What does Italianness stand for? The use of ethnic resources among Italian migrant entrepreneurs in Brussels

Abstract

Research on migrant entrepreneurship has extensively focused on the ethnic dimension of these economic activities, especially entrepreneurs’ use of ethnic resources. Many scholars have tended to reify ethnicity and overlook migrant entrepreneurs’ ability to define and use ethnic resources. Adopting a dynamic perspective that acknowledges in-group diversity and entrepreneurs’ agency in utilizing these ethnic resources, we examine how Italian migrant entrepreneurs in Brussels conceive their relationship with the Italian community and leverage their ethnicity (Italianness/Italianità, i.e., the fact of being Italian). We find in-group variation, challenging reifying and deterministic analyses of “ethnic” entrepreneurship. Instead, ethnicity emerges as a resource that entrepreneurs mobilize to distinguish themselves socially and entrepreneurially from other Italians.

Introduction

Migration has diversified across countries of origins, ethnic traits, migration channels, migrants’ legal status, and their human capital, resulting in “super-diversity” (Vertovec, 2019). This concept aims to describe the changing and novel patterns arising from the new migration regimes and re-tool our approaches of migration (Meissner and Vertovec, 2015). Super-diversity has been used by diverse scholars across disciplines (Vertovec, 2019), with many referring to it to critique the focus on ethnicity as the main category of analysis (Meissner, 2015; Vertovec, 2019).

This criticism of the ethno-focal lens is echoed in ethnic minority entrepreneurship research (Yamamura and Lassalle, 2020). Migrant entrepreneurship has been extensively studied (Rath et al., 2020) using various approaches (Guerra Fernandes et al., 2022). Still, a recurrent focus has been on the ethnic dimension of these economic activities, or entrepreneurs’ use of ethnic resources. Adopting an ethnic lens to study migrant entrepreneurs has been critiqued since it often cancels out in-group differences by assuming that migrant entrepreneurs from the same national/ethnic group share the same profiles, attitudes, etc. (Pécoud, 2010; Pieterse, 2003). Concurrently, when diversity is discussed, scholars study how entrepreneurs adapt to mainstream society and how it impacts the diversification of their entrepreneurial activities. Thus, diversity within a specific ethnic group of entrepreneurs must still be studied (Yamamura and Lassalle, 2020).

We seek to expand the understanding of the ethnicity-business strategy nexus by focusing on intra-group differences by answering the following research question: How do ethnic entrepreneurs perceive ethnic solidarity and define ethnicity, and which intra-group differences do they identify? To answer this, we conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with different generations of Italian entrepreneurs in Brussels active in the food sector.

We find no single homogenous Italian migrant group and emphasize that ethnicity is strategically used by entrepreneurs differently depending on their generation and migration history. These findings underscore in-group variation and migrants’ agency in mobilizing their ethnic resources, challenging reified and deterministic analyses of ethnic entrepreneurship.

After outlining our theoretical framework and providing a brief overview of Italian entrepreneurship in Belgium and our research methodology, we examine how individuals perceive ethnic solidarity and explore what ethnicity represents for them and their businesses.

Beyond reified understandings of ethnicity

Since the 1970s, a growing migrant entrepreneurship literature has emerged (Rath et al., 2020). A core issue is the resources that entrepreneurs require and mobilize (skills, labor, information), and how they access these resources (Salaff et al., 2003). Scholars have stressed the relevance of in-group (ethnic) resources (Portes, 1998; Solano, 2020).

Bounded/in-group solidarity

In the 1970s and 1980s, various authors adopted a cultural approach to study migrant entrepreneurship (Rath et al., 2020). Such approach “attributes the accessibility of ethnic resources to ethnic identification and group solidarity” (el Bouk et al., 2013: 791). Ethnicity is considered as a resource for migrant entrepreneurs. Due to an “ethnic advantage,” entrepreneurs have access to various resources (cultural capital, cheap labor, financial support, information, etc.) (Rath et al., 2020). For example, according to Light (1972), Korean entrepreneurs in the US benefit from rotating savings and credits associations specific to their group. Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) assumed that sharing a phenotypical or cultural practices in a foreign environment provides a perfect condition for developing in-group solidarity, also called bounded solidarity (see Portes, 1998). However, not all migrant groups experience the same in-group solidarity levels: being visibly “distinct” from the mainstream population combined with higher discrimination enhances in-group solidarity. Studies especially emphasize ethnic solidarity’s role, and the key role of co-ethnic and co-national social contacts (Anthias and Cederberg, 2009; Glinka et al., 2023; Lassalle et al., 2020; Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993; Ratajczak-Mrozek, 2024). The movement of capital and information, and collaboration is favored by a certain degree of solidarity that is established within groups of co-nationals (Portes, 1998). The presence and concentration of migrants favors migrant entrepreneurs by offering a protected market (Aldrich et al., 1985). A protected market refers to the ethnic minority’s specific tastes that can only by satisfied by their co-ethnic entrepreneurs (Light, 1972). Moreover, community trust represents the promise for entrepreneurs that they will have loyal customers and can access a reliable workforce (Tavassoli and Trippl, 2019).

