Master Thesis. Ethnic entrepreneurship in the Netherlands: Differences between first and second generation a social networks perspective

Transcription

1 Master Thesis Ethnic entrepreneurship in the Netherlands: Differences between first and second generation a social networks perspective Etienne Aras September 2010 Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Master of Science in Business Administration Master Strategic Management Thesis coach: Woody van Olffen Thesis co-reader: Tao Cheng

2 Preface The writing of this master thesis was a long and interesting journey for me. I had some difficulties to find an interesting topic, but when I was there eventually, it gave me the energy and motivation to complete the study. I have learned a lot from the literature, the people I spoke with and the discussions with the coaches, but most of all I learned to manage a project on my own an be totally and solely responsible for the result of it. For this experience I wish to thank several individuals. First of all I would like to thank my coach Woody van Olffen. With his advices, insights and commentary on written parts, I was able to finish my study. His approach to students, where he makes the student the leading guide in their own thesis writing, turned out to be working well for me. In addition, I would also like to thank my co-reader Tao Cheng with his insights on the results. Secondly, I would like to thank the Turkish network organization HOGIAF, who provided me their help with finding Turkish entrepreneurs willing to fill in the questionnaire. Special thanks to the managing director of HOGIAF, Mr. Ahmet Taskan who gave his permission and his secretary Lisanne Marks who was my correspondent partner. Thirdly, I would like to thank my father, Christian Aras, for his support and his help to find colleagues who were willing to check my thesis writing. So my thanks to Simon Mansell and Colin Smith. Finally, I would like to thank my family and Iris for their support and love during the entire process of composing this thesis. The copyright of the Master thesis rests with the author. The author is responsible for its contents. RSM is only responsible for the educational coaching and cannot be held liable for the content. RSM- Strategic Management - 2 -

3 Table of contents Executive summary -4- Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction Problem definition & research questions Research objective -9- Chapter 2 Literature review 2.1 Ethnicity and entrepreneurship Ethnicity and entrepreneurship in the Netherlands Social networks Social networks ethnic entrepreneurs Conceptual model & propositions -14- Chapter 3 Methodology 3.1 Research design Data collection Turkish entrepreneurs Sample Measures General background descriptives Dependent variable Independent variable -23- Chapter 4 Results 4.1 General results Business network results Capital results Labour results Information results -45- Chapter 5 Conclusion and discussion 5.1 Main results Contributions to literature Limitation and future research -53- References -55- Appendices -58- RSM- Strategic Management - 3 -

4 Executive summary This thesis carries the findings of research on ethnic entrepreneurs. Present-day literature focus mostly on 1 st generation ethnic entrepreneurs. Except for more explorative studies by van den Tillaart (2001), EIM (2004) and Rusinovic (2006), the new phenomenon of immigrant entrepreneurship has not been investigated. In order to start a business, entrepreneurs require information, capital, skills and labour to start their business activities. While they hold some of these resources themselves, they often complement their resources by accessing their contacts (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Aldrich et al, 1991). In order to acquire these resources entrepreneurs make use of their social networks. Although social networks have many dimensions, the mix of weak and strong ties is at the core of the debate about network benefits (Uzzi, 1997; Lechner et al. 2006, Jack, 2005; Batjargal 2003). Strong ties are associated with the exchange of fine-grained information and tacit knowledge, trust-based governance and resource cooptation (Elfring & Hulsink, 2003). According to Granovetter (1973), the strength of weak ties is that they enable the individual to reach actively and purposefully outside his or her immediate close social circle and to draw upon information, advice and assistance from a large, diverse pool. It is clear, that both strong and weak ties are useful and contribute to the emergence and growth of firms, although they are beneficial in different ways and at different stages of a company s development (Elfring & Hulsink, 2003). On the ethnic social network side, it is given that ethnic entrepreneurs rely heavily on strong ties. Their own ethnic or social group appears to play an important role in the behaviour of ethnic entrepreneurs. The core of this group is formed by the (extended) family (Ram et al, 2000). By employing family members and others from their own social networks these ethnic entrepreneurs are in many cases able to increase flexibility and reduce cost (Kloosterman & Rath, 2000; EIM 2004). Although it seems that the strong ties of ethnic entrepreneurs bring only success, it also has disadvantages. According to Granovetter (1973) this strong focus on strong ties will lead to the fact that ethnic entrepreneurs will be unable to gain new information, advice and assistance from a large diverse pool. This is also noted by the EIM 2004, which claims that ethnic entrepreneurs are too much focused on strong ties (family, close friends, own ethnic group), which limits their businesses from making a healthy development. Furthermore, they investigated that ethnic entrepreneurs make little use of general and industry-related business networks, which could provide them with up-to-date information, new clients, new business contacts and interesting cooperation possibilities. RSM- Strategic Management - 4 -

5 This research focuses on differences between 1 st and 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs, given the fact that 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are more active in nontraditional business segments, more focussing on native customers, have a better command of the Dutch language, uphold more interpersonal relations with native Dutch persons and are overall more highly educated (EIM 2004; Rusinovic, 2006; Phizacklea and Ram, 1995; van den Tillaart, 2007). Therefore, it seems logical that 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are more reliant on their weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts. This research can be described as an exploratory survey research, which takes place during the early stages of research into a phenomenon, when the objective is to gain preliminary insight on a topic, and provides the basis for more in-depth survey (Forza, 2002). The unit of analysis refers to the level of data aggregation during subsequent analysis. In this research the unit of analysis are Turkish entrepreneurs from both 1 st and 2 nd generation living in the Netherlands. With the cooperation of Turkish network organization HOGIAF I was able to find ethnic entrepreneurs from both the 1 st as the 2 nd generation willing to fill in a questionnaire. They were questioned about their social networks composition, there access to capital, labour and information. With this information I was able to test if there were significant differences in the compositions of social networks between the 1 st and 2 nd generation. Furthermore, it gave data to test if either strong or weak ties were used in order to have access to resources. With that information I was again able to test if there were significant differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation. The dataset that was created provides data to test the propositions. The findings of the study were supporting the propositions. As proposed, this study has confirmed that there are significant differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation. It has made clear that the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are statistically significant more reliant on weak ties in order to have access to necessary resources (capital, labour and information) than their 1 st generation counterparts and that their social networks consist of significant more weak ties. This study will provide the reader with new insights on 2 nd generation entrepreneurship in the Netherlands on a social network perspective. RSM- Strategic Management - 5 -

6 1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction The growth of new ethnic populations in Europe since 1945 as well as waves of immigrants to the United States after the 1965 reform of immigration laws has made ethnic enterprise a topic of international concern (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990). Members of some groups have entered business ownership in numbers disproportionate to their group s size, whereas others have shunned entrepreneurial activities (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990). Also in the Netherlands, a significant proportion of the immigrant population has established itself as self-employed entrepreneurs (Kloosterman & Rath, 2000). The amount of self-employed immigrants has increased in percentage significantly over the past decades. According to Monitor Etnisch Onderschap 2004, financed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, the number of self-employed immigrants has been tripled in the period These facts indicate that self-employment among immigrants are of increasing growth and importance. According to Kloosterman & Rath (2000), ethnic entrepreneurship is still strongly orientated towards specific segments of the opportunity structure. About 60 percent of all immigrant entrepreneurs can be found in sectors such as wholesales, retail and restaurants (Kloosterman & Rath, 2000). Barriers to entry for setting-up businesses are relatively low. Nevertheless there has to be made a distinction between 1 st and 2 nd generation immigrants. 2 2nd generation immigrants are more diverse in business segments than 1 st generation immigrants especially for business services and other services (EIM, 2004). According to van den Tillaart (2007) there are also differences within the business segments itself. While the 1 st generation entrepreneurs that are active in business services focus mainly on contract cleaners and employment agencies, the 2 nd generation becomes more active in consultancy firms, software firms, public relations, research bureaus and lawyer agencies. Furthermore, it has been noted that 2 nd generation immigrant entrepreneurs are frequently more highly educated, entering entrepreneurship from different backgrounds to their 1 st generation counterparts and for different reasons (Phizacklea and Ram, 1995). 1 Appendix 1: EIM 2004, minority self-employed entrepreneurs in the Netherlands ( ) 2 Appendix 2: EIM 2004, business sectors first and second generation entrepreneurs, 1999 and 2002 (%) RSM- Strategic Management - 6 -

7 The importance of social networks for the founding and growth of entrepreneurial firms in this is acknowledged by many researchers (Brass et al., 2004; Greve & Salaff, 2003; Hite & Hesterly, 2001). On the ethnic social network side, it is given that ethnic entrepreneurs rely strongly on strong ties. Ram et al. (2000) stated that their own ethnic or social group appears to play an important role in the behaviour of ethnic entrepreneurs. These strong focus on strong ties will lead to the fact that ethnic entrepreneurs will be unable to reach new information, advice and assistance from a large diverse pool and finally limit their company growth. Present-day literature focus mostly on 1 st generation ethnic entrepreneurs. Except for more explorative studies by van den Tillaart (2001), EIM (2004) and Rusinovic (2006), the new phenomenon of immigrant entrepreneurship has not been investigated. This research will focus on differences between 1 st and 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs, given the fact that they are born in the Netherlands, frequently more highly educated, entering entrepreneurship from different backgrounds to their 1 st generation counterparts and for different reasons (Phizacklea and Ram, 1995). Are these 2 nd generation entrepreneurs manage their social networks different then their 1 st generation counterparts? Or are they also relying on their strong ethnic ties in order to have access to crucial resources? RSM- Strategic Management - 7 -

8 1.2 Problem definition & research questions The existing literature on ethnic entrepreneurship has been focused on 1 st generation entrepreneurs (van den Tillaart, 2001). This while 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurship is a growing phenomenon 3. The existing literature made clear that ethnic entrepreneurship is strongly orientated towards specific segments (Kloosterman & Rath, 2000) and that most ethnic entrepreneurs rather than breaking new ground are simply replicating and reproducing old forms (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990). These conclusions were most of the time made about 1 st generation ethnic entrepreneurs. In this time, while the 2 nd generation of non-western immigrants are starting and running businesses, it is interesting to research how they manage their businesses. On the social network side of this research, it is given that ethnic entrepreneurs rely heavily on strong ties. By employing family members and others from their own social networks these ethnic entrepreneurs are in many cases able to increase flexibility and reduce cost (Kloosterman & Rath, 2000; EIM 2004). According to Granovetter (1973) this strong focus on strong ties will lead to the fact that ethnic entrepreneurs will be unable to acquire new information, advice and assistance from a large diverse pool. This is also noted by the Monitor Etnisch Ondernemerschap 2004, which claims that ethnic entrepreneurs are too much focused on strong ties (family, close friends, own ethnic group), which limits their businesses from making a healthy growth. These literary findings suggest that a mix of strong and weak ties are required in order to gain resources, business opportunities, crucial information and finally firms growth. Given the fact that ethnic entrepreneurs rely heavily on their strong ethnic ties, the question arises whether they are able to manage firm growth and have access to necessary resources. And in this research specifically, the 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs, given the fact that they are born in the Netherlands, are frequently more highly educated, entering entrepreneurship from different backgrounds to their 1 st generation counterparts and for different reasons (Phizacklea and Ram, 1995). Present-day literature gives no clear distinction of 1 st and 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs and the influence that can have on their use social networks. These literature gaps lead to the following problem definition; How do the social networks of 2 nd generation entrepreneurs differ from their 1 st generation counterparts in order to have access to crucial resources? 3 Appendix 3: van den Tillaart (2007), development of 1st and 2nd generation ownership of businesses ( ) RSM- Strategic Management - 8 -

9 The research questions formulated below should be answered to solve the problem definition; How is the mix of strong and weak ties in the social network of 2 nd generation entrepreneurs composed? How is the mix of strong and weak ties in the social network of 1 st generation entrepreneurs composed? What are the differences/ similarities between 1 st and 2 nd generation non- Western entrepreneurs with regard to the mix and use of their social networks and access to resources? 1.3 Research objective The objective of this research is to gain a clear understanding of differences in social networks between 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. In this case the setting will be the Netherlands. The overall goal is to understand if there are differences in the mix and use of social networks in order to have access to crucial resources (capital, labour and information), and if so in what measure. In the following chapter, the literature review will be treated. Subjects like ethnic entrepreneurship in general, 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurship, social networks and tie strengths will be examined. Furthermore, the propositions will be formulated as well as the conceptual model will be shown. The third chapter, methodology, will show how the propositions are tested, the research design, the data collection and sample and the measurement methods of the variables. The fourth chapter, results, will have its focus on the data that is collected. It gives an overview of the most important findings, mostly based on differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. The fifth chapter, conclusion and discussion, summarizes the purposes of the research, the most important findings and if the results are satisfying, the propositions are analyzed critically, the limitations of the research are discussed, unavailable data are mentioned and the generalization of the study is discussed. The implications for theory as well as practice are discussed. The thesis ends with the reference list and appendices. RSM- Strategic Management - 9 -

10 2. Literature Review 2.1 Ethnicity and entrepreneurship The growth of new ethnic populations in Europe since 1945 as well as waves of immigrants to the United States after the 1965 reform of immigration laws has made ethnic enterprise a topic of international concern (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990). Members of some groups have entered business ownership in numbers disproportionate to their group s size, whereas others have shunned entrepreneurial activities (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990). These immigrant entrepreneurs are affecting cities in numerous ways, as, for example, by revitalizing formerly derelict shopping streets, by introducing new products and new marketing strategies, by fostering the emergence of new spatial forms of social cohesion and by opening up trade links between faraway areas that were hitherto unconnected through so-called transnational communities (Kloosterman & Rath, 1999). In general, the ethnic entrepreneurs motivation to start their own businesses can be expressed in terms of push and pull factors (Masurel & Nijkamp, 2004). According to Deakins (1999), the history of disadvantage and discrimination has led to the concentration of ethnic minority firms and entrepreneurs in marginal areas of economic activity. Van Delft (2000) stated that ethnic entrepreneurship has become a popular strategy in developing principles of self-reliance among ethnic groups, because it stimulates and encourages immigrants to take care of themselves, with only limited support from the government. Kloosterman et al (1998) stressed the fact that high levels of unemployment provide the motivation for immigrants to become entrepreneurs. According to Light (1972) initial markets for ethnic entrepreneurs typically arise within the ethnic community itself. This brings certain problems. First, if ethnic businesses remain limited to the ethnic market, their potential for growth is sharply circumscribed (Aldrich et al., 1983). In that case the obstacle to growth is the ethnic market itself, which can support only a restricted number of businesses because it is quantitatively small. Second, because exclusion from job opportunities leads many immigrants to seek out business opportunities, business conditions in the ethnic market tend toward proliferation of small units, intense competition (low-entry barriers) and a high failure rate (Aldrich & Waldinger, 1990). This indicates that most of the ethnic entrepreneurs are, rather than breaking new ground in products, process, or administrative form, simply replicating and reproducing old forms for their ethnic market (Aldrich & Waldingen, 1990). Kloosterman & Rath (2000) contribute to this by claiming that because of low barriers to entry, the markets in which these immigrant entrepreneurs RSM- Strategic Management

