Internationalization of Small and Mediumsized Enterprises: A Grounded Theoretical Framework and an Overview

Internationalization of Small and Medium- sized Enterprises: A Grounded Theoretical Framework and an Overview Hamid Etemad* McCill University

Prior to the globalization of markets and industries, national markets were segmented: large companies com- peted mostly in international markets, while smaller businesses remained local or regional. But the global Competitive environment has gradually changed. Global- ization has removed the barriers (Levitt, 1983) that segmented the national and international markets and sepa- rated small and large firms’ competitive space in the recent past (Fraser & Oppenheim, 1997). It is becoming increasingly difficult, if not practically impossible. for independent small firms to thrive by taking refuge in their traditionally protected markets (Etemad, 1999; Fraser & Oppenheim; Levitt. 1983). Consider, for example, the European Union’s (EU) Single European Act that removed market boundaries (and national boundaries) among the 15 members on December 31. 1992. and 10 more Eastern European countries will be joining the single market on May 1.2004. The EU’s transforma- tion resonates with Ohmae’s (1985, 1990, 1995) concepts of a “borderless world,” “inter-linked economies.” and “triads,” where regional blocs are becoming more powerful than the nation-states. Unlike the EU, the other regional free trade (and investment) agreements’ have not removed national or market boundaries. However, they have removed many of the crippling entry and exit barriers to intra-bloc movements for firms within their jurisdictions. Regardless of size. firms are forced to compete side-by-side and must now become at least regionally, if not globally, competitive to survive in the exceed-

*Faculty of Management, McGill University, 1001 Sherbrooke Street West. Montreal, QC. Canada H3A lG5. E-mail: [email protected] I would like to thank the co-editors of this journal. Drs. Brooks and Fooladi. for their thorough review and constructive suggestions on this article. I am grateful to Professor Jim Bell for his insightful review and valuable recommendations and to Abhijit Ghosh and Isabelle Dagenais for their suggestions on an earlier version. Funhermore. I acknowledge Mr. John Dobson and John Dobson Foundation for their genuine interest. suppon, and financial contributions to the McGill International Entrepreneurship initiative. On behalf of the MIE scholarly communi- ty, I am delighted to thank them for their support of our collective effort.. .

ingly competitive “interlinked” markets. Even if firms decide to refrain from entering international markets and compete in other blocs that are home markets to their respective national firms, globally competitive firms may enter their home market.

Forced to compete with multinational enterprises (MNEs) and globally competitive and regionally domi- nant national firms, at home and abroad, smaller firms face even larger challenges than their larger counterpart.. They must develop both the necessary and sufficient conditions for attaining the requisite competitiveness (Fahy, 2002; Grant, 1991; Mathew. 2003). while handi- capped by constrained resources (Bell, Murray, & Madden, 1991; Bonaccorsi, 1992; Etemad. 1999; McNaughton & Bell. 2000; Miesenbock. 1988) and deprived of the potential guidance provided by foundation theories that have helped to pave the road for international growth of larger firms such as MNEs. Consider, for example, that the extant theoretical developments in international business, including major theoretical contributions by Bartlett and Ghoshal(1986, 1989). Buckley and Casson (1976). Dunning (1977, 1980, 1981. 1988). Dunning and Rugman (1985). Hymer (1976). Rugman ( 1982). Vernon ( 1966). and many others have focused on internationalization of larger firms, especially MNEs, nearly to the exclusion of smaller or entrepreneurial firms (Kirzner, 1979). With the notable exception of a very few scholars, including Buckley (1989) and those in the Uppsala School of Internationalization (e.g.. Cavus- gil, 1980, 1982; Johanson & Vahlne. 1977. 1990, 1992; Johanson & Weidersheim-Paul, 1975). sometimes referred to as the “Stage Theory of Internationalization,” the other extant theories have offered little, if any, theoretical guidance to smaller firms aspiring to internationalize. The Uppsala Theory of Internationalization envi- sioned that firms would gain experiential knowledge in sruges by first entering foreign markets with close “psychic distance” (Stottinger & Schlegelmilch, 1998), which helped them to control the elevated risks of “for- eignness” (Hymer, 1976) and accumulate experiential knowledge as a basis for entering other markets.

8 ASAC 2004 I

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences Revue canadienne des sciences de I’administration

2 L ( I , . 1-21

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES ETEMAD

The importance of theoretical guidance to smaller firms is further amplified because of these firms’ relatively low capacity to absorb the risk of conducting experimentation in inherently riskier and hypercompeti- tive international markets (D’ Aveni, 1994). and equally low tolerance for temporal crisis (Castrogiovanni, 1996). due to their constrained resources (Bonaccorsi. 1992; Miesenbock, 1988). Smaller firms are truly challenged, especially when facing intense competition in international markets where they have yet to establish strong- holds. In spite of such pronounced needs, the other extant theories of internationalization have not acknowledged the basic characteristics of small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs) and the potential impact of unbridled global competition on them.

Knickerbocker ( 1973) observed that U.S.-based MNEs have emulated one another’s leading strategies when entering international markets to avoid the risk of excessive costs and falling behind, or becoming domi- nated by the lead movers. Knickerbocker’s observation is a direct result of the theory of oligopolistic competition with implication for SMEs. The disadvantage of the emulation strategy may amount to disaster for SMEs whenever the emulated variant of the strategy faces the strategy’s original architect or its affiliates (e.g., the sister-subsidiaries of MNEs). Game Theory dictates that the emulated strategy should be attacked at its weak and exposed point(s), which might not have been apparent or uncovered by the emulator due to inexperience or constrained resources. By a logical extension, theories of internationalization, from which most MNEs’ strategies emanate. may be equally ineffective. if not risky and impotent, to SMEs in trying to compete. especially with MNEs. Therefore, the minimum added danger to the SMEs, when emulating the strategy(ies) of the leading MNEs is exposure to a double jeopardy:

I. The SMEs’ relatively smaller resources greatly disadvantage them in the case of direct conflict with the larger firms (which may, for example. engage in resource-intensive competition for faster and more decisive results); and 2. SMEs may also find themselves defenceless against the larger firms. whose integrated strategies were emulated. in whole or in part, especially when competing in market territories favourable to the competitive positions of the larger firms.

Naturally, the original architects know the potential strengths and weaknesses of their own strategies better than others and can easily develop counter-strategies for attacking those weaknesses (Etemad, 2002, 2004a). especially in a prolonged competition and regardless of the resources of their smaller counterparts. Therefore, and especially from a theoretical perspective, the extant theories have not responded to the internationalization

2

needs of SMEs and have, for the most part, left them to their own devices. There is a pronounced need for new theories shedding light on SMEs’ internationalization strategies and process.

Formation of Internationalization Strategies in SMEs

A Basis for SMEs ’ Internationalization Strategy

The above arguments suggest that SMEs seeking internationalization, especially when facing larger and better endowed MNEs, need to develop their own distinctive, if not unique and dynamic, competencies (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Hamel & Prahalad, 1985. 1990; Mathew, 2003; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen. 1997) to empower equally distinctive competitive strategies (Fahy, 2002; Grant, 1991. 1996) that can lead to potent competitiveness enabling them to compete against other companies, regardless of size. If competitive strategies can, for example, be based mainly on SMEs’ respective competitive advantages, they would hold the potential for changing the prevailing “basis of competition” (Christensen & Bower, 1996). from those in which their competitors possess a competitive advantage to those in which the focal SME holds competitive superiority. and against which competitors may find themselves defenceless. This is not a practical impossibility. Many small knowledge-intensive firms, from small domestic markets, have successfully deployed narrow but well- defined market segments worldwide (McDougall & Ovi- att, 1991; Oviatt & McDougall, 1995, 1997) and have served their markets well sometimes in symbiotic collaboration with many local partners to deliver higher value (e.g., higher quality at lower prices) than competition to their prospective customers and stakeholdersZ (Dana, Etemad, & Wright, 2000, Etemad, Wright, & Dana, 2001). These firms have become globally competitive in the process and have experienced much higher rates of rapid internationalization (McDougall & Oviatt, 1991; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994, 1995, 1997) without facing serious competitive deterrence from others.

This discussion points to a two-pronged proposition:

1. That emulation of MNEs’ strategies is not gener- ally defensible, and should not be automatically emulated by SMEs as they are likely to be based on the strengths and competencies of their architects. but their weaknesses are easily exposed; and 2. SMEs’ internationalization strategies must have their own engines and drivers, relatively immune to competition or at least inimitable in the short term by competitors, regardless of their size and resources. which puts a much heavier emphasis on devising potent strategies well-constructed for SMEs that r y p ical large firms cannot attack routinely.


U(1). 1-21


Both of these propositions follow closely game theoretic principles (Shubik, 1952, 1953, 1955; Von Neu- mann, 1954; Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1947) and resonate with the formulation of competitive strategy based on the resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1991, 1997; Grant, 1991, 1996; Nelson & Winter, 1977, 1982; Wernerfelt, 1984). and with SMEs’ distinctive core competencies and dynamic capabilities (Hamel & Raha- lad, 1985 & 1990). This implies that the distinct and possibly unique resources on which the internationalizing strategies of SMEs are based should be more eotent than those of well-endowed competitors.

An Exaniple of Potent Internationalization Strategy: A Network of Locally-Based Capabilities

The survival of SMEs in the exceedingly globalized and competitive environment suggests that not only do they possess distinctive competencies, but also that they use them effectively. One such distinct competency is smaller firms’ ability to establish and manage special relations with other partners at home and abroad (Etemad, 1999, 2003, 2004b). Managing relations, for the most part, is not dependent on physical resources, but relies on entrepreneurial traits, social relations, social capital and even family networks (Baron & Markman, 2000, Bygrave. 1989; Jones & Conway. 2004, Kapa- suwan & Rose, 2004). At home, for example, where SMEs have their own strong local knowledge base, socio-political capital, social networks, as well as func- tional supply-chains, which we will refer to collectively as locally-based capabilities and competencies (LBCs), they can easily base their strategies on such LBCs. The distinct advantage of doing so is that others cannot easily develop or imitate them and therefore their exposure and vulnerabilities are substantively reduced.

