Page 132 - IJPS-11-2

International Journal of
Population Studies Country choice for migrant entrepreneurship

and access to social care, despite having flexible banking as starting a business, paying taxes, or trading across
and business regulations. Second, Poland benefits from borders. Meanwhile, the IMIGRENT index depends on
banking and business flexibility but scores higher than the applicant’s perspective and the weight of importance
Hungary because of its better social system. Third, Italy’s regarding various issues such as financial aspects, although
low score is attributable to its cumbersome administration the legislation of the different countries is well established,
and additional procedures for recognizing foreign at least on paper.
diplomas, whereas France (although not highly developed Upon further comparing the IMIGRENT index with
in e-services) offers better flexibility in many aspects. MIPEX, some northern or central European countries,
Fourth, Denmark and Sweden exhibit flexibility in various such as Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Germany, Austria,
areas, but their scores are slightly reduced due to property and the Netherlands (which have high 2020 EuCham and
ownership restrictions and weather conditions (even IMIGRENT scores), do not have high MIPEX scores. This
though they remain among the top-ranked countries). is mainly because the integration in these host countries
Meanwhile, Ukraine has a relatively low score, due to its can be classified (according to the MIPEX) as “favorable”
restrictions on foreigners without permanent residence, (Iceland), “temporary integration and halfway favorable”
the negative impact of the climate, and the ongoing armed (Germany), or “comprehensive integration and halfway
conflict with Russia. favorable” (Estonia). Meanwhile, countries such as Sweden,
Based on the findings, the top-ranked countries in each Finland, and Norway have high scores in these indexes.
category are as follows: An interesting example is Portugal, which has a higher
• Immigration procedures: Denmark, Sweden, and MIPEX score compared with the other indexes. According
Finland to the MIPEX framework, such countries are classified as
• Company registration and ownership: Denmark, “comprehensive integration,” which fully guarantees equal
Estonia, and Finland rights, opportunities, and security for both immigrants
• Personal affairs and accommodations: Estonia, and citizens (Solano & Huddleston, 2020).
Denmark, and Ireland Meanwhile, regarding the affinity of foreign-born
• Social services: Germany, Belgium, and the entrepreneurs to manage microbusinesses and generate
Netherlands jobs, particularly in the formal economy (Taddei & Solano,
• Specific issues: Portugal, Spain, and Estonia 2020; UNCTAD, 2018; Eurostat, 2023), it should be
• Climatic and other natural conditions: Croatia, noted that the IMIGRENT index considers these aspects
Greece, and Italy mainly within its second (i.e., company registration and
4. Discussion ownership). This category also considers the fact that
migrant-run businesses often underperform (compared
The IMIGRENT index is a novel measure that considers with those run by locals) in several metrics, due to limited
all the key aspects related to starting an entrepreneurial access to essential infrastructure, networks, and credit
activity in a new country. Although this analysis mainly opportunities (Desiderio, 2014; Rath & Schutjens, 2016;
focuses on the European context, this index is universal Solano et al., 2019; Taddei & Solano, 2020).
and can be applied to any country in the world and any It is also worth noting the distributions of the IMIGRENT
origin (citizenship) of the entrepreneur.
scores across Europe. As discussed in the previous section,
Moreover, the incorporation of several aspects the Nordic countries and northern/central European
regarding immigrant integration in the host country allows countries, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and
us to draw some comparisons between the three indexes. Ireland, have higher IMIGRENT scores. This is mainly due
As shown in Table 1, there is a good correlation between to their entrepreneurial specifications and “user-friendly”
the 2020 EuCham and the IMIGRENT indexes. However, legislations for establishing a business compared with the
the similarity between the IMIGRENT index and MIPEX cumbersome rules and regulations of southern European
is not as obvious, although both have a common basis in countries such as Spain, Italy, and Greece. In addition,
focusing on migrant integration. It is possible that the Eastern European countries have lower scores than Western
weights of the issues related to the financial aspects of European ones due to the lack of entrepreneurial activities
the IMIGRENT index are higher. In other words, these during several decades of socialist regimes. For instance,
issues are considered more important than those related when comparing Bulgaria and Germany regarding social
to social (and integration) aspects, at least in the reduced services or conducting business activities without being
version of the index (Appendix). As described earlier, hindered, there is a significant difference between the two
the 2020 EuCham index is mainly based on issues such countries, resulting in higher scores for Germany.

Volume 11 Issue 2 (2025) 126 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.4447