities remains conditioned by migration pathways, institutional recognition and unequal ecosystem power relations. The contributions therefore do not support a simple replacement of disadvantage by advantage. Rather, they point to the coexistence and reconfiguration of migration-related liabilities and resources. The following section develops this collective insight through three analytical vantage points: Liability-Centered Accounts and Continuing Liability Bounding, Liability–Asset Reconfiguration and the Conditions of Asset Enabling.

To understand the changing migrant entrepreneurship landscape, we conducted an inductive analysis of the eight articles included in this special issue; we identified three major shifts in the field from the past, present and to the future: Liability-Centered Accounts and Continuing Liability Bounding, Liability–Asset Reconfiguration and the Conditions of Asset Enabling.

The past refers here primarily to a historically dominant way of theorizing migrant entrepreneurship anchored in prior literature rather than to a completed empirical stage. Earlier research often foregrounded labor-market exclusion, ethnic enclaves, necessity entrepreneurship, limited legitimacy and liabilities of foreignness. The articles in this special issue show that such constraints remain consequential, although they coexist with agency, resourcefulness and more differentiated forms of embeddedness and governance.

Liability Bounding, first, refers to a condition or situation in which migrant entrepreneurial activities in the host country are limited or constrained by barriers related to migration experiences and relationships (Kabbara et al., 2025). These barriers include host country language barriers (Falcão et al., 2025), social exclusion (David et al., 2026) from the host community, resource constraints (Nguyen et al., 2025) and elements of foreignness (Brambini-Pedersen et al., 2025). Entrepreneurial actions are therefore directed toward overcoming these barriers to secure access to resources and community networks as well as to establish legitimacy in the local community (Evansluong et al., 2019; Griffin-El and Olabisi, 2018). To do that, migrants employ different strategies, namely, utilizing family ties, co-ethnic networks and narrating migration-related experience (Ljungkvist et al., 2023; Evansluong and Ramírez-Pasillas, 2019). Historically, migrant entrepreneurship research has largely emphasized the disadvantages experienced by migrants in host-country environments. Migrants were frequently portrayed as individuals who entered entrepreneurship because they encountered barriers in labor markets, experienced social exclusion, lacked access to mainstream resources, or faced liabilities associated with foreignness, outsider-ship, newness and limited legitimacy (Glinka and Freiling, 2024; Gurău et al., 2020; Dana, 2007).

Boers and Ljungkvist (2026) show that immigrant entrepreneurs in Sweden rely heavily on family relationships during the venture creation and development process. Family members provide emotional support, advice, labor, trust and business support when access to external resources is limited. In addition to family ties, Boers and Ljungkvist (2026) demonstrate that ethnic social ties provide access to information, trust and support that enable migrant entrepreneurs to navigate challenges in the host country. Many entrepreneurial activities are initiated and sustained through co-ethnic networks, particularly when local market access remains constrained.

Language barriers restrict access to opportunity structures and reinforce liabilities associated with foreignness. Falcão et al. (2025) identify language limitations as a significant obstacle affecting integration and entrepreneurial participation in Switzerland and Germany. Meanwhile, David et al. (2026) demonstrate that language proficiency influences entrepreneurs' access to information, networks, support structures and entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Social exclusion represents another important source of liability bounding. David et al. (2026) show that migrant entrepreneurs in Germany often encounter unequal access to information, legitimacy and ecosystem resources. Their findings reveal how such experiences shape entrepreneurial opportunities and limit participation within entrepreneurial ecosystems. Social exclusion consequently constrains entrepreneurial entry by restricting access to local knowledge, networks and support.

Resource constraints also emerge as a recurring challenge. Nguyen et al. (2025) highlight the importance of financial access and resource considerations in shaping entrepreneurial decision-making of migrant owned family firms in ASEAN countries. Polychronopoulos et al. (2025) show that financial capital remains a critical constraint that requires migrant entrepreneurs in Norway to rely on alternative resource combinations and support mechanisms.

These constraints are further reinforced by liabilities of foreignness. David et al. (2026) show that migrant entrepreneurs face disadvantages associated with outsider-ship, limited legitimacy and unequal access to entrepreneurial ecosystems. Likewise, Brambini-Pedersen et al. (2025) demonstrate that immigrant status influences entrepreneurial opportunities and access to broader professional networks. Foreignness therefore initially functions as a liability rather than an asset, constraining legitimacy and access to entrepreneurial opportunities.

