Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Opportunity Structures from an Intersectional Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Minority Entrepreneurship

Abstract

The chapter criticises existing theoretical perspectives on opportunity structures, in relation to minority entrepreneurs, for the predominant insistence on they being objective, material rules and resources, and the same for everyone. In this chapter, an intersectional approach is adopted considering opportunity structures as discursive and divergent, acknowledging the involvement of policymakers, public officials and institutional representatives. Contextualising various opportunity structures in two national contexts, the chapter empirically illustrates how opportunity structures in a specific national context are not uniform and stable, but rather in the making, thus they differ for minority entrepreneurs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acar, Feride, and Gülbanu Altunok. 2013. “The ‘politics of intimate’ at the intersection of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism in contemporary Turkey.” In Women’s Studies International Forum 41: 14–23. Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahl, Helen. 2006. “Why research on women entrepreneurs needs new directions.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30, no. 5: 595–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Dajani, Haya, and Susan Marlow. 2013. “Empowerment and entrepreneurship: A theoretical framework.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 19, no. 5: 503–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, Howard E., and Roger Waldinger. 1990. “Ethnicity and entrepreneurship.” Annual Review of Sociology 16, no. 1: 111–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, Mats, and Kaj Sköldberg. 2000. Reflexive methodology. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apitzsch, Ursula. 2003 “Policies and their paradoxes: Gaining autonomy in self-employment processes.” International Review of Sociology 13, no. 1: 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arat, Yesim. 2010. “Religion, politics and gender equality in Turkey: Implications of a democratic paradox?” Third World Quarterly 31, no. 6: 869–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, Margaret S. 1995. Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, Margaret S. 2000. “For structure: Its reality, properties and powers; a reply to Anthony King.” Sociological Review 48: 464–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arends‐Tóth, Judith, and Fons JR Van de Vijver. 2003. “Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and Turkish–Dutch.” European Journal of Social Psychology 33, no. 2: 249–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Robert A. 2008. “The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process.” Academy of Management Review 33, no. 2: 328–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilgin, Elif. 2004. “An analysis of Turkish modernity through discourses of masculinities.” PhD diss., Middle East Technical University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blok Report Netherlands. 2004. Parliamentary commission on integration policy: English summary, chapter 10 summary, conclusions and recommendations. The Hague: Bruggen Bouwen SDU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, Attila, Silvia Gherardi, and Barbara Poggio. 2004. “Doing gender, doing entrepreneurship: An ethnographic account of intertwined practices.” Gender, Work and Organization 11, no. 4: 406–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calas, Marta B., Linda Smircich, and Kristina A. Bourne. 2009. “Extending the boundaries: Reframing entrepreneurship as social change through feminist perspectives.” Academy of Management Review 34, no. 3: 552–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, Sara, Samuel Mwaura, Monder Ram, Kiran Trehan, and Trevor Jones. 2015. “Barriers to ethnic minority and women’s enterprise: Existing evidence, policy tensions and unsettled questions.” International Small Business Journal 33, no. 1: 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, Kevin G., and Dennis A. Gioia. 2004. “Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off.” Administrative Science Quarterly 49, no. 2: 173–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. “Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics.” In University of Chicago Legal Forum 139–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt, Jonathan T., and Scott A. Shane. 2003. “Opportunities and entrepreneurship.” Journal of Management 29, no. 3: 333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECRI Report (Europe Commission against Racism and Intolerance). 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elveren, Adem Y. 2013. “A critical analysis of the pension system in Turkey from a gender equality perspective.” In Women’s Studies International Forum 41: 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entzinger, Han. 2003. “The rise and fall of multiculturalism: The case of the Netherlands.” In Toward assimilation and citizenship: Immigrants in liberal nation-states, edited by Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska, 59–86. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1999. Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Essers, Caroline. 2009. “Reflections on the narrative approach: Dilemmas of power, emotions and social location while constructing life-stories.” Organization 16, no. 2: 163–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Essers, Caroline, and Yvonne Benschop. 2007. “Enterprising identities: Female entrepreneurs of Moroccan or Turkish origin in the Netherlands.” Organization Studies 28, no. 1: 49–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fereday, Jennifer, and Eimear Muir-Cochrane. 2006. “Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5, no. 1: 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghorashi, Halleh. 2003. Ways to survive, battles to win: Iranian women exiles in the Netherlands and United States. New York: Nova Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghorashi, Halleh. 2010. “From absolute invisibility to extreme visibility: Emancipation trajectory of migrant women in the Netherlands.” Feminist Review 94, no. 1: 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göl, Ayla. 2009. “The identity of Turkey: Muslim and secular.” Third World Quarterly 30, no. 4: 795–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 91: 481–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiraudon, Virginie, Karen Phalet, and Jessika Ter Wal. 2005. “Monitoring ethnic minorities in the Netherlands.” International Social Science Journal 57, no. 183: 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, Marc. 2005. “Ethnic organisations and social movement theory: The political opportunity structure for ethnic mobilisation in flanders.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31, no. 5: 975–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humbert, Anne Laure, and Caroline Essers. 2012. “Turkish businesswomen in the UK and Netherlands: The effects of national context on female migrant entrepreneurs.” In Global women’s entrepreneurship research: Diverse settings, questions and approaches, edited by Karen D. Hughes and Jennifer E. Jennings, 15–35. Cheltenham/Northampton, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns, Gary. 2006. “The essential impact of context on organizational behaviour.” Academy of Management Review 31, no. 2: 386–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, Bruce A. 2007. Ethnographic methods in entrepreneurship research. In Handbook of qualitative research methods in entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Trevor, Monder Ram, Paul Edwards, Alex Kiselinchev, and Lovemore Muchenje. 2014. “Mixed embeddedness and new migrant enterprise in the UK.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 26, nos. 5–6: 500–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabeer, Naila. 2005. “Jumping to conclusions? Struggles over meaning and method in the study of household economics.” In Feminist visions of development: Gender analysis and policy, edited by Cecile Jackson and Ruth Pearson, 144–161. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandiyoti, Deniz. 2005. “Rethinking bargaining with patriarchy.” In Feminist visions of development: Gender analysis and policy, edited by Cecile Jackson and Ruth Pearson, 135–154. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karatas-Ozkan, Mine, Gozde Inal, and Mustafa Ozbilgin. 2010. “Turkey.” In International handbook of successful women entrepreneurs, edited by Sandra Fielden and Marilyn Davidson, 175–188. Cheltenham, New York: Edward Elgar Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyman, E. Fuat. 2014. “The AK party: Dominant party, new Turkey and polarization.” Insight Turkey 16, no. 2: 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloosterman, Robert C. 2010. “Matching opportunities with resources: A framework for analysing (migrant) entrepreneurship from a mixed embeddedness perspective.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 22, no. 1: 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloosterman, Robert, and John Rath. 2001. “Immigrant entrepreneurs in advanced economies: Mixed embeddedness further explored.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27, no. 2: 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloosterman, Robert, and John Rath. 2003. Immigrant entrepreneurs: Venturing abroad in the age of globalization. New York: University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloosterman, Robert, Joanne P. van der Leun, and John Rath. 1999. “Mixed embeddedness: Immigrant entrepreneurship and informal economic activities.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23, no. 2: 253–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, Ruud. 2006. “Tradeoffs between equality and difference—The crisis of Dutch multiculturalism in cross-national perspective.” Danish Institute for International Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • KOSGEB. 2016. http://www.kosgeb.gov.tr/. Accessed on 11 May 2016.

