title: Refugee resettlement and socio-economic participation through entrepreneurship: The case of New Zealand

authors: Fatokun, Kolawole Ishola

abstract: Entrepreneurship is often viewed as a feasible pathway for refugee resettlement. It is regarded as a means for refugees to find employment and participate in socio-economic activities. Previous studies have suggested refugee entrepreneurship as a pathway for refugee integration. However, it is not enough to assert that entrepreneurship is a pathway for refugees to integrate and resettle in a host community; we need to understand how entrepreneurship contributes to their resettlement. The current knowledge needs to be expanded within the context of resettlement by exploring why refugees start businesses, how refugee entrepreneurship aids resettlement, the types of businesses refugees engage in, and the reasons behind these choices. How does refugee entrepreneurship influence resettlement? Focusing on spatiality, this study addresses the gap caused by the lack of a context-specific study examining refugee entrepreneurship and resettlement in a host country.

A synthesised conceptual framework that provides a structured overview of key ideas, concepts, theories, and relationships drawn from existing research and literature on (refugee) entrepreneurship and resettlement has been neglected. Exploring the phenomenon of refugee entrepreneurship and its connection to resettlement necessitates the development of a synthesised conceptual framework. In conducting this study, the framework is based on a synthesis of: (1) the mechanisms (a broad theoretical discussion) driving the motivation of (refugee) entrepreneurs; (2) social capital theory; and (3) mixed embeddedness theory.

Focusing on New Zealand as a refugee-receiving country, the developed novel context-aware conceptual framework is applied to improve understanding of the linkage between refugee entrepreneurship and resettlement. How the “enabling” factors of refugee entrepreneurship transform misfortune into positive outcomes for refugees is revealed. The term “enabling” describes how refugees overcome difficulties and turn challenges into elements that drive positive outcomes for them.

This study provides answers to why refugees engage in business activities. This improves our understanding of the motives of refugee entrepreneurs beyond the traditional push and pull dichotomy of necessity and opportunity recognition. Although motivated to start businesses, refugees encounter significant barriers to entrepreneurship and need to actively participate in socio-economic activities to support their resettlement through entrepreneurship. Refugee resettlement through entrepreneurship is a transformative process shaped by their experiences from their home country, culture, transition, and pre-entrepreneurial activities in the host country.

Applying the interpretive approach, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 21 refugee entrepreneurs, using a semi-structured interview guide. Qualitative methods that uniquely enable the explanation of the participants’ agentic lived experiences, capturing individuals’ meanings and interpretations of their behaviours, events, and contexts, were employed. Abductive reasoning was used to identify themes, codes, and categories. Raw data were organised through the first-order coding or open coding process, where sets of data were closely reviewed and integrated with other data to develop broader themes and theoretical dimensions. NVivo software was utilised to support and enhance the rigour of data analysis.

This study finds that refugees must transition from informal to formal entrepreneurs to resettle through entrepreneurship. This change requires support from drivers of mixed embeddedness (DME) and government intervention through policy change, especially for refugees who arrive as adults.

text: Refugee resettlement and socio-economic participation through entrepreneurship: The case of New Zealand Entrepreneurship is often viewed as a feasible pathway for refugee resettlement. It is regarded as a means for refugees to find employment and participate in socio-economic activities. Previous studies have suggested refugee entrepreneurship as a pathway for refugee integration. However, it is not enough to assert that entrepreneurship is a pathway for refugees to integrate and resettle in a host community; we need to understand how entrepreneurship contributes to their resettlement. The current knowledge needs to be expanded within the context of resettlement by exploring why refugees start businesses, how refugee entrepreneurship aids resettlement, the types of businesses refugees engage in, and the reasons behind these choices. How does refugee entrepreneurship influence resettlement? Focusing on spatiality, this study addresses the gap caused by the lack of a context-specific study examining refugee entrepreneurship and resettlement in a host country.

A synthesised conceptual framework that provides a structured overview of key ideas, concepts, theories, and relationships drawn from existing research and literature on (refugee) entrepreneurship and resettlement has been neglected. Exploring the phenomenon of refugee entrepreneurship and its connection to resettlement necessitates the development of a synthesised conceptual framework. In conducting this study, the framework is based on a synthesis of: (1) the mechanisms (a broad theoretical discussion) driving the motivation of (refugee) entrepreneurs; (2) social capital theory; and (3) mixed embeddedness theory.

Focusing on New Zealand as a refugee-receiving country, the developed novel context-aware conceptual framework is applied to improve understanding of the linkage between refugee entrepreneurship and resettlement. How the “enabling” factors of refugee entrepreneurship transform misfortune into positive outcomes for refugees is revealed. The term “enabling” describes how refugees overcome difficulties and turn challenges into elements that drive positive outcomes for them.

This study provides answers to why refugees engage in business activities. This improves our understanding of the motives of refugee entrepreneurs beyond the traditional push and pull dichotomy of necessity and opportunity recognition. Although motivated to start businesses, refugees encounter significant barriers to entrepreneurship and need to actively participate in socio-economic activities to support their resettlement through entrepreneurship. Refugee resettlement through entrepreneurship is a transformative process shaped by their experiences from their home country, culture, transition, and pre-entrepreneurial activities in the host country.

Applying the interpretive approach, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 21 refugee entrepreneurs, using a semi-structured interview guide. Qualitative methods that uniquely enable the explanation of the participants’ agentic lived experiences, capturing individuals’ meanings and interpretations of their behaviours, events, and contexts, were employed. Abductive reasoning was used to identify themes, codes, and categories. Raw data were organised through the first-order coding or open coding process, where sets of data were closely reviewed and integrated with other data to develop broader themes and theoretical dimensions. NVivo software was utilised to support and enhance the rigour of data analysis.