Beyond a monolithic definition of ethnicity

However, such cultural approaches have been highly criticized: ethnicity does not consider complexity (Pécoud, 2010; Pieterse, 2003). Scholars highlight that migrants often no longer belong to homogeneous and well-identified ethnic minorities (Pécoud, 2010, 2012). Although other communities perceive them to be homogeneous, migrants have heterogenous background and multiple identities that may result in competitive and antagonist intra-group relations (Zhou, 2004). Moreover, different migration patterns, i.e. ways of entry and migration histories, generate different network configurations and resource availability (Katila and Wahlbeck, 2012). This challenges some of the “ethnic business” literature which assumes that newcomers are not so different from their established co-nationals and will integrate into co-national networks (Pécoud, 2010, 2012).

Beside migration careers, generation calls into question the relationship between ethnicity and business (Mindes et al., 2022; Pécoud, 2010). Studies focus on first generation entrepreneurs, often overlooking their children (i.e., second generation) and those who arrived at a very young age (i.e., 1.5 generation) (Koning and Verver 2013; Mindes et al., 2022; Rusinovic 2006). Research on the second generations tends to focus on intergenerational transmission (Eroğlu, 2018), and motivation and sector choices (Tao et al., 2021). However, the few studies on ethnic resources show that second-generation migrants mobilize their ethnic resources differently than their parents (Koning and Verver, 2013; Nicholls, 2012; Rusinovic, 2008).

Still, we believe that ethnicity remains a useful tool to understand the specific resources migrants employ to conduct a business (Pécoud, 2012). Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we prefer to move beyond reifying the definition of ethnicity by studying the entrepreneurs’ narratives regarding their identity (Barrett and Vershinina, 2017) and how these representations distinguish themselves from others (Koning and Verver, 2013). Indeed, Italians migrants in the UK with different social positions adopt imaginaries and narratives regarding their closeness to the imaginary of the UK meritocracy to distinguish themselves from “Italian backwardness”, thereby recreating the hierarchies (Varriale, 2021). However, imaginaries and narratives are constrained by socio-economic inequality, especially regarding work (Varriale, 2023: 343-345).

Here, we study how the (competing) definition of ethnicity by entrepreneurs intersects with their entrepreneurial identity, defined as “how entrepreneurs orient and see themselves, give meaning to their experiences, provides guidelines for their actions, and distinguish themselves from others” (Tao et al., 2021: 1156). Migrant entrepreneurs make strategic choices and display their agency in “defining” and using ethnic resources (Brettell and Alstatt, 2007; Anthias and Cederberg, 2009). For example, Turkish entrepreneurs in Berlin find a subtle balance in mobilizing their ethnic resources to give a “cosmopolitan” atmosphere to their business so that they can attract German clients which may be frightened by a “too Turkish” shop (Pécoud, 2004). Thus, entrepreneurs may strategically rely on and utilize appropriate ethnic resources (Nicholls, 2012, 2015). However, research indicates that leveraging ethnic markers for business purposes is primarily done by entrepreneurs with higher education and by later generations, who are better equipped to navigate the context and resources (Orozco, 2022). Overall, we follow scholars studying entrepreneurs’ ethnic identities as discourse and practice (Koning and Verver, 2013). These approaches are less common, since the literature mainly approaches ethnic entrepreneurship by focusing on entrepreneurs’ demographic features (Ma et al., 2013).

Italians in Belgium and in the food industry

Italians are an interesting group to study in the Belgian context since important intra-group differences exist. While Italian migration in Europe is well-established and well-studied, new migration patterns are understudied (Dubucs et al., 2017; Morelli, 2016). Recent immigration no longer predominantly stems from the Southern Italy. Further, migrants tend to be more educated. Scholars continue to debate the extent to which this signifies a significant shift in the migrant population from lower-skilled to higher-skilled profiles. Despite political discourses on “brain drain”, only a minority of graduates leave Italy (Tintori and Romei, 2017). Migration research tends to focus on new intra-EU highly skilled migrants, overlooking intra-group differences and hierarchies (Varriale, 2021, 2023).

In Belgium, migration scholars differentiate between different time periods: arrivals between 1968 and 2000, and after 2000 (Martiniello et al., 2017). A sizeable number of Italians arrived after World War II due to a bilateral agreement between Italy and Belgium. These were predominantly miners and working conditions were dangerous. Consequently, Italy stopped sending workers after a major coal-mining accident (Morelli, 2004; Rea, 2000). However, the bilateral agreement’s end did not mean Italian migration’s end (Morelli, 2004), especially because of free labor movement within the European Economic Community. By 1980, Italian migration began to shift and started to be mostly constituted by educated individuals working in international institutions or companies. From the 2000s, Italian migration to Belgium further accelerated, comprising educated young people coming from urban areas who were attracted by the EU institutions and moving mainly to Brussels. This migration is quite different from the post-World War II Italian migrants (Myria, 2016; Pion, 2016). This generational gap between “new” and “old” migration waves creates some diversity within the group, considering the Italian second-generation group as well (the firs wave’s children) (Dubucs et al., 2017; Sala and Baldassar, 2019). The second (and third) generation Italians, despite improved social conditions than their parents or grandparents, remain overrepresented in less skilled positions (Morelli, 2004).