  • Koray, Meryem, Sevda Demirbilek, and Tunc Demirbilek. 1999. Gıda İşkolunda Çalışan Kadınların Koşulları ve Geleceği. Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Kadının Statusu ve Sorunları Genel Mudurluğu.

    Google Scholar 

  • KSGM (General Directorate of the Status of Women). 2014. www.kadininstatusu.aile.gov.tr. Accessed on 28 May 2014.

  • Lewis, Patricia. 2006. “The quest for invisibility: Female entrepreneurs and the masculine norm of entrepreneurship.” Gender, Work and Organization 13, no. 5: 453–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCall, Leslie. 2008. “The complexity of intersectionality.” In Intersectionality and beyond, 65–92. Cavendish: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCammon, Holly. 2013. “Discursive opportunity structure.” In The Wiley‐Blackwell encyclopedia of social and political movements. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, Melinda, Letizia Mencarini, Maria L. Tanturri, and Katia Begall. 2008. “Gender equity and fertility intentions in Italy and the Netherlands.” Demographic Research 18: 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mole, Kevin F., and Miranda Mole. 2010. “Entrepreneurship as the structuration of individual and opportunity: A response using a critical realist perspective: Comment on Sarason, Dean and Dillard.” Journal of Business Venturing 25, no. 2: 230–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montreuil, Annie, and Richard Y. Bourhis. 2001. “Majority acculturation orientations toward ‘valued’ and ‘devalued’ immigrants.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32: 698–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash, Jennifer C. 2008. “Re-thinking intersectionality.” Feminist Review 89, no. 1: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuendorf, Kimberly A. 2016. The content analysis guidebook. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD Publishing, and European Commission. 2014. The missing entrepreneurs: Policies for inclusive entrepreneurship in Europe. OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öniş, Ziya. 2012. “The triumph of conservative globalism: The political economy of the AKP era.” Turkish Studies 13, no. 2: 135–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozasir-Kacar, Sibel, and Caroline Essers. 2019. “The interplay between identity construction and opportunity structures: Narratives of Turkish migrant women entrepreneurs in the Netherlands.” International Small Business Journal 37, no. 7: 713–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özkazanc-Pan, Banu. 2015. “Secular and Islamic feminist entrepreneurship in Turkey.” International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 7, no. 1: 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfau‐Effinger, Birgit. 2004. “Socio‐historical paths of the male breadwinner model—An explanation of cross‐national differences.” The British Journal of Sociology 55, no. 3: 377–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Nelson, and Cynthia Hardy. 2002. Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction: Qualitative research methods series. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, Baukje, and Boris Slijper. 2002. “Multicultural society under attack: Introduction.” Journal of International Migration and Integration 3, no. 3: 313–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ram, Monder, and Trevor Jones. 2008. “Ethnic-minority businesses in the UK: A review of research and policy developments.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 26, no. 2: 352–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ram, Monder, Trevor Jones, and Maria Villares-Varela. 2017. “Migrant entrepreneurship: Reflections on research and practice.” International Small Business Journal 35, no. 1: 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rath, John. 2001. “Research on immigrant ethnic minorities in the Netherlands.” In The Politics of Social Science Research, 137–159. Palgrave Macmillan UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rath, John, and Robert Kloosterman. 2000. “Outsiders’ business: A critical review of research on immigrant entrepreneurship.” International Migration Review 34: 657–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, Mary, and Zulema Valdez. 2016. “Introduction to the special issue: Intersectionality and entrepreneurship.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39, no. 9: 1553–1565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusinovic, Katja. 2006. Dynamic entrepreneurship: First and second-generation immigrant entrepreneurs in Dutch cities. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarason, Yolanda, Tom Dean, and Jesse F. Dillard. 2006. “Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity: A structuration view.” Journal of Business Venturing 21, no. 3: 286–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schriemer, R. 2004. Analytical report on education: ‘National focal point for the Netherlands’. Leiden: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Siebers, Hans. 2010. “The impact of migrant-hostile discourse in the media and politics on racioethnic closure in career development in the Netherlands.” International Sociology 25, no. 4: 475–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, Robert Mark. 2000. Doing business in minority markets: Black and Korean entrepreneurs in Chicago’s ethnic beauty aids industry. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyaert, Chris, and Jerome Katz. 2004. “Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: Geographical, discursive and social dimensions.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 16, no. 3: 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolcke, Verena. 1995. “Talking culture: New boundaries, new rhetorics of exclusion in Europe.” Current Anthropology 36, no. 1: 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sultana, Abeda. 2012. “Patriarchy and women’s subordination: A theoretical analysis.” Arts Faculty Journal 4: 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toksöz, Gulay. 2011. “Women’s employment in Turkey in the light of different trajectories in development-different patterns in women’s employment.” Fe Dergi 3, no.2: 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, Yen-Fen. 2004. “Review of immigrant entrepreneurs: Venturing abroad in the age of globalization.” International Sociology 19, no. 4: 524–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turkish Grameen Microfinance Program. http://www.tgmp.net/tr/. Accessed on May 2019.

  • Ufuk, Hatun, and Özlen Özgen. 2001. “Interaction between the business and family lives of women entrepreneurs in Turkey.” Journal of Business Ethics 31, no. 2: 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valdez, Zulema. 2016. “Intersectionality, the household economy, and ethnic entrepreneurship.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 39, no. 9: 1618–1636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasta, Ellie. 2007. “From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 30, nos. 5: 713–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verduijn, Karen, and Caroline Essers. 2013. “Questioning dominant entrepreneurship assumptions: The case of female ethnic minority entrepreneurs.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 25, nos. 7–8: 612–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villares-Varela, Maria, and Caroline Essers. 2019. “Women in the migrant economy: A positional approach to contextualize gendered transnational trajectories.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 31, nos. 3–4: 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villares-Varela, Maria, Monder Ram, and Trevor Jones. 2017. Female immigrant global entrepreneurship: The Routledge companion to global female entrepreneurship. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walby, Sylvia, Jo Armstrong, and Sofia Strid. 2012. “Intersectionality: Multiple inequalities in social theory.” Sociology 46: 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldinger, Roger David, Howard Aldrich, and Robin Ward. 2006. Ethnic entrepreneurs: Immigrant business in industrial societies. New York, NY: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welter, Friederike. 2011. “Contextualizing entrepreneurship—Conceptual challenges and ways forward.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35, no. 1: 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yazıcı, Berna. 2008. “Social work and social exclusion in Turkey: An overview.” New Perspectives on Turkey 38: 107–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Sibel Ozasir Kacar & Caroline Essers

  2. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Karen Verduijn

Authors
  1. Sibel Ozasir Kacar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen Verduijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caroline Essers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sibel Ozasir Kacar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dublin, Ireland

    Thomas M. Cooney

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kacar, S.O., Verduijn, K., Essers, C. (2021). Opportunity Structures from an Intersectional Perspective. In: Cooney, T.M. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Minority Entrepreneurship. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66603-3_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation