Social capital or ethnic enclave location? A multilevel explanation of immigrant business growth

The rapid increase in migration into host countries and the growth of immigrant-owned business enterprises has revitalized research on ethnic business. Does micro (individual)-level social capital, or meso (group)-level location within the ethnic enclave lead to immigrant business growth? Or do you need both? We analyze quantitative data collected from 110 Chinese restaurants in Australia, a major host country. At the micro level we find that coethnic (same ethnic group) networks are critical to the growth of an immigrant entrepreneur's business, particularly in the early years. But non-coethnic (different ethnic group) social capital only has a positive impact on business growth for immigrant businesses outside the ethnic enclave. Our findings are relevant, not only to host-country policymakers, but also for future immigrant business owners and ethnic community leaders trying to better understand how to promote healthy communities and sustainable economic growth.

Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are used to combine results across studies to determine an overall effect. Meta-analysis is especially useful for combining evidence to inform social policy, but meta-analyses of applied social science research may encounter practical issues arising from the nature of the research domain. The current paper identifies potential resolutions to four issues that may be encountered in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in social research. The four issues are: scoping and targeting research questions appropriate for meta-analysis; selecting eligibility criteria where primary studies vary in research design and choice of outcome measures; dealing with inconsistent reporting in primary studies; and identifying sources of heterogeneity with multiple confounded moderators. The paper presents an overview of each issue with a review of potential resolutions, identified from similar issues encountered in meta-analysis in medical and biological sciences. The discussion aims to share and improve methodology in systematic reviews and meta-analysis by promoting cross-disciplinary communication, that is, to encourage 'viewing through different lenses'.

Creating change in government to address the social determinants of health: How can efforts be improved?

Background The evidence base for the impact of social determinants of health has been strengthened considerably in the last decade. Increasingly, the public health field is using this as a foundation for arguments and actions to change government policies. The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, alongside recommendations from the 2010 Marmot Review into health inequalities in the UK (which we refer to as the ‘Fairness Agenda’), go beyond advocating for the redesign of individual policies, to shaping the government structures and processes that facilitate the implementation of these policies. In doing so, public health is drawing on recent trends in public policy towards ‘joined up government’, where greater integration is sought between government departments, agencies and actors outside of government. Methods In this paper we provide a meta-synthesis of the empirical public policy research into joined up government, drawing out characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives. We use this thematic synthesis as a basis for comparing and contrasting emerging public health interventions concerned with joined-up action across government. Results We find that HiAP and the Fairness Agenda exhibit some of the characteristics associated with successful joined up initiatives, however they also utilise ‘change instruments’ that have been found to be ineffective. Moreover, we find that – like many joined up initiatives – there is room for improvement in the alignment between the goals of the interventions and their design. Conclusion Drawing on public policy studies, we recommend a number of strategies to increase the efficacy of current interventions. More broadly, we argue that up-stream interventions need to be ‘fit-for-purpose’, and cannot be easily replicated from one context to the next.