Brussels is an interesting case study to approach this diversity. During the 19^th and 20^th century, this city attracted the first, mostly precarious, Italians migrants (Morelli, 2004). Recently, it has again become the prime destination for new Italian immigrants (Pion, 2016). Indeed, compared with Flanders and Wallonia, the number of Italians keeps significantly increasing in Brussels. European institutions tend to attract highly educated young Italians. Still, a considerable number of Italians have a more modest socio-economic position, and remain off the research radar (Martiniello et al., 2017).

Here, we focus on the food sector. Italians were already active in the Belgian food business at the end of the 19^th century. They had cafes and grocery shops, and produced and sold their own food. The shops and activities were using the Italian label as a business strategy and marker. At that time, few Italians were present in Brussels. Most were relatively poor. To survive, these entrepreneurs needed to go beyond the ethnic market, and target a wealthier and larger clientele (De Maret, 2013). During the 20^th century, Italian restaurants underwent many changes. In the 1960s and 1970s, due to Italians’ upward mobility, restaurants were no longer located in the poorer neighborhoods and expand across the city. In the 1970s and 1980s, the number of Italian restaurants dramatically increased. During the second half of the 20^th century, the Italian entrepreneurs followed a twofold strategy. They put forward the Italian, and not the regional, identity of their shop (e.g., giving an Italian name) while adapting the Italian cuisine to the non-Italian clientele, which was not fully used to the Italian taste (Van Ingelgem, 2014). Thus, Italian restaurants in Brussels were adapting to fit in the Belgian food sector by offering the degree of Italianness the (Belgian) clientele was asking for (De Maret, 2013; Van Ingelgem, 2014). Today, the new Italian generation is also active in the food business. However, they tend to develop innovative business practices to find their place in the food service industry (e.g., importing high quality products directly from Italy) (Martiniello et al., 2017).

Methodology: Studying Italian entrepreneurship in Brussels

Although an extensive literature has examined the Italian presence in Belgium, the “new” pattern of migrations remains largely unexplored (Martiniello et al., 2017; Morelli, 2016). Moreover, although Brussels has many Italian restaurants and this sector attracts many Italian migrants (Martiniello et al., 2017: 445), few studies have addressed this topic (Van Ingelgem, 2014). The limited analysis on the intragroup diversity among Italians in Belgium and their presence in the food industry led us to choose an inductive and qualitative approach. Our primary research focus was on ethnic solidarity, with the objective of transcending a homogenizing vision of the issue. We conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with Italian entrepreneurs who run an Italian restaurant or shop in the food sector in Brussels. We used purposive quota sampling based on the different Italian immigration waves to Belgium (Martiniello et al., 2017: 442). Therefore, we interviewed first-generation Italians who had arrived in Belgium before 2000 (14) and after 2000 (12), and second generation individuals (i.e., children of Italian migrants; 14). For clarity, we use the terms “first wave migrants” to refer to the Italian migrants who arrived prior to 2000, “second wave migrants” for those who arrived after 2000, and “second generations” to designate the children of Italian migrants.

Interviews were conducted from March 2019 to October 2020. Two authors are of Italian origin and highly educated. To avoid selecting highly educated entrepreneurs, we refrained from contacting them through our personal networks. Instead, we identified Italian businesses in various neighborhoods of Brussels by a random walk within the city. However, the pandemic and COVID-19 regulations forced us to change our sample selection strategy: on March 18, 2020, the Belgian government ordered a lockdown and restaurants were closed until June 8, when most interviews were conducted (32 out of 40). As we could no longer walk easily through the city and restaurants were closed, we contacted entrepreneurs through our own network. The interviews conducted during the lockdown were done remotely using video conference tools (WhatsApp video call in 4 cases) or by phone (2). After a brief reopening, the Belgian government closed the restaurants again on October 19. At the reopening, two face-to-face interviews were conducted.

The interviews addressed several topics linked to the business: previous work experiences, past and current business activities, obstacles encountered, and kind of support received and from whom (i.e., family, friends or relatives, or other Italians). Due to the lockdown, a major challenge was to avoid entrepreneurs’ complaints regarding limited state support and their fears regarding the future of their activities.

The second wave migrants predominantly have a university degree (8), with others having a high school degree (3), and one with less than junior secondary education. Among the 14 first wave migrants, only 1 of them had a university degree, while the others hold a professional diploma (10). The remaining (3) have a high school degree. Finally, among the 14 second-generation entrepreneurs, 5 have a professional diploma, 7 a high school degree, and 2 have a university education. Consequently, the “new” generations of Italian migrants interviewed are more educated than their predecessors. However, we remain cautious about assuming that new migration waves in Belgium are unequivocally more educated, as a significant proportion of lower-educated Italian immigrants exists (Tintori and Romei, 2017). As empirical studies regarding the intra-group diversity of Italians in Brussels remain scarce, we cannot accurately assess selection bias in our sample regarding highly educated entrepreneurs who arrived in Brussels after 2000.

