Empirical evidence for a theory of international new · PDF file ·...

Jenaer Schriften zur Wirtschaftswissenschaft

Empirical evidence for a theory of international new ventures

Reinhard Meckl/Robert Schramm

06/2005

Arbeits- und Diskussionspapiere

der Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät

der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena

ISSN 1611-1311

Herausgeber:

Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena Carl-Zeiß-Str. 3, 07743 Jena

www.wiwi.uni-jena.de

Schriftleitung:

Prof. Dr. Hans-Walter [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Armin [email protected]

Reinhard Meckl/Robert Schramm

Empirical evidence for a theory of

international new ventures

Abstract

This paper analyzes twenty empirical studies relating to international new ventures (INVs).

Based on this analysis it is shown that traditional internationalization theories do not explain

INVs sufficiently. Therefore a model integrating static and process elements from the

empirical evidence as well as parts of the traditional internationalization theories is developed.

Obtained was an “eclectic theory” describing and explaining the rise of new firms already

venturing abroad briefly after the time of their formation.

Key results

A “4-pillar-model” for explaining the internationalization of INVs is developed. The model

relies on basic assumptions from the network-, the stages-, the internalization- and the

monopolistic advantage theory.

Key words

Born global, international new ventures, internationalization theory

Reinhard Meckl, Prof., Faculty of Economics, University Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany

Robert Schramm, Dipl. Kfm., Faculty of Economics, Friedrich-Schiller-University, Jena,

Germany

1

Introduction and purpose

For the last decades the internationalization process of firms has been the subject of abundant

research. Still it is a very complex issue to conceptualize. So far, a universally accepted

definition of the term internationalization remains unequalled. It has generally been regarded

as “a process in which the enterprise gradually increases its international involvement”

(Johanson and Vahlne 1990, p. 11). Thus, according to this influential research stream called

the Uppsala model, internationalization was seen to be happening in a slow and incremental

manner.

However, since the mid-1980s it has been observed regularly that some firms leapfrog certain

stages of the internationalization process (Hedlund & Kverneland 1985) and move abroad at a

more rapid pace (Granitsky 1989). Ventures were identified that engaged in international

activities right from the time they were established (McDougall 1989; Ray 1989). Thus the

way for the research field of international entrepreneurship was paved. More than a decade

later this field has broadened and contains many interesting questions. Empirical work on it is

no longer scarce. Growing appearance in academic journals gives strong evidence of that.

(McDougall and Oviatt 2003, p. 3f)

Evidence of the high relevance of the topic is given by the fact that there are increasing

numbers of companies that may be called international new ventures. Further, INVs are

important innovators and creators of competition and job growth. (Oviatt and McDougall

1995, p. 31; Moen 2002, p. 157) Another issue that underlines the importance is the surprising

competitiveness of start-ups against established players. Obviously, its managers find new

ways to operate a fast-growing, profitable business when they venture abroad despite a lack of

resources. (Rennie 1993, p. 47) Therefore previous work is contradicted which found the new

venture internationalization an unimportant anomaly (Dunning 1993) or the result of

dependent multinational corporation (MNC)-supplier relationships (Johanson & Vahlne

1990).

Acknowledging the relevance of the topic, the purpose of this paper is to tackle the question

which elements of traditional internationalization theories are useful for laying a theoretical

foundation of INVs. The lack of a holistic, original theory of INVs from the field of

entrepreneurship and the general deficits in basing the empirical results of studies of INVs on

theoretical models leads to the idea of “collecting” single, proven knowledge from the

traditional research in the field of internationalization for applying it to INVs. Although this

idea is not completely new, a systematic approach which could lead to new results is chosen

in this paper. To this end, a wide array of empirical studies on new venture

2

internationalization was systematically reviewed and analyzed. The main objective of the

analysis was to identify patterns and single factors of the internationalization of new ventures

which are also found in traditional theories of internationalization. Those traditional theories

are briefly presented and subsequently evaluated with regard to their potential of explaining

the expansion abroad of new ventures. By summarizing the results, we try to outline basic

ideas of an integrated, nevertheless eclectic theory for explaining the internationalization of

new ventures.

A definition of international new ventures

To describe the phenomenon of firms that venture international with or shortly after their

inception, many terms have been coined. These companies were first called innate exporters

(Granitsky 1989), then born internationals (Ray 1989), subsequently infant multinationals

(Lindqvist 1991) and high-technology start-ups (Jolly et al. 1992). Further proposed were the

terms global start-ups (Oviatt and McDougall 1995), instant internationals (Litvak 1990;

McAuley 1999; Preece et al. 1999) and international entrepreneurs (Jones 1999). Enjoying the

most frequent usage, however, are the names born global (Rennie 1993; Knight & Cavusgil

1996; Moen 2002; Chetty & Campbell-Hunt 2004) and international new ventures (Oviatt &

McDougall 1994; Bloodgood et al. 1996; Shrader et al. 2000; Zahra et al. 2000).

While the term born global may be the most popular, it also is the most provocative. It is

criticized for its overstatement of the extent of the venture’s internationalization. (Hordes et

al. 1995) ‘Global’ implies that a company is present in and operates from various locations.

But more than a penetration of five countries was rarely achieved while the ventures could

still be called new. (Lindqvist 1991, p. 129) For those reasons, the term `international new

venture´ seems most appropriate and will be used throughout this paper.

Regardless of the name all the new firms in this group have in common that they “coordinate

many organizational activities across many countries” (Oviatt & McDougall 1995, p. 42). The

authors (ibid, p. 49) thus define an INV as “a business organization that, from inception, seeks

to derive significant competitive advantage from the use of resources and the sale of outputs

in multiple countries”. Implicit is that solely the age of the firm is relevant, not its size.

Further the history of the venture begins with a proactive and not gradual international

strategy, although ownership of foreign assets is not necessarily required. (Oviatt/ McDougall

1994, p. 49) Therefore, INVs represent a distinct group among the new ventures.

3

Database and method

Following the aim outlined in the introduction, this paper is based on a review of the

empirical literature that focuses specifically on new venture internationalization. The analysis

concentrates on studies from roughly the last decade in an attempt to obtain a sound overview.

Naturally, literature reviews in the field of small and medium sized enterprise (SME)/new

venture internationalization have been conducted before (e.g. McDougall et al. 1994;

Leonidou & Katsikeas 1996; Madsen & Servais 1997; Coviello & McAuley 1999; Fillis

2001; Rialp & Rialp 2001; Rialp-Criado et al. 2002) and are acknowledged here. However, it

seems worth to conduct another review not only to include more recent studies but to apply

the approach of singling out factors relevant to an INV-theory. Moreover there is hardly any

overlap with the studies considered in the previous reviews.