11 operate are, generally highly competitive. The main competitors of ethnic entrepreneurs are often co-nationals or co-ethnics, and competition is largely based on price rather than quality. 2.2 Ethnicity and entrepreneurship in the Netherlands Also in the Netherlands, a significant proportion of the immigrant population has established itself as self-employed entrepreneurs (Kloosterman & Rath, 2000). The amount of self-employed immigrants has increased in percentage significantly over the past decades. In 1987, 3,3 percent of the minority labour force was self-employed. Ten years later this percentage is more than doubled to 7,4 percent of the minority labour force (Kloosterman & Rath, 2000). According to Monitor Etnisch Ondernemerschap 2004, financed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, the number of self-employed immigrants has been tripled in the period These facts indicate that selfemployment among immigrants are of increasing growth and importance. It was mentioned earlier that most of the ethnic entrepreneurs are simply replicating and reproducing old business forms. This applies to the Netherlands as well. Immigrant entrepreneurship, although becoming more diverse, is still strongly orientated towards specific segments of the opportunity structure. About 60 percent of all immigrant entrepreneurs can be found in sectors such as wholesale, retail and restaurants (Kloosterman & Rath, 2000). Barriers to entry for setting-up businesses are relatively low. Nevertheless there has to be made a distinction between 1 st and 2 nd generation immigrants. 5 In defining these groups, the 1 st generation refers to those persons who were born abroad and of whom at least one parent was born abroad. Persons who were born in Netherlands from at least one parent was born abroad belong to the 2 nd generation (CBS, 2000). From history we know that, as the years go by, the melting pot will often do its work, resulting in the increased merging of immigrant and native groups. It therefore seems a likely assumption that 2 nd generation immigrants show a profile that comes closer to the profile of autochthonous people, in comparison with their 1 st generation counterparts (Masurel & Nijkamp, 2004). 4 Appendix 1: EIM 2004, minority self-employed entrepreneurs in the Netherlands ( ) 5 Appendix 2: EIM 2004, business sectors first and second generation entrepreneurs, 1999 and 2002 (%) RSM- Strategic Management

12 This is also implicated by other researches like the EIM (2004) which claims that 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are more diverse in business segments than 1 st generation entrepreneurs especially for business services and other services. According to van den Tillaart (2007) there are also differences within the business segments itself. While the 1st generation entrepreneurs that are active in business services focus mainly on contract cleaners and employment agencies, the 2 nd generation becomes more active in consultancy firms, software firms, public relations, research bureaus and lawyer agencies. Rusinovic (2006) claims that the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are much more focussing on native customers and go beyond their ethnic markets in contrast to the 1 st generation entrepreneurs. Furthermore, it has been noted that 2 nd generation immigrant entrepreneurs are frequently more highly educated, entering entrepreneurship from different backgrounds to their 1 st generation counterparts and for different reasons (Phizacklea and Ram, 1995; van den Tillaart, 2007; EIM 2004). 2.3 Social networks Entrepreneurs require information, capital, skills and labour to start their business activities. While they hold some of these resources themselves, they often complement their resources by accessing their contacts (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986; Aldrich et al, 1991). In order to acquire these resources entrepreneurs make use of their social networks. The importance of social networks for the founding and growth of entrepreneurial firms is acknowledged in a growing body of literature (Brass et al, 2004; Greve & Salaff, 2003; Hite & Hesterly, 2001). According to Brass (2004) social networks, (1) transfer information that gives rise to attitude similarity, imitation, and generation of innovations; (2) mediate transactions among persons; and (3) give differential access to resources and power. Although social networks have many dimensions, the mix of weak and strong ties is at the core of the debate about network benefits (Uzzi, 1997; Lechner et al. 2006, Jack, 2005; Batjargal 2003). Entrepreneurial networking research tends to embrace Granovetter s (1973,1983) account of the role of concrete personal relations that include strong ties to family and close friends as well as weak ties. Strong ties are associated with the exchange of fine-grained information and tacit knowledge, trust-based governance and resource cooptation (Elfring & Hulsink, 2003). According to Granovetter (1973), the strength of weak ties is that they enable the individual to reach actively and purposefully outside his or her immediate close social circle and to draw upon information, advice and assistance from a large, diverse pool. It is clear, that both strong and weak ties are useful and contribute to the emergence and growth of firms, although RSM- Strategic Management

13 they are beneficial in different ways and at different stages of a company s development (Elfring & Hulsink, 2003). 2.4 Social networks ethnic entrepreneurs On the ethnic social network side, it is given that ethnic entrepreneurs rely heavily on strong ties. Their own ethnic or social group appears to play an important role in the behaviour of ethnic entrepreneurs. The core of this group is formed by the (extended) family (Ram et al, 2000). By employing family members and others from their own social networks these ethnic entrepreneurs are in many cases able to increase flexibility and reduce cost (Kloosterman & Rath, 2000; EIM 2004). According to Song (1997) the children have an important role in ethnic businesses, mostly used as labour sources. The most significant characteristics of ethnic entrepreneurship in general are their client orientation and their access to capital and labour (Deakins, 1999). According to the EIM (2004), ethnic entrepreneurs use most of the time their family members or friends to have access to capital. Reasons for that are that banks often do not want to cooperate with them, because there are to many risks involved, and profits are to little (ethnic entrepreneurs ask most of the time for small amounts of capital). Besides these tangible aspects of entrepreneurship, intangible aspects can also be important; for example, Greene (1997) mentions that the ethnic community may be a source of such intangible assets as values, knowledge, or networks upon which entrepreneurs may draw. Van Delft et al (2000) revealed that ethnic-related social networks may provide several advantages: they appear to be multifaceted and flexible, and offer good possibilities for the efficient recruitment of personnel and capital. Lee et al (1997) called this phenomenon the social resources explanation : the success of ethnic minority businesses can in part be explained by the existence of such social resources as rotating credits, a protected market, and a labour source. Although it seems that the strong ties of ethnic entrepreneurs bring only success, it also has disadvantages. According to Granovetter (1973) this strong focus on strong ties will lead to the fact that ethnic entrepreneurs will be unable to gain new information, advice and assistance from a large diverse pool. This is also noted by the EIM 2004, which claims that ethnic entrepreneurs are too much focused on strong ties (family, close friends, own ethnic group), which limits their businesses from making a healthy development. Furthermore, they investigated that ethnic entrepreneurs make little use of general and industry-related business networks, which could provide them with up-todate information, new clients, new business contacts and interesting cooperation possibilities. This was also mentioned earlier in this review by the fact that ethnic RSM- Strategic Management

14 entrepreneurs remain limited to the ethnic market and therefore limit their potential for growth and business opportunities (Aldrich et al, 1983). Due to the fact that 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are more active in non-traditional business segments, more focussing on native customers, have a better command of the Dutch language, uphold more interpersonal relations with native Dutch persons and are overall more highly educated (EIM 2004; Rusinovic, 2006; Phizacklea and Ram, 1995; van den Tillaart, 2007), it seems logical that they are more reliant on their weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts. This theoretical framework leads to the following conceptual model. 2.5 Conceptual model & propositions To further explain the literature review, problem definition, research questions and objectives of this thesis proposal, a conceptual model will be illustrated below. The independent variables in this conceptual model are 1a) Non-Western 1 st generation entrepreneurs and 1b) Non-Western 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. The dependent variables are 2) Social Network and 3) Access to Resources. Dependent variable Social Network contains a mix of strong and weak ties, which are proposed to be different for 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation are used to explain how they have access to crucial resources: a) Capital, b) Labour and c) Information. 1a) Non-Western 1 st generation entrepreneurs 1b) Non-Western 2 nd generation entrepreneurs 2) Social Network (Tie mix & strength) 3) Access to Resources a) Capital b) Labour c) Information Conceptual model This research will focus differences on social networks composition and access to resources between the 2 nd generation, non-western entrepreneurs in comparison to their 1 st generation counterparts. In order to test the relations in this conceptual model the following propositions are claimed: RSM- Strategic Management

15 Proposition 1: The business network of 2 nd generation entrepreneurs consist of more weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts. Proposition 2: In order to have access to capital 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs are more reliant on weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts. Proposition 3: In order to have access to employees 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs are more reliant on weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts. Proposition 4: In order to have access to crucial information 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs are more reliant on weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts. In the next chapter the methodology of the research will be explained in order to get reliable results to answer the propositions. RSM- Strategic Management

16 3. Methodology The objective of this study is to gain a clear understanding of differences in social networks and their influence on resources between 1 st and 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs. In order to do so I have used structured surveys, which make this a quantitative study. Respondents from both the 1 st and the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs were asked to answer the questions in the survey. 3.1 Research design As the literature review of this research proposal illustrates, there is little theory about social networks of 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs. The focus on this research will be to create a better understanding of the role of social networks of 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs in comparison to their 1 st generation counterparts. That is why this research can be described as an exploratory survey research, which takes place during the early stages of research into a phenomenon, when the objective is to gain preliminary insight on a topic, and provides the basis for more in-depth survey (Forza, 2002). The unit of analysis refers to the level of data aggregation during subsequent analysis. In this research the unit of analysis are Turkish entrepreneurs from both 1 st and 2 nd generation living in the Netherlands. 3.2 Data collection For this study, a sample of ethnic entrepreneurs from the 1 st and 2 nd generation was necessary. At first a list with ethnic network organizations was conducted. These organizations were contacted and asked if they want to participate in this research. Finally, I made an appointment with the largest ethnic network organization in the Netherlands, HOGIAF ( HOGIAF is a business network organization for Turkish entrepreneurs in the Netherlands. They are the parent organization for ROGIAD (Rotterdam), DIAD (the Hague), AGIAD (Amsterdam), UGIAD (Utrecht), TIAD (Twente), VOGIAD (Veluwe & Overijssel), GIAD (Gelderland) and BIAD (Brabant) and therefore represented in all parts of the Netherlands. With more than 600 Turkish members, they try to support them by increasing their business networks, organizing all kinds of meetings (seminars, business dinners) with entrepreneurs, provide them with important information (economic, market, Dutch legislation) and possibilities to follow all kind of business, or language classes. Furthermore, HOGIAF tries to close alliances with banks, insurance and utility companies, to provide their members with interesting discounts. RSM- Strategic Management

17 The managing director of HOGIAF, Mr. Ahmet Taskan, was willing to help due to the social importance of the research topic. The condition was that the research would be focussed on Turkish entrepreneurs Turkish entrepreneurs The Turkish community in the Netherlands is the largest group of the non-western immigrants. The first wave of Turkish immigration to the Netherlands took place in the 1960s and 1970s. The shortage of unskilled labourers led the Dutch government to sign a treaty with the Turkish government for the immigration of what are known as guest labourers (Masurel & Nijkamp, 2004). However, soon after their arrival, the economic crisis hit the Dutch economy, especially in the old industries. Faces with the exclusion from new job opportunities in the restructured urban economy, a number of them tried to make a niche as small business entrepreneurs. According to CBS, nowadays there living Turks in the Netherlands in According to the EIM report (2004), the Turks are also the group with the most entrepreneurs in absolute figures. In 2002 there were Turkish businesses in the Netherlands. Only the Surinamese came close with businesses. 6 Besides the absolute figures, EIM developed also an entrepreneurship-quote, which takes a look at the number of entrepreneurs per people of the labour force. 7 Remarkable is that all 5 groups of non-western immigrants are growing towards entrepreneurship during the past two decades. In 2002, the entrepreneurship-quote for the Turks was 56, leaving the Moroccan s (24), the Surinamese (37) and the Antilleans (20) abundantly behind. Only the Chinese outperform all groups with an entrepreneurship-quote of 193. The entrepreneurship-quote for the autochthonous people in the Netherlands is 96. Compared to the other non-western immigrants it can be stated that the Turks have high entrepreneurial intensions (with exception of the Chinese), and are therefore an interesting group to use for this research Sample The selection of respondents was done in cooperation with HOGIAF. The agreement was that we needed 100 respondents, including 50 first generation entrepreneurs and 50 second generation entrepreneurs. HOGIAF would provide access to their members in order to find entrepreneurs willing to fill in the questionnaire and gave access to a mailing-list with Turkish entrepreneurs who were not member of HOGIAF. 6 Appendix 4: EIM 2004, ethnic entrepreneurs in the Netherlands, segmented by country of origin ( ) 7 Appendix 5: EIM 2004, entrepreneurship-quota, number of entrepreneurs per people of the labour force ( ) RSM- Strategic Management

18 HOGIAF contacted their members and provide me with 52 questionnaires filled in by Turkish entrepreneurs. Furthermore, to find Turkish entrepreneurs that were willing to fill in the survey I have used a mailing list consisting of Turkish entrepreneurs provided by HOGIAF. These Turkish entrepreneurs were not members of HOGIAF. I used an to contact them. Mailed questionnaires have the following advantages: cost savings; they can be completed at the respondent s convenience; there are not time constraints; they can be prepared to give an authoritative impression; they can ensure anonymity and they can reduce interviewer bias (Forza, 2002). Thesistools ( was used to put the survey online. The entrepreneurs on the mailing list were send an with information and were asked to fill in the survey through the link that was presented also. In total I have contacted 336 Turkish entrepreneurs and 29 entrepreneurs filled in the questionnaire. The response rate for this strategy was low, only 8,6% reacted to the questionnaire. An explanation for the low response rate could be that the survey was time consuming. Finally, I asked in my personal network a Turkish friend if he could bring me in contact with Turkish entrepreneurs. With his help I was able to add 6 filled in questionnaires more. In summary, this research used the members of network organization HOGIAF (52 respondents), a Turkish entrepreneurs mailing list (29 respondents) and my personal network (6 respondents) to find respondents for the questionnaire. This lead to the following breakdown of respondents. Breakdown of response group Turkish entrepreneurs 1st generation 2nd generation # of respondents average age 44,3 32,7 # of employees (fte) 7,6 6,0 Level of education average high Level of Dutch language moderate/ good good/ very good RSM- Strategic Management