Such SMEs can even leverage the strengths of their LBCs to provide strategic strong-holds (D Aveni. 1994) to offer refuge and competitive safety to partners against other competitors at home or in markets in which they possess similar competitive strengths. Likewise, they can rely on reciprocal arrangements based on the partners’ locally-based strengths (e.g.. locally-specific advantages or capabilities). Such arrangements can form the strategic pillars of a network architecture for building strong worldwide networks of SMEs, with each local member being strong in its own home market and capable of defending its own as well as the network’s interest in that market by virtue of its own locally-based strengths, including LBCs and locally-specific advantages (LSAs). In fact, MNEs have exploited their local subsidiaries’ LSAs and LBCs to advance their overall positions for a long time (Birkinshaw. 1996, 1997; Birkinshaw. Hood, & Jonsson, 1998; Crookell, 1986; Dunning, 1980, 1988;

3

Etemad, 1982; Etemad & Seguin-Dulude. 1986a. b; Rugman & Douglas, 1986). Not only have such LSAs and LBCs assisted the local subsidiary to compete locally, but they also have been systematically internalized by MNEs (Buckley & Casson, 1976; Coase, 1937; Dun- ning, 1980, 1988; Rugman. 1982) to increase their international competitiveness as a whole elsewhere. There- fore, there is no logical reason for SMEs not to utilize and adapt such well-established principles in deploying LSAs and LBCs to defend their own and network partners’ collective interests at home and beyond. They may even further leverage them to increase the network’s competitiveness worldwide. It is important to note that the above is not emulating MNEs. It is. however, an example of a well-established and size-neutral theoretical principle that may be used by firms of all sizes. Nat- urally, what distinguishes one firm’s strategy from others and makes it effective against competitors is not the principle but the distinctiveness and the competitive potency of that firm’s (or its network‘s) LBCs relative to those of others.’

The distinct resources of family networks and family enterprises, or those of socio-culturally-based firms (e.g., relations in coalition of family or ethnically-based firms), can form the initial basis for LBCs, while gradual accumulation of technologically- or strategically-based advantages could further enhance them later on. When combined, these enhanced LBCs can be further lever- aged, as discussed earlier, to benefit all network members. In fact, Jones and Conway (2004). Kapasuwan and Rose (2004). Dana et al. (2000). and Etemad et al. (2001) have found that most of such collaborative relations turn synergistic (i.e.. complementary and mutually enhancing) and may even gravitate towards high reliance on partners’ strengths (Kanter, 1984). Etemad (2003, 2004b) found that some partnerships, regardless of the size of partners, have become distinctly synergistic and symbiotic over time, which translates consequently into distinct competitiveness for the partners and the network as a whole. In some cases, the strength of their mutual ties has eliminated the strategic necessity of second sourcing relations (i.e., redundant strategic partnering to minimize opportunistic behaviours) and led to uniquely symbiotic relations with partners’ operations attaining optimal combinations of scale and scope economies to permit high-value offerings to their customers and stakeholders (e.g., in terms of both high value and choice) for increased competitiveness.

This Paper’s Structure

Following this introduction, a brief overview of the extant literature on internationalization pertinent to smaller firms will be presented. This provides the con-


2K1,. 1-21

ETEMAD INTERNATIONALIZATION OF SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES

text for proposing a grounded and integrative framework, which serves to organize the next six articles in this issue. A brief discussion of each of these papers will be followed by conclusions and implications.

The Overview of SMEs' Internationalization Literature as a Context for an Integrative Framework

Compelled by an ever faster pace (Becker, 1965; Gifford, 1998; Poutzioris, Soufani, & Michaelas, 2003; West & Meyers, 1997) manifested in shortening product and technological life cycles (Coviello & Munro, 1995; Rasmussen, Madsen, & Evangelista. 2001). increasing costs of R&D (Lindqvist, 1990, 1997; Litvak, 1990). and faster technological obsolescence (Lindqvist). while facing resource limitations (Bell et al., 1991; Bonaccorsi, 1992; Etemad, 1999; McNaughton & Bell, 2000; Miesenbock. 1988) and increased competitiveness, typical small firms must tind it difficult to survive without the necessary requisite to support their competition. As a result, they must develop their own distinct competencies (e.g.. assets, capabilities, competencies, and especially relations) and further leverage them at home and abroad to overcome entry, exit. and competitive barriers, especially when they face adversities such as shortage of financing at home (McDougall & Oviatt. 1991). small home markets (Lindqvist. 1997; Madsen & Ser- vais, 1997). and adversaries such the massive networks of MNEs (i.e., the network of MNE headquar- ters, sister subsidiaries, and their respective host of supply-chain collaborative arrangements) competing against them even in their own domestic markets. As the traditional theories of internationalization, including theories of MNEs, have failed to offer much need- ed direction to SMEs for formulating competitive strategies, especially in competition against MNEs, SMEs have been forced to devise and deploy a pletho- ra of diverse strategies of their own, motivated by different competitive needs and enabled by different strategic drivers. Most of these strategies are innovative and are based on a combination of well-established principles. including distinct core competencies (Hamel & Prahalad, 1985, 1990). dynamic capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Mathew, 2003; Teece et al.. 1997). self-renewing advantages and capabilities, such as knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi. 1995) and collaborative advantage (Gomes- Casseres, 1996; Kanter, 1984; Yoshino & Rangan. 1995) in order to cope with the competition and a continually evolving context. This dynamic context is neither simple nor static. It is continually formed and re-formed by: (a) the action of competitors inspired

4

by, for example, game theoretic principles (e.g., Shu- bik. 1952, 1953. 1955; Von Neumann, 1954; Von Neu- mann & Morgenstern, 1947). networks, alliances, and inter-firm arrangements (e.g., Gulati, 1995; Johanson & Mattson, 1988) and the evolutionary and behavioural theories of the firm (e.g., Barney 1991, 1997; Cohen & Cyert, 1965; Cyert & March, 1963). and (b) the forces and influences emanating from the resource-based view of the firm. especially when knowledge is the primary resource (e.g., Galunic & Roden, 1998; Gupta & Govindarajan. 1991; Kogut & Zander, 1992; West & Meyers, 1997). the international collaborative networks (Coviello & Munro. 1995; Dana et al., 2000; Doz, 1996; Etemad, 2003; Etemad et al., 2001; Huber, 1991; Jones & Conway, 2004; Keeble, Lawson, Smith, Moore, & Wilkison, 1998; Rasmussen et al., 2001; Russel, 1999). effective management of inter-firm LSAs and LBCs (Rugman & D'Cruz, 2000; Russel). This contluence of dynamics will undoubtedly have a confining effect on all competitors. The converging global environment with its exceedingly open and borderless international markets (Fraser & Oppenheim, 1997; Ohmae, 1985, 1990, 1995; Rennie, 1993) is fast becoming the common battleground for application of the strategic arsenals motivated partially by the above theories and schools of thoughts and partially by new approaches. Victori- ous firms appear to have deployed different strategies and are characterized differently. Consider, for example, "born globals" (Cavusgil, 1994; Knight & Cavus- gil, 1996a. b; Knight, Madsen. Servais, & Rasmussen. 2000; Rennie. 1993). "international new ventures" (Oviatt & McDougall, 1994; Zahra, Ireland. & Hitt, 2000). "global start-ups" (Oviatt & McDougall. 1995). globally networked SMEs (Coviello & Munro. 1995; Johanson & Mattson, 1988; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994). and synergistically-based partnerships (Dana et al., 2000; Etemad et al., 2001; Hakans- son & Snehota, 1989. 1992, 1995). symbiotic networks (Etemad. 2003, 2004b) among other innovative characterizations, which are mostly based on coali- tions and have gained global market share collectively at the cost of others. The defeated firms. on the other hand, have faced bleak prospects: the risk of los- ing markets even at home, if not eventual demise. Therefore, the following theoretically grounded framework is an attempt to organize the complex dynamics of the above influences in a small number of theoretical constructs in the face of the exceeding complexities of internationalization process in a rapidly evolving environment while not abstracting from the competitive reality facing SMEs. This framework will also serve to provide a broader context for the next six papers in this issue.

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences Revue canadienne des sciences de I'administration

2Ulh 1-21


Figure 1 Schematic Depictions of Push, Pull, and Mediating Forces in Internationalization Process

The Internationalizing The Attractive Pull

lnternationali7ation

Llirection of SME’s Movement towards Internationalization from Local to International Markets

Towards a Theoretically-Grounded and Integrative Framework

In light of SMEs’ impressive and rapid success in international markets (e.g.. see Coviello & Munro, 1995; Keeble et al., 1998; Knight & Cavusgil, 1996a & b; Knight et al., 2000, Madsen, Rasmussen, & Servais. 2000, Madsen & Servais, 1997; McDougall & Oviatt, 199 I ; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994; Oviatt, McDougall. Simon, & Shrader, 1991). the above discussion suggests that internationally-oriented SMEs must have developed at least an implicit, if not an explicit, competitive framework. Alternatively, parts of a logical and internallycon- sistent variants of a framework, developed partially by different internationalizing SMEs, may have been already deployed by these internationalizing SMEs. The above discussion, as well as the other literature reviews presented in this issue, confirms that these efforts have remained isolated and the modeling of the forces may have also been partial. These early efforts are reflective

5

of the prevailing developments in the field. However, an integrative and theoretically grounded framework has not emerged yet. This is the basic point of departure for further developments that follow.

An Integrative Framework

With the above point of departure in mind and for ease of discussions and further developments, we pro- pose an integrative, yet conceptually simple framework to embody a range of influential forces at work and to reflect the early developments of the field. It consists of three theoretical constructs in addition to the institution of the firm, each housing a cluster of forces and influences, with their respective bilateral and multilateral inter-relations. This framework is depicted schematically in Figure I . The three constructs are termed “the Push- ing Forces of Internationalization” (or simply. the push factors), the “Attractive Pulling Incentives of Interna- tionalization” (or simply, the pull factors). and the

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences Revue canadienne des science de I’administration

2 L ( I , . 1-21


Note: The evolutionary process of each construct due to, for example, bench marking, experimentation. and learning. among other self-renewal processes, is represented by a feedback arrow within each construct.

