SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Stratejik Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2

ASSESSING MIGRANT ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE CONTEXT OF MIGRATION POLICIES IN TÜRKİYE: A QUALITATIVE STUDY

TÜRKİYE’DE GÖÇMEN POLİTİKALARI ÖZELİNDE GÖÇMEN GİRİŞİMCİLİĞİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: NİTEL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Osman Akarsu(BİLECİK ŞEYH EDEBALİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0595-6795
Mehmet Değirmenci(Emniyet Genel Müdürlüğü)0000-0002-6949-4155
Pages
94–121
Publication Date
2025-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This study is expected to contribute to the literature on the definition of the concept of migrant entrepreneurship, the challenges encountered in specific policies, and potential solutions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the migrant policies implemented in Turkey and the phenomenon of migrant entrepreneurship from the perspective of these entrepreneurs.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 immigrant entrepreneurs operating in the Southeast Anatolia region, which has been heavily affected by Syrian migration.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study is expected to contribute to the literature on the definition of the concept of migrant entrepreneurship, the challenges encountered in specific policies, and potential solutions.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Göçmen Girişimciliği · Göçmen Politikaları · Diaspora Girişimciliği

Abstract

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the migrant policies implemented in Turkey and the phenomenon of migrant entrepreneurship from the perspective of these entrepreneurs. The literature on entrepreneurship mostly addresses the phenomenon of immigrant entrepreneurship with the understanding that “the law does not concern itself with trivial matters,” the “de minimis non curat lex” approach, and the existing policies in the countries where immigrants settle, and the legal regulations regarding the entrepreneurship of minorities are often overlooked. In this study, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 immigrant entrepreneurs operating in the Southeast Anatolia region, which has been heavily affected by Syrian migration. Content analysis revealed that participants defined migrant entrepreneurship in terms of family livelihood, security, opportunity, and independence, suggesting that policymakers should remove travel restrictions imposed on migrant entrepreneurs and ease bureaucratic hurdles, such as work permits and licenses. This study is expected to contribute to the literature on the definition of the concept of migrant entrepreneurship, the challenges encountered in specific policies, and potential solutions.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, Türkiye’de uygulanan göçmen politikaları ve göçmen girişimciliği olgusunu bu girişimcilerin bakış açısından değerlendirmektir. Girişimcilikle ilgili literatür göçmen girişimciliği olgusunu çoğunlukla “kanun önemsiz şeylerle ilgilenmez” anlayışıyla, “de minimis non curat lex” yaklaşımıyla ele almakta, göçmenlerin yerleştikleri ülkelerdeki mevcut politikalar ve azınlıkların girişimciliğine dair yasal düzenlemeler çoğu zaman göz ardı edilmektedir. Bu çalışmada Suriyeli göçünün yoğun etkilerinin görüldüğü Güneydoğu Anadolu bölgesinde faaliyetlerini devam ettiren 20 göçmen girişimci ile yarı yapılandırılmış derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. İçerik analizi yöntemiyle yapılan analizlerde, katılımcıların, göçmen girişimciliği olgusunu aile geçimi, güvenlik, fırsat ve bağımsızlık ekseninde tanımladıkları ve politika yapıcılara girişimcilik süreçlerine dair göçmen girişimcilere uygulanan seyahat engelinin kaldırılması, çalışma izni ve ruhsat gibi bürokratik zorlukların kolaylaştırılmasına yönelik öneriler verdiklerini açığa çıkarmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın göçmen girişimciliği kavramının tanımlanması, politikalar özelinde karşılaşılan zorluklar ve potansiyel çözüm yollarına dair literatüre katkı sunacağı düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akarsu, O., Değirmenci, M. (2025). ASSESSING MIGRANT ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE CONTEXT OF MIGRATION POLICIES IN TÜRKİYE: A QUALITATIVE STUDY. Stratejik Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 94–121. https://doi.org/10.54993/syad.1775108

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (83)

  1. Abdelaaty, L. (2019). Refugees and Guesthood in Turkey. Journal of Refugee Studies, 34(3), 2827. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fez097
  2. Achidi Ndofor, H., & Priem, R. L. (2011). Immigrant entrepreneurs, the ethnic enclave strategy, and venture performance. Journal of Management, 37(3), 790-818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309345020
  3. Adom, K., & Ackom, B. (2024). Towards a greater understanding of the prevalence of immigrant entrepreneurship in the informal economy of Ghana: An institutional theory perspective. Journal of African Business, 25(2), 264-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2023.2170860