19 3.3 Measures This paragraph explains how the different variables in the conceptual model are measured and how the questionnaire is build up. The survey can be found in appendices 6a and 6b (English and Dutch version) General background descriptives The first part of the questionnaire consists of general questions about the entrepreneur him of herself and how they look at entrepreneurship in general. This part of the questionnaire will be used to see if there are significant differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs on general subjects. These results will be used as background information. Below an overview of the general background questions. Age entrepreneurs : entrepreneurs were asked to fill in their age. Founding year : represent the question in what year the business of the entrepreneur was founded. Number of employees : entrepreneurs were asked to fill in their number of employees. With this information I will be able to see if the size of the businesses differ significantly from each other. Level of education : was measured on a ordinal scale, ranking from 1= low degree to 3= high degree. Level of education can give an indication if and in what matter 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are higher educated than their 1 st generation counterparts or not. Level of Dutch Language : was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1= very poor; 5= very good). This information can give an indication if and in what matter the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are having a higher level of Dutch language than the 1 st generation. Entrepreneurship of parents : was measured on a yes/no scale. With this information I will be able to see if there are differences on entrepreneurial activities of parents between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. Start reasons : entrepreneurs were asked why they decided to start an own business. Their answers were eventually clustered into categories: 1) independence, 2) social 8 Appendix 6a & 6b: questionnaire that is used for this research (Dutch and English version) RSM- Strategic Management

20 status, 3) market opportunities, 4) financial reasons, 5) poor terms of employment and 6) ambition. With this information I will be able to see if there are significant differences in starting reasons between 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. Satisfaction entrepreneurship : entrepreneurs were asked to answer their level of satisfaction with their choice for entrepreneurship. The question was measured on a 5- point Likert-scale, ranking from 1= very dissatisfied to 5= very satisfied. With this information I will be able to see if there are significant differences in level of satisfaction for the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. Advantage entrepreneurship : entrepreneurs were asked to sum up the most important advantages of entrepreneurship. Their answers were eventually clustered into categories: 1) independence/ flexibility, 2) satisfaction/ ambition, 3) financial reasons, 4) meeting people, 5) dynamic environment/ excitement and 6) development as person/ business. With this information I will be able to see if there are significant differences in advantages of entrepreneurship between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. Disadvantage entrepreneurship : entrepreneurs were asked to sum up the most important disadvantages of entrepreneurship. Their answers were eventually clustered into categories: 1) high pressure of work/stress, 2) no free time/ social life, 3) high responsibility, 4) financial risks/ uncertain income, 5) bureaucracy/ laws and regulation, 6) trust/ building networks and 7) no disadvantages. With this information I will be able to see if there are significant differences in disadvantages of entrepreneurship between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. Expand intentions : entrepreneurs were asked if they had expanding intentions for their business in the future. This question was measured on a yes/no scale. With this information I will be able to see if the 2 nd generation are having more expanding intention than the 1 st generation or not. This were the general questions of the questionnaire. The information will be used as background information. From this point, I will go to the measurement of the variables in order to find an answer if the proposition are supported or not. RSM- Strategic Management

21 3.3.2 Dependent variable The dependent variables in this research are Social Network and Access to Resources. Access to Resources is divided into a) capital, b) labour/employees and c) information. Below are the methods of measurement explained for the two dependent variables. Social Network and Tie Mix & Strength The independent variable Social Network present the network of the entrepreneurs in order have access to necessary resources. This network contains of strong and weak ties. Strong ties are associated with the exchange of fine-grained information and tacit knowledge, trust-based governance and resource cooptation (Elfrink &Hulsink, 2003). Weak ties are associated with enabling the individual to reach actively and purposefully outside his or her immediate close social circle and to draw upon information, advice and assistance from a large, diverse pool (Granovetter, 1973). In this study, strong ties are associated with family, friends and close acquaintances and weak ties with pure business contacts. The variable Social Network is measured with tie mix and strength. Turkish entrepreneurs were asked to answer questions about their social network both at the start as well as at this moment. Firstly, the respondents had to divide 100% over two questions at the start of their business. The first question involved the mix of family and friends in comparison to pure business contacts into their business network. Entrepreneurs were asked to divide 100% into 1)family contacts; 2)friends and close acquaintances and 3)pure business contacts. The second question asked to divide 100% over Turkish and non-turkish contacts into their business network. Secondly, the respondents had to fill in the same questions for their business network at this moment. With this information I will be able to define the tie strength and composition of their business networks, and give answer to the question whether the business networks of 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs differ significantly from each other. In addition, it gives an indication if and to what degree their business networks evolve over time. Access to Resources Different questions groups and scales were used to measure the variable Access to Resources, which is divided into a) capital, b) labour and c) information. The variable was also measured over time, 1) at the start of the business and 2) at this moment. Most important thing in the questionnaire are the options to divide 100% over different options which represent either strong or weak ties. RSM- Strategic Management

22 a) Capital The access to capital was measured by divide 100% questions and a 5-point Likert scale question. In this section, the start and building of the business and the business at this moment were divided and measured. To divide capital into subgroups, the research of Rusinovic (2007) was used. She distinguishes 1) formal financing (weak ties), 2) informal financing (strong ties) and 3) own resources. Respondents were asked to divide 100% over those three options at the start of the business and at this moment. Furthermore they were asked to divide their businesses informal financing, into Turkish contacts and other contacts, both at the start of the business as well as at this moment. The last question in the questionnaire to measure access to capital was a 5 point Likert scale question (1= very little; 5= very much) which tries to measure the expectation for the use of informal financing through Turkish contacts in the future. b) Labour The access to labour/ employees was also measured by divide 100% questions and a 5- point Likert scale question. Also in this section, the start and building of the business and the business at this moment were divided. To divide labour/personnel into subgroups, the research of Rusinovic (2007) was also used. She distinguishes 1) formal agencies (weak ties) and 2) informal network (strong ties). Respondents were asked to divide 100% over those two options at the start of the business and at this moment. Furthermore they were asked to divide 100% between Turkish employees (strong ties) and non-turkish employees (weak ties), also at the start of the business and at this moment. The last question in the questionnaire to measure access to labour was a 5 point Likert scale question (1= very little; 5= very much) which tries to measure the expectation for the use of informal networks in order to arrange Turkish employees in the future. c) Information The access to information was measured by divide 100% questions, two 5-point Likert scale questions and a question on a yes/no scale. Also in this section, the start and building of the business and the business at this moment were divided. To divide information into subgroups, the research of Rusinovic (2007) was also used. She distinguishes 1) general network contacts like network organizations, the Chamber of commerce (weak ties) and 2) network contacts of own ethnicity like Turkish network organizations (strong ties). Respondents were asked to divide 100% over those two options at the start of the business and at this moment. RSM- Strategic Management

23 The last questions in the questionnaire to measure access to information were two 5 point Likert scale questions. The first question (1= never; 5= often) tries to find out if their membership of Turkish network organization brings them in contact with Dutch entrepreneurs. The second question (1= very little; 5= very much) tries to measure the expectation to appeal to Turkish network contacts in order to have access to crucial information in the future Independent variable The independent variable in this study is 1 st or 2 nd generation. This variable will be used to make a comparison between the 1 st and 2 nd generation on all the other variables that are researched. With this distinction I will be able to give answers to the propositions whether they are supported or not. RSM- Strategic Management

24 4. Results In this chapter the results of the questionnaire are presented. There are 87 respondents questioned for this research. The 1 st generation entrepreneurs are represented by 44 respondents and the 2 nd generation by 43 respondents. This chapter is divided into 4.1 general background results, 4.2 business network results, 4.3 capital results, 4.4 employment results and 4.5 information results which represent the propositions in this research. 4.1 General background results In chapter 4.1 the general data of the entrepreneurs are analyzed. This includes age, industry, the founding year, the number of employees, the level of education, the level of Dutch language, entrepreneurship of parents, the starting reasons, the advantages and disadvantages of entrepreneurship in general and the expansion intentions. These results are used as background information and give an overview of the differences of the questioned 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. The data is analysed with the mean, standard deviation and number of observations. Furthermore ANOVA-tests were taken to test the level of significance in differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation of entrepreneurs. 9 Age entrepreneurs The average age differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are shown below. The questioned 2 nd generation entrepreneurs appear to be on average- 12 years younger than the questioned 1 st generation. This difference is statistically significant (pvalue 0.00) at a very strong level. Of course, this makes natural sense. Average age (N=87) Average age Total 1st generation 2nd generation generatio n Table 4.1 Average age entrepreneurs 9 Appendix 7: Overview of all general background variables test results RSM- Strategic Management

25 Founding year The average founding years of the businesses are presented below. The 1 st generation entrepreneurs have founded their businesses on average 12 years ago. The 2 nd generation have founded their businesses on average 6 years ago. This is a difference of on average- 6 years and statistically significant (p-value 0,00) at a very strong level. This difference makes, also, natural sense because the 1 st generation is of higher age than the 2 nd generation. Founding year (N=87) year Total 1st generation 2nd generation generation Table 4.2 Founding year businesses of entrepreneurs Number of employees The average number of employees are presented below. As shown, the differences between 1 st and 2 nd generation are not remarkable, 1,5 employees on average. The differences in number of fulltime employees between 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are also not significant (p-value 0,49). Therefore it can not be stated that 1 st generation entrepreneurs have significantly more employees than 2 nd generation or the contrary. Number of fulltime employees # of employees Total 1st generation 2nd generation # of employees generation Table 4.3 Average # of employees (fte) RSM- Strategic Management

26 Level of education Entrepreneurs were asked to fill in their highest degree. Three categories were possible: 1) low degree, 2) average degree, 3) high degree. In the literary review, it was stated that 2 nd generation entrepreneurs, due to among other things higher education, were more integrated into the Dutch society, and therefore more depending on weak ties. Also under the questioned entrepreneurs, the 1 st generation entrepreneurs have a lower level of education than the 2 nd generation. From the questioned 2 nd generation entrepreneurs, none of them have a low level of education, while the 1 st generation have 30% with a low degree. This difference is also statistically significant (p-value 0,00) an a very strong level. It can be stated that 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are higher educated than 1 st generation entrepreneurs. The figures below give an overview of the questioned entrepreneurs and their level of education in percentage. 1 st generation level of education (N=44) 2 nd generation level of education (N=43) Table 4.4 Levels of education for 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs in % Level of Dutch language Entrepreneurs were asked to fill in their mastery of the Dutch language on a 5-point Likert-scale ranking from 1) very poor to 5) very good. Their level of Dutch language, can give an indication if they are more reliant on strong or weak ties. The 1 st generation entrepreneurs questioned have, as supposed, a lower level of Dutch language than the 2 nd generation. The second generation score between good and very good (4,6) and the 1 st generation between moderate and good (3,6). This difference is statistically significant (p-value 0,00) at a very strong level. It can be stated that 2 nd generation entrepreneurs have a higher level of Dutch language than their 1 st generation counterparts. The tables give an overview in percentage (very poor is left out, both 0%). 1 st generation level of Dutch language (N=44) 2 nd generation level of Dutch language (N=43) Table 4.5 Levels of Dutch language mastery for 1 st and 2 nd generation in % RSM- Strategic Management

27 Entrepreneurship of parents Entrepreneurs were asked if their parents have or had an own business. From the 87 questioned entrepreneurs, 69 entrepreneurs have or had no parents with an own business. The other 18 entrepreneurs who have or had parents with an own business are divided into 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs from the 2 nd generation have statistically significant (p-value 0,03) more parents with an own business. 1 st generation parents entrepreneur (N=44) 2 nd generation parents entrepreneur (N=43) Table 4.6 Entrepreneurship of parents for 1 st and 2 nd generation in % Start reasons The percentages of starting reasons for 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are not very different from each other. Below are presented two bar charts of reasons to start an own business for both groups of entrepreneurs. The two starting reasons that differ the most are: poor terms of employment with a difference of 20% and ambition for entrepreneurship with a difference of 14%. Other categories do not differ too much. 1 st generation starting reasons (N=44) 2 nd generation starting reasons (N=43) Table 4.7 Reasons to start an own business for 1 st and 2 nd generation in % (multiple answers possible) The only starting reason that is statistically significant (p-value 0,007) is poor terms of employment. This indicates that 1 st generation entrepreneurs are significantly more driven to start an own business, when the terms of employment are not good for them. RSM- Strategic Management

28 This makes sense, given the fact that they are lower educated and have a lower level of the Dutch language, than the 2 nd generation, and therefore are less interesting for the labour market. Below the ANOVA-test results for starting reasons. Start reason ANOVAtest (F) Sig. 1= independence 0,09 0,77 2= social status 0,36 0,55 3= market opportunities 0,36 0,55 4= financial reasons 0,002 0,97 5= poor terms of employment 7,54 0,007 6= ambition 2,54 0,12 Table 4.8 ANOVA-tests for starting reasons entrepreneurship Satisfaction with entrepreneurship Entrepreneurs were asked to answer their satisfaction level of their choice for entrepreneurship. The question was on a 5-point Likert-scale, ranking from 1= very dissatisfied to 5= very satisfied. No statistical significance (p-value 0,57) was detected between the 1 st and 2 nd generation on satisfaction of entrepreneurship. They both scored between satisfied and very satisfied, and thus seem to be fortunate with their choice for entrepreneurship. Therefore it can not be stated that 1 st generation entrepreneurs are more satisfied with being an entrepreneur than their 2 nd generation counterparts or the contrary. Satisfaction entrepreneurs 1st or 2nd generation entrepreneur Mean N Std. Deviation 1st generation 4, ,71 2nd generation 4, ,05 Total 4, ,89 Table 4.9 Descriptive satisfaction of entrepreneurs & ANOVA-test result ANOVA-table F-value Sig. 0,33 0,57 Advantages of entrepreneurship Entrepreneurs were asked to sum up the most important advantages of entrepreneurship. It is remarkable that independence for both groups appears to be by far the most important advantage. The 1 st generation answer this 64% of the time, followed by satisfaction and financial reasons with both 16%. The 2 nd generation answer independence even more as the most important advantage (79%), followed by satisfaction with 12%. As mentioned before, Turkish people seem to be relatively more entrepreneurial than other ethnic groups, and independency appears to be the most important reason for that. Other results are presented in the two bar charts on the next page. RSM- Strategic Management