Articles were in their majority drawn from the leading journals in international business

(International Business Review, Journal of International Business Studies, Management

International Review), international marketing (Advances in International Marketing,

European Journal of Marketing, International Marketing Review, Journal of International

Marketing) and entrepreneurship (Academy of Management Executive, Academy of

Management Journal, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Journal of Business Venturing,

Journal of Small Business Management). Conference proceedings and working papers yielded

through internet search were only considered as supplements, but not included among the

studies for review.

To be eligible for review, the studies had to be

1 theoretically and empirically sound

2 published internationally after 1991

3 written in English language

4 focused on international new ventures

Following the criteria above, twenty studies were identified for review. Each study was then

content-analyzed to clarify the issues of theoretical framework, methodology and key research

findings.

The paper proceeds by giving an overview of the method applied in selecting the relevant

empirical literature. Afterwards the accepted studies are presented in short. Subsequently, the

empirical results from the papers are contrasted to the traditional internationalization literature

with the aim of finding adequate theories for explaining the results. Finally, relevant

theoretical components and empirical evidence are selected creating a basis for an INV-

theory.

4

Results and discussion

As exhibited in Table 1, INVs have not been confined to certain countries. Rather they were

identified in all parts of the `developed´ world. This included small open economies like

Australia (Rennie 1993; Rasmussen et al. 2001), Canada (Reuber & Fischer 1997), Denmark

(Rasmussen et al. 2001), Finland (Bell 1995; Autio et al. 2000), Ireland (Bell 1995), New

Zealand (Coviello & Munro 1995) and Norway (Bell 1995; Moen 2002) among others, as

well as large economies, e.g. Germany (Oviatt & McDougall 1995), Great Britain (Burgel &

Murray 2000; McAuley 1999) or the USA (Bloodgood et al. 1996; Roberts & Senturia 1996;

Shrader et al. 2000; Zahra et al. 2000).

Furthermore, and despite the common association of INVs with high-technology, no

limitations could be found regarding the industry. Sectors lower-tech or not technological at

all with a population of INVs were for example arts and crafts (McAuley 1999), management

services (Oviatt & McDougall 1995), manufacturing (Rennie 1993) and seafood (Knight et al.

2001). Among high-tech sectors where studies of INVs were conducted, software proved to

be the main focus of interest (e.g. Bell 1995; Coviello & Munro 1995; Reuber & Fischer

1997).

An issue possibly impacting the results are the different statistical methods that were applied

by the researchers in their studies. Descriptive, e.g. chi-squared analysis, as well as

multivariate, e.g. correlation analysis, methods were used. Additionally, qualitative research

was included. Mixing the results of all these research methods might have led to compatibility

problems and therefore to distortions in the results. On the other side, would only studies with

a singular approach have been accepted, justified criticism could have been posed that not the

full picture was captured. A detailed analysis and structured selection of the studies is

supported eliminate this problem.

5

Table 1: Overview of the empirical studies

Author (Date) Theoretical

framework

Methodology Key research findings

Aspelund & Moen (2001)

Model presented by Aaby & Slater (1989) for assessing export performance, including firm competencies, manager orientation, export strategy and market conditions

Data collection method: Mail survey Sample size: 208 exporting SMEs Country: Norway Industry: Overall approach

*Identified three generations of SME exporters: Traditional, flexible specialist and born global *Latter are characterized by niche market focus, strong international customer orientation and technological competitiveness *Internationalization speed increased for recently established firms

Autio, Sapienza & Almeida (2000)

Organizational learning theory

Data collection method: Mail survey in 1993, follow-up interviews in 1997 Sample size: 59 firms Country: Finland Industry: Electronics

*Established concept of learning advantages of newness *Earlier internationalization and greater knowledge intensity associated with faster international growth, greater entrepreneurial behavior (self-reinforcing pattern) *Imitability of technology did not hamper international growth, thus questioning current views

Bell (1995) Stage models Data collection method: Mail survey followed by 24 interviews Sample size: 98 firms Country: Finland, Ireland, Norway Industry: Computer software

*Psychic distance not an adequate explanation for target market choice, rather influenced by client followership, sectoral targeting and computer industry trends *No support for incremental internationalization, increased international commitment by entering new markets, not increasing foreign direct investment (FDI) *Relevance of stage theories for high-technology and services industries questioned, network approach suggested instead

6


framework


Bloodgood, Sapienza & Almeida (1996)

*Review of five traditional internationa-lization theories *Establish that monopolistic advantage and stage theory most applicable *Use resource-based view of INVs following these theories

Data collection method: Analysis of initial public offering (IPO) prospectus Sample size: 61 venture capital-backed firms with IPO in 1991, less than five years old then Country: USA Industry: Overall approach

*Internationalization degree varies depending on firm- specific resources and strategies at point of IPO *Same factors also affect subsequent performance *Greater international work experience among top management, product differentiation and larger firm size positively related to internationalization *Internationalization from outset, however, finally contingent on industry and resource conditions

Chetty & Campbell-Hunt (2004)

*Review the sample cases of the extent to which they follow traditional (Uppsala- and innovation-) models or born-global theories of internationa-lization

Data collection method: Historiographic case research, semi-structured interview Sample size: 16 Country: New Zealand Industry: Overall approach

*Many attributes of born globals later also found among firms initially following traditional models *These attributes are quick entry into multiple markets, capitalization on an innovative product, narrow product-market scope and extensive use of networks *Identify consequences of rapid international growth (“the gusher”) *More aggressive learning and networking strategies among born global ventures

Coviello & Munro (1995)

Network approach Data collection method: Case research of four older firms, followed by mail survey of younger firms Sample size: 25 firms Country: New Zealand Industry: Computer software

*Network relationships important to accelerating access and entry into new foreign markets *Network relationships instrumental in firm growth, actively influencing pattern of internationalization: Foreign market selection and entry initiative *Reliance of small software firms on networks for marketing-related foreign activities

7


framework



Stage models Network approach

Data collection method: Case studies, interviews Sample size: 4 firms Country: New Zealand Industry: Computer software

*Propose integration of stage models with network perspective to understand internationalization patterns *Internationalization is rapid and characterized by only three stages *Small firms show pattern of externalizing their international market development through investments in network relationships

Fillis (2002) *Reviews majority of existing internationa-lization theory

Data collection method: Postal survey, followed by thirty interviews Sample size: 125 small firms Country: Ireland, UK Industry: Crafts