  4. Akarsu, O. (2024). Girişimcilerin Nedenini ve Nasılını Anlamak:“StoryBox” Üzerinden Bir Çözümleme. Sosyal Mucit Academic Review, 5(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.54733/smar.1404649
  5. Akçapar, Ş. K., & Şimşek, D. (2018). The Politics of Syrian Refugees in Turkey: A Question of Inclusion and Exclusion through Citizenship. Social Inclusion, 6(1), 176. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v6i1.1323
  6. Aksu, E., Erzan, R., & Kırdar, M. G. (2022). The impact of mass migration of Syrians on the Turkish labor market. Labour Economics, 76, 102183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2022.102183
  7. Aliaga-Isla, R., & Rialp, A. (2013). Systematic review of immigrant entrepreneurship literature: previous findings and ways forward. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(9-10), 819-844. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2013.845694
  8. Altun, A. E. (2021). Syrian Refugee Crisis in Turkey: Is Migration from Syria Bad for Turkey’s demographic and economic structure? Research Square (Research Square). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1110993/v1
  9. Aydar, Z. (2022). The Life Opportunities of Young Refugees: Understanding the Role, Function and Perceptions of Local Stakeholders. Social Sciences, 11(11), 527. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11110527
  10. Babuç, Z. T. (2018). Mersin İlindeki Suriyeli Çocukların Aile ve Sosyal İlişkilerinde Yaşadıkları Ambivalansın İlişkisel Sosyolojik Bir Analizi. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi/Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 21(2), 317. https://doi.org/10.18490/sosars.476192
  11. Bağış, M., & Hızıroğlu, M. (2018). Stratejik Yönetim’in kaynaklara dayalı yaklaşımı-ekonomik, sosyolojik, psikolojik temeller. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık Eğitim Danışmanlık Tic. Ltd. Şti. https://www.nobelyayin.com/stratejik-yonetim-in-kaynaklara-dayali-yaklasimi-ekonomik-sosyolojik-psikolojik-temeller-14959.html
  12. Bahcekapili, C., & Cetin, B. (2015). The Impacts of Forced Migration on Regional Economies: The Case of Syrian Refugees in Turkey. International Business Research, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v8n9p1
  13. Baykal, S., & Yılmaz, L. (2020). Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu ile Göç İdaresi Bağlamında Türkiye’nin Yeni Göç Siyaseti. Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 633. https://doi.org/10.17541/optimum.739217
  14. Biffl, G. (2013). The Role of Migration in Economic Relations between Europe and Turkey. European Review, 21(3), 372. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1062798713000331
  15. Bilgin, A. A., & Arıkan, H. (2020). The CEAS and the Europeanization of Turkey’s Asylum Policy after the Syrian Crisis. European Review, 29(6), 828. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1062798720001064
  16. Boudreaux, C. J., & Nikolaev, B. (2019). Capital is not enough: opportunity entrepreneurship and formal institutions. Small Business Economics, 53(3), 709-738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0068-7
  17. Brieger, S. A., & Gielnik, M. M. (2021). Understanding the gender gap in immigrant entrepreneurship: A multi-country study of immigrants’ embeddedness in economic, social, and institutional contexts. Small Business Economics, 56(3), 1007-1031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00314-x
  18. Brzozowski, J., Šimić Banović, R., & Alpeza, M. (2022). Overcoming constraints to immigrant entrepreneurship in Croatia: the role of formal and informal institutions. Post-Communist Economies, 34(8), 1109-1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2021.1928825
  19. Ceesay, L. F., & Umejiaku, C. L. (2025). Navigating Institutional Support Systems for Migrant Entrepreneurs in Sweden: Individual Perceptions and their Influence on Decision-Making. (Dissertation). Retrieved from https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-240786
  20. Chaganti, R. R. S., Watts, A. D., Chaganti, R., & Zimmerman-Treichel, M. (2008). Ethnic-immigrants in founding teams: Effects on prospector strategy and performance in new Internet ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(1), 113-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.07.004
  21. Chand, M., & Ghorbani, M. (2011). National culture, networks and ethnic entrepreneurship: A comparison of the Indian and Chinese immigrants in the US. International Business Review, 20(6), 593-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.02.009
  22. Chang, C. (2021). The economically rich refugees: A case study of the business operations of Istanbul‐based Syrian refugee businesspeople. International Migration, 60(3), 38. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12886
  23. Çakar, S., Özyer, K., & Azizoğlu, O. (2022). The mediating role of emotional labor in the impact of organizational climate on burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior Research, 7(1-2022), 1-13.