29 1 st generation advantages (N=44) 2 nd generation advantages (N=43) Table 4.10 Advantages of entrepreneurship for 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs in % (multiple answers possible) Meeting people appears to be the only advantage of entrepreneurship that is statistically significant (p-value 0,05). The 1 st generation seems to feel that meeting people is one of the important advantages of being an entrepreneur, contrary to the 2 nd generation. Below the results of the ANOVA-tests for all advantages Advantages entrepreneurship ANOVAtest (F) Sig. 1= independence/ flexibility 2,55 0,11 2= satisfaction/ pride/ ambition 0,33 0,57 3= financial reasons 1,71 0,20 4= meeting people 3,84 0,05 5= dynamic environment/ excitement 1,02 0,32 6= development as person/business 0,36 0,55 Table 4.11 ANOVA-test results for advantages entrepreneurship Disadvantages of entrepreneurship Entrepreneurs were also asked to sum up the most important disadvantages of entrepreneurship. Financial risks appears to have the most difference between both groups of entrepreneurs, with 19% difference. Most common disadvantage for both groups is high pressure of work/ stress. It is remarkable that 11% of the 1 st generation says that there is no disadvantage for entrepreneurship, while none of the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs give this answer. Other disadvantage results are presented on the next page. RSM- Strategic Management

30 1 st generation disadvantages (N=44) 2 nd generation disadvantages (N=43) Table 4.12 Disadvantages of entrepreneurship for 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs in % Financial risks (p-value 0,006) and no disadvantage (p-value 0,02) appear to be also the only two disadvantages of entrepreneurship that are statistically significant (p-value 0,05), between the 1 st and 2 nd generation. The 2 nd generation entrepreneurs appears to be more aware of the financial risks that entrepreneurship brings than 1 st generation. Below the results of the ANOVA-tests for all disadvantages Disadvantages entrepreneurship ANOVA-test (F) Sig. 1= high pressure of work/ stress 0,09 0,76 2= no free time/ low social life 0,79 0,38 3= high responsibility 0,18 0,68 4= financial risks/ uncertain income 8,10 0,006 5= bureaucracy/ laws and regulation 0,66 0,42 6= trust/ building networks 1,03 0,31 7= no disadvantage 5,39 0,02 Table 4.13 ANOVA-test results disadvantages of entrepreneurship RSM- Strategic Management

31 Expansion intentions Entrepreneurs were asked if they had expansion intentions for their business in the future. There appears to be a little difference in expand intentions between the 1 st and 2 nd generation. The expansion intentions of 1 st generation entrepreneurs are divided into 70% with expand intentions and 30% with no expand intentions; 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are divided in respectively 81% expand and 19% no expand intentions. This difference is statistically not significant (p-value 0,24). Therefore, it can not be stated that the 1 st generation have more expand intentions than the 2 nd generation or the contrary. 1 st generation expansion intentions(n=44) 2 nd generation expansion intentions(n=43) Table 4.14 Expansion intentions by 1 st and 2 nd generation in % RSM- Strategic Management

32 4.2 Business network results In this chapter the business networks of both groups of entrepreneurs are analyzed. This includes the composition of the business networks at the start of the business, the business network at the moment and their Turkish contacts. Entrepreneurs were asked to divide 100% over 1) family, 2) friends/ close acquaintances and 3) pure business contacts. In this case, family and friends/ close acquaintances stand for strong ties and pure business contacts stand for weak ties. With this data the first proposition will be tested. According to the proposition: The business network of 2 nd generation entrepreneurs consist of more weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts, the test results should give significant differences towards the composition of the business networks of both groups of entrepreneurs. The data are analysed with the mean, standard deviation and number of observations. Furthermore ANOVA- tests were taken to test the level of significance in differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs 10. Business network start In this section the compositions of the business networks at the start of the business are analyzed. In total, the business networks of Turkish entrepreneurs at the start of their business are divided into 57,5% strong ties and 42,5% weak ties. It is remarkable that the differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation are very clear. While the network of 1 st generation entrepreneurs at the start consists of 68% (family and friends/ close acquaintances combined) strong and 32% (pure business contacts) weak ties, the 2 nd generation consists of 46,7% strong and 53,3% weak ties. These results support the proposition. Below is the bar chart presented with all the results. Composition of business network at the start in % 60 53, ,9 42,5 35, ,6 33,1 Family Friends/ close acquaintances Pure business contacts 10 0 Total N=87 1st generation N=44 2nd generation N=43 Table 4.15 Means composition of business network at start business in % 10 Appendix 8: Overview of all business network variables test results RSM- Strategic Management

33 The differences that are noticed are also tested with an ANOVA-test. The part of the business network that consist of family, differ 17,4% from each other. This result is also statistically significant (p-value 0,002), at a very strong level. Furthermore, friends/ close acquaintances do not differ too much from each other 4,9%, and is therefore not statistically significant (p-value 0,36). Finally, the pure business contacts are tested. With a difference of 21,3% this part of the business network is statistically significant (p-value 0,002), at a very strong level. Altogether, these results support the proposition. The business network of 2 nd generation entrepreneurs consist significantly more of weak ties (pure business contacts) at the start of their business than their 1 st generation counterparts. Turkish contacts start In this section the Turkish contacts within the business networks of the entrepreneurs are analyzed. Entrepreneurs were asked to divide 100% over Turkish and non-turkish contacts within their business network. It is remarkable that, in total, the business network of Turkish entrepreneurs consisted of almost 2/3 of Turkish contacts at the start of their business. The 1 st generation goes even further; 3/4 of their business network at the start consisted of Turkish contacts. Furthermore, the differences between 1 st and 2 nd generation are very clear. The 2 nd generation have 19,5% less Turkish contacts in their business network than their 1 st generation counterparts. These results are also statistically significant (p-value 0,002) at a very strong level. These results support the proposition. The 2 nd generation of entrepreneurs had less strong ties (Turkish contacts) into their network at the start of their business than the 1 st generation. Below is the bar chart presented with the results. Composition of Turkish contacts in netw ork at the start in % ,1 34,9 Total N=87 74,7 25,3 1st generation N=44 55,2 44,8 2nd generation N=43 Turkish contacts non-turkish contacts Table 4.16 Means composition of Turkish contacts at start business in % RSM- Strategic Management

34 Business network at the moment In this section the compositions of the business networks at the moment are analyzed. In total, the business networks of Turkish entrepreneurs are divided into 43% strong ties and 57% weak ties. This is a remarkable difference with the total results at the start (57,5% strong ties and 42,5% weak ties). It makes clear that although strong ties stay very important for Turkish entrepreneurs, over time, weak ties are becoming more important. The differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation are still very clear. While the network of 1 st generation entrepreneurs at the moment consists of 51,8% strong and 48,2% weak ties, the 2 nd generation consists of 33,9% strong and 66,1% weak ties. These results support the proposition. Below is the bar chart showing all the results. Composition of business network at this moment in % ,2 66,1 Family ,6 14,4 19,3 32,5 9,4 24,5 Friends/ close acquaintances Pure business contacts 0 Total N=87 1st generation N=44 2nd generation N=43 Table 4.17 Means composition of business network at the moment in % The differences that are noticed are also tested with an ANOVA-test. The part of the business network that consist of family, differ 9,9%% from each other. This result is also statistically significant (p-value 0,02), at a strong level. Furthermore, the difference between 1 st and 2 nd generation of friends/ close acquaintances has been increased from 4,9% at the start to 8% at the moment. This difference is also statistically significant (pvalue 0,08), although at a weak level. Finally, the pure business contacts are tested. With a difference of 17,9% this part of the business network is still statistically significant (p-value 0,003), at a very strong level. Altogether, these results support the proposition. The business network of 2 nd generation entrepreneurs consist significantly more of weak ties (pure business contacts) at the moment than their 1 st generation counterparts, although the 1 st generation is, over time, more dependent on their weak ties as well. RSM- Strategic Management

35 Turkish contacts at the moment In this section the Turkish contacts within the business networks of the entrepreneurs are analyzed. Entrepreneurs were asked to divide 100% over Turkish and non-turkish contacts within their business network. It is remarkable that, in total, the business network of Turkish entrepreneurs consists of 50/50 Turkish and non-turkish contacts, while at the start of their business it consisted of 2/3 Turkish contacts. Also the 1 st generation shows a large decrease: from 74,7% at the start to 59,7% (decrease of 15%). It shows again that 1 st generation entrepreneurs are, over time, more and more depending on their weak ties. Furthermore, the differences between 1 st and 2 nd generation are very clear. The 2 nd generation have 20,2% less Turkish contacts in their business network than their 1 st generation counterparts. These results are also statistically significant (p-value 0,00) at a very strong level. These results support the proposition. The 2 nd generation of entrepreneurs have, at the moment, more weak ties (Turkish contacts) into their business network than the 1 st generation. Below is the bar chart showing the results. Composition of Turkish contacts in business netw ork at this moment in % ,7 50,3 Total N=87 59,7 40,3 1st generation N=44 39,5 60,5 2nd generation N=43 Turkish contacts non-turkish contacts Table 4.18 Means composition of Turkish contacts at the moment business in % In conclusion, the proposition: the business network of 2 nd generation entrepreneurs consist of more weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts, is supported by the results. It is statistically significant that the business network of 2 nd generation entrepreneurs consists of more weak ties (pure business contacts and non-turkish contacts), than their 1 st generation counterparts. RSM- Strategic Management

36 4.3 Capital results In this chapter the access to capital for the start of the business and at the moment are analyzed. This includes the financing at the start of the business, the informal financing (loans of family, friends, close acquaintances), the financing at the moment and the intentions to make use of informal financing in the future. With this data we will try to answer the proposition: In order to have access to capital second generation ethnic entrepreneurs are more reliant on weak ties than their first generation counterparts. The data are analysed with mean, standard deviation and number of observations. Furthermore ANOVA-tests were taken to test the level of significance in differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. 11 Financing start business In this section the composition of financing sources at the start of the business is analyzed. In this survey, entrepreneurs were asked to divide 100% over three sources of access to capital at the start of their business: 1) Formal financing: banks, government, subsidies (weak ties) 2) Informal financing: loans of family, friends, close acquaintances (strong ties) 3) Own resources: saving money, family capital Below the results are presented in a bar-chart. It is remarkable that own resources is the most important resource of capital, for both groups of entrepreneurs. The difference between the two groups is not statistically significant (p-value 0,78). The big difference is the use of formal financing. Only a very small percentage of financial resources (5,8%) of the 1 st generation make use of formal financing at the start of the business. In contrary, the 2 nd generation makes 21,4% use of formal financing. This difference is also statistically significant (p-value 0,005) at a very strong level. Composition of financing at the start of the business in % ,5 29,5 Total N= ,9 58 5,8 38,3 1st generation N=44 21,420,6 2nd generation N=43 Formal financing Informal financing Ow n resources Table 4.19 Means composition of financing at the start of the business in % 11 Appendix 9: Overview of all capital variables test results RSM- Strategic Management

37 Furthermore, 1 st generation entrepreneurs are making 17,7% more use of informal financing than their 2 nd generation counterparts. This difference is also statistically significant (p-value 0,009). These results support the proposition. As expected in the proposition 2 nd generation entrepreneurs seem to be more reliant on their weak ties (formal financing) than their 1 st generation counterparts at the start of an own business. Informal financing at the start In this section the informal financing at the start of the business is analyzed. Entrepreneurs were asked to divide 100% over Turkish and non-turkish informal financers to start their business. Respondents who answered that they did not make use of informal financing are filtered out. Without the respondents who did not make use of informal financing, 32 1 st generation entrepreneurs and 19 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are left. This difference shows again that 1 st generation entrepreneurs are making more use of informal financing than the 2 nd generation. Results of the Turkish and non-turkish financial resources are presented below. Composition informal financing at the start in % ,6 96,1 92,1 Total N=51 5,4 3,9 7,9 1st generation N=32 2nd generation N=19 Turkish contacts Non-Turkish contacts Table 4.20 Composition informal financing (Turkish/ non-turkish contacts) at the start of business in % It is remarkable that there is only a slight difference between the 1 st and 2 nd generation. This little difference is also not statistically significant (p-value 0,24). This indicates that both groups, when making use of informal financing, are depending on their Turkish contacts in order to have access to financial resources. RSM- Strategic Management

38 Financing at the moment In this section the composition of financing sources at the moment are analyzed. In this part, entrepreneurs were asked again to divide 100% over three sources of access to capital at the start of their business: 1) Formal financing: banks, government, subsidies (weak ties) 2) Informal financing: loans of family, friends, close acquaintances (strong ties) 3) Own resources: saving money, family capital Below are the results presented in a bar-chart. It is remarkable that formal financing has become more important for both groups. While formal financing at the start was 5,8% of the total financial resources for 1 st generation entrepreneurs, at the moment this part consist of 25% (increase of almost 20%). For the 2 nd generation the use of formal financing also increases, from 21,4% to 33,1% (increase of 11,7%). The difference for formal financing between the 1 st and 2 nd generation is not as big as at the start of the business. This is also shown in is the ANOVA-test results, which indicate that the difference is not statistically significant (p-value 0,29). Composition of financing at this moment in % ,7 Total N=87 60,3 59,5 61, ,5 1st generation N=44 33,1 5,7 2nd generation N=43 Formal financing Informal financing Ow n resources Table 4.21 Means composition of financing at the moment in % The use of informal financing has become less important for both groups of entrepreneurs, than it was at the start of the business. However, the difference between both groups is still statistically significant (p-value 0,01). Own resources are staying more or less at the same percentages and are still the biggest source of finance. These results support the proposition, however differences between the two are becoming smaller. The 1 st generation is still significantly more dependent on weak ties (informal financing) than the 2 nd generation of entrepreneurs. RSM- Strategic Management