*Develops model of craft firm internationalization *Owner/manager influences dominate internationalization behavior of micro-enterprises*Highlights importance of creativity, innovative thinking, opportunity recognition and network relationships for rapid internationalization *Finds existing internationalization theories fail to explain rapid internationalization of small firms *Better fit achieved by applying marketing and entrepreneurship interface

Jolly, Alahuhta & Jeannet (1992)

N/a Data collection method: N/a Sample size: 4 INVs Country: Switzerland, UK, USA Industry: High-tech

*Viable global strategy of INVs has to feature global vision, recognize industry shifts, quickly build volume, enjoy lead market success, early product breadth, be managed tightly *Established MNCs answer by adopting similar strategies

8


framework


McAuley (1999)

Stage models Network perspective

Data collection method: Mail survey, followed by interview Sample size: 15 micro businesses Country: Scotland Industry: Arts and crafts

*Evidence of instant internationals in unusual sector and with smaller size (micro-businesses) *Largely unplanned, responsive approach to internationalization by micro businesses

Moen (2002) Model presented by Aaby & Slater (1989) for assessing export performance, including firm competencies, manager orientation, export strategy and market conditions

Data collection method: Mail questionnaire Sample size: 335 Norwegian, 70 French firms Country: Norway, France Industry: Overall approach

*Suggested that born globals remain global and local firms remain local, thus destiny of firm determined at inception *Born globals similar to old, global firms in terms of international orientation, export strategy, competitive advantage, market situation *For INVs concepts of psychic distance and gradual involvement do not hold true *Understanding INVs needs consideration of founder background, industry-specific factors and market conditions

Moen & Servais (2002)

Stage models Data collection method: Mail survey Sample size: 677 SMEs Country: Norway, France, Denmark Industry: Overall approach

*Future export behavior of firm largely dependent on short time after formation, importance of international orientation stressed *Establishment phase determines development of basic resources and competencies *Gradual internationalization process challenged

Oviatt & McDougall (1995)

N/a Data collection method: N/a Sample size: 12 INVs Country: Czech Rep., France, Germany, UK, USA Industry: High-tech

*Characterize successful global start-up as displaying global vision from inception, having internationally experienced founders/ managers, possessing strong international business networks, exploiting preemptive technology, owning unique intangible asset, linking product/service extensions closely, tightly manage organization

9


framework


Preece, Miles & Baetz (1999)

Theories on international activities of early-stage technology-based firms

Data collection method: Mail survey Sample size: 75 private early-stage technology-based firms Country: Canada Industry: High-tech

*Significant factors in explaining international intensity: management attitude, resources, firm size, government support *Only resources, age and size, not attitude, found of relevance for explaining global diversity *Strategic alliances not helpful in explaining either

Rasmussen, Madsen & Evangelista (2001)

Networking approach

Data collection method: Interviews, further analysis of case studies from previous sample Sample size: 5 INVs Country: Denmark, Australia Industry: Overall approach

*Internationalization not a strategic objective of founders, but necessity *Therefore other reasons important for rapid internationalization: Limited domestic market, a highly specialized, innovative product *Relevance of networks questioned, some INVs were formed without any previous network involvement of the founder

Rennie (1993) N/a Data collection method: Mail survey, followed by 60 interviews Sample size: 300 firms Country: Australia Industry: Overall approach

*Found new type of firm: The born global *Began exporting after average of two years after foundation *Compete on advantages in quality, technology and close customer relations *Reasons for the rise of SMEs: Emerging niche markets, process innovations, developments in computer and communication technology

Reuber & Fischer (1997)

Resource-based and behavior-based approaches toward internationa-lization

Data collection method: Assisted questionnaire completion Sample size: 49 SMEs Country: Canada Industry: Software

*Internationally experienced management teams viewed as a resource for firms *Firms owning this resource more likely to use foreign partners and delay less in obtaining foreign sales after inception

10


framework


Roberts & Senturia (1996)

*Product life cycle theory *More generic internationa-lization models *Using both for the development of an integrated model

Data collection method: Personal interviews Sample size: Convenience sample of 19 firms Country: USA Industry: Desktop computing

*Unique industry aspects lead to vastly accelerated internationalization *Authors’ integrated model plus external environmental variables and internal managerial internalization process possesses more explanatory power than traditional models *Founders’ international experience and sensitivity most critical for international commitment and globalization success

Shrader 2001 Transaction cost theory

Data collection method: From investment manuals, phone interviews to complete information Sample size: 70 public new ventures Country: USA Industry: High-technology

*Overall relationship between collaboration and performance not significant *High R&D intensity and intense collaboration lead to strong underperformance *Firms investing heavily in R&D should avoid collaboration *Nevertheless findings consistent with earlier research that INVs collaborate to quickly enter foreign markets *Therefore prediction of internalization theory not reflected

Shrader, Oviatt & McDougall 2000

Risk management theory

Data collection method: Data from annual reports, phone interviews to complete information Sample size: 87 INVs making 212 foreign market entries Country: USA Industry: Overall approach

*As opposed to previous risk management research, INVs in one foreign market can lower risk by trading-off three factors: political risk, degree of commitment, percentage of foreign revenue exposure in that country *Allows INVs to manage risk on smaller scale because they do not own resources to diversify geographically *Thus new venture internationalization not unreasonable risk

11

The international new ventures in the context of tradition internationalization theories

Monopolistic advantage theory

Monopolistic advantage theory suggests that a multinational enterprise exists because it owns

an unique source of superiority over foreign firms in their markets. These monopolistic

advantages are not exactly specified. Rather there are as many kinds of advantages as there

are business functions. Local firms without this unique knowledge are unable to compete with

the MNC. Thus disadvantages to these indigenous companies in terms of lacking information,

discrimination by government, customers and suppliers, as well as the foreign exchange risk

are made up for. (Hymer 1976)

There is some support for the monopolistic advantage theory in connection with INVs

because it focuses on the firm’s advantages that may be used to initiate internationalization

from inception. (Bloodgood et al. 1996, p. 63) One such type of monopolistic advantage could

be a differentiated product which appears most likely be found among high-tech companies.