  24. Çifçi, İ., & Atsız, O. (2021). Understanding the Role of Refugees’ Entrepreneurship Motives and Challenges in Integration: Evidence From the Food Industry. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 1. https://doi.org/10.26650/jecs2021-863909
  25. Dabić, M., Vlačić, B., Paul, J., Dana, L.-P., Sahasranamam, S., & Glinka, B. (2020). Immigrant entrepreneurship: A review and research agenda. Journal of business research, 113, 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.013
  26. Delioğlu, M., & Kalaycı, İ. (2022). Antakya’ya Göç Eden Suriye Türklerinin Perspektifinden Göç Ve Göçmenlik Üzerine Nitel Bir Araştırma. Anasay, 20, 239. https://doi.org/10.33404/anasay.1099146
  27. Desiderio, M. V. (2014). Policies to support immigrant entrepreneurship. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute and Transatlantic Council on Migration, 1-24. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/policies-support-immigrant-entrepreneurship
  28. Develi, A., Güğerçin, S., & İplik, E. (2017). Bilinçli farkındalık ve örgütsel stres kaynakları: Banka çalışanları örneği. Social Sciences Studies Journal, 3(5), 44-51. https://doi.org/10.26449/sssj.14
  29. Dheer, R. J. (2018). Entrepreneurship by immigrants: a review of existing literature and directions for future research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(3), 555-614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0506-7
  30. Dheer, R. J., & Kara, A. (2024). Immigrants’ entrepreneurial intentions: Acculturation-based socio-psychological lens. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 20(4), 2979-2999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-024-01003-2
  31. Duan, C., Kotey, B., & Sandhu, K. (2023). A systematic literature review of determinants of immigrant entrepreneurship motivations. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 35(4), 599-631. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2021.1997490
  32. Duan, C., Sandhu, K., & Kotey, B. (2021). Understanding immigrant entrepreneurship: A home-country entrepreneurial ecosystem perspective. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 24(1), 2-20. https://doi.org/10.1108/neje-05-2020-0013
  33. Durna, Ö. (2021). Coercive Externalities In Decısıon-Makıng Processes: Is It Possıble Mıgratıon Polıcy For Turkey? Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi/Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 37, 540. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.796384
  34. Echikson, W., Schmidt, K., Dawley, H., & Bawden, A. (2000). Unsung heroes: Europe’s immigrant entrepreneurs are creating thriving businesses and thousands of jobs. Business Week, 27, 20-24. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2000-02-27/unsung-heroes-intl-edition?embedded-checkout=true
  35. Ekinci, M. B., & Kara, M. (2019). Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi’nde Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Avrupa Birliği’ne İktisadî Bakış Açısı. DergiPark (Istanbul University). https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ijssresearch/issue/51160/575431
  36. Ensign, P. C., & Robinson, N. P. (2011). Entrepreneurs because they are immigrants or immigrants because they are entrepreneurs? A critical examination of the relationship between the newcomers and the establishment. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 20(1), 33-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/097135571002000102
  37. Flick, U. (2019). An introduction to qualitative research (6th edition). Sage Publications.
  38. Francis, J. J., Johnston, M., Robertson, C., Glidewell, L., Entwistle, V., Eccles, M. P., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2010). What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology and Health, 25(10), 1229-1245. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440903194015
  39. Fuentelsaz, L., González, C., Maícas, J. P., & Montero, J. (2015). How different formal institutions affect opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 18(4), 246-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.02.001
  40. Gençay, E., & Döven, M. S. (2019). Kişilik Özelliklerinin Girişimcilik Niyetine Etkisi: Mersin Üniversitesi’nde Bir Araştırma. Stratejik Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 89-123.