This study finds that refugees must transition from informal to formal entrepreneurs to resettle through entrepreneurship. This change requires support from drivers of mixed embeddedness (DME) and government intervention through policy change, especially for refugees who arrive as adults.

year: 2025-09-02

title: Traumatic brain injury in New Zealand: a silent epidemic?

authors: Starkey, Nicola J.

subjects: New Zealand

abstract: In 2008 I was fortunate enough to be invited to be part of a research team on a large population based project focusing on the incidence and outcome of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in New Zealand (led by Professor Valery Feigin National Institute of Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, AUT University). At the time I knew little about TBI or population based research, but the last five years have changed that. My involvement in the project has led to on-going collaborations and friendships, and continues to provide me with on-going challenges as a researcher. More importantly, however, thanks to those who participated in our research, it has given me an enormous appreciation of the daily challenges faced by those affected by TBI and the desire to do research that ultimately will make a difference for them and other TBI survivors.

text: Traumatic brain injury in New Zealand: a silent epidemic? In 2008 I was fortunate enough to be invited to be part of a research team on a large population based project focusing on the incidence and outcome of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in New Zealand (led by Professor Valery Feigin National Institute of Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, AUT University). At the time I knew little about TBI or population based research, but the last five years have changed that. My involvement in the project has led to on-going collaborations and friendships, and continues to provide me with on-going challenges as a researcher. More importantly, however, thanks to those who participated in our research, it has given me an enormous appreciation of the daily challenges faced by those affected by TBI and the desire to do research that ultimately will make a difference for them and other TBI survivors.

year: 2013

title: Maori land in Hauraki

authors: Hart, Philip

abstract: Imagining the Hauraki Peninsula to contain payable goldfields and knowing that land to the south of Thames had great agricultural potential, Pakeha were determined to acquire it, and were frustrated by what was considered to be ‘Maori intransigence’. For their part, Maori landowners were justifiably concerned about losing their land, and hindered and delayed opening it to settlement for as long as possible. A major difficulty for officials seeking to acquire land was how to determine boundaries between different blocks and how to identify the true owners when there were rival claims put forward by hapu and individuals. Land purchase agents used a variety of means to get blocks through the land court and then to individualize the title, notably the controversial ‘raihana’ policy, which benefited some landowners at the expense of others. The expensive legal process involved often forced those who had proved their ownership to sell land to pay for their success, a success which resulted in grantees treating the land as their personal property rather than tribal property. Some Pakeha as well as many Maori protested at the unfair process; even James Mackay, the most effective practitioner of raihana, came to lament his success and its consequences for the younger generation of Maori (he blamed the system, not himself). When far too late, it was urged that land should have been leased rather than sold and that proceeds from sales should not have been squandered.
Instead of having commissions of enquiry, as some suggested, the land court system meant that judges determined ownership on the evidence presented to them, even though some owners were not present nor had their interests represented. Sometimes the evidence was false, as was admitted by some witnesses when their perjury was exposed. And in the case of the Ohinemuri district, for which the records survive, when the land was sold to the Crown some Maori received too much money, some too little, and some missed out altogether. The struggles to open Ohinemuri to miners and settlers is examined in detail, revealing that some rangatira expected economic gain and that Te Hira’s party, who opposed the opening, were undermined by some of Te Hira’s followers: being ‘Hauhau’, they refused to take money from the Crown but instead took raihana, meaning goods which were charged against their land in a way they did not understand. Nor did anyone fully understand the system apart from Mackay, whose policy was eventually repudiated by the politicians who had encouraged it previously. Not all land was lost, but because the government did not assist landowners with advice and finance until well into the twentieth century what land that was retained could not be developed adequately.

text: Maori land in Hauraki Imagining the Hauraki Peninsula to contain payable goldfields and knowing that land to the south of Thames had great agricultural potential, Pakeha were determined to acquire it, and were frustrated by what was considered to be ‘Maori intransigence’. For their part, Maori landowners were justifiably concerned about losing their land, and hindered and delayed opening it to settlement for as long as possible. A major difficulty for officials seeking to acquire land was how to determine boundaries between different blocks and how to identify the true owners when there were rival claims put forward by hapu and individuals. Land purchase agents used a variety of means to get blocks through the land court and then to individualize the title, notably the controversial ‘raihana’ policy, which benefited some landowners at the expense of others. The expensive legal process involved often forced those who had proved their ownership to sell land to pay for their success, a success which resulted in grantees treating the land as their personal property rather than tribal property. Some Pakeha as well as many Maori protested at the unfair process; even James Mackay, the most effective practitioner of raihana, came to lament his success and its consequences for the younger generation of Maori (he blamed the system, not himself). When far too late, it was urged that land should have been leased rather than sold and that proceeds from sales should not have been squandered.
Instead of having commissions of enquiry, as some suggested, the land court system meant that judges determined ownership on the evidence presented to them, even though some owners were not present nor had their interests represented. Sometimes the evidence was false, as was admitted by some witnesses when their perjury was exposed. And in the case of the Ohinemuri district, for which the records survive, when the land was sold to the Crown some Maori received too much money, some too little, and some missed out altogether. The struggles to open Ohinemuri to miners and settlers is examined in detail, revealing that some rangatira expected economic gain and that Te Hira’s party, who opposed the opening, were undermined by some of Te Hira’s followers: being ‘Hauhau’, they refused to take money from the Crown but instead took raihana, meaning goods which were charged against their land in a way they did not understand. Nor did anyone fully understand the system apart from Mackay, whose policy was eventually repudiated by the politicians who had encouraged it previously. Not all land was lost, but because the government did not assist landowners with advice and finance until well into the twentieth century what land that was retained could not be developed adequately.

year: 2016