As is shown in table 1, the nature of the industries examined in the articles under review, was

to a large extent high-technology. Of the eight papers that went with an overall approach,

three still found that an INV almost always needs to have advanced technology. These studies

are Shrader et al. (2000, p. 1244), which found 88 percent of their sample firms relying on a

technological edge, McKinsey’s (Rennie 1993, p. 50), which found 38 percent of the sample

firms in possession of a technological advantage, and Aspelund & Moen (2001). A further

three studies out of the ten did not test on technological intensity (Bloodgood et al. 1996;

Rasmussen et al. 2001; Moen & Servais 2002). Another two studies approached the INV

phenomenon with the analysis of an unusual sector - arts and crafts (McAuley 1999; Fillis

2002), which would normally be considered low-tech. However, Fillis (2002, p. 26f) likens

the crafts business to high-technology because of similarly risk-taking entrepreneurs who

operate in a dynamic environment. The only studies that rejected the notion of INVs being

more competitive because of a high-tech edge were Moen (2002, p. 165) and Chetty &

Campbell-Hunt (2004, p. 74). In their samples, the researcher did not find differences to other

types of firms in this respect. Outside this sample, Knight et al. (2001) documented the

existence of INVs in the supposedly non-high-tech industry fishing. However, even these

authors acknowledged that there were companies who used advanced technology to add value

to the product. These firms were exporting live animals to attract premium prices. This is

vastly in accordance with the statement that there are no more low-tech industries, only low-

tech firms. (Porter 1998; Oviatt & McDougall 1999)

12

Probably the term `knowledge intensity´ would be more appropriate to describe INVs. As in

the arts and craft or the fishing sector, new ventures internationalizing rapidly might not

necessarily inherit an advanced technology, but more of an edge in knowledge of the product

and the production process. (Fillis 2002, p. 29) Further they make an intensive use of their

knowledge to develop new offerings, improve productivity, introduce new methods of

production and/or improve service delivery. This behavior is seen to be increasingly

happening in a number of industrial and service sectors, not only those which are considered

to be highly technological. (Oviatt and McDougall, 1999)

Threefold, however, is the difficulty of the monopolistic advantage approach in explaining the

formation of INVs. To begin with, it is questionable that the international business arena can

still be characterized by means of the assumptions of Hymer (1976). Described disadvantages

as the lack of knowledge might no longer exist due to communication technology. Secondly,

McDougall et al. (1994, p. 474) argue that the theory’s assumption that all firms with the

same type of superiority act identically is unusual in entrepreneurship theory. Rather an

entrepreneur has to be alert to potentially profitable opportunities. Meanwhile, another

individual possessing the same monopolistic advantage will not choose to internationalize.

Thirdly, INVs will not always own a superior domestic asset before they internationalize.

Often it is the case that the advantage will first be developed abroad. (McDougall et al. 1994,

p. 474; Bloodgood et al. 1996, p. 63)

International product life cycle theory

The product life cycle theory was developed by Vernon (1966). Among the first of its kind, it

described the process of firm internationalization following World War II. Summarized, the

theory claims that firms internationalize in order to protect their existing markets of mature

products. In more detail, the internationalization proceeds according to the pattern that first a

product is created for the domestic (US) market. This market is served by home country

production. As the product matures in its life cycle, exports into lagging foreign markets are

undertaken. Finally, when the product becomes heavily standardized or a commodity, then

foreign production would substitute the domestic one because of lower costs. This would go

as far as to re-import to the domestic (US) market.

As international market conditions changed, already Vernon (1977) himself noted that his life

cycle theory was rendered less relevant. Multinational companies had by now developed

global networks of subsidiaries and the US market was no longer unique. Vernon (1977) did,

however, expect the SMEs to provide a trace of the product cycle theory in the future. He

13

predicted them to move from their domestic market innovation towards exporting and

ultimately overseas investment.

Not surprisingly the INVs quickly challenged this prediction. As Bloodgood et al. (1996, p.

63) put it, they do not have a preexisting domestic market, and without that, the product cycle

theory cannot explain why they do internationalize at inception. Evidence does only exist for

a qualitative importance of a presence on the domestic market. It seems to enhance

international credibility and serves as a testing ground for new products and services before

internationalization. Nevertheless, the revenue contribution from the home market appears

negligible. (Chetty & Campbell-Hunt 2004, p. 71)

Also Roberts and Senturia (1996, p. 496; see table 1) found the reality in conflict with theory.

Not the product life cycle was responsible for a quick internationalization, but pull effects

from customers or distribution partners. That no transfer of production to overseas locations

was observed though, might have been a reflection of the still early product cycle stage.

Nevertheless it should have been expected because the products of international new ventures

are often well standardized and enjoy extremely high value-to-transportation ratios. (Roberts

& Senturia 1996, p. 504ff; Bell 1995, p. 72f; Meckl & Kaulen 2003, p. 176)

Stages model of internationalization

Despite the earlier development of the monopolistic advantage and product cycle theories, the

stages model dominated all other approaches toward explaining internationalization. It is also

called the Uppsala model because of the origin of its developers, namely Johanson and

Wiedersheim-Paul (1975) and Johanson and Vahlne (1977). Their approach is based on

organizational learning processes. The attitudes of the organization towards risks, costs and

benefits of foreign market commitment are responsible for its involvement in

internationalization. With growing market knowledge the firm is going to widen its

international involvement and proceed through certain stages. Each stage represents a higher

degree of internationalization. At the same time as the market knowledge increases, the

internationalizing firm ventures from geographically and psychically close countries to

successively more distant ones. Therefore, similar to Vernon’s (1966) approach, the stages

model postulates an incremental and sequential internationalization process.

Inconsistencies with this model were first found by researchers in the late 1980s (e.g.

Turnbull 1987; Welch & Loustarinen 1988). Johanson and Vahlne (1990) reacted a couple of

years later by allowing for three exceptions to the incremental steps in the

internationalization. While still stating that their model was best suited to explain the early

14

stages of firm internationalization, the researchers explained that firms with vast resources

were experiencing small consequences of their commitment and were therefore able to take

larger internationalization steps. Secondly, when market conditions were stable and

homogenous, relevant market knowledge could be gained in other ways than experience.

Finally, firms with experience from similar market conditions were seen to be able to

generalize their knowledge. However, the INVs do not fit into these three exceptions. Neither

do they own large resources because of their young age and usually small size, nor do they

operate in stable markets. Rather these are volatile markets such as high-tech sectors.

Additionally, the INVs by definition do not have previous experience in foreign markets.

(Oviatt & McDougall 1994, p. 50f; Moen & Servais 2002, p. 66)

Besides, a sizeable proportion of INVs was detected that ventured abroad not specifically into

countries close in geography and psychology. Instead the focus lay on the major markets for

their products (Bell 1995, p. 64f; see table 1) or on other strategic and opportunistic

considerations (Burgel & Murray 2000, p. 48). That could be the entry into the worldwide

lead markets of an industry because new industry developments broke there first and gave

INVs a chance to preempt competition where it arose. Also observed was the entry into

regional clusters like the Silicon Valley for easier recruitment of key employees (Jolly et al.

1992, pp. 73, 76). Eventually the challenge provided by the INVs has been accepted by the

innovators of the Uppsala-model. In a recent article, Johanson and Vahlne (2003)

acknowledge the research of rapidly internationalizing firms and follow the proposition of

other authors to integrate the network and stages models.

In the meantime there was some, although limited, support to the stages approach through

INV research. For example, if it is assumed that some of the organization’s knowledge is

inherent in individuals, then firms may be able to capitalize on that knowledge and

experience. That is possible because often these new ventures are formed by internationally

experienced individuals. (e.g. Bloodgood et al. 1996, pp. 63f) Prior international work is often

regarded as the most beneficial experience for the INV. (Bloodgood et al. 1996, p.73; Shrader

et al. 2000, p. 1233) It provides knowledge about international markets, and therefore reduces

the complexity and ambiguity. Further, international experience might yield international

social networks. Sometimes international experience is combined with prior new venture

experience, which allows managers to devote more time to internationalization issues and less

time to the general management issues. (Shrader et al. 2000, p. 1244)

Reuber and Fischer (1997, p. 809) extended the focus on the single manager or founder to the

entire top management team, proving the proposition that the management of an enterprise is

15

a collective “effort by the dominant coalition”. Management teams with international

experience were observed to make increased use of foreign partnerships and involve their

venture in international business to a higher degree. Also the delay between domestic and

foreign market entry was smaller. (Reuber & Fischer 1997, p. 820)

Research further suggests that the INVs do not take larger, bolder steps than big companies

while internationalizing, but that they take the incremental steps more rapidly due to learning

advantages. So the survival of the INV is strongly dependent on its ability to adapt more

rapidly in new environments. (Autio et al. 2000, p. 919) A compressed time frame of gradual

internationalization was also observed by Coviello and Munro (1997, p. 369) and Jones

(1999, p. 31), who observed that the internationalization events blurred into one steady

progress. Basic assumptions of Johanson and Vahlne’s (1977) model were found to be still

valid. (Madsen & Servais 1997, pp. 568-574) Accordingly, firms that internationalize aim at

growth and long-term profit, but at same time keep their risk low. However, not the domestic

market is the center and starting point to the internationalization, but certain problem solving

routines possessed by the founder. Because of this experience the firm shows more

commitment to additional foreign markets and venturing abroad happens more rapidly.

Internalization theory

Together with the stages models the main school of internationalization, the internalization

theory perceives international transactions to be of high risk and requiring extensive

management time or resource commitments. Therefore the transfer of goods and services

across countries is internalized by means of setting up foreign operations. Internationalization

thus occurs because of cost reductions for the company when it internalizes. Savings are

possible because the firm selects the optimal locations for its activities by assessing the

economic cost of its transactions. Williamson (1975) was among others suggesting this

approach which is also known as the transaction cost theory.

Clearly, the internalization theory has more relevance for larger companies. Especially for

small INVs the capital requirements of setting up foreign operations are simply too high.

(McCauley 1999, p. 69) Also the transaction cost approach does not explain

internationalization activities of INVs that have little to do with reducing costs, but are

directed towards other strategic objectives. (Bloodgood et al. 1996, p. 63) Not always is the

lowest cost-location chosen. Occasionally, decisions to set up a foreign subsidiary were

driven by the aim to achieve proximity to the customer or industry-leading clusters despite the

resulting considerable cost increases. (McDougall et al. 1994, pp. 477f) Lastly, it has been

16

observed that an increased commitment to foreign markets manifested itself in the expansion

towards new markets rather than by increasing FDI in the established markets. (Bell 1995, p.

72)

Nevertheless the internalization theory has been applied to examine the relative costs and

benefits of collaboration. (Shrader 2001) The researcher followed the argument that both

collaboration and internalization cause certain transaction costs. When the transaction costs of

collaboration are relatively high, then internalization occurs. However, firms that forgo

collaboration also face costs of internalization such as additional payroll and equipment.

Especially international new ventures may also miss opportunities to move into foreign

markets if they do not leverage the resources of collaboration partners. Eventually Shrader

(2001, p. 56) found evidence supporting one of the original claims of the transaction cost

theory - that it is difficult and costly to transfer technological advantages to partners.

Therefore ventures investing heavily in research and development (R&D) should use

internalization rather than collaboration.

Oligopolistic reaction theory

Similar to the internalization perspective, the oligopolistic reaction theory does not provide a

full explanation for INVs, as will be shown. It postulates that enterprises internationalize in

order to match the actions of the other members of the oligopoly. (Knickerbocker 1973)

Imitation thus avoids the risk of being different and therefore lowers the risk of

internationalization for the firm. Should the internationalization prove to be a drawback, at

least the competitors have to endure the same. Equally, should it prove beneficial, the firm

need not fear to underperform its peers.

However, the oligopolistic reaction theory frequently fails to illustrate the initial decision to

invest in foreign markets. As pointed out by many observers, INVs are often the first in an

industry to go abroad. Many of these ventures do not consider themselves part of an oligopoly

or as having any competition in their niche. (e.g. McDougall et al. 1994, pp. 476f ; Madsen &

Servais 1997, pp. 567) There also is evidence that internationalization among new ventures

takes place because of the highly integrated and competitive international environment. (e.g.

Coviello & Munro 1995, p. 53; Madsen & Servais 1997, p. 576) As rationale it has been

offered that the global integration of an industry has been found to be associated with lower

foreign market risks. To explain this finding it is cited that the global integration of trade

usually only takes place among developed countries. (Shrader et al. 2000, pp. 1242f)

17

Network approach

Unlike the above-mentioned internationalization theories, the network approach finds

considerably more support amongst INV research. Often proposed is an integration of the

network with the stages theory. Concepts like foreign market commitment and market

knowledge should not be solely focused on one firm, but rather take into account the firm’s

cooperation with network partners. (Oviatt & McDougall 1994; Bell 1995; Coviello & Munro

1995, 1997; Madsen & Servais 1997; Johanson & Vahlne 2003)

The importance of networks in explaining the internationalization of firms was highlighted by

Johanson and Mattsson (1988). According to their model, internationalization depends on

network relationships rather than on a firm-specific advantage or the psychic distance of the

target market. With these relationships in place, externalization of transactions is more likely

to happen than internalization. Due to the resulting informal division of labor among the

network’s members, each firm will become dependent on these external resources to the

extent that exchanges are commenced. Companies can then internationalize with the help of

partners who offer contacts and help to develop new partners. Thus, internationalization

decisions are influenced by the various members of the firm’s network.

However, also the network approach does not find unanimous support in explaining the

internationalization of new ventures. As pointed out by Bell (1995, p. 72; see table 1), neither

does it adequately account for the rapid internationalization of firms not part of a network, nor

does it explain new ventures going abroad to profit from an industry growth in foreign

countries. Additionally, a recent study found that firms which spent heavily on R&D and

collaborated as a means of international market entry had significantly lower performance.