  41. Gurău, C., Dana, L. P., & Light, I. (2020). Overcoming the liability of foreignness: A typology and model of immigrant entrepreneurs. European Management Review, 17(3), 701-717. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12392
  42. Güler, H. (2020). Göç ve Entegrasyon: Türkiye’de “Uyum” ama Nasıl? Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11, 245. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2020.ek1.012
  43. Irk, E., & Döven, M. S. (2018). Firmaların Uyguladıkları Rekabet Stratejileri ve Bu Karara Etki Eden Faktörler. İşletme Bilimi Dergisi, 6(1), 135-162. https://doi.org/10.22139/jobs.361855
  44. İçduygu, A. (2000). The Politics of International Migratory Regimes: Transit Migration Flows in Turkey. International Social Science Journal, 52(165), 357. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00265
  45. İçduygu, A. (2004). Demographic Mobility and Turkey: Migration Experiences and Government Responses. Mediterranean Quarterly, 15(4), 88. https://doi.org/10.1215/10474552-15-4-88
  46. İncili, Ö. F., & Cengiz, D. (2023). Etnik Girişimcilik Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme: Kilis Kenti Örneği. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(Cumhuriyet'in 100. Yılında Türkiye'nin Sosyo-Ekonomisi" Özel Sayısı), 232-259. https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1282707
  47. Kaya, D. A. (2021). Zorunlu Göç ve Dayanıklılık Planlaması: Türkiye’nin Suriye Zorunlu Göçü Deneyimi. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 38(2). https://doi.org/10.4305/metu.jfa.2021.2.2
  48. Kaya, D., & Ok, G. (2021). Problems Encountered by Mathematics and Science Teachers in Classrooms where Syrian Students under Temporary Protection Status are Educated and Suggestions for Solution. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 8(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.774094
  49. Kilinc, D. (2020). Crossing Borders: Turkish Asylum Policies and Displaced Syrians’ Journeys in and away from Turkey. Bibliotekarz Podlaski Ogólnopolskie Naukowe Pismo Bibliotekoznawcze i Bibliologiczne, 47(2), 111. https://doi.org/10.36770/bp.472
  50. Kirişçi, K., & Yıldız, A. (2023). Turkey’s asylum policies over the last century: continuity, change and contradictions. Turkish Studies, 24, 522. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2023.2178306
  51. Kılıç, H., & Biffl, G. (2021). Turkish Migration Policy from the 1960s Until Today: What National Development Plans Tell Us. Journal of International Migration and Integration / Revue de l Integration et de La Migration Internationale, 23(4), 2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-021-00912-3
  52. Kloosterman, R. (2000). Immigrant entrepreneurship and the institutional context: a theoretical exploration. In Immigrant businesses: The economic, political and social environment (pp. 90-106). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403905338_6
  53. Martin, L., Wamalwa, S., & Abdelhabrim, H. (2025). Immigrant entrepreneurship: An institutional perspective. In Immigrant Entrepreneurship, Religion, and Ethnicity (pp. 6-24). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003489214-2
  54. Mccarthy, A. (2020). Turning crisis into opportunity? The Syrian refugee crisis and evolution of welfare policy for refugees in Turkey from a public choice theory perspective. Critical Social Policy, 41(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018320906776
  55. Müftüler‐Baç, M. (2021). External Differentiated Integration: The Modalities of Turkey’s Opting into the European Union. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3807363
  56. Mutlu, E., & Başer, G. (2020). Turizm Yatırım Teşvikleri Çerçevesinde Antalya. Anatolia Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 31(3), 264. https://doi.org/10.17123/atad.668678
  57. Mwita, K. (2022). Factors influencing data saturation in qualitative studies. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science 11(4).414-420. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4880488
  58. Ozasir Kacar, S., & Essers, C. (2019). The interplay between identity construction and opportunity structures: Narratives of Turkish migrant women entrepreneurs in the Netherlands. International Small Business Journal, 37(7), 713-731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242619856809
  59. Özen, İ. C., & Tuncay, B. (2022). Access to Healthcare Services Among Syrian Refugees in Turkey. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 20(1), 530. https://doi.org/10.11611/yead.1066436
  60. Özerim, M. G. (2017). Stretching, Opening or Sealing the Borders: Turkish Foreign Policy Conceptions and their Impact on Migration, Asylum and Visa Policies. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 20(2), 165. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2018.1379751
  61. Özkan, M., & Çakmak, Ö. (2021). School Principals Views on Syrian Refugee Students’ Education in Turkey: Challenges and Recommendations. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 9(2), 125. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.9n.2p.125