39 Informal financing at the moment In this section the informal financing at the moment is analyzed. Entrepreneurs were asked to divide 100% over Turkish and non-turkish informal financial sources at the moment. Respondents who answered that they did not make use of informal financing are filtered out. Without the respondents who did not make use of informal financing, 23 1 st generation entrepreneurs and 8 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are left. This indicates that the importance of informal financing is decreasing. Results of the Turkish and non- Turkish financial resources are presented below. Composition informal financing at this moment in % ,7 92, Turkish contacts ,3 7,4 15 Non-Turkish contacts 0 Total N=31 1st generation N=23 2nd generation N=8 Table 4.22 Composition informal financing (Turkish/ non-turkish contacts) at the moment in % As shown, the difference between the 1 st and 2 nd generation have increased, in comparison to results at the start of the business. This difference is still not statistically significant (p-value 0,28). This indicates that both groups, when making use of informal financing, are mostly depending on their Turkish contacts in order to have access to financial resources. Informal financing intentions To measure intentions of informal financing through Turkish contacts in the future the following question was asked: To what extent do you expect to do informal financing through Turkish contacts in the future? The answers are measured with a 5-point Likertscale from 1) very little; to 5) very much. The results are presented below. Intentions informal financing 1st or 2nd generation entrepreneur Mean N Std. Deviation 1st generation 2, ,24 2nd generation 1, Total 2, ,21 ANOVA-table F-value Sig. 12,87 0,001 Table 4.23 Descriptive informal financing intentions & ANOVA-results The difference between the 1 st generation and 2 nd generation is statistically significant (pvalue 0,001) at a very strong level. It can be stated that the 2nd generation of RSM- Strategic Management

40 entrepreneurs expect to use significantly less strong ties (informal financing) in order to have access to financial resources than their 1st generation counterparts. In conclusion it can be stated that both at the start as well as at the moment 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are, in order to have access to financial resources, significantly less reliant on strong ties (informal financing) than their 1 st generation counterparts. Furthermore they have significantly less intention to use their informal contacts in order to have access to financial resources in the future. Therefore the proposition: In order to have access to capital second generation ethnic entrepreneurs are more reliant on weak ties than their first generation counterpart, is supported by the results. RSM- Strategic Management

41 4.4 Labour results In this chapter the access to employees for the start of the business and at the moment are analyzed. This includes the arrangement of employees at the start of the business and at the moment, and the number of Turkish employees. With this data we will try to find an answer to the proposition: In order to have access to employees 2nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs are more reliant on weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts. The data are analysed with mean, standard deviation and number of observations. Furthermore ANOVA-tests were taken to test the level of significance in differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. 12 Arrangement employees at the start At the start of a new business financial resources are limited and not every entrepreneur will be able to arrange employees. This was also the case on the data used for this research. From the 87 questioned entrepreneurs a number of 73 were able to arrange employees at the start of their business. The other respondents are filtered out for this variable. To measure arrangement of employees at the start of the business, entrepreneurs were asked to divide 100% over two possibilities to arrange employees at the start of their own business. The possibilities were: 1) Formal agencies (weak ties): recruitment agencies, labour exchange, employment ads; 2) Informal network (strong ties): through family, friends, close acquaintances. Below is an overview of the composition of this data for 1 st generation, 2 nd generation and in total. Composition of arrangement of employees at the start in % ,2 88,5 74,1 60 Formal agencies ,8 11,5 25,9 Informal netw ork 0 Total N=73 1st generation N=41 2nd generation N=32 Table 4.24 Means composition of arrangement of employees at the start in % There is a notable difference between 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs of 14,4% on formal agencies and informal network. This difference is statistically significant (p-value 0,03). As expected in the proposition 2 nd generation entrepreneurs seem to be more 12 Appendix 10: Overview of all employment variables test results RSM- Strategic Management

42 reliant on their weak ties (formal agencies) than their 1 st generation counterparts at the start of an own business. Turkish employees at the start Another question to test the use of strong and weak ties of the business network in order to have access to employees is the employees background. Entrepreneurs were asked to divide 100% over their total of employees at the start, in Turkish and non-turkish employees. The same filter as at arrangement of employees at the start was used. This gives a total of 73 entrepreneurs. Below is presented a bar chart which gives an overview of the composition of Turkish and non-turkish employees. Composition of Turkish/ non-turkish employees at the start in % ,1 86,1 72,3 60 Turkish ,9 13,9 27,7 non-turkish 0 Total N=73 1st generation N=41 2nd generation N=32 Table 4.25 Means composition Turkish/non-Turkish employees at the start in % In total this bar chart shows that 4 out of 5 employees (80,1%) at the start of a business are of Turkish origin. It shows that Turkish entrepreneurs in general rely strongly on strong ties when it comes to Turkish employees at the start of their business. As expected in the proposition, for 1 st generation entrepreneurs this is higher than 2 nd generation entrepreneurs (13,8% difference). This means that 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are statistically significant (p-value 0,057) more reliant on weak ties (non- Turkish employees) than the 1 st generation counterparts, but this difference is weak. Arrangement employees at the moment At the moment all 44 questioned 1 st generation entrepreneurs have employees. In contrary to the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs: 33 of the 43 questioned 2 nd generation entrepreneurs have employees at the moment. The 10 questioned 2 nd generation entrepreneurs without employees are filtered out to analyze the data. To measure arrangement of employees at the moment, entrepreneurs were asked to divide 100% over the same two possibilities as with the start; 1) formal agencies (recruitment agencies, labour exchange, employment ads) and 2) informal network (through RSM- Strategic Management

43 family, friends, close acquaintances). Below is an overview of the composition of this data for 1 st generation, 2 nd generation and in total. Composition of arrangement employees at this moment in % ,8 73,2 Total N=77 16,8 83,2 1st generation N=44 40,2 59,8 2nd generation N=33 Formal agencies Informal netw ork Table 4.26 Means composition of arrangement of employees at the start in % As shown in the bar chart the difference between 1 st and 2 nd generation is much bigger at the moment than at the start (14,4% start; 23,4% now). While both the 1 st and the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are using more weak ties (formal agencies) during the years that their business exists, the difference for the 2 nd generation grows much more; 1 st generation (11,5% to 16,8%) and 2 nd generation (25,9% to 40,2%). The differences between the two are as expected statistically significant (p-value 0,002), at a very strong significance level. This means that the proposition on this part is significantly correct; 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs are more reliant on weak ties (formal agencies) at the moment than their 1 st generation counterparts. Turkish employees at the moment In this part the entrepreneurs were again asked to divide 100% over their total of employees in Turkish and non-turkish employees, but as it stands now. The same filter as at arrangement of employees at the moment was used. This gives a total of 77 entrepreneurs. Below is presented a bar chart which gives an overview of the composition of Turkish and non-turkish employees at the moment. Composition of Turkish/non-Turkish employees at this moment in % ,5 32,5 Total N=77 77,4 22,6 1st generation N=44 54,4 45,6 2nd generation N=33 Turkish non-turkish Table 4.27 Means composition Turkish/non-Turkish employees at the moment in % RSM- Strategic Management

44 Also in this case there is a big difference over time. In total Turkish entrepreneurs at the start of their business are more reliant on Turkish employees than they are at the moment (80,1% to 67,5%). The difference between 1 st and 2 nd entrepreneurs has become bigger (13,8% to 23%). It seems that 2 nd generation entrepreneurs over time are more reliant on their weak ties (non-turkish employees) than the 1 st generation. This difference is also statistically significant (p-value 0,002) at a very strong level. As expected in the proposition this means that also in this case 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are significantly more reliant on weak ties than the 1 st generation entrepreneurs. Intentions to use informal network in the future To measure intentions of employment through Turkish contacts in the future the following question was asked: To what extent do you expect to arrange employment of Turkish employees through your informal network in the future? The answers are measured with a 5-point Likert-scale from 1) very little; to 5) very much. The results are presented below. Intentions employment through informal network ANOVA-table F-value Sig. 1st or 2nd generation Std. entrepreneur Mean N Deviation 24,34 0,00 1st generation 3, ,77 2nd generation 2, ,18 Total 3, ,12 Table 4.28 Descriptive employment intentions through informal network & ANOVA-results The difference between the 1 st generation and 2 nd generation is statistically significant (pvalue 0,00) at a very strong level. It can be stated that the 1 st generation of entrepreneurs is expecting to use significantly more strong ties (informal network) in order to arrange new employees than their 2 nd generation counterparts. In conclusion it can be stated that both at the start as well as at the moment 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are, in order to have access to employees, significantly more reliant on weak ties (formal agencies and non-turkish employees) than their 1 st generation counterparts. Furthermore they have significantly less intention to use their informal network in order to arrange new employees in the future. Therefore the proposition: In order to have access to employees 2nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs are more reliant on weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts, is supported by the results. RSM- Strategic Management

45 4.5 Information results In this chapter the access to information for the start of the business and at the moment are analyzed. Sources of information are divided into: 1) General/ industry specific network contacts (weak ties): chamber of commerce, banks, industry specific network organizations; 2) Turkish network contacts (strong ties): Turkish network organizations or business clubs, family, friends, close acquaintances. With these data we will try to find an answer to the proposition: In order to have access to crucial information second generation ethnic entrepreneurs are more reliant on weak ties than their first generation counterparts. The data are analysed with mean, standard deviation and number of observations. Furthermore ANOVA-tests were taken to test the level of significance in differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. 13 Access to information at the start To measure differences of sources in order to have access to information at the start of the business, entrepreneurs were asked to divide 100% over the two above mentioned possibilities: 1) general/ industry specific network contacts and 2) Turkish network contacts. Below is an overview of the composition of this data for 1 st generation, 2 nd generation and in total. Composition of sources to information at the start in % ,6 59,4 Total N=87 26,8 73,2 1st generation N=44 54,8 45,2 2nd generation N=43 General/ industry specific Turkish contacts Table 4.29 Means composition sources to information at the start in % There is a notable difference between 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs of 28% on general/ industry specific network contacts and Turkish network contacts. This difference is statistically significant (p-value 0,00) at a very strong level. As expected in the proposition 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are significantly more reliant on their weak ties (general/ industry specific network contacts) than their 1 st generation counterparts at the start of an own business. 13 Appendix 11: Overview of all information variables test results RSM- Strategic Management

46 Access to information at the moment To measure differences of sources in order to have access to information at the moment, entrepreneurs were asked again to divide 100% over the two possibilities as with the start; 1) general/ industry specific network contacts and 2) Turkish network contacts. Below is an overview of the composition of this data for 1 st generation, 2 nd generation and in total. Composition of sources to information at this moment in % ,4 50, ,1 40,9 General/ industry specific 30 Turkish contacts Total N=87 1st generation N=44 2nd generation N=43 Table 4.30 Means composition sources to information at the moment in % As shown in the bar chart the difference between 1 st and 2 nd generation is much smaller at the moment than at the start (19,1% now; 28% start). This means that, although 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are still significantly (p-value 0,003) more reliant on their weak ties in order to have access to information, the 1 st generation is also much more depending on weak ties (40% now; 26,8% start). All together it can be stated that the proposition is correct: 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are significantly more reliant on weak ties (general/ industry specific network contacts) at the moment than their 1 st generation counterparts. Membership business organizations Furthermore, entrepreneurs were asked if they were members of one or more business organizations. Below are the results presented. Membership business organizations 1 st generation Membership business organizations 2nd generation Table 4.31 Pie-chart membership of business organizations RSM- Strategic Management

47 It is remarkable that both the 1 st and the 2 nd generation present the same results (84% yes; 16% no). Therefore, it is not possible to state that the 1 st and 2 nd generation differ statistically (p-value 0,963) significantly from each other. In conclusion, both the 1 st and 2 nd generation have a high membership of business organizations and do not differ from each other. Furthermore, entrepreneurs were asked to sum up their membership of business organizations. In that way, it is possible to see if there are significant differences between the sort of business organizations 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are members of. The entrepreneurs who were not members of any business organization are filtered out. This leaves a number of 73 entrepreneurs analysed. The results are presented below. Sort of membership business organizations percentage Turkish General Industry specific 1st generation 2nd generation Table 4.32 Membership of business organizations divided into subcategories What is remarkable in these results is that membership of Turkish business organizations for both groups is very high (81%). It seems that, although 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are significantly more dependent on their weak ties in order to have access to information, they still have strong feelings for their Turkish background. The general business organizations are the only one which differ statistically significantly (p-value 0,084) between 1 st and 2 nd generation, although at a weak level. In conclusion, it can be stated that the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are still dependent on their strong ties when it comes to membership of Turkish business organizations. Furthermore, it can be stated that 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are significantly more members of general business organizations (weak ties) than their 1 st generation counterparts and thus, more dependent on weak ties. RSM- Strategic Management

48 Intentions to use Turkish contacts future To measure intentions of access to information through Turkish contacts in the future the following question was asked: To what extent do you expect to appeal to Turkish network contacts in order to gain crucial information in the future? The answers are measured with a 5-point Likert-scale from 1) very little; to 5) very much. The results are presented below. Intentions information through Turkish contacts ANOVA-table 1st or 2nd generation entrepreneur Mean N Std. Deviation F-value 2,001 Sig. 0,161 1st generation 3, ,13 2nd generation 2, ,00 Total 2, ,07 Table 4.33 Descriptive employment intentions through informal network & ANOVA-results The difference between the 1 st generation and 2 nd generation is not statistically significant (p-value 0,161). Therefore, it can not be stated that the 1 st generation of entrepreneurs are expecting to use significantly more strong ties (Turkish contacts) in order to have access to information than their 2 nd generation counterparts. This means that although the 2 nd generation is making significantly more use of general network contacts (weak ties), both the 1 st and 2 nd generation are expecting to depend on their Turkish contacts in the future at more or less the same level. In conclusion it can be stated that at the start as well as at the moment 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are, in order to have access to information, significantly more reliant on weak ties (general/ industry specific network contacts) than their 1 st generation counterparts, which makes the proposition correct. Therefore the proposition: In order to have access to crucial information second generation ethnic entrepreneurs are more reliant on weak ties than their first generation counterparts, is supported by the results. Furthermore it has also shown that the 2 nd generation is still depending on Turkish network organizations at the same level as the 1 st generation, which shows that their Turkish background still plays an important role. In the last chapter, conclusion and discussion, the main conclusions are presented which give an answer whether the propositions are supported or not. Furthermore, it presents contributions to prior research and the limitations and future research possibilities. RSM- Strategic Management