“Mediating Forces of Internationalization.” pushing, pulling, intermediating, and interacting with the SMEs’ internationalization process. Naturally, the combined impact of these forces is intermediated by the firm’s assessment of (a) the external environment, (b) its own competitive position, objectives. and aspirations, (c) internal resources and capabilities in relation to the exerted influences and market requirements, (d) the potential impact of exerted forces on a range of strategic options available to the firm, and (e) the ease of formulation and implementation of the consequent strategies.

The push forces. This theoretical construct consists of a set of forces (or drivers) that are usually internal to the firm and exert pressure on the firm from the inside to internationalize (i.e., drive/push the firm’s strategy along the internationalization process). The push factors are entrepreneurial in nature and follow the Schumpeterian quest for “creating” opportunities especially when the firm has “innovative combinations” (e.g.. innovative products, services, and processes) and it is set to realize them. In practical terms, the manifestation of push factors may, for example, be pushing, or accelerating, SMEs’ internationalization ‘process to exploit interna-

6

tional opportunities, especially when domestic market inertia (Bloodgood, Sapienza. & Almeida, 1996) may have been encumbering SMEs’ efforts. The extant theory, going back to Cantillon ( 1755). Schumpeter (1947, 191 111934). Say ( l803/1830, 1815). and Ely and Hess (1893). lends direct support to the overall framework in general and also to its push factors in particular. A taxo- nomical list of the components, organized in logical categories, and their associated citations are highlighted in Table 1. The ultimate potency of formulated strategies against competitors would, however, vary in relation to the firm’s internal resources and assessment of differing competitive and environmental forces. A cursory examination of the components of this set of forces indicates that all six drivers of rapid internationalization identified originally by McDougall and Oviatt (1991). followed by further elaborations by Oviatt et al. (1991, 1993). are included in the push factors.

The puff forces. This theoretical construct consists of a set of forces (or drivers). usually in the environment and external to the firm, which enhance the firm’s competitiveness or provide attractive incentives for it to internationalize. These, for example, attract the firm by


U(I). 1-21

lNTERNATlONALl7XTlON OF SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES ETEMAD

Table 1 Factors Pushing SMEs’ Internationalization Process and Associated Citation and References

F Components of Push Factors Associated Citations and References A

FounderNanager Characteristics T 0 International/Global vision R International experience S Education and exposure

Economics of Operations U s Achieving economies (E) of scale H Achieving E of scope I Achieving lower costs and prices N Attaining added E of higher quality at lower prices

Avoiding dis-economies of small domestic market S M E S

T 0

Characteristics of Competition and Strategy Rapid response to competitor’s initiatives worldwide Rapid response to customers’ needs worldwide Set standard and preempt competition worldwide Avoid intense domestic competition in certain industries Achieve lower competition in narrowly-defined segments Avoid domestic market inertia

Economics of R&D. Innovation. and Technological Change Higher R&D costs require large international markets (IM) Front-end loaded R&D accentuates faster returns Faster technological obsolescence compels presence in large IMs Continuous innovation requires larger IMs and vice versa

Bloodgood et I., 1996: McDougall &

Oviatt et al., 1991, 1993; Roberts & Senturia, 1996; Madsen & Servais, 1997

Jolly, Alahuhta, & Jeannet, 1992; Coviello & Munro, 1995; Coviello & McAuley, 1999; OECD, 1997

Oviatt, 1991; 8 viatt & McDougall. 1994;

OECD, 1997; McDougall & Oviatt. 1991; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994; McDougall et al., 1991. 1993; Coviello & Munro, 1995; Bloodgood et al., 1996; Grant, 1991; Mathew, 2003; Fahy, 2002

Dosi, Pavitt, & Soete. 1990; Lindqvist. 1990, 1997; OECD. 1997; Litvak, 1990, Coviello & McAuley. 1999

0 N A L I Z E

F Strategic Logic of International Operations Etemad, 1999,2002, 2003,2004a. b; A Hakansson & Snehota, 1989, 1992. 1995. S resources 2000, Bell et al., 1991: Bonaccorsi, 1992;

McNaughton & Bell, 2000, Miesenbock, 1988; Grant, 1991, 1996; Mathew, 2003;

E R Interdependent operations leverage networks’ strengths

Characteristics of High-Technology Products and Markets Larger fixed costs dictate larger sales volumes of IMS Faster pace of change requires faster and larger returns from 1Ms Shorter product life cycle (PLC) requires larger IMs

Etemad. 2003, 2004a. b, Dosi et al., 1990; Jones-Evans & Westhead, 1996; Litvak, 1990, Jolly et al., 1992; Knight et al., 2000, Podolny, Stuart, & Hannan, 1996; Rasmussen et al., 200 I

Constrained resources at home forces SMEs to access others’

International partners provide additional resources

against others Fahy, 2002

providing incentives, or pull the firm by signifying the 1979; von Misses, 1949). i.e.. unfulfilled market demand benefits of larger and richer international markets. The in an international market or segment. This view is rein- pull factors are consistent with Kirznerian (and also with forced by the firm’s perception that it may possess the most Austrian) views of entrepreneurs (or entrepreneur- capability of matching its supplies (or capabilities) to the ial firms) responding to the attraction of international market demands (or requirements) in light of its “opportunities” (Hayek, 1948, 1978; Kirzner, 1973, enhanced perception of abilities due to favourable con-

7


2 L ( I , . 1-21


Table 2 Attractive Factors Pulling SMEs’ Internationalization Process and Associated Citation and References ~~

F Components of Pull Factor Associated Citations and References A C T 0 R S P U L L I N G S M E S’

I N T E R N A T I 0 N A L I Z A T I 0 N

Liberalization of International Markets Facilitates exporting and presence in IM Allows for specialization and division of labour Permits easier achievement of scale economies Avoids direct and intense competition Provides much expanded opportunities Borderless and inter-linked economies require IM operations

Advances in Information and Communication and Transportation Technologies (ICTTs)

Facilitate IM operations Mitigate against limited resources Override the impact of time and distance for SMEs Facilitate Network operations Reduces costs

Attraction and Resources of Partners Mitigate against limitations of size Shorten internationalization process Increase the speed of internationalization Allow for survival in competitive markets

Attraction of Serving Current Buyers’ and Suppliers’ International Needs

Respond to needs of previous domestic customers Save established relations with internationalizing buyers and suppliers Pre-empt competitors From getting previously- domestic customers and suppliers

Acs, Morck, Shaver, & Yeung, 1997; Aggarwal, 1999; Bilkey, 1978; Bilkey & Tesar. 1977; Coviello & McAuley, 1999; Fraser & Oppenheim, 1997; Ohmae, 1990, 1995; McDougall & 0 * tt, 1991; Oviatt &

1996; Rennie, 1993 McDougall, 1994; Oviatt et a P .. 1991; Podolny et al..

Aggarwal, 1999; Fraser & Oppenheim, 1997; Keeble et al., 1998; Knight & Cavusgil, 1996a. b; OECD, 1997; Litvak, 1990; Madsen et al., 2000; Madsen & Servais, 1997; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994; Roberts & Senturia, 1996; Bell et al., 1991; Bonaccorsi, 1992; McNaughton & Bell, 2000, Miesenbock, 1988

Etemad, 2002,2003. 2004a; Comes-Casseres, 1996, 1997; Gulati, 1995; Hakansson & Snehota, 1989. 1992. 1995.2000; Roberts & Senturia, 1996; Yoshino & Rangan, 1996; Grant, 1991; Mathew, 2003; Fahy, 2002.

Roberts & Senturia, 1996; Etemad, 2004a. b; D’Aveni. 1994; Hakansson & Snehota. 1989. 1992. 1995

tributions from both the push and pull factors. Pull factors may also manifest in terms of providing incentives that entice, if not enable, the firm to internationalize. They may also make the process cheaper, easier and/or faster. Kirzner (1979, 1997) spoke of an entrepreneur observing the opportunity for “arbitrage” across the street and responding to the “opportunity” by buying cheaper on one side of the street and selling on the other side. International and domestic markets are analogous to the “two sides of the street”. Furthermore, international markets may also signal “opportunities” to the “alert” (Kirzner, 1979) and entrepreneurial firm (Hayek, 1978; von Misses, 1949). Practically. they alert the internationalizing firm to see through the mountain of ordi-

8

nary data (e.g.. a range of various market prices) and to extract valuable information about the opportunity (i.e.. the higher price on one side of the street with little to no associated cost differential on the other) and to respond to the opportunity by a simple arbitrage across the street by simply buying on one side (e.g., domestic market) and then selling to the other side (e.g., international market). The extant theory provides numerous examples of such attractions impacting the firm’s assessment directly or indirectly. The various components of these incentives, documented by a host of scholars are also organized in logical categories and highlighted in Table 2, which lists the citations associated with the component of this construct.


2LCl). 1-21

ETEMAD INTERNATIONALIZATION OF SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES

The mediating forces. As in any real world process. the true manifestation of the above forces impacting firm processes depends on the basic characteristics of the firm. the orientation of its entrepreneur or managers, as well as circumstances under which these forces exert pressure on or interact with the firm. The interactive factors refer to those forces that result from the interaction between active components of the Pull and the Push forces exerting influence on the firm. An interactive impact usually resembles a mathematical product moment (i.e., multiplicative relations), where the presence of one amplifies (or reduces) the direct impact of the other. Such an influence is proportioned by the combined strength of interactions between otherwise non- interacting influences in internal and external factors. These interactions magnify conditions that further stimulate or deter internationalization. When combined, they stimulate (and thereby accelerate), or alternatively dis- courage (and thereby decelerate), the firm's internationalization process. As a result, the exclusive attribution of impact to one set of forces, as opposed to the other, may be dificult. In general. especially in a cross-sectional analysis, the interaction effects can be detected when the presence of one set of forces magnifies (or reduces) the impact of another set beyond their respective direct effects. Although such heightened (or dampened) impacts signals the interaction effect... a clear distinction between the impact of the pull, push, or the interactive factors may not be that critical as their true impact is eventually mediated by the firm's (or managers') perceived influence of such factors.

The influences of the above forces are intermediated by the firm's own internal dynamics, comprising the firm's propensity to internationalize in terms of its entrepreneurial orientation (or management's mindset) and the firm's administrative heritage and routine processes (Lieberman & Montgomery. 1998). These interactions act as a lens through which the firm sees internal and external forces magnified, or as a filter that lessens the true impact of such influences. The dynamics of bilateral and multilateral relations (between these forces) are represented schematically by double-ended arrows in Figure 1. While Figure 2 can be viewed as a simplified version of Figure I , the three sets of influential forces remain the same and are represented similarly. The fun- damental additions in Figure 2, not present in Figure 1 to avoid clutter, are provisions for continual learning, nat- ural evolution, and self-initiated renewal, among other dynamic processes, in each component of the influential forces, represented schematically by feedback arrows working within each of the proposed constructs of forces. This evolutionary and self-learning process fol- lows the internal renewal underlying learning organizations (Nonaka, 1995; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) and is

9

also consistent with the evolutionar and the behaviour-

Cyert. 1965; Cyert & March. 1963; Nelson & Winter, 1977, 1982). The entrepreneur's (or founder's and manager's) continual upgrading of his knowledge, competencies, and orientation are examples of such dynamic internal feedback processes (sometimes in reaction to change in external forces and sometimes in response to internal forces) ongoing within the firm.

It is this mediated impact that influences the true course of a firm's internationalization. Coviello and Munro ( 1995) describe how the mediated impact of.New Zealand's small market size (i.e., pushing the firm out) combined with the attraction of the larger liberalized international markets (i.e.. attracting firms to the richer incentives of international markets rather than confined to the limited New Zealand market) may have interacted with managers open to the process, thus accelerating the pace of internationalization of these firms. One can argue that, for example, the availability of internal or external funds for financing internationalization efforts may contribute to the lowering of perceived barriers or transaction costs facing the firm (as opposed to true ones) and as a result expedite the pace of internationalization. Similarly, the presence of active links with potential partners abroad may also result in lowering the perception of transaction cost, or accrual of higher benefits. associated with internationalization through networks. The mediated influence can, therefore, have a different impact on the SME's pace of internationalization. Other researchers, including Rennie ( 1993). Hakansson and Snehota ( 1989, Gulati (1995). and Huber (1991) have acknowledged the possibility of such interactions and mediations. A brief list of components of this theoretical construct, organized in logical categories, and their associated citations are summarized in Table 3.

The finti's own characteristics. The firm is at the centre of internationalization activity and the entity to which all the above pressures are applied. The firm's own internal decision-making, strategy formulation, and implementation dynamics influence the ultimate results. These dynamics are also conditioned by the state of many internal, and possibly external, forces and drivers. In favour of simplicity and clarity, we identify only two categories of such distinct internal mecha- nisms and drivers:

al theories of the firm (Barney, 19 ih , 1997; Cohen &

1. The enubfers. which may include internal resources. such as firm's human resources. capabilities, competencies, orientations, stock of knowledge and technology. knowledge management procedures, and human capital. among others: and 2. The deterrents (or disablers), which may include limited or lack of financial resources, inadequate knowledge of international markets and cross-

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences Revue canadienne des sciences de I'administnuion

2 U l h 1-21


Table 3 Interactive Push-Pull Factors influencing SMEs’ Internationalization Process and Assuciated Citation and References L

I Components of Interactive Pull-Push Factors Associated Citations and References N T E R A C T I V E

P U L L

P U S H

F A C T 0 R S

Industry Characteristics and Drivers Competition in internationalized industries requiring international presence Internationalization of supplyhalue chains Presence of oligopolistic reaction in the industry Industry idiosyncrasies

SME’s Need For Financial Resources Limited market at home Availability of richer financing internationally Integration of international financial markets

The Dynamics of Learning Organizations Allows for learning from partners and competitors in Int’l Markets (IMs) Allows for transferring and leveraging the learning at home and other IMs Permits isolated experiments for broader learning worldwide

Leveraging Capabilities, Products, and Resources Enter IMs in favour of avoiding small domestic markets Capitalize on unique firm resources Access to local national resources

Internationalized Needs of Customers and Suppliers Responding to internationalization of customers Taking advantage of international supply chains Taking advantage of partners’ collaborative networks

Coviello & Munro, 1995; Dosi et at.. 1990; Fraser & Oppenheim, 1997; Jolly et at.. 1992; Litvak. 1990; Oakley, 1996; Ohmae, 1990, 1995; McDougall & Oviatt, 1991; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994; Oviatt et al., 1991; Rennie. 1993; Knicker- bocker, 1973; Rasmussen et al., 2001

Coviello & McAuley, 1999; McDougall & Oviatt, 1991; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994; Oviatt et al.. 1991. 1993; Bilkey, 1978; Bilkey & Tesar, 1977

Nonaka, 1995; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Etemad. 2004a. b; Huber, I 9 9 I ; Doz, 1996; West & Meyers, 1997; Zahra et at., 2000

Hakansson & Snehota, 1989, 1992, 1995; Lindqvist, 1990, 1997; Madsen & Servais, 1997; Bloodgood et al., 1996; Zahra et at., 2000

Coviello & McAuley, 1999; Coviello & Munro. 1995; Jones-Evans & Westhead, 1996; Gomes- Casseres. 1996, 1997; Kanter, 1984

cultural consumer behaviour. high faced with stiff local competition, tional networks, among others.

fear of failure if lack of interna-

In turn, these sets of drivers exert influences that condition the firm’s response, regardless of the nature and the source, and they intermediate the final outcome. It is because of such intermediation that different firms respond differently to the same stimuli in the same environment. We refer to this conditioning as intermediation effect and attribute a mediating characteristic to the firm and its management. The dynamic conditioning of other forces and influences (through interactions and intermediation), both internal and external, determines the actual direction and pace of movement and also the ultimate

10

outcome of the internationalization process over time. Therefore, a modified and operationally oriented version of the framework is presented in Figure 3, depicting all influential forces, which may better portray the actual dynamics of the SME’s internationalization. The prevailing conditions under which the firm, industry, and product-markets operate influence the final configuration of forces that impact a firm’s internationalization. The continual evolution within each construct is represented by feedback loops similar to Figure 2.

In summary, the above framework has drawn upon a diverse literature, including the Austrian tradition of the “Entrepreneurial Economics” (e.g.. Hayek, 1948, 1978; Koppl & Minniti. 2003; von Misses, 1949) in order to (a) form a context for entrepreneurial actions and processes


2 L ( I , . 1-21


Figure 3 The Inter-dynamic of Forces and Their Influence on SME’s Internationalization Process

Note: The self-renewal processes of each entity are represented by a feedback arrow.

(Bygrave, 1989). (b) build on the neo-classical concept of entrepreneur as the principal actor within the entrepreneurial firms, and (c) integrate pertinent aspects of the recent developments from the evolutionary and behavioural theories of the firm. organizational learning, game theory and transaction costs theory (Williamson, 1975, 1981). among others. A typical firm at the centre of this theoretically grounded framework is further enabled by the powers of progressive management, which may be viewed as a collective ponrayal of the contemporary entrepreneurial firms. However, the distinct focus of framework is on internationalization of smaller, as opposed to larger, firms.

Highlights of Papers in this Special Issue

The first paper, entitled “International activities in small firms - Examining factors influencing internationalization and export growth of small firms” by Svante Andersson, Jonas Gabrielsson, and Ingemar Wictor. has two research objectives. The first and primary one is to explore the explanatory power of the “Stage Theory of Internationalization,” proposed by the Uppsala School of Internationalization. As discussed earlier, the basic tenet of this theory is that firms gain increasing levels of experiential knowledge with time as they expand internationally in incremental stages. This step-wise expansion


I I 2L(I , . 1-21

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES E’IEMAD

would be instrumental to the operation of the theory. It would allow for a better assessment and management of risks associated with entering and operating in foreign markets (presumably due to the accumulated knowledge resulting in application of increasingly advanced processes in progressive stages). The direct implication of the theory is that size, age, and prior experience of the firm (or in its management) must have a direct and pos- itive relationship with the extent of internationalization? With this starting point, the paper examines the effects of contingency factors that characterize the stage theory of internationalization on the growth of international activities in small firms. The authors seek to test a set of hypotheses pertaining to the impact of an array of variables on international activities and export growth of the firm in the sample. However, their examination finds evidence to support the contrary. Furthermore, what appears to explain internationalization partially is the degree of perceived environmental dynamism (especially at home) that influences these firms’ decisions to internationalize. also contrary to the stage theory. Based on the findings of this paper, either the validity of the theory or its applicability to knowledge-intensive firms must be ques- tioned.

The paper also seeks to explain whether the contingent factors intluencing firm’s decision to internationalize differ from factors that influence it to expand and grow further in international markets. The paper’s findings not only point to the inapplicability, and possibly the impotency, of the stage theory.5 but also suggest that there is the possibility of “phase change” beyond the initial entry threshold6 (i.e., qualitative internal change and adjustments due to the initial internationalization experience), for knowledge-intensive small firms represented in the sample of this paper. Again, the results call the received theory into question, pointing to the need for fresh theoretical development.

The next three papers take novel theoretical and empirical steps to provide further guidance to SMEs aspiring to internationalize. Specifically. the second paper picks up where the first one left off and takes up the challenge of questions proposed by Andersson et al. In a paper entitled ‘The effect of environmental turbulence and leader characteristics on international performance: Are knowledge-based firms different?’ Olli Kuivalainen, Sanna Sundqvist, Kaisu Puumalainen, and John W. Cadogan explore the contentious area of environmental turbulence and leaders’ characteristics in knowledge-based (or knowledge-intensive)’ small firms in a cross-sectional sample containing knowledge-intensive SMEs. The authors set out to examine the impact of contingency factors pertaining to environmental turbulence (i.e.. a factor that Andersson et al. had also examined), leaders’ mindset and other leader

12

characteristics on firms’ performance in international markets.