  62. Öztürk, Y. (2020). Tüketici Etnosentrizminin Turistik Satın Alma Tercihine Etkisi (The Effect of Consumer Ethnocentrism on Touristic Purchasing Preferences). Journal of Business Research- Turk, 12(1), 304. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2020.843
  63. Paçacı, M. (2024). Türkiye’de Göçmen Girişimciliğinin Akademik Araştırmalarda Konumlanışına Dair Tespit ve Öneriler. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 13(2), 147-178. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.459746
  64. Papadakis, K., & Spyrakou, V. (2021). Immigration as a Common European Challenge: The Crucial Role of the Greek and Turkish Case. HAPSc Policy Briefs Series, 2(2), 260. https://doi.org/10.12681/hapscpbs.29513
  65. Pierce, S., & Meissner, D. (2017). Trump executive order on refugees and travel ban: A brief review. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/trump-executive-order-refugees-and-travel-ban-brief-review
  66. Raimi, L., Panait, M., Gigauri, I., & Apostu, S. A. (2023). Thematic Review of Motivational Factors, Types of Uncertainty, and Entrepreneurship Strategies of Transitional Entrepreneurship among Ethnic Minorities, Immigrants, and Women Entrepreneurs. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(2), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16020083
  67. Rath, J., & Kloosterman, R. (2000). Outsiders’ business: a critical review of research on immigrant entrepreneurship. International Migration Review, 34(3), 657-681. https://doi.org/10.1177/019791830003400301
  68. Shekriladze, I., & Javakhishvili, N. (2024). Sociocultural predictors of immigrant adjustment and well-being. Frontiers in Sociology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1251871
  69. Shinnar, R. S., & Zamantılı Nayır, D. (2019). Immigrant entrepreneurship in an emerging economy: The case of Turkey. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(2), 559-575. ttps://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12408
  70. Sholihin, F., & Alfan, R. F. (2021). Bumerang Kerjasama EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan Terkait Penanganan Krisis Pengungsi Terhadap Turki. JURNAL SOSIAL POLITIK, 7(2), 254. https://doi.org/10.22219/sospol.v7i2.16098
  71. Šimić Banović, R., Škokić, V., & Alpeza, M. (2022). Informal networks among immigrant entrepreneurs: Case of Croatia. In Informality, labour mobility and precariousness: Supplementing the state for the invisible and the vulnerable (pp. 95-123). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82499-0_4
  72. Stringer, K. D. (2004). Visa Diplomacy. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 15(4), 655. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592290490886775
  73. Syrian Refugees in Turkey: The Long Road Ahead. (2023). https://www.migrationpolicy.org/print/15264
  74. Taşçı, D., & Koç, U. (2006). Yarının organizasyonları için bugünden ipuçları. Journal of İstanbul Kültür University, 4 (1), 145-152. https://openaccess.iku.edu.tr/server/api/core/bitstreams/9f6e2e56-9849-44ff-b792-2ef018a0a9ca/content
  75. Tekbaş, F., & Karan, O. (2022). Hatay’daki geçici koruma altındaki Suriyelilerin girişimcilik deneyimleri. Göç Dergisi, 9(1), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.33182/gd.v9i1.800
  76. Teke, L. F. A. (2018). Beyond illegality: the gendered (In-)securities of illegal Armenian care workers in Turkey. Fe Dergi Feminist Ele, 10(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.1501/fe0001_0000000198
  77. Tengeh, R. K., & Nkem, L. (2017). Sustaining immigrant entrepreneurship in South Africa: The role of informal financial associations. Sustainability, 9(8), 1396. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081396
  78. Turkina, E., & Thai, M. T. T. (2015). Socio-psychological determinants of opportunity entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(1), 213-238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0288-x
  79. Uygur, N. G. (2020). Syrian refugee entrepreneurs in labour market: the case of Istanbul. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 24(1), 99-110. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tsadergisi/issue/53617/684302
  80. Vesek, S. (2021). “Bizim Mazi Zeval Oldu”: Türkiye’deki Suriyelilerin Kalma ve Yeniden Göç ile İlgili Karar Verme Süreçlerini Etkileyen Faktörler. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi/Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 24(2), 379. https://doi.org/10.18490/sosars.927271
  81. Yasin, N., & Hafeez, K. (2023). Three waves of immigrant entrepreneurship: a cross-national comparative study. Small Business Economics, 60(3), 1281-1306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00656-z
  82. Yetkin, U., & Tunçalp, D. (2023). Beyond embedded or not embedded: immigrant entrepreneurs’ embeddedness levels. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 17(3), 565-593. https://doi.org/10.1108/jec-05-2021-0075
  83. Yıldırım, D. Ş. (2019). Suriyeli Göçü ve Sığınmacıların Entegrasyon Sürecinde Stklar. Journal of International Social Research, 12(63), 726. https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2019.3271