Entrepreneurial actions during this stage are primarily oriented toward survival. Nguyen et al. (2025) demonstrate how migrant-owned family firms adopt financially conservative approaches that prioritize continuity and stability. Similarly, Falcão et al. (2025) show that entrepreneurial actions are frequently initiated in response to labor market barriers and integration difficulties. Entrepreneurial actions in these contexts are directed primarily toward economic survival rather than growth, innovation, or strategic expansion.

Liability–Asset Reconfiguration refers to the processes through which migration-related experiences, relationships and barriers may acquire different entrepreneurial meanings and functions. Rather than assuming that liabilities of foreignness, exclusion, limited access to resources, or ethnic embeddedness simply disappear, this perspective emphasizes that liabilities and assets may coexist. Migrant entrepreneurs may draw on migration-related experiences and relationships to create opportunities, while continuing to face structural and institutional constraints (Dang et al., 2026; Evansluong et al., 2025; Stoyanov and Stoyanova, 2025). Entrepreneurial actions are therefore directed toward navigating and reconfiguring existing conditions through institutional support structures, professional networks, entrepreneurial ecosystems, multiple forms of embeddedness and the strategic mobilization of social and financial capitals. Through these activities, migrant entrepreneurs may move beyond an exclusive focus on entrepreneurial survival toward opportunity development, although this transition is neither automatic nor uniform (Glinka et al., 2023; Ram et al., 2017; Kloosterman and Rath, 2001).

Utilizing institutional support is one way in which liabilities of foreignness or newness may be mitigated and existing resources made more accessible. Institutional embeddedness can positively shape entrepreneurial intentions, suggesting that access to institutional support structures may enable entrepreneurs to engage more actively in opportunity exploration and entrepreneurial development (Chang et al., 2025). Similarly, entrepreneurship support systems in host environments can contribute to the development of entrepreneurial capabilities and resource access, enabling migrant entrepreneurs to engage with broader opportunity structures (Polychronopoulos et al., 2025). However, institutional support does not automatically remove existing liabilities, as its effects depend on entrepreneurs' backgrounds, formal positions and access to recognition and support (Elo et al., 2022).

Professional networking constitutes another important element of liability–asset reconfiguration. Migrant entrepreneurs may benefit from professional networks extending beyond co-ethnic communities. These networks provide access to information, resources and opportunities that may not be available within ethnic networks alone (Brambini-Pedersen et al., 2025). Professional networking may therefore help entrepreneurs gain access to broader entrepreneurial opportunities. This does not necessarily imply that professional networks replace family or co-ethnic ties. Instead, different forms of relationships may be combined and mobilized for different entrepreneurial purposes.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems can further support liability–asset reconfiguration among migrant entrepreneurs. David et al. (2026) show that ecosystem participation influences entrepreneurs' ability to access resources, support structures and opportunities. Active engagement with ecosystem actors may enable migrant entrepreneurs to address disadvantages associated with exclusion and limited visibility (Freiling, 2022). At the same time, ecosystem participation does not necessarily transform exclusion into access, as access to knowledge, networks, legitimacy and support remains shaped by unequal power relations.

Mixed embeddedness represents another prominent aspect of liability–asset reconfiguration. Chang et al. (2025), Polychronopoulos et al. (2025), Brambini-Pedersen et al. (2025) and Boers and Ljungkvist (2026) collectively demonstrate that migrant entrepreneurs do not rely exclusively on either ethnic or mainstream networks. Instead, they may simultaneously draw on family ties, ethnic communities, institutions, entrepreneurial ecosystems and professional and transnational networks. The value of these relationships depends on their functions, combinations and the contexts in which they are mobilized.

Resource orchestration also plays a central role in the process of liability–asset reconfiguration. Entrepreneurial outcomes emerge not simply from the possession of resources but from entrepreneurs' ability to combine human, social and financial capital (Polychronopoulos et al., 2025). Different types of social ties are strategically mobilized to support entrepreneurial activities (Boers and Ljungkvist, 2026). Nguyen et al. (2025) further show that migrant family ownership influences how financial resources are governed and how firms balance risk, liquidity, family control and continuity. Migration-related resources and relationships may therefore generate opportunities while simultaneously involving constraints and trade-offs.

