The Unequal Capture of South Africa’s Informal Economy: A Systematic Review of Indigenous and Immigrant Entrepreneurship

1. Introduction

South Africa’s informal economy is simultaneously a livelihood system, a site of enterprise formation and a contested arena of political-economic inclusion. The supplied literature describes informal businesses as contributing to employment, wages, rents, taxation, innovation, household food access and poverty mitigation (Ngota et al., 2019; Simba & Tajeddin, 2023; Tawodzera & Crush, 2023). Township and rural enterprises also operate under persistent constraints involving finance, infrastructure, skills, technology, workspace, regulatory support and business viability (Urban & Ndou, 2019; Mothamaha & Sibanda, 2025; Schenck et al., 2025). These conditions make market access more than an individual entrepreneurial outcome: it is shaped by institutional rules, governance practices, spatial location, social legitimacy and unequal access to resources.

The literature supplied for this review gives particular attention to immigrant entrepreneurship. Immigrant entrepreneurs are described as facing documentation delays, permit uncertainty, restricted banking access, legal and civic marginalisation, policing, violence and xenophobic exclusion (Nyakabawu, 2022; Tawodzera & Crush, 2023; Akintan, 2026). At the same time, immigrant-owned businesses contribute to local economies and frequently use social capital, family support, communal savings, prior skills and transnational ties to overcome restricted access to formal systems (Worku, 2018; Anyah et al., 2026; Naicker et al., 2026). This evidence challenges representations of migrants as passive recipients of exclusion or as uniformly threatening competitors.

The supplied literature also identifies a distinct relational basis for Indigenous and locally embedded entrepreneurship. Indigenous enterprise is associated with community livelihoods, social bonds, trust-based exchange, ecological and cultural resources, and definitions of success that are not reducible to individual profit maximisation (Moyo et al., 2026; Dlamini & Hull, 2024). Such evidence indicates that economic value may be captured and distributed through community-oriented practices that conventional measures of profitability or formalisation may overlook. Nevertheless, the evidence base contains considerably more material on immigrant exclusion, xenophobia and immigrant coping than on directly measured Indigenous-versus-immigrant differences in profitability, market share, formal-market access or business survival.

The review was therefore conducted to integrate dispersed evidence on how status, institutional structures and governance mechanisms shape informal-enterprise participation in South Africa. It is needed because the available studies combine different populations, locations, methods and levels of analysis, while direct comparative evidence remains insufficient. A systematic synthesis can clarify convergence and divergence across this heterogeneous literature, preserve contradictory evidence, distinguish status-specific exclusion from shared structural disadvantage, and identify implications for practice, policy and future research.

2. Research Objectives

RO1: To examine how Political economy dynamics, institutional structures, and governance mechanisms shaping market access and capture influences Unequal market capture, economic differentiation, resource allocation, and business viability among Indigenous and immigrant entrepreneurs operating within the informal economy within South Africa's informal economy and township business sector.

RO2: To identify the principal opportunities, benefits and enabling conditions associated with Political economy dynamics, institutional structures, and governance mechanisms shaping market access and capture in relation to Unequal market capture, economic differentiation, resource allocation, and business viability.

RO3: To analyse the challenges, risks, ethical considerations and implementation barriers associated with Political economy dynamics, institutional structures, and governance mechanisms shaping market access and capture for Indigenous and immigrant entrepreneurs operating within the informal economy.

RO4: To examine the contextual, institutional and practice-related factors that shape the adoption and effective use of Political economy dynamics, institutional structures, and governance mechanisms shaping market access and capture within South Africa's informal economy and township business sector.

RO5: To identify gaps in the available evidence and derive implications for future research, policy and practice relevant to The Unequal Capture of South Africa's Informal Economy: A Comparative Political Economy Analysis of Indigenous and Immigrant Entrepreneurship..

3. Research Methods

3.1. Review Design

The selected review type was Systematic Review. Review design was distinguished from reporting and software support: a systematic review structures searching, eligibility, appraisal and synthesis; PRISMA provides a reporting framework; SALSA describes the linked activities of searching, appraisal, synthesis and analysis; CASP provides study-design-specific critical appraisal; and COSTAQDA supports traceability from extracted findings to codes, categories and themes. This design was appropriate because the project sought a transparent, comprehensive and objective-aligned integration of varied evidence rather than a bibliometric description or a purely scoping map (Grant & Booth, 2009; Page et al., 2021).