(Shrader 2001, pp. 56f) The researcher’s results were in line with the transaction cost theory

which holds technological advantages as difficult and costly to transfer to partners and that

recommends an internalization of such transfers. Further, marketing advantages like a brand

name and loyalty, product reputation as the industry standard or being the first-mover were

easier to efficiently transfer from an INV to a foreign partner. Regardless of these arguments,

managers of INVs tended to collaborate to quickly take advantage of market growth. They

were observed to focus more likely on the benefits of collaboration than on the costs.

However, only a third of the new ventures in the researcher’s sample used networks for their

internationalization. That seemed to stem from the fact that these firms had all gone public

and therefore commanded sufficient funding. (Shrader 2001, pp. 56f)

Another study surprised by the result that networks were not as influential as thought showed

that the use of strategic alliances with home or foreign companies was not a factor in

18

explaining the international intensity and global diversity of firms. Rather no differences

between firms allied and ventures not in alliances were found. Potential hazards such as

destabilizing asymmetries, opportunistic learning by the partner and size imbalances were

offered as reasons. Nevertheless, seventy percent of the sampled firms were engaged in

alliances. (Preece et al. 1998, p. 273)

Unrelated to performance of INVs, but simply analyzing the impact of networks on

internationalization decisions, two studies found little relevance of partnerships. In the work

of Shrader et al. (2000, p. 1238) significantly less use of hybrid structures was detected than

previously predicted, e.g. Joint ventures were only used by 4.7 % of the firms. Also

Rasmussen et al. (2001, p. 100) found networks not as important as previously expected.

Rather it was deemed possible to form an INV without network contacts but with prior

industry experience.

All in all, the recency of these negative findings point to a no longer existing overwhelming

need for networks to eliminate “the mystery and complexity” (Knight and Cavusgil 1996, p.

23) of internationalization. Rather the number of partnerships might slow the speed of

internationalization. This stands in conflict with the claim of Oviatt and McDougall (1994)

who regarded collaboration as an imperative for INV foreign market entries. Probably the

ever-increasing number of internationally experienced managers as well as readily available

information about foreign markets bear some responsibility for this change.

Additionally the evolvement of the new venture might has to be taken into consideration. At

some point in the history of an INV networks seem no longer the appropriate method of

conducting international business. While major international network partners are responsible

for at least the initial market selection and entry mode, they also constrained the choice of the

target countries. In turn that led to diversification efforts in terms of products and markets.

(Coviello & Munro 1995, pp. 53-56) Among the INVs there was a fear of total dependence of

their sales on a single network partner. Therefore more autonomy was pursued and the

venture strived to become the central firm in the network. (Jolly et al. 1992, p. 76; Coviello &

Munro 1997, p. 377)

Since the results are nevertheless mixed, though, and there is also recent evidence for the

importance of networks, one should not be too quick to dismiss a positive influence of

networks. Correct may be a cautioning that networks can be important in certain

circumstances while not useful in others. Already Bell (1995, pp. 70ff), while claiming that

international relationships are influential on the internationalization of small high-tech firms,

acknowledged that there are new ventures internationalizing in different patterns because they

19

did not have these relationships. Echoing this differentiation was Moen (2002, p. 170).

Further, it has been stated that while hybrid distribution structures might not be the most

effective, it might be the only ones feasible given the resource constraints weighing upon new

ventures internationalizing. (Aspelund & Moen 2001, p. 214)

Building an integrated model

When trying to select the sustaining results from the studies analyzed above, the central

question is: What are the core elements of a possible “eclectic theory of INVs”? Overall the

results suggest that there needs to be a combination of process as well as static elements to

fully explain the appearance of INVs. (see also McDougall & Oviatt 2003)

One of the core arguments of this paper is that no existing theory of internationalization is

able to explain the formation of INVs sufficiently. On the other hand it has to be noted that

the conventional perspectives are even in its revisions decades old. For challenging these

models, Andersen (1993, p. 227) offered the defense that these models have partly been

modified in the 1990s and still enjoy a general acceptance in the prevailing literature (see also

Fillis 2001, p. 767). Indeed they might still apply to a number of industries and firms, but are

not relevant in an expanding number of situations. (Oviatt & McDougall 1994, p. 52; Moen &

Servais 2002, p. 70) Apparently, INVs belong at least partially to those situations.

One research opinion is that the new venture internationalization is not necessarily following

a logical pattern. It might just be the arising of an opportunity that leads a new venture abroad.

This unplanned and responsive nature of starting international business was often seen as the

epitome of bad practice. However, it is just an acknowledgement of the complexity of the

world in which these ventures operate. (McAuley 1999, p. 79) Therefore it might not be

possible to reach some point of total knowledge that can be captured in one single approach

towards internationalization. (Coviello & McAuley 1999, p. 251; Rialp & Rialp 2001, pp.

68f) Nevertheless, several parts of the traditional internationalization models might find their

way into new venture theory. As Madsen and Servais (1997, p. 568) pointed out, a

falsification of the statements does not mean that there is no truth in the reasoning behind

them.

As has been shown above, traditional internationalization models partly make outdated

assumptions about the international competitive landscape. Therefore a new model should

start at this point. Dramatic improvements in the computer, communication and transportation

technology significantly decreased the cost of international business for every type of

company. Process innovations allowed the production of non-standardized low-scale goods.

20

Barriers to international trade were removed. International markets were integrated. Access to

funding widened. Thus the primary enablers of INVs were the political economy and the

advance of technology. (Rennie 1993; Oviatt & McDougall 1995, 1999; Knight & Cavusgil

1996; Madsen & Servais 1997)

As the volume of international business activities rose, it handed many more people

international business experience. In turn the vision to conduct international business as an

SME no longer seemed irrational. Therefore the concept of tacit market knowledge from the

stages theory can now be applied to the founder of the INV, no longer to the venture itself. It

was also proposed that INVs should not be regarded as new other than in a legal sense.

(Madsen & Servais 1997, p. 573) Rather its skills and capabilities were often developed

previously in personal and business networks of the founders.

Transfers of a technological edge of INVs to network partners are costly as has been shown

with the help of the transaction cost theory. Therefore INVs commanding sufficient funding,

e.g. through an IPO, will not use networks to a significant extent. Collaboration should rather

be reserved for INVs who rely on marketing advantages and want to utilize these through

partners. (Shrader 2001) However, if the INV is characterized by resource poverty, it will use

partnerships and other hybrid structures in order to be able to conduct international business at

all, regardless of the negative influence on performance. This particular point is well

explained by the network theory.