Entrepreneurial agency further contributes to the reconfiguration process. David et al. (2026) highlight how migrant entrepreneurs actively navigate ecosystem constraints and develop alternative pathways to entrepreneurial opportunities. Chang et al. (2025) similarly demonstrate that entrepreneurial intentions are shaped by the interaction between individual backgrounds and available embeddedness conditions. Falcão et al. (2025) indicate, however, that high levels of education and human capital do not automatically translate into entrepreneurial activity, as gendered migration pathways, language acquisition and integration experiences affect entrepreneurial aspirations and opportunities.

Opportunity development may consequently become more prominent within processes of liability–asset reconfiguration. Migrant entrepreneurs may increasingly focus on identifying, developing and exploiting opportunities rather than merely ensuring business survival (David et al., 2026; Chang et al., 2025; Polychronopoulos et al., 2025). Nevertheless, liability–asset reconfiguration is neither automatic nor irreversible. Migration-related experiences and relationships may become productive resources under particular organizational and institutional conditions, but they may also remain underutilized, be devalued, or generate new tensions. The central issue is therefore not whether liabilities are eventually replaced by assets, but under which conditions migration-related resources can be converted into entrepreneurial capabilities and opportunities.

Asset Enabling refers to a future-oriented condition in which migration-related experiences, identities, relationships and resources may function as enabling assets that support entrepreneurial opportunity creation and competitive advantage. It should not be understood as a final or universally reached stage following Liability Bounding and Liability–Asset Reconfiguration. Rather, it directs attention to the organizational, institutional and ecosystem conditions under which migration-related resources can be converted into entrepreneurial capabilities and opportunities.

In contrast to Liability Bounding, where entrepreneurial activities are constrained by migration-related barriers and Liability – Asset Reconfiguration, where entrepreneurs seek to navigate and recombine migration-related constraints and resources, Asset Enabling describes situations in which these resources actively facilitate entrepreneurial development and value creation. Migration-related characteristics that may previously or simultaneously be associated with liabilities – such as foreignness, transnationality, ethnic identity, cultural difference and mobility experiences – may become valuable sources of entrepreneurial advantage under particular conditions.

Entrepreneurial actions may therefore be directed toward leveraging these resources to create opportunities and support venture development. Relevant mechanisms may include leveraging transnational networks, utilizing distinctive resource configurations, pursuing internationalization, developing entrepreneurial resilience and creating connections between local and global opportunity structures. Migration-related resources may consequently support entrepreneurial growth, innovation, internationalization and competitive advantage. Their effects, however, depend on access to complementary resources, institutional recognition, organizational support and entrepreneurs' positions within markets and entrepreneurial ecosystems (Riaño et al., 2024; Glinka et al., 2023; Elo et al., 2022; Stoyanov et al., 2018).

Transnational networking represents one potentially important mechanism of Asset Enabling. Polychronopoulos et al. (2025) demonstrate that transnational migrant entrepreneurship is associated with distinct configurations of human, social and financial capital that span national boundaries. Their findings suggest that migrant entrepreneurs may leverage cross-border relationships and resources to develop entrepreneurial opportunities beyond local markets. Similarly, Brambini-Pedersen et al. (2025) show that first-generation immigrant entrepreneurs possess extensive transnational and professional networks. Such networks may provide access to additional information, relationships and opportunities and may therefore become enabling assets for entrepreneurial development across borders.

Internationalization further illustrates the potential of Asset Enabling. Polychronopoulos et al. (2025) show how migrant entrepreneurs combine resources and relationships located in different national contexts when pursuing transnational entrepreneurial activities. Migration-related mobility experiences and cross-border networks may therefore facilitate international opportunity development rather than merely representing barriers to local integration. However, internationalization should not be understood as an automatic outcome of migrant status. Its realization depends on the configuration of human, social and financial capital as well as on institutional access and support.

Entrepreneurial resilience may also play an important role in future processes of Asset Enabling. Alka et al. (2025) identify resilience as an increasingly prominent theme in migrant entrepreneurship research. Migration experiences may contribute to adaptive capabilities that help entrepreneurs navigate uncertainty, institutional differences and resource constraints. Nevertheless, adversity should not itself be treated as an entrepreneurial resource. Whether experiences associated with migration and displacement can support resilience depends on how they are interpreted, socially supported and combined with other resources and opportunities.