3.2. Search Strategy and Information Sources

The researcher-selected databases and information sources were Google Scholar, ERIC. The eligibility protocol restricted publication years to 2018–2026. The exact calendar date of search execution was not recorded in the verified identification provenance; this is distinct from the publication-year eligibility range.

Full Boolean Search String (Exactly as Recorded)

("Informal Economy" OR "informal sector" OR "informal entrepreneurship" OR "shadow economy" OR micro-enterprise OR "street trading") AND ("South Africa" OR "South Africa" OR "Southern Africa" OR Gauteng OR "Western Cape" OR KwaZulu-Natal) AND ("Entrepreneurship Identity" OR "immigrant entrepreneurship" OR "indigenous entrepreneurship" OR "migrant business" OR xenophobia OR "market access" OR "economic capture")

3.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion

• Studies focusing on informal entrepreneurs operating within South Africa.
• Studies that explicitly examine the role of indigenous versus immigrant status in business operations.
• Studies that investigate economic capture, market access, or business sustainability outcomes.
• Peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2018 and 2026.
• Studies written in the English language.
• Studies that provide empirical or theoretical analysis of the South African informal economy.
• Studies that compare or contrast the experiences of indigenous and immigrant entrepreneurs.

Exclusion

• Studies focusing on entrepreneurs operating exclusively within the formal sector.
• Studies conducted in geographic locations outside of South Africa.
• Studies that do not address the influence of immigrant or indigenous status on business outcomes.
• Studies that focus solely on macroeconomic indicators without addressing individual entrepreneur experiences.
• Non-peer-reviewed literature, including grey literature, reports, or book chapters.
• Studies published before 2018 or after 2026.
• Studies written in languages other than English.
• Studies that do not discuss economic capture, market access, or business sustainability.

3.4. Screening and Study Selection

The PRISMA selection counts are persisted, but the decision rule used during title/abstract screening is not available in the verified audit payload. COSTAQDA therefore reports the recorded workflow counts without reconstructing an unverified screening procedure.

The persisted PRISMA workflow records 193 identified records, 0 duplicates, 110 records screened, 109 reports sought for retrieval, 1 records excluded at the title/abstract stage, 81 full texts assessed, 0 full-text exclusions and 81 included records. These counts describe study selection and are not substantive review findings.

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram. Source: COSTAQDA PRISMA Workflow, navigation item 8: PRISMA Flow Diagram; four-stage structure showing Identification, Screening, Eligibility (including CASP critical appraisal) and Included; adapted from PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021).

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram. Source: COSTAQDA PRISMA Workflow, navigation item 8: PRISMA Flow Diagram; four-stage structure showing Identification, Screening, Eligibility (including CASP critical appraisal) and Included; adapted from PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021).

The PRISMA figure should be read as a report of study selection rather than substantive evidence about informal entrepreneurship. Its recorded pathway is 193 identified, 0 duplicates, 110 screened, 109 sought for retrieval, 1 title/abstract exclusion, 81 full texts assessed, 0 full-text exclusions and 81 included. The identification-stage discrepancy remains unresolved because the persisted workflow records both 193 identified records and 110 screened records without a verified reconciliation. The figure therefore transparently reports the stored counts, but the affected identification values should not be treated as independently verified.

3.5. Critical Appraisal

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) was used in the PRISMA full-text workspace, and 81 of 81 currently included studies had completed appraisals. CASP checklists are intended to structure examination of methodological validity, findings and relevance; they should not be treated as an unquestioned arithmetic measure of overall study quality. The available workspace records a mean score of 16.05, but the review does not convert this mean into a threshold or use it as a formal confidence rating. This approach is consistent with calls for nuanced, study-linked interpretation of CASP judgments rather than checklist arithmetic alone (Long et al., 2020).

The supplied study-linked appraisal record identifies methodological concerns for particular studies, although many entries do not provide criterion-level rationales and several decisions state that unsupported criteria were recorded as “Can’t tell.” For example, the appraisal record associates multiple concerns with Urban and Ndou’s township-enterprise study, Tawodzera and Crush’s study of secondary cities, Nyakabawu’s analysis of civic marginalisation, and several conceptual or review-based records. These judgments indicate that missing reporting must be distinguished from demonstrated weakness; where a criterion could not be verified, the appropriate interpretation is uncertainty rather than failure (Noyes et al., 2018; Long et al., 2020).