By comparing two sub-samples of knowledge-intensive and other firms, they find that knowledge-intensive firms are nor similar to non-knowledge-intensive firms in many respects, but do not differ greatly from their counterparts on all parameters examined. The authors observe that knowledge-intensive firms may have passed the rhreshold under which variations in the leader’s global mindset would impact international performance.R Final- ly, the question of whether knowledge-intensive firms have better trained and more skilful leaders than non- knowledge-intensive firms shows significant differences between the two sub-populations of managers. Overall, the knowledge-intensive firms based in Finland appear to have a higher propensity to internationalize in spite of perceived technological turbulence.

While this paper provides a better understanding of issues raised by Andersson et al. it also confirms that it is a confluence of internal and external forces that moti- vates SMEs’ internationalization (as proposed in the grounded framework). Furthermore, the paper points to a clear direction for further research on the subject. It forces us to raise questions about a firm’s collective international orientation or global mindset: namely and specifically, are there structurally grounded constructs underlying firms’ internationalization beyond managers’ self-assessment? And, if there are such structures present, what is a typical pattern and structure of a firm’s (or its manager’s) mindset?

In the next paper. entitled “A global mindset - A prerequisite for successful internationalization,” Niina Nummela, Sami Saarenketo, and Kaisu Puumalainen elaborate on the above questions and concerns raised by Kuivalainen et al. The authors set out to explore the structure and the potential role of “global mindset” in the internationalization of SMEs. The proposed model of this paper is that global mindset has two drivers (or antecedents) that serve to influence performance, factors that the authors termed “globalness of market” and “market turbulence.” The findings of this paper indicate that there are (a) factoral structures underlying the internationalization, (b) inter-relations among the sub-structures of global mindset (which is a part of the internal/push factors in the proposed framework characterized by at least a single factor, among possibly others not examined in this paper) and market structure (which is a part of the external/pull factors in the proposed framework with a structure characterized by two orthog- onal factors), and (c) inter-relations among these factors capable of accounting for international performance (as proposed in the grounded framework). This article strongly supports the theoretically-grounded framework proposed in this paper, and is also a promising develop-

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences Revue canadienne des sciences de I’adrninistration

ZlCl). 1-21

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF SMALL A N D MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES ETEMAD

mental path as it points to a potent structural architecture not proposed previously.

The next paper examines internationalization process from a different perspective to achieve its stated objectives. In “Efficiency and personalization as value creation in internationalizing high-technology SMEs,” Martine Spence acknowledges the dramatic change in SMEs’ environment and the innovative ways in which these enterprises, especially high-technology SMEs, have responded to the challenges facing them. Most of these firms have used coalition- and network-based approaches, “international new ventures” (Oviatt & McDougall, 1994; Zahra et al., 2000). and synergistically- and symbiotically-based partnerships (Dana et al., 2000, Etemad, 2003; Etemad et al., 2001; Hakansson & Snehota, 1989, 1992, 1995). among other inter-firm innovations. Such mutually beneficial arrangements share at least one common principle: exchange for the purpose of creating value for all concerned parties, which leads the author to ask the pivotal research question: How do SMEs create value? It is this question that sets the research on a path of new discovery. According- ly, this paper proposes two sources of value creation: efficiency and personalization. The interactions between these two sources, contingent on prevailing conditions, create incremental value and consequent competitive advantage for small high-technology firms. Based on semi-structured interviews with high-technology SMEs. the author suggests that the tangible elements of value equation are among the necessary conditions for enhancing efficiency and performance for clients but they may not be sufficient for creating incremental value in and of themselves in order to sustain the firm’s relations with its stakeholders in the long term. The combined efforts of the focal firm and its dedicated partners appear to rein- force their previously established relations in response to their mutual needs for improving performance over time. The findings of this paper point to an important feature of the proposed grounded framework: that a set of interactive factors (e.g., interactive inter-firm relations) are at least as important as the firm’s internal (push) factors or external incentives energizing the firm’s internationalization process and ultimate success.

While the interaction of the high-technology environment and the characteristics of high-technology smaller firmsrrequire a fresh approach to understanding the international behaviour of these firms, as discussed in Spence’s paper, the next paper continues on to examine a family of Internet-based technologies (IBTs) to explore new Avenues and strategies for internationalization. In a paper entitled “The internationalization of Internet-enabled entrepreneurial firms: Evidence from Europe and North America,” Sharon Loane, Rod B. McNaughton, and Jim Bell examine the impact of IBTs

13

on internationalization activities of start-ups and already-established SMEs.

Loane et al. report on the success of start-ups and small firms in internationalizing very rapidly by capital- izing on the enabling aspects of IBTs. Based on case studies of a sample of firms in Europe and North Amer- ica, this paper examines the internationalization pace, patterns, and drivers of the Internet-enabled firms and start-ups. The authors found that all firms had a global focus at the outset (i.e., consistent with internallpush factors in the proposed grounded framework), undergoing rapid and intensive internationalization, resulting in most firms “internationalizing” from inception. They also found that the Internet has become an integral part of their business model (and thereby intermediating between the past and the emerging) patterns of internationalization strategy in some of these firms. In some cases, these firms followed either a major client or a lead market (i.e., a pull factor in the proposed framework) for internationalizing and establishing wide market presence and thus operating in two to three continents within a few years of their initial entry.

The direct implications of Loane et al.’s paper are supportive of the proposed framework. The paper por- trays the newly emerging business scenarios, if not models. It seems that IBTs, including those in the expanding fields of information systems and technologies, empower internationally-oriented entrepreneurs to reach remote markets of the world much easier and faster than their traditional counterparts, in spite of time and resource constraints. Furthermore, internationalizing small firms need not develop their own ITBs internally as they can outsource them.

Although the enabling prospects of IBTs. which must be viewed as theory-neutral, may have propelled internationally oriented entrepreneurs to exploit promising market conditions in record times, the developmental path of international entrepreneurship, either as a field of scholarly inquiry or theory development, may still face more difficult and troubling challenges. In the last paper of this issue, entitled “Quel paradigme pour I’entrepreneuriat international?,” Claude Marcotte asks the most pertinent question: which paradigm should be adopted for International Entrepreneurship at the outset? His epistemological approach, with a view to both entrepreneurship and international business, uncovers some of the true challenges facing theory development scholars and practitioners, of which the above discussion was a small sample. His theoretical review and examples of technology transfer leads him to raise the age-old questions of “paradigm specialization versus paradigm gen- eralization” applied in this case to international entrepreneurship. In international business, for example, a similar question translated into “standardization versus


2 l ( I ) . 1-21


customization” of products, programs, and services and preoccupied scholars and practitioners for a long time. However, technological advances are providing the possibility of mass-customizations, which can offer both the economies of scale associated with standardized (or mass-produced) products and the richness of customized (or tailor-made) products for meeting customers’ true choice, thereby delivering the highest possible value to customers in terms of lower cost combined with increased choice and quality. Although technology has provided a practical solution, the theoretical debate is still ongoing. The parallel question facing scholars of international entrepreneurship is whether to keep the flame of theoretical debate alive with the hope of theory development or try to keep up with the galloping pace of practice by the true entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs may not have read Joseph Schumpeter or have knowledge of Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) structure of systematic and scientific discovery. They appear to leave in their wake both the received theory and prevailing paradigms of the time. In the final analysis, and true to the spirit of entrepreneurship, they have undertaken (from entrepren- dre in French) to do the necessary for succeeding. as the forefathers of entrepreneurship, including Ely and Hess (1893). Richard Cantillon (1755). Jean Baptiste Say (1803, 1815). and Joseph Schumpeter (191 1/1934), had done. We are indeed witnessing the embryonic stages of an emerging field facing exciting challenges, including troubling choices of appropriate theoretical paradigms. The contribution of this special issue should serve as a testimony to the dedicated efforts of scholarly entrepreneurs pushing the frontiers forward in this newly emerging field.

Conclusions

From its inception, McGill International Entrepre- neurship (MIE) Initiative encouraged a holistic approach. if not an integrated paradigm for internationalization, to reflect the reality of international entrepreneurship and integrated internationalization processes irrespective of enterprise characteristics. Fortunately, a family of slowly- emerging paradigms appears to capture both the bilateral relations and multilateral interactions among the actors, action, and factors influencing international entrepreneurship, including (a) internationally-oriented entrepreneurs, (b) growth-oriented enterprises, and (c) a continu- ously evolving competition and environment. A simplified example of such a paradigm is schematically represented in Figure 2 and the empirical papers in this issue provide confirmatory support for such, and similar, broad-based models of international entrepreneurship. A summary of this support is presented in Table 4.

14

Despite the nascence of international entrepreneurship as a field of scholarly inquiry, Etemad and Lee’s (2003) research uncovered that international entrepreneurship has been functioning for a long time. Formal documentation of internationally oriented entrepreneurs dates back at least to Cantillon (1755). Although Cantil- Ion’s writing about French wine merchants, who took the highly localized French wines to international markets takes us to the 18th Century, international entrepreneurship goes much farther back? The traders of the ancient caravans that trekked the trading routes of antiq- uity must be viewed as the forefathers of modem international entrepreneurs who are increasingly travelling the “information highway” and functioning in both real and cyber space at record speeds and far ahead of cut- ting edge theory. The troubling fact is that the travelling traders of the past era did not have the benefits of theory nor would they have changed their time-tested prac- tices because of. or despite, the prevailing theory then (even if they could have accessed one). They relied on their entrepreneurial intuitions. The prospect that contemporary international entrepreneurs may be following in the footsteps of their forefathers is equally troubling. However, the burden of shedding theoretical and para- digmatic lights on discovery of practical frontiers still remains on scholarly shoulders.