49 5. Conclusion and Discussion In this chapter the main results are presented in order to give an answer whether the propositions are supported or not. Furthermore, the contributions to prior literature, limitations and future research will be discussed. 5.1 Main results As discussed in the literature review, it has been noted that 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are frequently more highly educated, entering entrepreneurship from different backgrounds to their 1 st generation counterparts and for different reasons (Phizacklea and Ram, 1995; van den Tillaart, 2007; EIM 2004). Furthermore, research showed that it is an likely assumption that 2 nd generation immigrants show a profile that comes closer to the profile of autochthonous people, in comparison with the 1 st generation (Masurel & Nijkamp, 2004). As shown in the results, both generation entrepreneurs are questioned on general subjects under which education, level of Dutch language and reasons to start an own business. As expected in the literature education as well as level of Dutch language show statistically significant differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs. It can be stated that 2 nd generation entrepreneurs have a higher level of education and Dutch language that their 1 st generation counterparts. This is not the case for starting reasons, where almost no statistical evidence was found that these reasons are different. The reasons to start an own business do not differ much from each other. The only starting reason that is statistically different is poor terms of employment, which indicates that 1 st generation entrepreneurs are significantly more driven to start an own business due to poor terms of employment at the labour market. This makes sense, seen the fact that they are lower educated and have a lower level of Dutch language than the 2 nd generation, and therefore are less interesting for employers. After the general part of the questionnaire, the entrepreneurs were asked to answer questions about their business network and access to necessary resources. These answers were used in order to test the propositions. With these results the research question: How do the social networks of 2 nd generation entrepreneurs differ from their 1 st generation counterparts in order to have access to crucial resources? will be answered. The next paragraphs present the most important test results and whether these support the propositions or not. RSM- Strategic Management

50 P.1: The business network of 2 nd generation entrepreneurs consists of more weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts. Proposition 1 is confirmed. Although both groups of entrepreneurs at the start of their business are strongly reliant on strong ties (1 st generation 68%; 2 nd generation 46,7%), the difference between the two is statistically significant (p.0,002). Over time, the importance of strong ties seems to be decreasing (1 st generation 51,8%; 2 nd generation 33,9%), although it still remains at a high level. The difference between the 1 st and 2 nd generation is still significant (p.0,02). Like studies from Kloosterman & Rath (2000), Ram et al (2000), EIM(2004) are stating, this study confirms that ethnic entrepreneurs rely heavily on strong ties, with an addition that the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are significantly less relying on strong ties than their 1 st generation counterparts. P.2: In order to have access to capital 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs are more reliant on weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts. Proposition 2 is confirmed. Deakins (1999) stated that the most significant characteristics of ethnic entrepreneurship in general are their client orientation and their access to capital and labour. Furthermore, Lee at al (1997) claimed that the success of ethnic minority businesses can in part be explained by the existence of such social resources as rotating credits, a protected market, and a labour source. This study confirms their findings. From all entrepreneurs questioned only 13,5% of the total invested capital consist of formal financing (weak ties) at the start of their business. Over time, this figure increases to 29%. The other part of their invested capital comes from informal financing and own resources (strong ties), and thus are so-called social resources. In order to support the proposition the most important findings were that the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs at the start of their business were statistically significant more using formal financing than the 1 st generation (p.0,005), respectively 21,4%; 5,8%. Furthermore, at the moment the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are statistically significant (p. 0,01) less dependent on informal resources than the 1 st generation, although the differences are becoming smaller. A significant difference in formal financing at the moment could not be found. In conclusion it can be stated that both at the start as well as at the moment 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are, in order to have access to financial resources, significantly less reliant on strong ties (informal financing) than their 1 st generation counterparts. Furthermore they have significantly (p.0,001) less intention to use their informal contacts in order to have access to financial resources in the future. RSM- Strategic Management

51 P.3: In order to have access to employees 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs are more reliant on weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts. Proposition 3 is confirmed. Van Delft et al (2000) revealed that ethnic-related social networks may provide several advantages: they appear to be multifaceted and flexible, and offer good possibilities for the efficient recruitment of personnel and capital. This study confirmed these prior results: 82,2% of the total arranged employees were found through the questioned entrepreneurs informal network at the start of their business. Furthermore, 80,1% of the total arrangement of employees was of Turkish origin. Over time, these figures are decreasing. At the moment the 73,2% of the questioned entrepreneurs use their informal network to arrange new employees. In 67,5% of the cases these employees are of Turkish origin. In order to support the proposition the differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs were tested. Both at the start (p.0,03) as at this moment (p.0,002) the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are significantly more reliant on weak ties (formal agencies) than the 1 st generation. Also at the arrangement of employees they are more depending on weak ties (non-turkish employees), both at the start (p.0,057) as well as at the moment (p.0,002). Furthermore the 2 nd generation has significantly less intentions (p.0,00) to use their informal network in order to arrange new employees in the future. P.4: In order to have access to crucial information 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs are more reliant on weak ties than their 1 st generation counterparts. Proposition 4 is confirmed. In prior research, Greene (1997) mentions that the ethnic community may be a source of intangible assets as values, knowledge or networks upon which entrepreneurs may draw. This study confirms these prior studies: 59,4% of the total questioned entrepreneurs made use of their Turkish network contacts at the start of their business. Over time, this figure decrease to 50,6%, but is still at a high level. In order to support the proposition the differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs were tested. Both at the start (p.0,00) as at this moment (p.0,003) the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are significantly more reliant on weak ties (general/ industry specific network contacts) than the 1 st generation, at a very strong level. Furthermore, the entrepreneurs were asked to sum up their membership of business organizations. What was remarkable in these results is that membership of Turkish business organizations for both groups is very high (81%). It seems that, although 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are significantly more dependent on their weak ties in order to have access to information, they still have strong feelings for their Turkish background. RSM- Strategic Management

52 In conclusion it can be stated that at the start as well as at the moment 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are, in order to have access to information, significantly more reliant on weak ties (general/ industry specific network contacts) than their 1 st generation counterparts, which makes the proposition correct, although the 2 nd generation seems to have strong feelings for their Turkish background. Due to the fact that the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are more active in non-traditional business segments, more focussing on native customers, have a better command of the Dutch language, uphold more interpersonal relations with native Dutch persons and are overall more highly educated (EIM 2004; Rusinovic, 2006; Phizacklea and Ram, 1995; van den Tillaart, 2007), it seemed logical that they were more reliant on their weak ties than their first generation counterparts. This study has confirmed that and has made it clear that the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are statistically significant more reliant on weak ties in order to have access to necessary resources than their 1 st generation counterparts. With these results the research question How do the social networks of 2 nd generation entrepreneurs differ from their 1 st generation counterparts in order to have access to crucial resources? is answered. 5.2 Contributions to literature As discussed in the first chapter, present-day literature focus mostly on first generation ethnic entrepreneurs. Except for more explorative studies by van den Tillaart (2001), EIM (2004) and Rusinovic (2006), the new phenomenon of 2 nd generation immigrant entrepreneurship has not been investigated. Literature has shown that the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are born in the Netherlands, frequently more highly educated, entering entrepreneurship from different backgrounds to their 1st generation counterparts and for different reasons (Phizacklea and Ram, 1995), but did not made clear how the differences between them have influence on their use and mix of their business network. This research was focussed on differences between 1 st and 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs, specifically on their use and mix of social network in order to have access to crucial resources. As Aldrich & Zimmer (1986), mentioned in their study, entrepreneurs require information, capital, skills and labour to start their business activities. In order to acquire these resources entrepreneurs make use of their social networks. Granovetter (1973, 1983), divided the social networks into strong and weak ties, whereas strong ties are associated with the exchange of fine-grained information and tacit knowledge, trustbased governance and resource cooptation. The strength of weak ties is that they enable RSM- Strategic Management

53 the individual to reach actively and purposefully outside his or her immediate close social circle and to draw upon information, advice and assistance from a large, diverse pool. According to several researchers (Ram et. Al, 2000; Kloosterman & Rath, 2000; EIM, 2004; Greene, 1997), ethnic entrepreneurs rely heavily on strong ties. Van Delft et al (2000) revealed that ethnic-related social networks may provide several advantages: they appear to be multifaceted and flexible, and offer good possibilities for the efficient recruitment of personnel and capital. Although, these conclusions make sense and are presented by several researchers, they mostly do not take into account that the 2 nd generation of ethnic entrepreneurs could give other outcomes. This study has confirmed that ethnic entrepreneurs indeed are heavily reliant on their strong ties into their business networks. But there is a strong significant difference between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs, which indicates that, although strong ties are still important, weak ties are more important for the 2 nd generation. It has also make clear that there is a difference if entrepreneurs are at the start of their business or at this moment. At the start of a business, strong ties are much more important than after a few years when the business is running. But also at that moment, 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are significantly more reliant on their weak ties in order to have access to necessary resources like capital, employees and information than the 1 st generation. This study has tried to make a distinction between 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs, where most of prior literature have ignored the 2 nd generation phenomenon. Based on the outcomes, it has made clear that there are significant differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation, and that these outcomes are important enough to take into account for future research. 5.3 Limitation and future research This study has several limitations that could be taken into account for further research. First of all the quality could be improved by increasing the amount of respondents. For this study 87 entrepreneurs are questioned, under which 44 are of the 1 st generation and 43 of the 2 nd generation. This could be done for a much larger amount, which could improve the quality and significance of the study. Furthermore, the quality could also be improved by including a qualitative research, to understand the underlying reasons why ethnic entrepreneurs rely on strong ties in order to have access to necessary resources. Secondly, this study could be based on all the non-western ethnic groups living in the Netherlands. For this research, a sample of Turkish entrepreneurs was used. For future research it could be interesting to question Chinese, Surinamese, Moroccans, Antilleans and Turkish entrepreneurs separately from each other in order to find differences in RSM- Strategic Management

54 social network use and mix. It could be that, for example, Chinese 2 nd generation entrepreneurs show no significant differences on the use of social network in comparison to their 1 st generation counterparts, while the Turkish 2 nd generation entrepreneurs have shown that these differences are there. Third of all, this study does not make a comparison between the 2 nd generation ethnic entrepreneurs and Dutch entrepreneurs. This study made clear that the 2 nd generation entrepreneurs are significantly more reliant on weak ties in comparison to the 1 st generation, but make no comparison with Dutch entrepreneurs. This comparison could be interesting in order to see how the 2 nd generation is integrated into Dutch society and if their business practices are already comparable with Dutch entrepreneurs, or that they are still much different. Furthermore, this study does only take a look at social networks and access to resources. There are much more possible subjects that can be used to investigate differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation entrepreneurs, like innovations, business strategies, marketing methods and so on. Another subject what could be interesting to investigate are the succession/ failure rates of the 1 st and 2 nd generation ethnic businesses and the reasons behind it. Finally, this study was to small to divide entrepreneurs into industries. It could be that one industry shows much larger differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation than another. It would be very interesting to research if and which 2 nd generation entrepreneurs in which industries are ahead in using weak ties and are showing that they can stand on their own by decreasing the social ethnic community involvement to a minimum. Altogether, this study has shown that there are significant differences between the 1 st and 2 nd generation on use and mix of social networks and access to resources. It tries to find answers to areas that in present literature are not much researched and gives enough leads for future research. This future research should be focussed on larger studies involving other non-western ethnic groups, differences between industries, differences on other subjects and comparisons with Dutch entrepreneurs. RSM- Strategic Management

55 References Aldrich, H.E. (1983), From periphery to peripheral: the South Asian petite bourgeoisie in England, Research in the sociology of work vol.2/1, pp.1-32 Aldrich, H.E. & Zimmer, C. (1986), Entrepreneurship through social networks', in: D. Sexton & J. Kasarda (red.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Cambridge (MA). Aldrich, H. E. & Waldinger, R. (1990), Ethnicity and entrepreneurship'', Annual Review of Sociology, vol.16: pp Batjargal, B. (2003), Social capital and entrepreneurial performance in Russia: A longitudinal study, Organization Studies 24/4: pp Brass, D.J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H.R. & Tsai, W.P. (2004), Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective, Academy of Management Journal 47/6: pp CBS (2000)., Index number 10, Central Bureau of Statistics, The Hague, November/December, pp: CBS (2010)., Bevolking; geslacht, leeftijd, herkomstgroepering en generatie, 1 januari, 4=0&D5=0-4,137,152,215,232&D6=0,4,9,(l-1)-l&HDR=G2,G1,G3,T&STB=G4,G5&VW=T Deakins, D., (1999), Entrepreneurship and Small Firms, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, London, UK Delft, H. van et al. (2000), In search of ethnic entrepreneurship opportunities in the city: a comparative policy study, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol.18: pp Eisenhardt, M.K., (1989), Building theory from case study research, Academic of management review, 1989, Vol. 14, No. 4: pp Elfring, T., Hulsink, W., (2003). Networks in entrepreneurship: The case of high technology firms. Small Business Economics. 21 (4), Elfring, T. & Hulsink, W. (2007), Networking by Entrepreneurs: Patterns of Tie Formation in Emerging Organizations, Organization Studies 28/10: pp Forza, C. (2002), Survey research in operations management: A process-based perspective, International Journal of Operations & Production Management; vol.22/2, pp Granovetter, M. (1973), The strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, no. 6: pp RSM- Strategic Management

56 Granovetter, M. (1983), The strength of Weak Ties; a Network Theory Revisited, In P.V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social Structure and Network Analysis, pp , Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Granovetter, M. (1992), Economic institutions as social constructions: a framework for analysis, Acta Sociologica 35: pp Greene, P.G., (1997), A resource-based approach to ethnic business sponsorship: a consideration of Ismaili-Pakistani immigrants, Journal of Small Business Management, vol.35/4: pp Greve, A. & Salaff, J.W. (2003), Social networks and entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28/1: pp Hite, J.M., & Hesterly, W.S. (2001), The evolution of firm networks: From emergence to early growth of the firm, Strategic Management Journal 22/3: pp Jack, S.L. (2005), The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: A qualitative analysis, Journal of Management Studies 42/6: pp Kloosterman, R. et al. (1998), Across the border; immigrants' economic opportunities, social capital and informal business activities'', Journal of Ethnic and Migration, vol. 4: pp Kloosterman, R & Rath, J. (1999) Mixed embeddedness. (In)formal economic activities and immigrant business in the Netherlands, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 23 (2), June, pp Kloosterman, R. & Rath, J. (2000), A critical review of research on immigrant entrepreneurship, International migration review, vol.34, no.3: pp Lechner, C., Dowling, M. & Welpe, I. (2006), Firm networks and firm development: The role of the relational mix, Journal of Business Venturing 21/4: pp Lee,Y. et al. (1997), Ethnic minority small business: a comparative analysis of restaurants in Denver'',Urban Geography 18: pp Light, I.H., (1972), Ethnic Enterprise in America: Business and Welfare among Chinese, Japanese, and Blacks, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA Masurel, E. & Nijkamp, P. (2004), Differences between first-generation and second-generation ethnic start-ups: implications for a new support policy, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol.22: pp Ministry of Economic Affairs (2004), Monitor Etnisch Ondernemerschap 2004 Phizacklea, A. & Ram, M.(1995), Ethnic entrepreneurship in comparative perspective, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, vol.1/1: pp RSM- Strategic Management