Finally, also the monopolistic advantage theory contains an element still useful. As appears

from the articles analyzed in this paper, product innovation is a frequent means of

differentiation for INVs. To be first to market with an innovative product constitutes a

monopolistic advantage. Disadvantages against indigenous firms can thus be made up for. So

despite being developed for large established MNCs, this proposition can be used in relation

to INVs. Table 2 summarizes the elements of traditional theories of internationalization which

are applicable to a theory of INVs.

21

Table 2: An integrated model

Traditional theory Element applying to INVs Empirical support

The concept of tacit market

knowledge is transferred from

the new venture to the

entrepreneur or the INV’s

network.

Bell (1995)


Bloodgood et al. (1996)

Reuber & Fischer (1997)

Rasmussen et al. (2001) Stages model

INVs still internationalize in

stages, but in a compressed

time frame.


Jones (1999)

Autio et al. (2000)

Monopolistic advantage

theory

INVs overcome the liability

of foreignness with the help

of a monopolistic advantage

in the form of a knowledge-

intensive product.

Rennie (1993)


McAuley (1999)

Shrader et al. (2000)


Internalization theory

If the funding level is

sufficient, then INVs

internalize technological

advantages.

Shrader (2001)

Network theory

Given the resource

constraints, INVs frequently

leverage the resources of

partners for at least the initial

foreign market entry.

Coviello & Munro (1995,

1997)


Preece et al. (1998)

McAuley (1999)


Conclusion

This paper has described and discussed the phenomenon of international new ventures. In

order to obtain a representative picture, twenty studies relating to INVs have been analyzed. It

has been shown that single traditional internationalization theories do not explain this type of

firm well. Thus a model integrating static as well as process elements and parts of traditional

internationalization theories was proposed. Obtained was an eclectic framework describing

and explaining the internationalization of new ventures with the help of traditional

22

internationalization theories. This “4-pillars-model” of INVs combines the empirically

verified main factors of explanation in a consistent way.

It is suggested that the framework should start with the changing political economy and the

advance of technology. Further, the stages model of internationalization provides the concepts

of international experience, though transferred to the entrepreneurs, and a gradual, though

time compressed, advance of internationalization. The monopolistic advantage theory

supports the finding that INVs frequently use a knowledge intensive, innovative product. The

internalization theory explains the result that sufficiently funded INVs internalize

technological advantages while they externalize marketing advantages. Lastly, the network

theory advances rationales why INVs usually work with partners for at least the initial market

selections and entries.

Limitations and future research directions

By nature of a literature review, there are limitations of this paper resulting from the

individual studies. Foremost, INVs were differently defined by the various authors. As

especially difficult can the differing delays between inception and the start of international

business be regarded. While some authors allowed for a very rigid two-year period, others

considered six years delay still adequate. These discrepancies may result in differences in the

research findings. Some INVs might have gone public in the meantime as in Shrader et al.’s

(2000) study. Promptly the authors experienced a dramatic drop in the usage of networks in

their sample.

While there is a considerable amount of research in the field of new venture

internationalization available today, there are still some areas in doubt. International vision

and especially the roles of networks and market differentiation strategies in relation to INVs

are disputed by some authors. Further research in these areas is necessary. That applies to

future technological and economic trends as well. Shown to be the primary enablers of the

rise of SMEs in general and INVs in particular, they continue to influence the competitive

landscape. Large MNCs might eventually fully embrace these changes and adapt in a way

disadvantageous to INVs. The “4-pillars-model” may be used as a starting point for advancing

research on INVs in those fields.

23

References

AABY, N.E./ SLATER, S.F. (1989): Management influence on export performance: A

review of the empirical literature 1978-1988. In: International Marketing Review, Vol.

6, No. 4, pp. 7 -26.

ANDERSEN, Otto (1993): On the internationalization process of firms: A critical analysis.

In: Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 209 -230.

ASPELUND, Arild/ MOEN, Oystein (2001): A generation perspective on small firm

internationalization: From traditional exporters and flexible specialists to born globals.

In: Advances of International Marketing, Vol. 11, pp. 197 -225.

AUTIO, Erkko/ SAPIENZA, Harry J./ ALMEIDA, James G. (2000): Effects of age at entry,

knowledge-intensity, and imitability on international growth. In: Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 909 -924.

BELL, Jim (1995): The internationalization of small computer software firms. A further

challenge to “stage” theories. In: European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 8, pp.

60 -75.

BLOODGOOD, James M./ SAPIENZA, Harry J./ ALMEIDA, James G. (1996): The

internationalization of new high -potential U.S. ventures: Antecedents and outcomes.

In: Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 61 -76.

BURGEL, Oliver/ MURRAY, Gordon C. (2000): The international market entry choices of

start -up companies in high -technology industries. In: Journal of International

Marketing, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 33 -62.

CAVUSGIL, S. Tamer (1980): On the internationalization process of firms. In: European

Research, Vol. 8, pp. 273 -281.

CHETTY, Sylvie/ CAMPBELL-HUNT, Colin (2004): A strategic approach to

internationalization: A traditional versus a “born-global” approach. In: Journal of

International Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 57-81.

24

COVIELLO, Nicole E./ MCAULEY, Andrew (1999): Internationalisation and the smaller

firm: A review of contemporary empirical research. In: Management International

Review, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 223 -256.

COVIELLO, Nicole E./ MUNRO, Hugh J. (1995): Growing the entrepreneurial firm.

Networking for international market development. In: European Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 29, No. 7, pp. 49 -61.

COVIELLO, Nicole E./ MUNRO, Hugh (1997): Network relationships and the

internationalization process of small software firms. In: International Business

Review, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 361 -386.

DUNNING, J.H. (1980): Toward an eclectic theory of international production: Some

empirical tests. In: Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 9 -31.

DUNNING, J.H. (1988): Explaining international production. London.

DUNNING, J.H. (1993): Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Wokingham.

FILLIS, Ian (2001): Small firm internationalisation: An investigative survey and future

research directions. In: Management Decision, Vol. 39, No. 9, pp. 767 -783.

FILLIS, Ian (2002): The internationalization process of the craft microenterprise. In: Journal

of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 25 -43.

GRANITSKY, Joseph (1989): Strategies for innate and adoptive exporters: Lessons from

Israel’s case. In: International Marketing Review, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 50 -65.

HEDLUND, G/ KVERNELAND, A. (1985): Are strategies for foreign markets changing?

The case of Swedish investment in Japan. In: International Studies of Management

and Organization, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 41 -59.

HORDES, Mark W./ CLANCY, J. Anthony/ BADDALAY, Julie (1995): A primer for global

start -ups. In: Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 7 -11.