Fortunately, scholars in the emerging field (or sub- field) of international entrepreneurship have begun to combine concepts from international entrepreneurship’s constituent fields for studying the complex inner dynamics of the young and fast-growing entrepreneurial firms entering international markets or competing in internationally-oriented regional industrial clusters. Individual entrepreneurs, similar to the international traders of the past, are traveling the obstacle-ridden roads of industrial and corporate structures in the international markets or, alternatively, they compete in the globally competitive regional clusters and play critical roles in the global competitiveness of firms in such complex groupings.

When small firms grow in industrial regional clusters much faster than their counterparts elsewhere and participate in international markets indirectly through others, it is mainly because of their entrepreneurial efforts and international orientation within highly progressive enterprises and conducive environments. It is the nexus of entrepreneurial efforts, enterprise capabilities, and enabling environment that have led small and young entrepreneurs, their enterprise, and the regional industrial clusters by extension, to excel in global markets. Similarly, we should not find it surprising if the modem cyber-based entrepreneurs following their forefathers travel the un-chartered information highways of the 21st Century with cyber-speeds. However the challenge of understanding the prevailing phenomena, theo-


2l(l), 1-21


Table 4 Highlights of Confimatoty Suppori Provided by the Papers in this Issue for the Components of the Proposed Theoretically Grounded Framework

The Substance of Components Papers Supporting the Su bstancdComponent

~~~ ~

I. Support for the Specific Components of the Model

I . The Direct Impact of the Entrepreneur on Firm's Action Age Experience and exposure International/global orientation

2. The Internal Factors Pushing the Firm's Internationalization Process (i.e., push factors) Economics of operations Characteristics of competition and strategy Economics of R&D, innovation. and change Characteristics of high-technology Strategic logic of SME's international operations

3. The External Factors AttractingPulling the Firm's Internationalization Process (i.e., pull factors) Liberalization of international markets Advances in information and communication technologies Attraction and resources of partners Attraction of sewing current buyer and suppliers

4. The Impact of International Environment on Firm's Action Ease of exporting and presence in IM allows for specialization and division of labour Easier achievement of scale economies providing opportunities for much expanded IMs Borderless and inter-linked economies requiring IM operations Overriding the impact of time and distance through network operations reduces costs Increased speed of internationalization necessitating shortened internationalization process Responding to needs of previous domestic customers Preserving previous position in competitive markets Saving and building on established relations with internationalizing buyers and suppliers Re-empting competitors from getting previously-domestic customers

5. The Impact of Combination of Pull and Push Factors on the Firm's Internationalization Processes Attraction of serving current buyer and suppliers SMEs need for financial resources The dynamics of learning organizations Leveraging capabilities, products, and resources Internationalized needs of customers and suppliers

I

Andersson et al.; Kuivalainen et al.; Nummela et at.

Andersson et al.; Kuivalainen et al.; Nummela et al.; Loane et al.

Loane et al.; Spence

Andersson et al.; Kuivalainen et al.; Loane et al.; Spence

Andersson et al.; Kuivalainen et al.; Nummela et al.; Loane et al.; Spence

(Conrinued ... )

15


a([). 1-21


Table 4 - Continued Highlights of Confitmatory Support Provided 6y the Papers in this Issue for the Components of the Proposed Theoretically Grounded Framework

~~~ ~

The Substance of Components Papers Supporting the Su bstanceKomponent

11. Support for interaction Between the Specific Components of the Model

I . interaction between the pull factors and the environment

2. Interaction between the push factors and the environment

3. Interaction between the pull and the push factors

4. Interaction between the interactive factors and the environment


Nurnmela et al.; Kuivalainen et al.


Andersson et al.; Kuivalainen et al.; Loane et al.; Spence

5. Interaction between the entrepreneurial characteristics and the other components Andersson et at.; Kuivalainen et al.; Nummela et al.; Loane et al.; Spence

of the model

111. Support for Macro Features of the Model

I . Questioning the lessons and implications of the Stage Theory All above papers as well as Marcotte

2. Identifying shortcomings, voids, and absence of necessary concepts, themes and All above papers as well as Marcotte theory essentials necessitating the proposed model

rizing for their developmental path and charting the developmental routes on which international entrepreneurs will travel is still before us. The theoretically grounded framework proposed earlier in this paper provided an opportune privilege to suggest promising mile- stones on yet-to-be charted landscape in international entrepreneurship. From that vantage point, the theorizing and findings of the next six articles in this special issue are exemplary efforts in further charting the landscape and advancing our knowledge in this emerging field.

In the final analysis, the above discussion points to at least two emerging truisms. First, that the word

16

“international” in the field of international entrepreneurship no longer refers exclusively to the physical attributes such as movement of goods and services (or even information) across national boundaries. Emerg- ing internationalization strategies may even permit globally competitive small firms to refrain voluntarily from a physical presence and competition in international markets, and instead compete in highly competitive markets at home, which have already become integral parts of the global markets. The entrepreneurs championing the international cause of such firms must be viewed as equally entrepreneurial as those who


2LCl). 1-21


extend the reach of their enterprise to the remote cor- ners of the world.

Second, the ever-advanci ng computational capabili - ties characterized by Moore's law, as a proxy for expanding entrepreneurial capacities, especially those enhanced by IBTs. may in fact expose us to exceeding larger scholarly challenges far beyond the reach of our theoretical foundations. Although the papers in this issue provide strong confirmatory support (as highlighted in Table 4) and paint a coherent picture embodied in the proposed theoretically-grounded framework (as discussed earlier and depicted in Figures I . 2, 3). much larger scholarly challenges are undoubtedly still ahead of us.

End Notes

There are a relativcly large number of activc regional free trade agrcements. including the North American Free Tradc Agreement. gradually evolving into the proposed Frec Trade Area of the Americas, the Mercosur countries in the southern cone of South America. thc ASEAN countries of South-East Asia. and a host of relatively inactive ones in Africa. among others. The next live papers in this issue present examples of SMEs from small markets that have followed similar internationalization strategies. The notcworthy point about the Eclectic Theory of MNEs (Dunning. 1980. 1988) is that it is based on three such principles: Ownership-specific advantages (OSAs). Locally-specific advantages (LSAs). and Internalization (sometimes called the OLI model of MNEs). While these principles remain the same across MNEs. their distinct competitive advantages, their specificity, and their respective dynamics are not. This is an implication of thc thcory of learning organizations. Bccause the theory builds on and assumes that prior experience results in a better operating knowledge of the environment combined with much more realistic and fine- tuned evaluation methods and management systems than previously. Ironically. the Stage Theory i s perceived to be the most relevant and theory-friendly to SMEs among all internationalization theories. We are borrowing the term "phase change" from physical sciences whereby a physical entity undergoes internal phase change due to a change in its external conditions. For example, water changes phase from liquid to solid when ambient temperature falls below zero degrees Centi- grade (32 degrees Fahrenheit). This paper uses the terms "knowledge-intensive firms" and "knowledge-based firms" interchangeably. Earlier in this paper, we proposed a phase change beyond a threshold (also see Note 6). Kuivalinen et al.'s paper

17

suggests that the threshold is about or below 25% of sales emanating from international markets.

9 The highlights of the research into the scholarly roots of International Entrepreneurship as a field of scholarly enquiry. which we have termed 'The Knowledge Network of International Entreprencurship." is presented in Etemad and Lee (2000, 2003). For a brief historical highlight of international entrepreneurship in Europe going as far back as the 1600s see Etemad (2004b). For a bricf review of bazaars and caravans of ancient Assyria. Persia, and China. see Dana and Etemad (2000).

References

Acs. Z.J., Morck. R.. Shaver. M.. & Yeung. B. (1997). The internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises: A policy perspective. Small Business Economics. 9 ( 1 ).

Aggarwal. R. (1999). Tcchnology and globalization as mutual reinforcers in business: Reorienting strategic thinking for the new millennium. Management International Review, 2 (Special Issue), 83- 104.

Barney. J. (1991). Firm resources and competitive advantage. Journal of Management. 17 (Special Issue). 99- 120.

Barncy. J. ( 1997). Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research'? Yes. Academy of Manugement Review. 26 ( I ), 41 -56.

Baron. R. & Markman. G. (2000). Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance entrepreneurs' success. Academy of Management Executive. 14 ( I ), 106-1 16.

Bartlett. C.A. & Ghoshal. S. (1986). Tap your subsidiaries for global reach. Harvard Business Review. 64 (6). 87-94.

Bartlett. C.A. & Ghoshal. S. (1989). Managing acmss borders: The transnarional solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Becker. G.S. (1965). A theory of allocation of time. Ecnnomi- ca Journul. 75,493-5 17.

Bell, J.. Murray. M.. & Madden, K. (1991). Developing expor- tise: An Irish perspcctive. Journal of Small Business Man- agement, I0 (2). 37-53.

Bilkey. W.J. (1978). An attempted integration of the literature on the export behavior of firms. Journal of International Business Studies. 9 ( I ) , 33-46.

Bilkey. W.J. & Tesar. G. (1977). The export behavior of smaller sized Wisconsin manufacturing firms. Journal of Inter- national Business Studies. 8 (I) . 93-98.

Birkinshaw, J.M. (1996). How subsidiary mandates are gained and lost. Journal of International Business Studies. 27.

Birkinshaw. J.M. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Srrategic Management Journal. 18.207-229.

Birkinshaw, J.M.. Hood. N.. & Jonsson. S. (1998). Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: The role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management

7-20.

567-496.

Journal. 19 (3). 221 -241.


2kI). 1-21

INTERNATlONALlZATlON OF SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES ETEMAD

Bloodgood J.M.. Sapienza, H.J.. & Almeida. J.G. (1996). The internationalization of new high-potential US. ventures: Antecedents and outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice. 20 (4). 6 1-76.

Bonaccorsi, A. (1992). On the relationship between firm size and export intensity. J O U ~ M ~ of International Business Studies, 4 (4). 605-635.

Buckley. P.J. (1989). Foreign direct investment by small and medium-sized enterprises. Small Business Economics, I .