The entrepreneurs interviewed operate businesses related to the food industry in Brussels: 21 interviewees run a restaurant or pizzeria, 3 a deli, 3 a grocery, and 13 a mix of these activities. A slight majority of entrepreneurs (26) are assisted by or operate their businesses in collaboration with family members. These businesses are small or medium-sized: 5 participants do not have employees, 21 employ 1 to 5 employees, and 14 employ more than 6 employees. The largest business activity employs 14 people.

We thematic analyzed the interviews (Paillé and Mucchielli, 2016). Initially, we wanted to ascertain the impact of social capital and ethnic solidarity on the business. Nevertheless, it became clear that interviewees felt they had not received support from other Italians and many held negative views about them, despite strong attachment to their business’ Italian identity. Consequently, a significant proportion of the analysis addresses this ambivalent narrative, which is discussed in greater detail next. For this, consistent with the approach of qualitative scholars studying in-group diversity and narrative (Varriale, 2023: 337), a select number of quotes are used to prioritize analysis and theoretical insights over frequency reporting.

The Italian community as the Loch Ness: Invisible to many

Scholars often assume that sharing the same nationality and culture in a “foreign” environment constitutes a perfect condition for developing in-group solidarity (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). Through the “ethnic advantage,” entrepreneurs have access to various resources (cultural capital, cheap labor, financial support, information, etc.) (Rath et al., 2020). Italian entrepreneurs in Brussels acknowledge that Italians know each other but stress the competitive rather than cooperative nature of these relationships. Many interviewees highlight that Italians are jealous, and are reluctant to adopt cooperative business strategies or support their co-nationals. Aldo, ¹ a second wave migrant, compares the Italian community with other ethnic minorities in Brussels, such as Turks or Moroccans, and stresses the absence of collaboration among Italian entrepreneurs:

Everyone knows each other [but] “united” is a big word. Unfortunately, we live in a world within envy and jealousy overcome unity. (…) Go to the morning market [and you will see]. The Arabs unite and buy pallets of fruit and vegetables. And then they split it up. The Italians, we could buy pallets of mozzarella and then divide it up to get a lower price. But… while the Arabs succeed [to act collectively], the Italians are going to say: “but you consume 50 kilos, I consume 10, and then you consume more” without getting to the final result: we’ve reached an agreement to pay everyone less. (…) Instead, the problem is that you enter into competition: you consume more, I consume less. And this is the problem. (Aldo)

As suggested by Pietro, a second-generation entrepreneur who inherited an Italian food store from his parents, Italians are not a homogeneous and very close group. Comparing the “Italian community” to the Loch Ness monster, Pietro said:

Today the “Italian community” does not have a particular role. This image of “the Italians” …no: it doesn’t exist anymore, or it was mainly true for the people at the beginning… [it is] a bit like the “Loch Ness”: someone saw it but we are not really sure of its existence! According to me, it is more an idea we have about immigration but except from the very beginning when there were big waves [immigration flux] in the ‘40s or ‘70s. (…). The mutual assistance, at the commercial level, to develop a business and so on, for me, it’s a bit of a legend that we like to pass on. But it’s still a legend. (Pietro)

Entrepreneurs tend to highlight the lack of solidarity among Italians. Research (Smans et al., 2014) reveals that subnational (regional) identities are extremely important for entrepreneurs. In our case, only a minority mention their regional belonging and claimed receiving limited occasional support on this basis. Four entrepreneurs acknowledge receiving help from Italians from the same region and one from the same village. Matteo, a second-generation migrant who inherited his restaurant from his parents, is among the few entrepreneurs who have experienced some regional solidarity. Yet, it is unclear where regional belonging was the sole reason for this support since the supported person has been collaborating with Matteo’s family for a considerable period:

[Name] is a man who have the same origin as me, Sardinian, so there was a “patriotic” understanding. I mean, a feeling of belonging, of being understood, because originally, we were developing Italian cuisine. Because originally it was my parents who were associated with him. And I’m the one who took over the restaurant afterwards, so he’s a bit older than me. (Matteo)

Notably, entrepreneurs are not on their own: 26 respondents run a family business or acknowledge receiving help from a close family member (mainly their wife or parents). Manolo, a second-generation migrant who has a restaurant and gourmet shop, prefers working with his family rather than “strangers”:

It’s really just between us, close family. (…) It’s better to hire them [his nephews and cousins], even if it’s a financial effort, it’s for them, I mean it’s not a stranger, if it’s difficult, you can tell them (it’s never happened, but let’s face it) “you can wait a bit for the salary.” Generally speaking, the family has helped a lot to set everything up, put in the furniture, the products, we’ve always done everything as a family. It’s very much a family affair. (Manolo)

Therefore, the support provided seems to originate not from the “ethnic” community but rather from the family. Although many authors conflated ethnic and kin solidarity (see Solano, 2024), these are different: solidarity comes from being part of the same family rather than the same group (Portes, 1998; Solano, 2024).