The appraisal pattern also reflects heterogeneity in the evidence base. Included records combine qualitative interviews, mixed-methods studies, surveys, secondary-data analyses, conceptual frameworks and reviews. Some have clearly described samples or analytic procedures, such as Tawodzera and Crush’s comparative survey of migrant and South African informal enterprise owners and Worku’s large survey of Ethiopian migrant entrepreneurs, while others are repository records, book chapters, conceptual discussions or incomplete text. Such variation constrains direct comparison and means that a higher CASP score cannot establish that a finding is more substantively true across contexts.

These appraisal concerns directly constrain interpretation of the synthesis. Evidence for immigrant exclusion is supported across several study types and locations, but the synthesis cannot estimate a comparative causal effect of immigrant status because the evidence combines designs and outcomes and lacks a verified quantitative extraction dataset. Evidence concerning Indigenous entrepreneurship is more concentrated in conceptual and qualitative accounts of relational value and community legitimacy, which supports interpretation of meaning and practice but not a universal claim of superior market capture. The appraisal therefore informs cautious thematic interpretation rather than exclusion of all studies with uncertainty (Noyes et al., 2018; Lewin et al., 2018).

COSTAQDA-supported traceability strengthens the audit trail by retaining links between finding IDs, study IDs, codes, categories and themes, but traceability does not eliminate limitations in the underlying studies or in the extraction record (Costa & Costa, 2024; Costa & Mfolo, 2024). No finding-level CERQual assessment or other confidence method was recorded. Accordingly, this review reports methodological appraisal and evidence convergence or divergence, but does not assign formal confidence ratings.

Figure 2. CASP Critical Appraisal Intelligence — PRISMA Workflow, Step 6: Full-Text Screening.Source: COSTAQDA PRISMA Workflow, navigation item 6: Full-Text Screening (CASP critical appraisal outputs). The Word figure is generated from the same deterministic COSTAQDA CASP visual.

Figure 2. CASP Critical Appraisal Intelligence — PRISMA Workflow, Step 6: Full-Text Screening.Source: COSTAQDA PRISMA Workflow, navigation item 6: Full-Text Screening (CASP critical appraisal outputs). The Word figure is generated from the same deterministic COSTAQDA CASP visual.

The CASP figure represents completed study-level appraisals, not a validated total-quality or confidence score. It records 81 included studies, 81 completed appraisals and a mean score of 16.05. The average cannot show whether concerns reflect missing reporting, design limitations or substantive threats to interpretation, and it conceals variation across studies. The figure should therefore be used alongside study-linked judgments and rationales rather than as a ranking device (Long et al., 2020).

The supplied appraisal record shows a recurring distinction between documented text and uncertainty. Several records contain criterion-level concern labels, while the associated decision text states that unsupported criteria were conservatively recorded as “Can’t tell” when the configured appraisal service was unavailable. This is important for interpretation: uncertainty about reporting is not equivalent to evidence that a study failed a criterion. The CASP workspace supports an auditable appraisal process, but the absence of complete criterion-level rationales limits detailed cross-study methodological inference (Noyes et al., 2018; Costa & Costa, 2024).

The appraisal pattern is compatible with the synthesis’ main caution. Studies addressing immigrant exclusion and xenophobia provide repeated evidence across contexts, but many are qualitative, conceptual or review-based; studies addressing enterprise performance and structural constraints use different populations and outcomes. The figure cannot establish that one analytical theme is methodologically stronger than another, nor can it substitute for finding-level confidence assessment. No CERQual assessment was recorded (Lewin et al., 2018).

3.6. Data Extraction

A formal data-extraction procedure was not recorded in the project metadata. Nevertheless, the verified synthesis demonstrates that extracted finding-level material was available: 513 findings contributed by 67 studies, with each synthesised theme retaining supporting study IDs and finding IDs. Methodological descriptions, references, keywords and incomplete text were identified in the evidence store and were not used as primary support for interpretive claims where the synthesis record marked them as non-substantive. The difference between 81 included studies and 67 input studies indicates that not every included record contributed to the verified thematic synthesis.

3.7. Data Synthesis and Analysis

Qualitative evidence synthesis was conducted on 513 extracted findings contributed by 67 studies. The COSTAQDA synthesis engine applied thematic synthesis, moving from traceable finding-level evidence to 7 initial codes, 3 categories, 1 descriptive themes and 5 analytical themes.

Theme development was constrained to the extracted finding-level evidence supplied by eligible studies. Each synthesised theme retained supporting study IDs and finding IDs, while contradictory evidence was preserved where identified. Titles, abstracts and bibliographic prominence were not treated as substitutes for extracted qualitative findings.

Recorded synthesis limitations included: The supplied findings contain substantially more evidence on immigrant exclusion, xenophobia and immigrant coping strategies than on directly measured Indigenous-versus-immigrant differences in market capture, profitability or formal-market access.; Several extracted records are methodological descriptions, references, keywords or incomplete text rather than substantive findings; these were not used as primary support for interpretive claims.; The evidence combines qualitative, quantitative, review and conceptual studies, so the synthesis identifies patterns and contrasts but does not estimate comparative causal effects.; Some findings concern the wider informal economy, smallholder agriculture or broader African contexts and therefore provide contextual rather than direct evidence about South African Indigenous and immigrant entrepreneurs.; Positive coexistence and social cohesion findings coexist with evidence of xenophobic violence and institutional exclusion; the supplied material does not establish when or why one context predominates.; The evidence does not permit a firm conclusion that Indigenous entrepreneurs universally capture more economic value or market access than immigrant entrepreneurs..

3.8. Bibliometric Intelligence and Confidence in the Evidence Base

Bibliometric intelligence provides a structural view of the evidence base that complements PRISMA selection, critical appraisal and qualitative synthesis. The following analyses examine citation relationships, scholarly influence, evidence connectivity and knowledge development within the included corpus. They provide contextual evidence about the intellectual structure and provenance of the literature and are not substitutes for methodological quality appraisal.

3.8.1. Local Citation Network

The Local Citation Network maps citation relationships within the included evidence base. It shows how studies are connected within the review corpus and supports examination of intellectual connectedness, centrality, bridging and isolation. These citation relationships describe the structure of the literature and do not, by themselves, establish methodological quality or validity.

Figure 3. Local Citation Network.Source: COSTAQDA PRISMA Workflow.

Figure 3. Local Citation Network.Source: COSTAQDA PRISMA Workflow.

3.8.2. Influence Pyramid

The Influence Pyramid represents the distribution of scholarly influence within the included evidence base. It helps identify how bibliometric prominence is distributed across the reviewed studies. Influence is interpreted separately from methodological quality, which is assessed through critical appraisal.

Figure 4. Influence Pyramid.Source: COSTAQDA PRISMA Workflow.

Figure 4. Influence Pyramid.Source: COSTAQDA PRISMA Workflow.

An Influence Pyramid figure is marked as available in the frontend metadata, but the bibliometric intelligence workspace supplies no source, metric, nodes, values, denominator, citation coverage or influence-score formula. A defensible interpretation therefore cannot be produced. It cannot be determined whether the unit of analysis is included studies, publications, citations or another node type, and no prominence ranking should be inferred. In accordance with bibliometric guidance, the figure should not be interpreted as evidence of methodological quality, causal importance, consensus or influence comparability (Donthu et al., 2021; Zupic & Čater, 2015).

3.8.3. Evidence Strength

The Evidence Strength analysis examines the structure and strength of relationships within the evidence ecosystem assembled for the review. It complements, but does not replace, CASP methodological appraisal and must not be interpreted as a direct estimate of causal effect.

Figure 5. Evidence Strength Network.Source: COSTAQDA PRISMA Workflow.

Figure 5. Evidence Strength Network.Source: COSTAQDA PRISMA Workflow.

An Evidence Strength Network figure is also marked as available, but no nodes, edges, relation types, weights or node metadata are supplied. Its structure and denominator therefore cannot be interpreted defensibly. A network edge cannot establish independent corroboration, study quality, causal strength, confidence or an observed effect. The network must not replace CASP appraisal or the verified thematic synthesis; the available project record permits only the statement that an interpretable network output is not currently available.

3.8.4. Knowledge Evolution

Knowledge Evolution examines the temporal and intellectual development of the included evidence base. It traces how research contributions develop over time and, where supported by the Step 12 data, how later studies extend, connect, challenge or consolidate earlier contributions.

Figure 6. Knowledge Evolution.Source: COSTAQDA PRISMA Workflow.

Figure 6. Knowledge Evolution.Source: COSTAQDA PRISMA Workflow.

3.8.5. Integrated Confidence in the Synthesised Evidence

No separately recorded finding-level confidence method was supplied. CASP provided study-level methodological appraisal, while the verified synthesis preserved supporting and contradictory evidence at finding and study level. Bibliometric prominence, where a figure is available, would be contextual evidence mapping and not a component of a validated confidence score. Because no CERQual or equivalent assessment was recorded, the review uses calibrated language such as “the supplied evidence indicates” and “the evidence is limited,” rather than assigning formal confidence categories (Lewin et al., 2018).

4. Findings

4.1. Search and Selection Results

The persisted PRISMA workflow records 193 identified records, 0 duplicates, 110 screened, 109 reports sought for retrieval, 1 title/abstract exclusion, 81 full texts assessed, 0 full-text exclusions and 81 included studies. These are selection-process results rather than substantive findings. Because the identification count is internally discrepant, the 193/110 relationship is unverified and should not be used to calculate a reliable retrieval proportion.

4.2. Characteristics of Included Studies

The included evidence spans 2018–2026 and combines South African township, urban, secondary-city, rural, agricultural and informal-market contexts. It includes qualitative interviews and narratives, quantitative surveys and panel analyses, mixed-methods studies, conceptual and theoretical papers, systematic or scoping reviews, repository studies and broader African contextual evidence. Directly comparative evidence is present in studies such as Tawodzera and Crush (2023), whereas other records focus primarily on immigrant entrepreneurs, Indigenous enterprise, informal businesses generally or contextual structural conditions.

The verified synthesis used 67 of the 81 included studies and 513 extracted findings. The synthesis record explicitly notes that evidence is concentrated more heavily on immigrant exclusion, xenophobia and coping strategies than on directly measured Indigenous-versus-immigrant differences in market capture, profitability or formal-market access. Several extracted records were methodological descriptions, references, keywords or incomplete text and were not treated as primary interpretive support. Evidence from wider African contexts, smallholder agriculture and the general informal economy was used as contextual rather than direct comparative evidence.

4.3. Methodological Strengths and Limitations of Included Studies

A major strength is the preservation of finding-level traceability: the verified synthesis links codes and themes to supporting study IDs and finding IDs and retains contradictory evidence. The included literature also contains studies with comparatively substantial empirical material, including a survey of more than 1,000 informal business owners in secondary Limpopo centres (Tawodzera & Crush, 2023), a survey of 3,045 Ethiopian migrant entrepreneurs (Worku, 2018), and a mixed-methods study of 165 African immigrant entrepreneurs (Ngota et al., 2019).

Limitations include heterogeneous designs, incomplete reporting, non-comparable outcomes and the absence of a recorded extraction procedure or finding-level confidence method. Some included records appear inconsistent with the stated peer-reviewed-journal inclusion criterion, including book chapters, repository records and other publication types; the supplied workflow records 81 inclusions and 0 full-text exclusions, so the review cannot reconstruct whether publication-type eligibility was applied consistently. These limitations constrain causal and universal comparative claims.

4.4. Thematic Synthesis

Methodological basis: The thematic synthesis approach follows Thomas and Harden (2008), https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45. The study-specific findings and support counts below derive from the included evidence, not from this methodological citation.

Thematic synthesis is a systematic qualitative evidence-synthesis method used to integrate findings across multiple studies while retaining a transparent connection to the underlying evidence. (Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009) The process moves iteratively from extracted study findings to coding, the grouping of related codes into descriptive categories or themes, and the development of higher-order analytical themes that answer the review question and research objectives. Its purpose is not merely to count how often an idea appears, but to identify patterned meaning across studies, examine convergence and divergence, preserve contextual differences, and develop an auditable interpretation that remains traceable to the contributing evidence.

In this review, thematic synthesis was applied to the verified extracted findings retained in the active COSTAQDA project. Findings were compared across eligible studies, coded and grouped according to conceptual similarity, and then developed into 5 analytical themes represented across 20 evidence-contributing studies. The active synthesis retained 30 verified theme-to-study support assignments, allowing the analytical interpretation to remain traceable to the underlying studies rather than being reconstructed from titles or bibliographic prominence. The resulting analytical themes include “Status-differentiated institutional access and unequal market participation”, “Network resources, relational legitimacy and contributions to local economies”, “Exclusion, insecurity and implementation barriers”, “Contextual conditions for inclusive market participation”, with the widest cross-study support recorded for “Status-differentiated institutional access and unequal market participation” (6 contributing studies). Table 1 therefore operationalises the synthesis as an auditable evidence map linking each analytical theme to the studies that supplied verified supporting findings.

Table 1 presents the thematic synthesis matrix linking the verified analytical themes only to studies with verified extracted evidence supporting at least one of the themes displayed in the matrix. Any study with no verified supporting contribution to any displayed theme is excluded, even if it was included elsewhere in the systematic review or qualitative evidence base. Rows represent analytical themes and columns represent theme-contributing studies. A check mark (✓) indicates that at least one verified extracted finding from that study was assigned to the theme; an em dash (—) indicates that the study contributed evidence to the synthesis overall but no supporting extracted finding from that study was assigned to that particular theme. The absence of a supporting assignment must not be interpreted as contradictory evidence. The totals report the number of evidence-contributing studies providing verified support to each theme. The matrix therefore functions as an audit trail between thematic interpretation and the underlying finding-level evidence rather than as a measure of methodological quality or effect size.

The most widely supported analytical theme was "Status-differentiated institutional access and unequal market participation", with verified support from 6 of 20 studies. The least widely distributed theme was "Evidence gaps and implications for future inquiry", with verified support from 6 of 20 studies. Differences in the number of supporting studies indicate the distribution of traceable thematic evidence across the included literature, not the relative importance or quality of a theme. Themes supported by fewer studies may still be analytically important when the underlying findings are conceptually rich, contextually distinctive or directly relevant to the review question. Conversely, wider study support indicates cross-study recurrence but does not by itself establish stronger methodological quality. The thematic patterns shown in Table 1 should therefore be interpreted alongside critical appraisal, contextual variation, contradictory findings where verified, and the detailed theme-led discussion that follows.

4.5. RO1: Status-Differentiated Institutional Access and Unequal Market Participation

Across the evidence, immigrant status was associated with additional institutional and security barriers to market access. Permit delays and renewal uncertainty could interrupt transport, licensing and banking, while business-account requirements tied access to immigration documentation (Nyakabawu, 2022). Studies also describe xenophobic violence, police abuse, denial of services and the destruction or disruption of migrant-owned informal enterprises, particularly in secondary cities and townships (Tawodzera & Crush, 2023; Akintan, 2026; Moagi et al., 2018). The pattern supports the analytical theme that immigrant status is associated with additional institutional and security barriers, but it does not establish a uniform effect across all settings.

The evidence simultaneously identifies structural constraints shared by informal entrepreneurs more generally. Finance, workspace, infrastructure, skills, technology, regulatory support and market access shape viability among township and informal businesses, while excessive permit costs may reduce informal entrepreneurship and increase unemployment (Urban & Ndou, 2019; Schenck et al., 2025; Balde, 2024). This convergence complicates a simple Indigenous-versus-immigrant explanation: status-specific exclusion is layered onto broader spatial, financial and regulatory disadvantage.

Evidence on Indigenous and locally embedded enterprise concerns a different basis of value rather than a demonstrated universal advantage in capture. Indigenous entrepreneurship is described through community livelihoods, trust, social bonds, ecological and cultural resources, and collective definitions of success (Moyo et al., 2026). The evidence does not directly demonstrate that Indigenous entrepreneurs systematically receive more finance, permits, formal-market access or profitability than immigrants.

4.6. RO2: Network Resources, Relational Legitimacy and Contributions to Local Economies

Immigrant entrepreneurs were represented as constrained but active economic agents. Family and friendship networks, communal savings, migrant associations, prior skills, local partnerships and transnational connections supplied finance, information, customers and legitimacy where formal systems were difficult to access (Anyah et al., 2026; Naicker et al., 2026; Worku, 2018). A related account describes local partnerships as a way of compensating for limited networks and institutional access (Muchineripi et al., 2019). These resources support entry, survival and continuity, but the evidence does not establish that they generate equal market capture or sustained growth.

Indigenous and locally embedded enterprise was associated with community legitimacy, trust-based exchange and livelihood maintenance. Traditional food-sector workers were described as important to household food access through proximity and credit relationships, while Indigenous entrepreneurship was framed around community autonomy and relational value rather than profit maximisation alone (Dlamini & Hull, 2024; Moyo et al., 2026). Immigrant-owned businesses similarly contributed wages, rents, taxes, innovation and services to local communities (Ngota et al., 2019; Worku, 2018). The synthesis therefore identifies multiple routes through which informal enterprise contributes to economic capture and social reproduction.

A contradiction runs through the evidence: immigrant businesses are documented as economically interdependent with local communities, yet public and political narratives depict migrants as competitors for jobs, resources and services. Xenophobic violence and exclusion undermine the contributions that the same businesses make to wages, rents, taxation, food access and local exchange (Ngota et al., 2019; Crush, 2022; Tawodzera & Crush, 2023).

4.7. RO3: Exclusion, Insecurity and Implementation Barriers

The principal risks for immigrant entrepreneurs were documentation insecurity, permit delays, restricted banking, legal marginalisation, policing, xenophobia, violence and inadequate state protection (Nyakabawu, 2022; Moagi et al., 2018; Mukumbang et al., 2020). These barriers affect both business continuity and personal security. In secondary cities, vulnerability to police abuse and the absence of protective clustering further expose migrant businesses to disruption (Tawodzera & Crush, 2023).

Shared implementation barriers include poor infrastructure, high transaction costs, inadequate workspace, limited finance, skills shortages, technology costs and regulatory systems that may be hostile to informal enterprise. Evidence from township repairers and small-scale farmers shows that businesses can contribute to local sustainability and food systems while remaining excluded from appropriate finance, infrastructure and formal value chains (Schenck et al., 2025; Ndlovu & Masuku, 2026). Permit formalisation may reduce informality while increasing unemployment, indicating that regulatory solutions can generate unintended livelihood harms (Balde, 2024).

The ethical and political problem is therefore not simply whether informal businesses should be formalised. Governance must address unequal exposure to harm, the dignity and security of migrant entrepreneurs, the legitimacy of Indigenous and community-oriented economic practices, and the risk that enforcement transfers livelihood costs to already vulnerable groups. The supplied evidence supports this concern, but does not provide a comparative evaluation of alternative implementation models.

4.8. RO4: Contextual Conditions for Inclusive Market Participation

Context moderates the relationship between status and market access. Positive coexistence evidence from Pretoria describes informal traders who experienced safety, acceptance and cordial customer relations, suggesting that shared social spaces and local relationships can reduce the practical expression of exclusion (Maseng, 2024). This contrasts with evidence of routine exclusion and violence, indicating that immigrant status creates heightened exposure but does not determine outcomes independently of place, social ties and governance.

The evidence identifies enabling conditions including inclusive financial and digital systems, cross-status networks, local partnerships, coordinated institutional action, legal protection, identity-focused dialogue and place-based support. Entrepreneurial ecosystem evidence emphasises collective action and cross-sector coordination, while studies of digital platforms and enterprise development stress that technology is useful only when infrastructure, skills, finance and governance are aligned (Boucher, 2021; Daramola & Etim, 2022; Bengu & Beharry-Ramraj, 2026).

Adoption and effective use are nevertheless conditional. Digital systems may exclude entrepreneurs with low literacy, expensive connectivity, limited electricity or inadequate language support, and generic formalisation frameworks may not fit local informal economies (Daramola & Etim, 2022; Mothamaha & Sibanda, 2025). The evidence therefore supports context-sensitive and cross-status governance, but the proposed inclusive mechanisms have not been tested through comparative implementation studies.

4.9. RO5: Evidence Gaps and Implications for Future Inquiry

The most important gap is the scarcity of direct comparative studies measuring Indigenous and immigrant entrepreneurs with equivalent outcomes and settings. The supplied evidence contains much more information on immigrant exclusion, xenophobia and coping than on comparative profitability, market share, formal-market access, business survival or economic capture. It therefore cannot support the conclusion that Indigenous entrepreneurs universally capture more economic value than immigrants.

Further gaps concern intersectionality, longitudinal change, local governance variation, rural and secondary-city contexts, sectoral differences, gender, documentation status, digital access and the consequences of formalisation. Several records are conceptual, review-based, repository-based or incomplete, while contextual evidence from agriculture, wider Africa and the general informal economy cannot be assumed to represent the focal comparison. These limitations define the evidence agenda rather than merely representing methodological deficiencies.

5. Discussion

The review indicates that immigrant status influences market access most clearly through institutional and security mechanisms. Permit delays, documentation requirements, banking restrictions, police abuse and xenophobic violence can interrupt the ability to trade, move goods, access finance and maintain business continuity (Nyakabawu, 2022; Tawodzera & Crush, 2023; Akintan, 2026). This directly addresses RO1 and RO3 by showing how governance and political narratives become economic mechanisms. However, the evidence also shows that finance, infrastructure, skills, workspace and regulatory constraints affect informal businesses broadly (Urban & Ndou, 2019; Schenck et al., 2025). The distinctive effect of status is therefore layered rather than exclusive.

The findings also qualify interpretations of Indigenous and immigrant difference. Indigenous and locally embedded enterprise is represented through community legitimacy, trust, cultural resources and livelihood obligations (Moyo et al., 2026; Dlamini & Hull, 2024). Immigrant enterprise is represented through constrained but active agency, with family, friendship, migrant and transnational networks compensating for restricted formal access (Anyah et al., 2026; Naicker et al., 2026). These are not directly equivalent measures of market capture. One describes the relational basis of value and legitimacy; the other describes adaptive resource mobilisation. The supplied evidence does not permit a ranking of the two groups.

Convergence and divergence are both analytically important. Evidence converges on immigrant exposure to exclusion and on the economic contributions of informal and immigrant-owned businesses (Ngota et al., 2019; Moagi et al., 2018). It diverges on the social environment in which exclusion operates: some traders report safety and acceptance in Pretoria, while other studies document violence, denial of services and institutional hostility (Maseng, 2024; Crush, 2022). This divergence suggests that local relationships, spatial context and institutional response moderate status effects. It should not be resolved by averaging incompatible settings.

The review addresses RO2 and RO4 by identifying enabling conditions rather than only barriers. Networks, local partnerships, inclusive finance, digital access, coordinated institutional action and cross-status cooperation are repeatedly proposed as ways to broaden participation (Boucher, 2021; Daramola & Etim, 2022; Hargarter & van der Walt, 2025). Yet these conditions are not equivalent to demonstrated interventions. Digital platforms may reproduce exclusion when language, literacy, connectivity and electricity barriers remain unresolved, and formalisation may reduce informality at the cost of unemployment (Daramola & Etim, 2022; Balde, 2024).

The contribution to RO5 is consequently methodological and substantive. Substantively, the review frames unequal capture as a relational institutional process rather than a simple Indigenous-versus-immigrant binary. Methodologically, it shows why future research must compare groups within the same places, sectors and institutional environments and measure outcomes consistently. The absence of a verified extraction protocol, the heterogeneity of included study types, the PRISMA identification discrepancy and the lack of a formal confidence assessment require restrained conclusions.

6. Conclusions

Indigenous versus immigrant status influences economic capture and market access in South Africa’s informal economy through differentiated exposure to documentation barriers, institutional exclusion, insecurity, legitimacy and resource access. Immigrant entrepreneurs face additional institutional and security barriers, but they also exercise network-based agency and make substantial economic contributions. Indigenous and locally embedded entrepreneurs are associated with community legitimacy, trust and relational forms of value, but the available evidence does not show that they universally capture more economic value or market access. Shared structural constraints affect both groups, and local relationships and governance conditions moderate status effects. The review therefore supports a layered political-economic interpretation of unequal capture while identifying direct comparative measurement as the central evidence gap.

7. Recommendations

Practice recommendations should prioritise support that is accessible to informal entrepreneurs without presuming that formalisation alone improves viability. Relevant actions include locally adapted business support, financial products that recognise network-based and non-traditional resources, practical digital and skills assistance, and partnerships that connect immigrant and locally embedded entrepreneurs. These recommendations follow evidence on finance, skills, networks, digital access and contextual support (Urban & Ndou, 2019; Anyah et al., 2026; Daramola & Etim, 2022).

Policy recommendations should address documentation and permit delays, discriminatory banking and service-access practices, police protection, xenophobic violence and the unintended employment effects of costly regulation. Formalisation policies should be tested for their effects on livelihood access rather than evaluated only through registration or tax outcomes (Nyakabawu, 2022; Tawodzera & Crush, 2023; Balde, 2024). Policy design should also recognise Indigenous and community-oriented definitions of enterprise value and support cross-status cooperation.

Future research should conduct matched comparative studies of Indigenous and immigrant entrepreneurs within the same sectors, locations and governance environments. Studies should measure market access, profitability, market share, business survival, employment, finance, taxation, security and formalisation consistently; examine intersections of status with gender, class, documentation and geography; and use longitudinal or quasi-experimental designs where feasible. Research should also evaluate proposed inclusive-governance, financial-inclusion and digital interventions rather than treating them as demonstrated solutions.