Buckley, J. & Casson. M. (1976). The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan.

Bygrave. W.D. (1989). The entrepreneurship paradigm (11): Chaos and catastrophes among quantum jumps. Entrepre- neurship Theory and Practice. 14 (2). 7-30.

Cantillon. R. ( I 755). Essai sur la nature du commerre en general. London and Paris: R. Gyles. Translated (1931) by Henry Higgs. London: Macmillan and Co.

Castrogiovanni. G.J. (1996). Pre-startup planning and the survival of new small businesses: Theoretical linkages. Jour- nal of Management. 22 (6). 801 -823.

Cavusgil. S.T. ( 1980). On the internationalisation process of firms. European Research. 8.273-28 I .

Cavusgil. S.T. (1982). Some observations on the relevance of critical variables for internationalization stages. In M. Czinkota & G. Tesar (Us.) , Export management: An international context (pp. 276-285). New York: Praeger.

Cavusgil. S.T. (1994). Born globals: A quiet revolution among Australian exporters. Journal of International Marketing Research. 2 (3), editorial.

Christensen, C.M. & Bower. J.L. (1996). Customer power. strategic investment and the failure of the leading firms. Strategic Management Journal. 17, 197-2 18.

Coase, R.H. (1937). The nature of firm. Economica. 4. 386- 405.

Cohen, K.J. & Cyert, R.M. (1965). Theory of the firm: Resource allocation in a market economy. E n g l e w d Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Coviello. N.E. & McAuley. A. (1999). lnternationalisation and the smaller firm: A review of contemporary empirical research. Management International Review, 39,223-244.

Coviello. N.E. & Munro. H.J. (1995). Growing the entrepreneurial firm: Networking for international market development. European Journal of Marketing. 29 (7). 49-61.

Crookell. H.H. (1986). Specialization and international competitiveness. In H. Etemad & L. Seguin-Dulude (Eds.). Managing the multinational subsidiary (pp. 102-1 1 I ) . London: Croon Helm.

Cyert. R.M. & March, J.G. (1963). The behavioral theory of thefirm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: hentice Hall.

DAveni, R. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynam- ics of Strategic Maneuvering. New York: The Free Press.

Dana, L.-P. & Etemad, H. (2000). The bazaar economy. In L.P. Dana (Ed.). Economies of the &astern Mediterranean: Economic miracles in the making (pp. 27-45). Singapore, London & Hong Kong: World Scientific.

Dana, L.-P.. Etemad, H.. & Wright. R. (2000). The global reach of symbiotic networks. Journal of Euromarketing. 9 (2).

89- 100.

1-16

18

Dosi. G.. hvitt. K.. & Saete. L. (l99O). The economics of tech- nical change and international trade. New York: New York University Press.

Doz. Y.L. (1996). The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strate- gic Managemem Journal, 17.55-83.

Dunning, J.H. (1977). Trade, location of economic activity and M N E A search for an eclectic approach. International Allocation of Economic Activity: Pmceedings of a Nobel symposium held at Stockholm (pp. 395-418). London: Macmillan.

Dunning. J.H. (1980). Toward an eclectic theory of international production: Empirical tests. Journal of Imemtion- al Business Studies. I I ( 1 ), 9-3 I .

Dunning, J.H. (1981). International production and the multi- n a t i 0 ~ 1 enterprise. London: Allen & Unwin.

Dunning. J.H. (1988). The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies. 19 ( I ), 1-3 I .

Dunning J.H. & Rugman. A. (1985). The influence of Hymer's dissertation on the theory of foreign direct investment. American Economic Review, 7S, 228-232.

Eisenhardt. K.M. & Martin. J.A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management JournaI. 21

Ely. R.T. & Has. R.H. (1893). Outline of economics. New York: Macmillan.

Etemad, H. (1982). World product mandates in perspective. In A. Rugman (Ed.). Muhinationak and technology transfer: The Canadian experience (pp. 108- 125). New York: Praeger. New York.

Etemad, H. (1999). Globalization and small and medium-sized enterprises: Search for potent strategies. Journal of Glob- al Focus. I 1 (3). 85-105.

Etemad. H. (2002). Strategies for internationalization of entrepreneurial firms facing different competitive environments. In H. Etemad (Ed.), Pmeedings of the Third Biennial McCill Conference on International Entmpre- neurship: Researching Frontiers, 13- I6 September, Volume I.

Etemad. H. (2003). Managing relations: The essence of international entrepreneurship. In H. Etemad & R. Wright (Eds.). Globalization and entrepreneurship: Policy and strategy perspectives (pp. 223-243). Northampton. MA: Edward Elgar.

Etemad. H. (204a). Internationalization strategies for small and medium sized-enterprises facing a typology of different competitive environments. In L.-P. Dana (Ed.), Hand- book of international entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. (Forthcoming. 2004).

Etemad. H. (2004b). Marshalling relations: The enduring essence of international entrepreneurship. In LA? Dana (Ed.), Handbook of international entrepreneurship. Chel- tenham, UK: Edward Elgar. (Forthcoming, 2004).

Etemad. H. & Lee, Y. (2003). The knowledge network of international entrepreneurship: Theory and evidence. Small Business Economics. 20 ( I ) . 5-23.

Etemad. H. & Seguin-Dulude, L. (1986a). The development of technology in MNEs: A cross-country and industry study.

Canadian Journal of Administrative Winces Revue canadienne des sciences de I'adminismtion

2Ul). 1-21

(10111). 1105-1121.


In A.E. Safarian & G.Y. Bertin (Eds.). Multinaiionals. governmenis and iechnology iransfeer: London: Croom Helm.

Etemad. H. & Seguin-Dulude. L. (1986b). Inventive activity in MNEs and their world product mandated subsidiaries. In H. Etemad & L. Seguin-Dulude (Eds.). Managing ihe muliinaiional subsidiar).: Response io environmenial change and hosi nation RLtDpolicies (pp. I 17-206). New York: St. Martin's Press.

Etemad. H.. Wright, R. & Dana, L.-F! (2001). Symbiotic international business networks: Collaboration between small and large firms. Thunderbird International Business Review, 43 (4). 48 1-500.

Fahy. J. (2002). A resource-based analysis of sustainable competitive advantage in a global environment. Internaiional Business Review, 11.57-78.

Fraser. J. & Oppenheim. J. (1997). What's new about globalization? McKinsey Quarterly. 2. 168- 179.

Galunic. D.C. & Roden, S. (1998). Resource recombination in the firm: Knowledge and potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Siraiegic Management Journal. I9 ( 12). I 193- 1201.

Gifford, S. ( 1998). The allocation of limited entrepreneurial aiieniion. Boston: Kluwcr Academic.

Gomes-Casseres, B. (1996). The alliance revoluiion: The new shape of business rivalry. Cambridge. MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press.

Gomes-Casseres. B. (1997). Alliance strategies of small firms. Small Business Economics. 9 (I 1. 33-44.

Grant. R.M. (1991). Thc resource-based theory of compctitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. Califor- nia Management Review, 33 (3). 1 14-135.

Grant. R.M. (19%). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal. 17 (Winter Special Issue). 109- 122.

Gulati. R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Managemeni Review, 38 ( I ). 85- I 12.

Gupta. A.K. & Govindarajan. V. ( I 99 I ). Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16.768-792.

Hakansson. H. & Snehota, 1. (1989). No business is an island: the network concept of business strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Managemeni, 4 (3). 187-200.

Hakansson. H. & Snehota. 1. (1992). Analysing business relationships. In H. HAkansson & 1. Snehota (Eds). Develop- ing relaiionships in business neiworks (pp. 24-49). Lon- don and New York: Routledge.

Hakansson. H. & Snehota, 1. (1995). Developing relaiionships in business neiworks. London and New York: Routledge.

Hakansson. H. & Snehota. 1. (2000). The IMP perspective: Assets and liabilities of business relationships. In J.N. Sheth & 4. Parvatiyar (Eds.). Handbook of relaiionship morkeiing (pp. 69-84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hamel. G. & Prahalad. C.K. (1985). Do you really have a global strategy? Harvard Business Review, 63 (4). 133-145.

Hamel, G. & Prahalad. C.K. (1990). The core competencies of the corporation, Harvani Business Review. 68 (3). 79-91.

Hayek. FA. (1948). The use of knowledge in society in studies

19

in philosophp poliiics and economics. Chicago: Universi- ty of Chicago Press.

Hayek, F.A. (1978). Compeiiiion as a discovery procedure in Hayek s new Studies in philosophy poliiics. economics and histor). of ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Huber, G. (1991 ). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organiuriion Science, 2.88- 115.

Hymer. S.H. (1976). The iniernaiional operaiions of national jirms: A siudy of direci foreign invesiment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Johanson. J. & Mattson. L.G. ( 1988). Internationalization in Industrial systems - A network approach. In N. Hood & J.E. Vahlne (Eds.). Siraiegies in global compeiiiion (pp. 287-3 14). London: Croom Helm.

Johanson, J. & Vahlne. J.E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm - Four Swedish case studies. Journal of Managemeni Studies, 12 (3). 305-322.

Johanson. J. & Vahlne. J.E. (1990). The mechanism of internationalization. lnternaiional Markeiing Review, 7 (4). l l - 24.

Johanson. J. & Vahlne. J.E. (1992). Management of foreign market entry. Scandinavian lniernational Business Review. I (3). 9-27.

Johanson, J. & Wiedersheim-Paul. F. (1975). The internationalization of the firm: Four Swedish cases. Journal of lniernational Managemeni Studies. 12 (3). 36-64.

Jolly. V.K.. Alahuhta. M., & Jeannet. J.-F! (1992). Challenging the incumbents: How high technology start-ups compete globally. Journal of Siraiegic Change. I , 7 1-82.

Jones, 0. & Conway, S. (2004). Social-cmbeddcdness and geo- graphical reach in entrepreneurial networks: The casc of James Dyson in international entrepreneurship. In H. Etemad (Ed.). Small and medium-sized enierprises: Ori- eniation. envimnmeni and siraiegy Northampton. MA: Edward Elgar Publishing (forthcoming).