Additionally, some interviewees received (financial or other kinds of) support from Italians friends or relatives. However, they do not frame it as support from “the Italian community” but simply as friendship. For example, Eduardo, a first wave migrant who arrived in Belgium as a child and runs an Italian restaurant today, acknowledges receiving financial support from an Italian friend:

We got help to open the restaurant from a friend who helped us financially, it’s my girlfriend’s friend who wanted to give her a hand, an Italian who lives in Brussels. He works in the restaurant business too. Then, somewhere we got “help” from the owners of the restaurant who allowed us to pay in several times. In fact, the former owner of the restaurant was a friend of this friend who gave us financial support, that’s how we met him: through acquaintances. They were Italians too, that’s how we were able to restart after a failure/fall. (Eduardo)

Breaking out the ethnic community as a market strategy

Based on previous section, it seems that in-group or bounded solidarity is lacking. Nevertheless, the reference to the ethnic community is a prominent theme in our respondents’ discourses when discussing the targeted clientele, even if it is an unanticipated manner. Regarding ethnic entrepreneurship and ethnicity, scholars have also discussed the aspect related to demand (Rath et al., 2020). The presence and concentration of migrants having specific tastes favors migrant entrepreneurs by offering a protected market which can only by satisfied by their co-ethnic entrepreneurs (Aldrich et al., 1985; Light, 1972). In our case, if entrepreneurs acknowledge Italians’ attachment to specific tastes and favors, it is not considered as an asset. Cathy, a second-generation entrepreneur whose father had a long career in the food business and opened a high-quality snack and restaurant, raised the issue that attachment to homeland tastes prevents her from adapting recipes:

Sometimes, with the Italian, with the Italian customer, there’s a form a …. that means that because he ate at home, at his mum’s house, that’s how it’s good. And he’s very attached to what he’s known, what he’s imprinted in his taste buds and just like him he thinks it should be. (…) Right now I can’t think of any other examples, but either you’re dealing with an Italian who’s simply, well, finds Italian cuisine but accepts that there’s an element of realization, of creativity. Or you’re dealing with an uncompromising Italian who thinks that’s the way it is and no other way. (Cathy)

Matteo goes a step further, arguing that if Italians are so attached to familial cuisine, they should not even attempt to go to his restaurant:

The Italian clients are one of the most complicated and difficult European clients to satisfy. The Italians, it is “la mamma …la pasta” …Well, then you should eat at your mother’s place! (Matteo)

This discourse is not limited to second generation migrants. Luca, second wave migrant with a university degree who opened a restaurant, told us that Italians are simultaneously the best advertisement and worst clients since they are too attached to specific tastes:

Already it’s [Italian clientele] the best publicity a restaurant can get, having like a lot of Italians in the clientele. But it can also be a weak point. Like, let me explain, as an entrepreneur in the Italian restaurant business, we try not to work with Italians at all. Because it’s also a… like, for example, [name of his signature dessert], you see, that’s the dessert we sell most to foreigners, in other words, people who aren’t Italian. Because Italians are always a bit wary. You always get someone saying “ah no but you know my aunt” as I explained to you, you see, we called it “2.0 [name of the dessert]” to emphasize the fact that it was revisited. But revisiting dishes for Italians isn’t always well received. It’s like trying to keep the tradition alive, you know. And whereas perhaps in other culinary cultures and therefore among other peoples, you know, Italians are always seen as people who pay attention to detail in the preparation of dishes and in presentation, for example. Whereas Italians, you see, always try to find the best tastes at the lowest price. You see, the Belgians don’t give a damn. (Luca)

Moreover, as suggested by Luca, Italian clients are not only described by entrepreneurs as overly attached to their homeland tastes but also have an unrealistic expectation regarding the price. Emanuele is a second wave migrant (with a university degree) and opened an Italian restaurant. They offered a similar critique towards his co-national clients:

The Italians they say to you “I eat a carbonara in Italy for 14 or 15 euros” But as you understood: it is not the same product. This is not only about finding the ingredients, it also is about bringing it back here. I don’t get the ingredients from Italian suppliers here because obviously it’s very expensive and the quality is really low because they do margin [on these products]. I take everything in Italy, of course it’s more complicated to make deliveries and so on and so forth. But in fact it’s much more expensive to make a carbonara here in Brussels than in Rome. (Emanuele)

The Italian clientele’s negative image may be linked to broader socio-economic processes. Market characteristics affect migrant entrepreneurship (Jin et al., 2022). Tourism and Italian food supply’s development affect what Italian cuisine is and how Italians are linked to it (Beyers, 2008). Italian entrepreneurs acknowledge these two factors. Thanks to travel facilities, going back to Italy and enjoying Italian food is an affordable option. As raised by Emanuele above, entrepreneurs in Belgium cannot compete with prices similar to the Italian ones. Moreover, in Brussels, many supermarkets sell Italian products. Therefore, entrepreneurs face competition from mass retail, which have lower prices. According to Antonello, a first wave migrant who opened a gourmet food shop:

The Italian community did not have an important role [in my business], it was not complicated, I didn’t have any difficulties either. However, at the level of my “co-nationals”, it must be acknowledged that they are looking for a price rather than a product. They [the customers] are waiting for the Italian week at Cora [Belgian supermarket] instead of coming to buy in my store. (Antonello)

Overall, Italian entrepreneurs tend to distance themselves from Italian clients: only one targeted an Italian clientele and considered Italians’ attachment to specific taste as an asset. Even for those who have an Italian clientele, it is not clear that they purposely attract them. Emilio, a second wave migrant with a university degree, opened a restaurant that aims to provide high quality, local, and ethic Italian products. They described that half of their clients are Italians even if “they were not their target”. As suggested previously, a socio-economic process might explain this unexpected result (Jin et al., 2022). However, in the following, we push for an alternative hypothesis by focusing on self-defined ethnicity.

Contesting Italianness: When ethnicity fosters intra-group separation

As Koning and Verver (2013) suggested, ethnicity is relational (one group is defined in relation another), contingent, and context dependent. In our case, second wave migrants identify a sharp difference between the “old” and “new” Italian migrant waves. Antonio, a second wave migrant, ran a fast-food restaurant at major cultural events in Brussels, and opened a restaurant offering Belgian and Italian cuisine. He distinguishes the two “waves” as follows:

So the second [wave of Italian immigrants] is rather another kind, it has completely changed. They are researchers, people who work at the [European] Commission. This kind of migration, which didn’t exist before because in the 1950s, it was more agreements between two countries. Because we [Italy] needed coal and Belgium needed manpower. So we made exchanges, as with Canada, Australia and other countries in the world. And then, the second wave is really a different thing, it’s another type of migration. […] [In the past] There was more help from other Italians. In fact, the Italian community, I still have friends who come here and meet old people who used to help the community to find work or to stay in Belgium. […] but this is not really the case in the second wave of Italian migration. (Alessandro)

We can argue that, contrary to Waldingers’ (1996) expectation, newcomers did not integrate in the pre-existing networks and migrant economic activities. Rather, as Katila and Wahlbeck (2012) suggested, different migration trajectories created different sub-groups and networks. Alessandro claims that different migrant generations, or “old” and “new” Italians, have different socio-economic profiles and develop their own contacts, leading to the coexistence of various Italian communities. Notably, recent literature tends to question the general assumption that the new Italian migrant generation is more educated (Tintori and Romei, 2017) and highlight the presence of the other kind of migrants with lower economic and cultural capital (Varriale, 2023). Our data do not allow us to assess intra-group socio-economic differences among the first and second wave migrants: the second wave migrants entrepreneurs we met were more educated than those who arrived earlier.

Considering this socio-economic difference among these two groups, we examine another hypothesis: Italian entrepreneurs do not claim they belong to an “Italian community” because they attempt to distance themselves from “other Italians” with a different profile. Indeed, according to Varriale (2021), intra-group diversity exists among southern EU migrants. Italian migrants’ narratives regarding Italianness should be understood as a source of distinction.

In our case, second wave migrant entrepreneurs (having higher education) note that first-generation entrepreneurs did not have their background and qualifications, which reflects their approach to Italianness and Italian cuisine. Emilio, a second wave Italian migrant who is highly skilled and started a restaurant that aims to provide high-quality Italian products, reproduces the narrative around the shift from lower-education migration to high skilled migration.

Here in Brussels, there are two networks of Italians. The recent network which is linked to the new migration of people who work at the university, at the [European] Commission and in certain restaurants. It is still the old generation that controls the restaurant business. They are really completely different worlds. And we don’t meet each other’s, there is no real communication. Even in terms of products and suppliers, they’re different things. We buy local products, from small producers, and not from the retail sectors. The profit is different too. It’s not to say who does the best, but it’s different historical contexts. (Emilio)

Interestingly, such an attempt to draw hierarchies is also present in business practices. The Italianness of the restaurant and food matters: 36 entrepreneurs sell “Italian” food, and 3 “Belgian and Italian food”. Moreover 18 interviewees raise the genuineness of their “Italian cuisine”. However, when evoked, such attachment is often implicitly used by second wave Italian migrants to draw a line between them, who are doing “authentic” cuisine, and the first wave migrants. As Van Ingelgem (2014) suggested, the previous entrepreneur generation made a familial cuisine and added some Franco-Belgian features to it. Among more recently arrived entrepreneurs with a higher educational background, many claim to be horrified by this hybridization of Italian and Belgian cuisine. Aldo (second wave, highly educated Italian migrant) considers that such cuisine is not “authentic” but the sign of a concession, or even a compromise, made by the previous generation:

In Belgium they used to serve pasta with meat. It was a French idea changed for Italians to adapt to the market (…) But, according to me, an Italian restaurant must give the identity of Italy. The identity of Italy means few cream, genuine products, and not compromising with clients. If you want to give - it’s more difficult - but if you want to give the identity of giving a feeling of your true country, you have to stick to it. (…) Unfortunately, in Belgium many restaurateurs have compromised to meet the needs of a more international clientele. (Aldo)

This cohort of entrepreneurs is not only horrified by the “classical” cuisine offered by Italian restaurants in Belgium, but also clearly state that they will not follow this trend. They emphasize the excellence of their skills, suggesting that the previous generation does not have the same level. Luca stressed that his chefs are well-trained and they do not want to do “stereotypical” food; they rather want to “maintain a high level of cuisine”:

The concept of revisiting Italian cuisine was also a way of avoiding the stereotypical Italian carbonara or Bolognese. These are the kinds of things we’re currently offering for delivery, for the take-away menu, because with these products you can keep the prices reasonable. Because afterwards, if you have to go to a restaurant to eat tagliatelle alla carbonara or tagliatelle alla bolognese and spend 18 euros for one dish… for us, that’s excessive. At that point we’d rather have a pistachio pesto and sell it for 17 euros. And do something different, things that are difficult to do at home. What’s more, the chefs have worked with a Michelin-starred chef, so they have a lot of knowledge and know-how. So it’s also for them not to fall into things that are too basic. At a certain point it takes away the desire to go to work. So it was always about maintaining a high level of cuisine and challenge. (Luca)

Thus, we observed a clear strategy of second-wave migrants to re-define the concept of Italianness, as “authentic” and “high end”, challenging the classical understanding of it propounded by Italian migrants after World War II. Additionally, this re-definition of the Italianness seems linked to a regionalization of the concept. According to Cathy, who has a long experience in the Italian food business, new wave entrepreneurs push forward their regional identity when they open a restaurant, versus first wave ones undertaking hybridization:

Now, the new [entrepreneurs] who have arrived recently from Italy have a different mentality. (…)If you look at the [restaurant name], you can see that they come from [region of Italy] and what they do is very much linked to what they experience there, the land, the products, the way they cook. It’s all reflected in the food. As a result, a lot of Italians identify with it. A restaurant like [restaurant name], they too come from [Italian city]. And who else? [restaurant name], for example, comes from [region of Italy]. So there you have it: the new generations have arrived with their own identity, and that’s great because it’s given the Italian culinary landscape a new color. Before, we had immigrants who didn’t know much, who didn’t come from the restaurant world and who made Italian-Belgian cuisine. (Cathy)

Among our second wave interviewees, we notice such a trend. For example, Aldo runs an Italian restaurant “with a Napolitan touch”. Roberto, who owns a shop and a restaurant, sells regional food from the region, Sardinia and wants to make it clear for their clients:

It’s a kind of job which is a lot about Sardinia [region of Italy]. I mean, if I sell typical Sardinian food products, I must have the knowledge that these products exist. For example, if you sell culigonis [kind of pasta], you have to know the culigonis, you have to know how they are made, you have to know what is inside that container that little container of pasta, you have to know the history of culigonis. So a German can also do it, sell Sardinian food products, but it must be a German who goes to Sardinia, who knows the habits of Sardinia food and study all these things to be able to explain to the client. (Roberto)

Thus, Italianness as a source of distinction appears to be used by second wave Italian migrants to draw a line between them and first-wave Italian migrants on the basis that they do the “real” Italian cuisine, alongside a certain degree of regionalization. Such attempts impact their whole entrepreneurial identity.

We notice a similar process between second-generation entrepreneurs, and both first- and second-wave Italian migrants. Second-generation entrepreneurs consider that they are regarded as outsiders because their cuisine is not “authentic” and too familiar, as explained by Matteo, a second-generation entrepreneur who inherited his restaurant from his parents:

So we never had any support from the Italian community and I’m going to be even stronger than that, I think that the restaurant owners of our generation were even sulked by the Italian community, especially when we were not “pure” Italians, in fact we don’t make “real Italian food” and they were right. So we were not considered by the Italian community. (Matteo)

The attempt to (re)draw hierarchies is less obvious for the first wave migrants. However, the attempt to distinguish themselves from “other Italians” is pervasive in the narrative surrounding “Italian clients”. Similarly to Varriale’s (2021, 2023) findings, first wave migrant entrepreneurs differentiate themselves from the “mass” of Italians (e.g., clients) by negatively portraying them and emphasizing their “backward mentality.” For example, many interviewees highlight the “envy” that prevents them from receiving support from other Italians. Michele, a first wave migrant restaurant owner, states, “Italians, I don’t really like these people, they have a bad mentality. A lot of jealousy”. Similarly, Sebastiano, a first wave migrant who has a small familial restaurant, clearly distinguishes between his Italian clients and acquaintances, cultivated and powerful, and the other members of the Italian community who do not have appropriate behaviors:

- Sebastiano: There are very few Italians in my establishment because I’m very critical of my compatriots, I don’t like the way they behave, etc. But I have very good Italian friends who come to eat and they’re very important people. But I’m not going to give out first names and all that, good people, everyone else is shit.