57 Ram, M. et al. (2000), Ethnic minority business in comparative perspective: the case of the Independent Restaurant Sector, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 26: pp Rusinovic, K. (2006), Dynamic Entrepreneurship: First and second-generation immigrant entrepreneurs in Dutch cities. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Song, M. (1997), Children's labour in ethnic family businesses: the case of Chinese take-away businesses in Britain'',Ethnic and Racial Studies 20: pp Tillaart, van den H.(2007), Etnisch ondernemerschap in Nederland: ontwikkelingen en perspectieven, Migrantenstudies 23(2): pp Uzzi, B. (1997), Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness, Administrative Science Quarterly 42/1: pp Yin, R., (2009), Case study research: Design and Methods, Fourth Edition. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. RSM- Strategic Management

58 Appendices Appendix 1: minority self-employed entrepreneurs in the Netherlands ( ) ontwikkeling aantal niet-westerse allochtone ondernemers, Source: Monitor Etnisch Ondernemerschap 2004 RSM- Strategic Management

59 Appendix 2: business sectors first and second generation entrepreneurs Source: Monitor Etnisch Ondernemerschap 2004 RSM- Strategic Management

60 Appendix 3: development of first and second generation ownership of businesses ( ) Source: van den Tillaart (2007), etnisch ondernemerschap in Nederland: ontwikkelingen en perspectieven. Appendix 4: ethnic entrepreneurs in the Netherlands, segmented by country of origin ( ) RSM- Strategic Management

61 Appendix 5: entrepreneurship-quota, number of entrepreneurs per people of the labour force ( ) RSM- Strategic Management

62 Appendix 6a : Survey social networks of ethnic entrepreneurs (English version) Information entrepreneur Company name Country of origin/ birth Age Branch/ market/ type of company Company established in Survey social networks of ethnic entrepreneurs Number of fulltime employees (fte 36 hour) Highest degree How is your understanding and knowledge of the Dutch Language? : : : : : : : low degree/ average degree/ high degree Are/were your parents entrepreneurs Are you a 1 st or 2 nd generation entrepreneur? (2 nd generation is born in the Netherlands, with at least one parent born abroad) In case you are from the 1 st generation, in which year you came to the Netherlands : very poor/ poor/ moderate/ good/ very good : yes/ no : 1 st generation/ 2 nd generation : General questions 1) What is the reason that you started your own business? 2) How satisfied are you with starting your own business? (please circle correct answer) Very dissatisfied dissatisfied moderately satisfied satisfied very satisfied 3) Name an advantage and a disadvantage to entrepreneurship as you experience? Advantage entrepreneurship Disadvantage entrepreneurship.. 4) Are you intending to expand and grow of your business (more employees, more establishments? (please circle correct answer) yes/ no RSM- Strategic Management

63 Network entrepreneurs Contacts in business networks are: suppliers, information providers, capital investors, customers, advisors, recruiters, business partners Start company 5) What percentage of your business network consisted of 1) family, 2) friends/ close acquaintances and 3) pure business contacts at the start of the company? (divide to 100%) 1) Family 2) Friends/ close acquaintances 3) Pure business contacts Total..% % % 100% 6) What percentage of your business network consisted of Turkish contacts at the start of the company? (divide to 100%) Turkish contacts Dutch/ other ethnicity contacts Total..%.% 100% Present company 7) What percentage of your business network consist of 1) family, 2) friends/ close acquaintances and 3) pure business contacts at this moment? (divide to 100%) 1) Family 2) Friends/ close acquaintances 3) Pure business contacts Total..% % % 100% 8) What percentage of your business network consist of Turkish contacts at this moment? (divide to 100%) Turkish contacts Dutch/ other ethnicity contacts Total..%.% 100% RSM- Strategic Management

64 Capital For the start of an own business capital funds are required. There are several ways to gain capital. In this survey we divide three possibilities: 4) Formal financing: banks, government (subsidies) 5) Informal financing: loans of family, friends, close acquaintances 6) Own resources: saving money, family capital Start company 9) How is the start and building of your business funded? (divide to 100%) 1)Formal financing 2) Informal financing 3) Own resources Total..%..%...% 100% 10) What percentage of informal financing (loans of family, friends, close acquaintances) consisted of Turkish contacts at the start and building of the business? (divide to 100%) Informal financing Turkish contacts Informal financing other than Turkish contacts Total %..% 100% Present company 11) How is your company funded at this moment? (divide to 100%) 1)Formal financing 2) Informal financing 3) Own resources Total..%..%...% 100% 12) What percentage of informal financing (loans of family, friends, close acquaintances) consist of Turkish contacts at this moment? (divide to 100%) Informal financing Turkish contacts Informal financing other than Turkish contacts Total %..% 100% 13) To what extent do you expect to do informal financing through Turkish contacts in the future? (please circle correct answer) very little little some amount much very much RSM- Strategic Management

65 Personnel Recruitment of employees is common business in growing companies. There are several ways to recruit employees. In this survey we divide two possibilities. Formal agencies: recruitment agencies, labour exchange, employment ads Informal network: through family, friends, close acquaintances Start company 14) How did you arrange the employment of staff at the start and building of your business? (divide to 100%) Formal agencies Informal network Total %..% 100% 15) What percentage of your staff consisted of Turkish employees at the start and building of your business? (divide to 100%) Turkish employees Non-Turkish employees Total %..% 100% Present company 16) How do you arrange the employment of staff at this moment? (divide to 100%) Formal agencies Informal network Total %..% 100% 17) What percentage of your staff consist of Turkish employees at this moment? (divide to 100%) Turkish employees Non-Turkish employees Total %..% 100% 18) To what extent do you expect to arrange employment of Turkish employees through your informal network in the future? (please circle correct answer) very little little some amount much very much RSM- Strategic Management

66 Information Access to crucial information is of large importance for entrepreneurs. Information can be used to start a company, to gain knowledge of taxes, market changes and opportunities and so on. The network of an entrepreneur can be of great importance to gain this information. In this survey we divide two sort of information providers: General network contacts like network organizations, the Chamber of Commerce, banks, pure business contacts Turkish network contacts like Turkish network organizations, Turkish unions, family, friends, close acquaintances Start company 19) What percentage of crucial information did you arrange through general and Turkish network contacts at the start of your business? (divide to 100%) General network contacts Turkish network contacts Total %..% 100% Present company 20) What percentage of crucial information do you arrange through general and Turkish network contacts at this moment? (divide to 100%) General network contacts Turkish network contacts Total %..% 100% 21a) Are you a member of one or more business organizations? (please circle correct answer) Yes, namely:.. No 21 b) If you are only a member of a Turkish business organization, what is the reason for that? 22) Do these Turkish network organizations/ unions bring you in contact with Dutch entrepreneurs? (please circle correct answer) never almost never sometimes regularly often RSM- Strategic Management

67 23) To what extent do you expect to appeal to Turkish network contacts in order to gain crucial information in the future? (please circle correct answer) very little little some amount much very much Ethnic network organizations 24) Are you doing something to expand your businesses network? Yes, namely.. No, because.. 25) Do you think that a network organization (like HOGIAF) has to actively help in expanding the network of their members? If so, what can they do to do this properly?.. RSM- Strategic Management

68 Appendix 6b: Enquête sociale netwerken etnische ondernemers (Dutch version) Gegevens Bedrijfsnaam Land van herkomst/ geboorte Leeftijd Branche/ markt/ soort onderneming Bedrijf opgericht in Enquête sociale netwerken etnische ondernemers Aantal fulltime werknemers (fte 36 uur) Hoogst genoten opleiding met diploma Hoe goed beheerst u de Nederlandse taal? Zijn/waren uw ouders ondernemer? Bent u 1 e of 2 e generatie ondernemer (2 e generatie is zelf geboren in Nederland, met tenminste 1 ouder geboren in het buitenland) Indien u van de 1 e generatie bent in welk jaar bent u naar Nederland gekomen? Algemeen : : : : : : : laag opgeleid/ middelbaar opgeleid/ hoog opgeleid : zeer slecht/ slecht/ matig/ goed/ zeer goed : ja/ nee : 1 e generatie/ 2 e generatie 1) Waarom bent u destijds een eigen onderneming gestart? : 2) Hoe tevreden bent u achteraf met de keuze voor het ondernemerschap? (omcirkel juiste antwoord) zeer ontevreden ontevreden gematigd tevreden tevreden zeer tevreden 3) Noem één voordeel en één nadeel aan het ondernemerschap zoals u dit ervaart. Voordeel ondernemerschap.. Nadeel ondernemerschap 4) Ambieert u een uitbreiding en groei van uw onderneming (meer personeel, meer vestigingen)? Ja/ nee RSM- Strategic Management

69 Netwerken ondernemers Onder zakelijk netwerk verstaat men alle contacten die bijdragen aan het voortbestaan van de onderneming, bijvoorbeeld: leveranciers, informatieverstrekkers, financiers, afnemers, adviseurs, personeelsdiensten, business partners. Oprichting/start onderneming 5) Hoeveel procent van uw zakelijk netwerk bestond bij de start van uw onderneming uit 1) familie, 2) vrienden/ goede kennissen en 3) puur zakelijke contacten? (Verdeel tot 100%) 1) Familie 2) Vrienden/ goede kennissen 3)Puur zakelijke contacten totaal..% % % 100% 6) Hoeveel procent van uw zakelijk netwerk bestond bij de start van uw onderneming uit contacten met een Turkse achtergrond? (verdeel tot 100%) Turkse contacten Nederlandse/ andere etniciteit contacten totaal..%.% 100% De onderneming nu 7) Hoeveel procent van uw zakelijk netwerk bestaat op dit moment uit 1) familie, 2) vrienden/ goede kennissen en 3) puur zakelijke contacten? (Verdeel tot 100%) 1) Familie 2) Vrienden/ goede kennissen 3)Puur zakelijke contacten Totaal %.% % 100% 8) Hoeveel procent van uw zakelijk netwerk bestaat op dit moment uit contacten met een Turkse achtergrond? (verdeel tot 100%) Turkse contacten Nederlandse/ andere etniciteit contacten Totaal....%.% 100% RSM- Strategic Management

70 Kapitaal Kapitaal en financiering zijn noodzakelijk voor het starten van een eigen onderneming. Kapitaalverkrijging is op meerdere manieren mogelijk. Hier onderscheiden we drie mogelijkheden: 7) Formele financiering: banken, overheidsinstanties (subsidies) 8) Informele financiering: leningen van familie, vrienden, kennissen 9) Eigen middelen: spaargeld Oprichting/start onderneming 9) Hoe is de start en opbouw van uw bedrijf gefinancierd? (Verdeel tot 100%) 1)Formele financiering 2) Informele financiering 3) Eigen middelen Totaal..%..%...% 100% 10) Hoeveel procent van de informele financiering (leningen van familie, vrienden, kennissen) bestond bij de start en opbouw van uw onderneming uit Turkse contacten? (verdeel tot 100%) Informele financiering Turkse contacten Informele financiering buiten Turkse contacten (Nederlands e.d.) Totaal %..% 100% De onderneming nu 11) Hoe regelt u op dit moment de financieringen voor uw onderneming? (Verdeel tot 100%) Formele financiering Informele financiering Eigen middelen Totaal..%..%...% 100% 12) Hoeveel procent van de informele financiering bestaat bij op dit moment uit Turkse contacten? (verdeel tot 100%) Informele financiering Turkse contacten Informele financiering buiten Turkse contacten (Nederlands e.d.) Totaal %..% 100% 13) In hoeverre verwacht u in toekomst een beroep te (blijven) doen op informele financieringen via Turkse contacten? (omcirkel juiste antwoord) zeer weinig weinig enigszins veel zeer veel RSM- Strategic Management

71 Personeel Personeel aantrekken is noodzakelijk in groeiende ondernemingen. Het aantrekken van personeel kan op verschillende manieren. Hier worden twee mogelijkheden onderscheiden: Formele instanties: uitzendbureaus, arbeidsbureaus (CWI), personeeladvertenties Informeel netwerk: via familie, vrienden, kennissen Oprichting/start onderneming 14) Hoe regelde u het aantrekken van personeel bij de start en opbouw van uw onderneming? (Verdeel tot 100%) Formele instanties Informeel netwerk Totaal %..% 100% 15) Hoeveel procent van uw personeel bestond bij de start en opbouw van uw onderneming uit personen met een Turkse achtergrond? (verdeel tot 100%) Personeel met Turkse achtergrond Personeel zonder Turkse achtergrond Totaal %..% 100% De onderneming nu 16) Hoe trekt u op dit moment personeel aan? (Verdeel tot 100%) Formele instanties Informeel netwerk Totaal %..% 100% 17) Hoeveel procent van uw personeel bestaat op dit moment uit personen met een Turkse achtergrond? (verdeel tot 100%) Personeel met Turkse achtergrond Personeel zonder Turkse achtergrond Totaal %..% 100% 18) In hoeverre verwacht u in de toekomst een beroep te (blijven) doen op uw informele netwerk voor het aantrekken van personeel met een Turkse achtergrond? (omcirkel juiste antwoord) zeer weinig weinig enigszins veel zeer veel RSM- Strategic Management