Jones-Evans. D. & Westhead. P. (1996). The high technology small firm sector in the UK. lniernaiional Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. 2 (I). 15-35.

Kanter. E.M. (1984). Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 96- 108.

Kapasuwan. S. & Rose, J. (2004). Cultural effects on delega- tion in the small business life cycle. In H. Etemad (Ed.). Small and mediwn-sized enierprises: Orieniaiion. envimnmeni and stmiegy. Northampton. MA: Edward Elgar Publishing (forthcoming).

Keeble. D., Lawson. C.. Smith, H.. Moore. B.. & Wilkison. F. (1998). lnternationalisation Processes. networking and local embeddedness in technology-intensive small firms. Small Business Economics, I I (4). 327-342.

Kirzner. I.M. ( 1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kinner. I.M. ( 1979). Petrepiion, opporiunity, and pmjit: Siud- ies in ihe iheory of enirepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kirzner. I.M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and competitive market processes: An Austrian approach. Jouml of Economic Litemrure, 35.60-85.


2lClX 1-21


Knickerbocker. F.T. ( 1973). Oligopolistic reaction and multinational enterprise. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Knight, G.A. & Cavusgil. S.T. (1996a). The born global firm: A challenge to traditional internationalhation theory. Advances in International Marketing 8. I 1-26.

Knight. G.A. & Cavusgil. S.T. (1996b). The born global firm. In S.T. Cavusgil & T.K. Masden (Ws.). Advances in international marketing 8. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Knight, G.A. Madsen. T.K.. Servais, P.. & Rasmussen. E. (2000). The born g lobal jm: Description and empirical investigation in Europe and the United States. Presented at the American Marketing Association Conference (Win- ter, 2000).

Kogut. B. & Zander. U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, com- binative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science. 3. 383-397.

Koppl. R. & Minniti. M. (2003). Market processes and entrepreneurial studies. In Z.J. Acs & D.B. Audretsch (Eds.). Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 55-79). Lon- don: Kluwer Academic.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolution. Chica- go: University of Chicago Press.

Levitt. T. (1983. May-June). The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, 92- 102.

Lieberman, M. & Montgomery, D.B. (1998). First-mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource- based view. Strategic Management Journal, 19. I I I I - 1125.

Lindqvist, M. ( I 990). Critical success factors in thc process of internationalization of small hi-tech firms. In S. Birley (Ed.), Building European ventures (pp. 36-60). Amster- dam: Elsevier.

Lindqvist. M. ( 1997). Infant multinationals: Internationalisa- tion of small technology-based firms. In D. Jones-Evans. & M. Klofsten (Eds.), Technology, innovation and enterprise: The European experience (pp. 303-324). Hamp shire, UK: Macniillan.

Litvak, I.A. (1990). Instant international: Strategic reality for small high-technology firms in Canada. Multinational Business, 2 (Summer), 1-12.

Madsen, T.K.. Rasmussen. E.S.. & Servais. P. (2000). Diffcr- ences and similarities between born globals and other types of exporters. Advances in International Marketing.

Madsen, T.K. & Servais. P. (1997). The internationalization of born globals: An evolutionary process? International Business Review. 6 (2). 561-583.

Mathew, J.A. (2003). Competitive dynamics and economic learning: An extended resource-based view. industrial and Corporate Change, 12 ( I ) . I 15-145.

McDougall. P.P. & Oviatt. B.M. (1991). Global stan-ups: New ventures without geographic limits. The Entrepreneurship Forum. (Winter), 1-5.

McNaughton. R.B. & Bell, J.D. (2000). Capital structure and the pace of SME internationalization Paper presented at the 3rd International Entrepreneurship Conference on Globalisation and Emerging Businesses, McGill Universi- ty. Montreal.

Miesenbock. K.J. (1988). Small business and exporting: A lit-

10,247-265.

20

erature review. International Small Business Journal. 6

Nelson. R.R. & Winter, S.G. (1977). In search of a useful theory of innovation. Research Policy. 6 ( I ) . 36-76.

Nelson. R.R. & Winter, S.G. (1982). An evolutionar), theop of economic chmge. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

Nonaka. 1. (1995). A theory of organizational knowledgc creation. international Journal of Technology Management.

Nonaka. 1. & Takeuchi. H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovarion. New York: Oxford University Press.

OECD ( 1997). Globalisation and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Paris: OECD.

Ohmae. K. ( 1985). Triad power: The coming shape of globul competition. New York: The Free Press.

Ohmae. K. ( 1990). The borderless world: Power and strutegy in the interlinked economy. New York: Harper Business.

Ohmae, K. (1995). The end of the nation state: The rise of regional economies. New York: The Free Press.

Oviatt. B.M. & McDougall, P.P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Busi- ness Studies. 25 ( I ). 45-64.

Oviatt. B.M. & McDougall. P.P. (1995). Global start-ups: Entrepreneurs on a worldwide stage. Academy of Mun- agement Executive, 9 (2). 30-43.

Oviatt. B.M. & McDougall, P.P. (1997). Challenges for intcr- nationalization proccss theory: The case of international new ventures. Management international Review. 37 (2) . 85-99 (Special Issue).

Oviatt, B.M.. McDougall. P.P.. Simon. M.. & Shrader. R.C. (1991). A new venture without geographic limits: Casc history of a global start-up. In N.C. Churchill el al. (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 64-78). Bab- son Park, MA: Babson College.

Oviatt. B.M.. McDougall. P.P.. Simon. M.. & Shrader. R.C. ( 1993). Heartware International Corporation: A medical equipment company born international. Part A. Entrepre- neurship Theory & Practice. 18, I 1 I - 128.

Podolny. J.M. S1uart.T.E.. & Hannan. M.T. (1996). Networks, knowledge and niches: Competition in worldwide semi- conductor industry. 1984- 199 1. American Journal of Sociology, 101. 1224- 1260.

Poutzioris. F?. Soufani. K.. & Michaelas. N. (2003). On the determinants of exporting - UK evidence. In H. Etemad & R. Wright (Eds.), Globalization and entrepreneurship (pp. 15-38). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Rasmussen. E.S.. Madsen, T.K.. & Evangelista, F. (2001). The founding of the born global company in Denmark and Australia: Sensemaking and networking. Asia Pucifc Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 13 (3). 75- 107.

Rennie. M.W. (1993). Born global. McKinsey Quarterly, 4.45- 52.

Roberts, E.B. & Senturia. T.A. (1996). Globalizing the cmerg- ing high-technology company. Industrial Marketing Man- agement. 25.49 I -506.

Rugman. A.M. (1982). New theories of multinationals. Lon- don: Croom Helm.

(2). 42-6 I .

I1 (718). 833-845.


2 L ( I , . 1-21


Rugman, A.M. & D'Cruz. J. (2000). Muliinaiionals asflagship firms: A new iheory of rpgional business neiworks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rugman, A.M. & Douglas, S. (1986). The strategic management of multinationals and world product mandating. In H. Etemad & L. Seguin-Dulude (Eds.). Managing ihe muliinaiional subsidiary (pp. 90- I01 ). London: Croon Helm.

Russel. R. (1999). Developing a process model of intrapre- neurial Systems: A cognitive mapping approach. Enire- preneurship Theory and Praciice. 23 (3). 65-84.

Say. J.B. ( I 803). Traite d'kconomie politique ou simple expo- sition de la manitre dont se forment. se distribuent. et se consomment les richesses; revised ( 18 19); translated (1830) by C.R. Prinsep, A treatise on political economy: On familiar conversations on the manner in which wealth is produced. distributed and consumed by society. Philadelphia: John Grigg and Elliot.

Say. J.B. ( I8 15). Caiechisme d'iconomie poliiique; translated (1821) by John Richter, Catechism of political economy. London: Shenvaad.

Schumpeter. J.A. (191 I ) . Theorie der wirischafrlichen Eniwicklung. Munich and Leipzig: Dunker und Humblat: translated (1934) by R. Opie, The theory of economic development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schumpeter. J.A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. Journal of Economic Hisiory. 7, 149- 159.

Shubik. M. (1952). Information. theories of competition and the theory of games. Journal of Political Economy, 60.

Shubik. M. (1953). The role of game theory in economics. Kyk-

Shubik. M. (1955). The use of game theory in management.

145- I 50.

10s. 6, 21-34.

Managemeni Science, 2 ,4034.

21

Stottinger. B. & Schlegelmilch, B. (I 998). Explaining export development through psychic distance: Enlightening or elusive'? Iniernaiional Markeiing Review. IS (5). 357-372.

Teece, D. J.. Pisano. G., & Shuen. A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Siraiegic Managemeni Journal, 18 (7). 509-533.

Vernon. R. ( 1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Econom-

Von Misses. L. ( 1949). Human aciion: A irearise on economics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Von Neumann, J. (1954). A numerical method to determine optimum strategy. Naval Research hgisiics Quarterly. I .

Von Neumann. J. & Morgenstern. 0. (1947). Theory of games and economic behaviour (2nd ed). Princeton. NJ: Prince- ton University Press.

Wernerfelt. B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. siraiegic Managemeni Journal, 5. I 7 I - 180.

West, G.P. & Meyers. G.D. (1997). Temporal dimensions of opportunistic change in technology-driven ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Praciice. 22 (2). 3 1-52.

Williamson. O.E. (1975). Markers and hierarchies: Analysis and anii-irusi implicaiions. New York: The Free Press.

Williamson. O.E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology.

Yoshino. M. & Rangan, V.S. (1995). Siraiegic alliances: An entrepreneurial appmach io globalizaiion. Boston: Har- vard Business School Press.

Zahra, S.A., Ireland. R.D.. & Hitt. M.A. (2000). International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity. mode of market entry. technological learning. and performance. Academy of Managemeni Journal, 43 (5). 925-950.

ics. 80 (7). 509-533.

109-1 15.

87.548-577


2L(I,. 1-21

Documents

Internationalization of Small and Mediumsized Enterprises: A Grounded Theoretical Framework and an Overview