- Interviewer: Relaunch, did these people support you, give you a hand?

- Sebastiano: No, no, never. We’re very cultured, they’re very cultured, so they come, they eat and then we discuss philosophy, life, politics, literature… everything.

Overall, Italianness, particularly in the redefinition of authentic cuisine, reshapes the concept of the “Italian community” for entrepreneurs, leading to fragmentation within. Their efforts to distinguish themselves from ‘other Italians’ stem from judgments about the authenticity of their cuisine.

Discussion

We analyze how Italian entrepreneurs in Brussels conceive their relationship with the “Italian community” and leverage their ethnicity (Italianness/Italianità, i.e., the fact of being Italian). By focusing on narratives (Barrett and Vershinina, 2017), our study reveals that ethnicity matters for entrepreneurs, but in contradictory and unexpected ways.

Scholars often assume that, thanks to an “ethnic advantage”, entrepreneurs have access to various resources (cultural capital, cheap labor, financial support, information, etc.) (Rath et al., 2020). However, interviewed entrepreneurs rejected the idea of an in-group/bounded solidarity. Additionally, while scholars underscore that co-nationals/co-ethnics have specific tastes which can be satisfied by their co-ethnic entrepreneurs (Aldrich et al., 1985; Light, 1972; Solano, 2020), most interviewed entrepreneurs did not focus mainly on an Italian clientele and depicted them in negative terms (picky, demanding, etc.).

Nonetheless, Italian entrepreneurs in the food sector strongly refer to their italianità. Following Varriale (2021), we argue that Italianness is contested and creates intra-group separation rather than fostering in-group solidarity. Hence, interviewees may have stated that there was no in-group solidarity and a cohesive Italian community they can rely on, while showing strong attachment to their italianità. The concept of Italianness is disputed and draws a line between respondents from different migration waves and generations. Younger first-generation entrepreneurs are more attached to high-quality “authentic” Italian cuisine (or regional cuisine; see below) and criticize both the older first and second generation Italian entrepreneurs for watering down the original Italian cuisine and doing low-quality cuisine. Moreover, by describing Italian clients as too attached to specific tastes, entrepreneurs implicitly reassert their openness and (sometimes) cuisine’s creativity. Concurrently, the first wave migrants tend to negatively portray other Italians (e.g., Italian clients). This may be an attempt to distance themselves from the stereotype of lower-class Italian migrants. These results highlight the need to question ethnicity as a narrative that might also bring distinction.

This fragmentation, stemming from the contested definition and use of ethnicity, may explain why Italian entrepreneurs consider that they do not belong to the Italian community and feel that they have not received support from it, despite receiving some support from Italian friends or relatives. This is partially contrary with the “classical” literature on ethnic solidarity, which assumes that sharing a cultural practice in a “foreign” environment constitutes a perfect condition for developing in-group solidarity (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993), and that new migrants do not disrupt the national migrant group; rather, they integrate into already-existing networks (Waldinger, 1996). In our case, cultural practices (doing Italian food) and concern about their genuineness (doing real Italian food) are precisely what creates hierarchies inside the “Italian group”.

Notably, ethnicity may not just refer to national identity. Research on the Italian diaspora stresses that some solidarity mechanisms which emerge among migrants from the same region and regional identities are particularly strong among Italian migrants (Smans et al., 2014). We provide mixed evidence on this. While our respondents rarely mentioned the same regional provenience as a factor generating in-group solidarity, the younger first generation entrepreneurs appear more attached to regional cuisine, given that they sometimes propose regional-based menus.

Overall, our findings show that ethnicity is more than a group feature, as individuals have a certain leeway, or agency, in how they use their ethnicity (Anthias and Cederberg, 2009; Nicholls, 2012, 2015; Pécoud, 2004). The differences in our findings based on respondents’ generation and when they arrived in Belgium/Brussels support Pécoud’s critique (2012) against assuming that newcomers fit the established group of co-nationals. Nowadays, migrants and migrant entrepreneurs have different profiles, and no longer form a homogenous group. Moreover, ethnicity is contingent and context-dependent (Koning and Verver, 2013). In our case, the younger Italian migrant generation strongly opposes the older generation regarding the authenticity of the food, which impacts business practices and in-group solidarity.

In conclusion, examining Italian entrepreneurs in Brussels, we demonstrate how ethnicity is shaped and contested, and how generations matter. Here, generation intersects with educational background. Scholars should investigate to what extent less skilled new Italian migrants define their ethnicity. Additionally, Italians are currently less stigmatized as a group, which may have weakened their intra-group solidarity and fostered intra-group fragmentation. Scholars should explore different migratory waves of still highly stigmatized migrant groups (e.g., Turkish migrants in Belgium).