72 Informatieverzameling Toegang tot informatieverzameling is belangrijk voor elke onderneming bijvoorbeeld voor het opstarten van een onderneming, belastingen, nieuwe kansen in de markt etc. Het netwerk kan hierin ook een grote rol spelen. In deze enquête worden twee verschillende netwerkcontacten onderscheiden: Algemene/ branchespecifieke netwerkcontacten zoals de Kamer van Koophandel, banken, puur zakelijke contacten Netwerkcontacten gericht op de eigen etniciteit/cultuur (Turks), familie, vrienden, kennissen, Turkse verenigingen Oprichting/start onderneming 19) Hoeveel procent van uw noodzakelijke informatie bij de start van uw onderneming heeft u verzameld via deze twee soorten contacten? (verdeel tot 100%) Algemene netwerkcontacten, kvk, banken Netwerkorganisaties eigen etniciteit (Turks), familie, vrienden, kennissen Totaal %..% 100% De onderneming nu 20) Hoeveel procent van uw noodzakelijke informatie voor uw huidige onderneming krijgt u via deze twee soorten contacten? (verdeel tot 100%) Algemene netwerkcontacten, kvk, banken Netwerkorganisaties eigen etniciteit (Turks), familie, vrienden, kennissen Totaal %..% 100% 21a) Bent u lid van een/meerdere ondernemersorganisatie(s)? Ja, namelijk:.. nee 21 b) Indien u alleen lid bent van een Turkse netwerkorganisatie, wat is hier de reden van? (Sla deze vraag over indien u ook lid bent van algemene organisatie/netwerken)?.. 21) Komt u via activiteiten van deze verenigingen/organisaties in contact met Nederlandse ondernemers? nooit bijna nooit soms regelmatig vaak RSM- Strategic Management

73 22) In hoeverre verwacht u in de toekomst een beroep te (blijven) doen op personen of instellingen met een Turkse achtergrond/identiteit voor uw noodzakelijke informatievoorziening? (omcirkel juiste antwoord) zeer weinig weinig enigszins veel zeer veel Etnische netwerkorganisatie 23) Doet u iets om uw netwerk uit te breiden? Ja, namelijk.. Nee, omdat.. 24) Bent u van mening dat een ondernemersorganisatie (zoals HOGIAF) ondernemers moet helpen bij het uitbreiden van hun netwerk? Indien ja, wat kunnen ondernemersorganisaties naar uw mening doen om hierbij te helpen?.. RSM- Strategic Management

74 Appendix 7: Variable test results general (N, mean, std. dev., ANOVA and significance) tested with generation Test # Variable X/ generation 1st or 2nd Total (N) M (sd) 1st generation (N) M (sd) 2nd generation (N) M (sd) F-value Sign. Diff. Level of sign. 14 General results 1 Age entrepreneurs M=38,54(sd=9,49) M=44,25(sd=8,88) M=32,69(sd=5,89) 50,87 0,00 **** 2 Founding year business M=2001,08 (sd=6,14) M=1998,23 (sd=6,59) M=2004(sd=3,93) 24,47 0,00 **** 3 N# of employees (Fte) M=6,77(sd=10,59) M=7,55(sd=10,05) M=5,98(sd=11,18) 0,47 0,49 ns 4 Highest degree entrepreneurs M=2,31(sd=0,72) M=2(sd=0,78) M=2,62(sd=0,49) 20,22 0,00 **** 5 Level of Dutch language mastery M=4,08(sd=0,92) M=3,57(sd=0,90) M=4,60(sd=0,58) 40,47 0,00 **** 6 Entrepreneurship of parents M=0,21(sd=0,41) M=0,11(sd=0,32) M=0,30(sd=0,46) 4,86 0,03 ** 7 Starting reason 1 independence M=0,36(sd=0,48) M=0,34(sd=0,48) M=0,37(sd=0,49) 0,09 0,77 ns 8 Starting reason 2 social status M=0,03(sd=0,18) M=0,02(sd=0,15) M=0,05(sd=0,21) 0,36 0,55 ns 9 Starting reason 3 market opportunities M=0,18(sd=0,39) M=0,16(sd=0,37) M=0,21(sd=0,41) 0,36 0,55 ns 10 Starting reason 4 financial reasons M=0,14(sd=0,35) M=0,14(sd=0,35) M=0,14(sd=0,35) 0,002 0,97 ns 11 Starting reason 5 poor terms of employment M=0,15(sd=0,36) M=0,25(sd=0,44) M=0,05(sd=0,21) 7,54 0,007 *** 12 Starting reason 6 ambition for entrepreneurship M=0,23(sd=0,42) M=0,16(sd=0,37) M=0,30(sd=0,46) 2,54 0,12 ns 13 Satisfaction entrepreneurship M=4,17(sd=0,89) M=4,23(sd=0,71) M=0,42(sd=1,05) 0,33 0,57 ns 14 Advantage 1 independence M=0,71(sd=0,46) M=0,64(sd=0,49) M=0,79(sd=0,41) 2,55 0,11 ns 15 Advantage 2 satisfaction M=0,14(sd=0,35) M=0,16(sd=0,37) M=0,12(sd=0,32) 0,33 0,57 ns 16 Advantage 3 financial reasons M=0,11(sd=0,32) M=0,16(sd=0,37) M=0,07(sd=0,26) 1,70 0,20 ns 17 Advantage 4 meeting people M=0,08(sd=0,27) M=0,14(sd=0,35) M=0,02(sd=0,15) 3,84 0,05 ** 18 Advantage 5 dynamic environment M=0,01(sd=0,11) M=0(sd=0) M=0,02(sd=0,15) 1,02 0,32 ns 19 Advantage 6 development M=0,03(sd=0,18) M=0,02(sd=0,15) M=0,05(sd=0,21) 0,36 0,55 ns 14 * = sig(10% ) ** = sig(5%) *** = sig(1%) **** = sig(0,1%) ns = not significant RSM- Strategic Management

75 General results continue 20 Disadvantage 1 high pressure M=0,38(sd=0,49) M=0,36(sd=0,49) M=0,40(sd=0,49) 0,09 0,76 ns 21 Disadvantage 2 no free time M=0,28(sd=0,45) M=0,32(sd=0,47) M=0,23(sd=0,43) 0,79 0,38 ns 22 Disadvantage 3 high responsibility M=0,08(sd=0,27) M=0,07(sd=0,25) M=0,09(sd=0,29) 0,18 0,68 ns 23 Disadvantage 4 financial risk M=0,15(sd=0,36) M=0,05(sd=0,21) M=0,26(sd=0,44) 8,1 0,006 *** 24 Disadvantage 5 bureaucracy M=0,07(sd=0,25) M=0,09(sd=0,29) M=0,05(sd=0,25) 0,66 0,42 ns 26 Disadvantage 6 trust building M=0,10(sd=0,31) M=0,14(sd=0,35) M=0,07(sd=0,26) 1,03 0,31 ns 27 Disadvantage 7 no disadvantage M=0,06(sd=0,23) M=0,11(sd=0,32) M=0(sd=0) 5,39 0,02 ** 28 Expanding intentions M=0,76(sd=0,43) M=0,81(sd=0,39) M=0,70(sd=0,46) 1,41 0,24 ns RSM- Strategic Management

76 Appendix 8: Variable test results business network (N, mean, std. dev., ANOVA and significance) tested with generation Test # Variable X/ generation 1st or 2nd Total (N) M (sd) 1st generation (N) M (sd) 2nd generation (N) M (sd) F-value Sign. Diff. Level of sign. 15 Business network results 29 Network start family M=21,90(sd=25,62) M=30(sd=28,41) M=13,60(sd=19,47) 9,82 0,002 *** Network start friends Network start business contacts Network start Turkish contacts Network start non Turkish contacts Network now family M=35,58(sd=24,48) M=42,52(sd=31,99) M=65,06(sd=30,12) M=34,94(sd=30,12) M=14,43(sd=20,27) M=37,95(sd=21,82) M=32,05(sd=28,74) M=74,66(sd=23,46) M=25,34(sd=23,46) M=19,32(sd=23,47) M=33,14(sd=26,99) 0,84 0,36 ns M=53,26(sd=31,88) 10,63 0,002 *** M=55,26(sd=33,15) 9,99 0,002 *** M=44,74(sd=33,15) 9,99 0,002 *** M=9,42(sd=15,05) 5,46 0,02 ** 35 Network now friends M=28,56(sd=20,98) M=32,5(sd=19,09) M=24,53(sd=22,25) 3,22 0,076 * Network now business contacts Network now business contacts Network now business contacts M=57,01(sd=28,62) M=49,71(sd=26,43) M=50,29(sd=26,44) M=48.18(sd=28,10) M=59,66(sd=21,14) M=40,34(sd=21,14) M=66,05(sd=26,52) 9,29 0,003 *** M=39,53(sd=27,64) 14,59 0,00 **** M=60,47(sd=27,64) 14,59 0,00 **** 15 * = sig(10% ) ** = sig(5%) *** = sig(1%) **** = sig(0,1%) ns = not significant RSM- Strategic Management

77 Appendix 9: Variable test results capital (N, mean, std. dev., ANOVA and significance) tested with generation Test # Variable X/ generation 1st or 2nd Total (N) M (sd) 1st generation (N) M (sd) 2nd generation (N) M (sd) F-value Sign. Diff. Level of sign Capital results Capital start formal financing Capital start informal financing Capital start own resources M=13,51(sd=26,06) M=29,54(sd=32,02) M=56,95(sd=34,23) M=5,80(sd=12,43) M=38,30(sd=30,25) M=55,91(sd=30,29) M=21,40(sd=33,51) 8,47 0,005 *** M=20,58(sd=31,63) 7,13 0,009 *** M=58,02(sd=38,17) 0,08 0,78 ns 43 Informal finance start Turkish N=51, M=94,61(sd=11,57) N=32, M=96,09(sd=8,40) N=19, M=92,11(sd=15,48) 1,43 0,24 ns Informal finance start non-turkish Capital now formal financing Capital now informal financing Capital now own resources Informal finance now Turkish Informal finance now non-turkish Intentions to use informal financing in the future N=51, M=5,39(sd=11,57) M=29,02(sd=35,34) M=10,70(sd=17,73) M=60,40(sd=36,17) N=31, M=90,65(sd=16,72) N=31, M=9,35(sd=16,72) M=2,18(sd=1,21) N=32, M=3,91(sd=8,40) M=25(sd=32,01) M=15,45(sd=19,79) M=59,55(sd=32,27) N=23, M=92,61(sd=15,73) N=23, M=7,39(sd=15,73) M=2,61(sd=1,24) N=19, M=7,89(sd=15,48) 1,43 0,24 ns M=33,14(sd=38,39) 1,16 0,29 ns M=5,71(sd=13,82) 6,94 0,01 *** M=61,28(sd=40,14) 0,05 0,83 ns N=8, M=85(sd=19,27) 1,24 0,28 ns N=8, M=15(sd=19,27) 1,24 0,28 ns M=1,74(sd=1.00) 12,87 0,001 *** 16 * = sig(10% ) ** = sig(5%) *** = sig(1%) **** = sig(0,1%) ns = not significant RSM- Strategic Management

78 Appendix 10: Variable test results employment (N, mean, std. dev., ANOVA and significance) tested with generation Test # Variable X/ generation 1st or 2nd Total (N) M (sd) 1st generation (N) M (sd) 2nd generation (N) M (sd) F-value Sign. Diff. Level of sign Employment results 51 Employees start formal agencies N=73, M=17,81(sd=28,58) N=41, M=11,46(sd=18,52) N=32, M=25,94(sd=36,51) 4,86 0,031 ** 52 Employees start informal network N=73, M=82,19(sd=28,58) N=41, M=88,54(sd=18,52) N=32, M=74,06(sd=36,51) 4,86 0,031 ** Turkish employees at the start Non-Turkish employees at the start N=73, M=80,07(sd=30,74) N=73, M=19,93(sd=30,74) N=41, M=86,10(sd=25,14) N=41, M=13,90(sd=25,14) N=32, M=72,34(sd=35,65) 3,72 0,057 * N=32, M=27,66(sd=35,65) 3,72 0,057 * 55 Employees now formal agencies N=77, M=26,82(sd=33,89) M=16,82(sd=25,70) N=33, M=40,15(sd=38,98) 9,99 0,002 *** 56 Employees now informal network N=77, M=73,18(sd=33,89) M=83,18(sd=25,70) N=33, M=59,85(sd=38,98) 9,99 0,002 *** Turkish employees at this moment Non-Turkish employees at this moment Intentions to use informal network future N=77, M=67,53(sd=32,47) N=77, M=32,47(sd=32,47) M=3,34(sd=1,12) M=77,39(sd=25,10) M=22,61(sd=25,10) M=3,86(sd=0,77) N=33, M=54,39(sd=37,74) 10,29 0,002 *** N=33, M=45,61(sd=37,74) 10,29 0,002 *** M=2,81(sd=1,18) 24,34 0,00 **** 17 * = sig(10% ) ** = sig(5%) *** = sig(1%) **** = sig(0,1%) ns = not significant RSM- Strategic Management

79 Appendix 11: Variable test results information (N, mean, std. dev., ANOVA and significance) tested with generation Test # Variable X/ generation 1st or 2nd Total (N) M (sd) 1st generation (N) M (sd) 2nd generation (N) M (sd) F-value Sign. Diff. Level of sign Information results 60 Information start general contacts M=40,63(sd=33,98) M=26,82(sd=30,95) M=54,76(sd=31,28) 17,55 0,00 **** Information start Turkish contacts Information general contacts at this moment Information Turkish contacts at this moment Membership business organization Membership Turkish organization Membership general organization Membership industry specific organization Intentions to use Turkish contacts future M=59,37(sd=33,98) M=49,43(sd=30,72) M=50,57(sd=30,72) M=0,84(sd=0,37) N=73, M=0,81(sd=0,40) N=73, M=0,08(sd=0,28) N=73, M=0,30(sd=0,46) M=2,91(sd=1,07) M=73,18(sd=30,95) M=40(sd=28,32) M=60(sd=28,32) M=0,84(sd=0,37) N=37, M=0,81(sd=0,40) N=37, M=0,03(sd=0,16) N=37, M=0,32(sd=0,47) M=3,07(sd=1,13) M=45,24(sd=31,28) 17,55 0,00 **** M=59,07(sd=30,38 9,18 0,003 *** M=40,93(sd=30,38) 9,18 0,003 *** M=0,84(sd=0,37) 0,002 0,963 ns N=36, M=0,81(sd=0,40) 0,003 0,955 ns N=36, M=0,13(sd=0,35) 3,07 0,084 * N=36, M=0,28(sd=0,45) 0,183 0,67 ns M=2,74(sd=1,00) 2,001 0,161 ns 18 * = sig(10% ) ** = sig(5%) *** = sig(1%) **** = sig(0,1%) ns = not significant RSM- Strategic Management

80 RSM- Strategic Management