Asset Enabling is therefore conditional rather than automatic. Migration-related resources may support opportunity creation, internationalization, innovation and ecosystem development when they are recognized, combined with complementary forms of capital and supported by appropriate organizational and institutional arrangements. They may also remain underutilized, be devalued, or generate new tensions across different markets and audiences. The future research challenge is consequently to identify when, how and for whom migration-related experiences and relationships can be converted into sustainable entrepreneurial capabilities and broader organizational and societal value.

As indicated throughout this editorial, the landscape of migrant entrepreneurship is undergoing substantial transformation, reflecting broader changes in migration patterns, labor markets, digitalization, transnational mobility and increasingly complex socio-political contexts. The articles included in this special issue capture important dimensions of these changes across individual, family, firm, network, ecosystem and field levels.

Migrant entrepreneurs are more diverse in terms of their backgrounds, motivations, resources, migration pathways, forms of embeddedness and types of venture creation than earlier conceptualizations often suggested. Consequently, migrant entrepreneurship research has moved beyond exclusively deficit-oriented accounts centered on ethnic enclaves, necessity entrepreneurship and structural disadvantage. This development, however, does not imply that liabilities have disappeared or become analytically irrelevant. Rather, contemporary research increasingly recognizes the coexistence of structural constraints, entrepreneurial agency, transnational embeddedness, intersectional differences and heterogeneous resource configurations.

Taken together, the articles in this special issue show that migration-related experiences, identities, relationships and resources are neither liabilities nor assets in themselves. Their entrepreneurial effects depend on how they are combined, governed, recognized and institutionally enabled. Family and ethnic ties may provide trust, labor, control and information, while also creating obligations or constraints. Professional and transnational networks may expand access to knowledge and opportunities, but their value varies across generations and institutional settings. Human, social and financial capital may support transnational venture creation when configured in complementary ways, while access to ecosystem resources remains influenced by language competence, legitimacy, network affiliation and unequal power relations.

This perspective contributes to organizational change research by showing that organizations and entrepreneurial ecosystems are not merely contexts in which migrant entrepreneurship occurs. Family firms, support organizations, financial institutions, professional networks and entrepreneurial ecosystems actively shape whether migration-related resources can be converted into entrepreneurial capabilities. They may facilitate access and recognition, but they may also reproduce exclusion, unequal visibility and resource asymmetries. Migrant entrepreneurs, in turn, are not simply recipients of organizational and institutional change. Through their ventures, financing practices, network activities and transnational relationships, they may navigate, reproduce and sometimes transform the organizational and ecosystem structures in which they operate.

Recognizing migrant entrepreneurs' agency is therefore important, but agency should not be separated from the organizational and institutional conditions under which it is exercised. Experiences associated with foreignness, displacement, cultural difference, or transnational mobility may contribute to resilience, creativity and opportunity development under supportive conditions. They may also remain underutilized, be institutionally devalued, or generate conflicting expectations across different markets and audiences. The relevant question is not whether liabilities will ultimately be replaced by advantages, but when, how and for whom migration-related resources can become productive and how sustainable entrepreneurial capabilities are developed over time.

Future research should investigate these processes longitudinally and across multiple levels of analysis. Greater attention is needed to the temporal development of resource configurations, the role of organizational gatekeepers and entrepreneurship support programs, the interaction between agency and ecosystem power and cases in which resource conversion remains incomplete or fails. Research should also move beyond entrepreneurial entry and intentions to examine venture development, innovation, internationalization, family governance and well-being. Future research should also investigate the capacity of migrant entrepreneurs to contribute to organizational, ecosystem and societal change when addressing social and environmental sustainability challenges to understand resilience and degrowth.

The contributions to this special issue therefore point toward a research agenda centered on the conditions of asset enabling. Such an agenda avoids portraying migrant entrepreneurs either primarily as disadvantaged outsiders or as inherently advantaged transnational actors. Instead, it emphasizes the dynamic and context-dependent processes through which migration-related characteristics may constrain, support, or transform entrepreneurial actions.

The guest editors would like to thank all the authors for their valuable contributions and insightful research on the past, present and future changes in the migrant entrepreneurship landscape across diverse theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches and empirical contexts. The guest editors also extend their sincere appreciation to all reviewers for their constructive feedback, rigorous evaluations and dedication throughout the review process. Their expertise and commitment have played a crucial role in strengthening the quality and scholarly contribution of this special issue. Finally, the guest editors express their deepest gratitude to the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Organizational Change Management, Professor Sławomir Magala, for his continuous support, guidance and encouragement throughout the development of this special issue.