25

HYMER, S.H. (1976): The international operations of national firms: A study of foreign

direct investment. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

JOHANSON, J./ MATTSSON, L.G. (1988): Internationalization in industrial systems - a

network approach. In: HOOD, N./ VAHLNE, J.E./ HELM, C. (eds.): Strategies in

global competition, London, pp. 287 -314.

JOHANSON, J./ VAHLNE, J.-E. (1977): The internationalization process of the firm - a

model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. In:

Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 23 -32.

JOHANSON, J./ VAHLNE, J.-E. (1990): The mechanism of internationalization. In:

International Marketing Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 11 -24.

JOHANSON, J./ VAHLNE, J.-E. (2003): Business relationship learning and commitment in

the internationalization process. In: Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1,

pp. 83 -101.

JOLLY, Vijay K./ ALAHUHTA, Matti/ JEANNET, Jean-Pierre (1992): Challenging the

incumbents : How high-technology start-ups compete globally. In: Journal of Strategic

Change, Vol. 1, pp. 71 -82.

JONES, Marian V. (1999): The internationalization of small high-technology firms. In:

Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 15 -41.

KNICKERBOCKER, F.T. (1973): Oligopolistic reaction and multinational enterprise.

Boston.

KNIGHT, Gary A. (2000): Entrepreneurship and marketing strategy: The SME under

globalization. In: Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 12 -32.

KNIGHT, Gary A./ CAVUSGIL, T.S. (1996): The born global firm: A challenge to

traditional internationalization theory. In: Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 8,

pp. 11 -26.

26

KNIGHT, John/ BELL, Jim/ MCNAUGHTON, Rod (2001): The ‘born global’ phenomenon:

A re-birth of an old concept? In: JONES, M.V./ DIMITRATOS, P. (eds.): Researching

new frontiers. Proceedings on fourth McGill conference on international

entrepreneurship, University of Strathclyde, 21-23 September 2001.

LEONIDOU, Leonidas C./ KATSIKEAS, Constantine S. (1996): The export development

process : An integrative review of empirical models. In: Journal of International

Business Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 517 -551.

LINDQVIST, M. (1991): Infant multinationals. The internationalization of young,

technology-based Swedish firms. Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm.

LITVAK, I.A. (1990): Instant international: Strategic reality for small high-technology firms

in Canada. In: Multinational Business, Vol. 2, pp. 1 -12.

MADSEN, Tage K./ SERVAIS, Per (1997): The internationalization of born globals: An

evolutionary process? In: International Business Review, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 561 -583.

MCAULEY, Andrew (1999): Entrepreneurial instant exporters in the Scottish arts and crafts

sector. In: Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 67 -82.

MCDOUGALL, Patricia P. (1989): International versus domestic entrepreneurship: New

venture strategic behavior and industry structure. In: Journal of Business Venturing,

Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 387 -400.

MCDOUGALL, Patricia P./ OVIATT, Benjamin M. (2003): Some fundamental issues in

international entrepreneurship. Submitted to: Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,

July 2003.

MCDOUGALL, Patricia P./ SHANE, S./ OVIATT, Benjamin M. (1994): Explaining the

formation of international new ventures: The limits of theories from international

business research. In: Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 469 -487.

27

MECKL, Reinhard/ KAULEN, Alexander (2003): Wachstums- und Innovationschancen

durch Internationalisierung - Auslandsaktivitäten junger thüringer

Technologieunternehmen. In: CANTNER, U./ HELM, R./ MECKL, R. (eds.):

Strukturen und Strategien in einem Innovationssystem. Das Beispiel Jena, pp. 171 -

203.

MOEN, Oystein (2002): The born globals. A new generation of small European exporters. In:

International Marketing Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 156 -175.

MOEN, Oystein/ SERVAIS, Per (2002): Born global or gradual global? Examining the export

behavior of small and medium -sized enterprises. In: Journal of International

Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 49 -72.

OVIATT, Benjamin M./ MCDOUGALL, Patricia P. (1994): Toward a theory of international

new ventures. In: Journal of International Business Studies, No. 25, pp. 45 -64.

OVIATT, Benjamin M./ MCDOUGALL, Patricia P. (1995): Global start -ups: Entrepreneurs

on a worldwide stage. In: Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 30 -

44.

OVIATT, Benjamin M./ MCDOUGALL, Patricia P. (1997): Challenges for

internationalization process theory: The case of international new ventures. In:

Management International Review, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Special Issue), pp. 85 -99.

OVIATT, Benjamin M./ MCDOUGALL, Patricia P. (1999): A framework for understanding

accelerated international entrepreneurship. In: WRIGHT, R.(ed.): Research in global

strategic management. Stamford, CT, pp. 23 -40.

PORTER, M. (1998): Clusters and the new economies of competition. In: Harvard Business

Review, Vol. 76, No.6, pp. 77 -90.

PREECE, Stephen B./ MILES, Grant/ BAETZ, Mark C. (1998): Explaining the international

intensity and global diversity of early-stage technology-based firms. In: Journal of

Business Venturing, Vol. 14, pp. 259-281.

28

RASMUSSEN, Erik S./ MADSEN, Tage Koed (2002): The born global concept. Paper for

the 28th EIBA conference December 2002.

RASMUSSEN, Erik S./ MADSEN, Tage Koed/ EVANGELISTA, Felicitas (2001): The

founding of the born global company in Denmark and Australia: Sensemaking and

Networking. In: Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.

75 -107.

RAY, D.M. (1989): Entrepreneurial companies `born´ international: Four case studies.

Babson Entrepreneurship research conference paper.

RENNIE, Michael W. (1993): Global competitiveness: Born global. In: The McKinsey

Quarterly, No.4, pp. 45 -52.

REUBER, Rebecca A./ FISCHER, Eileen (1997): The influence of the management team’s

international experience on the internationalization behaviors of SMEs. In: Journal of

International Business Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 807 -825.

RIALP, Alex/ RIALP, JOSEP (2001): Conceptual frameworks on SMEs’ internationalization:

Past, present and future research. In: Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 11, pp.

49 -78.

RIALP-CRIADO, Alex/ RIALP-CRIADO, Josep/ KNIGHT, Gary A. (2002): The

phenomenon of international new ventures, global start-ups, and born globals: What

do we know after a decade (1993-2002) of exhaustive scientific inquiry? Working

paper 11/2002, Dep. d’Economia de l’Empresa, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,

Bellaterra (Barcelona)/ Spain.

ROBERTS, Edward B./ SENTURIA, Todd A. (1996): Globalizing the emerging high-

technology company. In: Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 491 -

506.

SHRADER, Rodney C./ OVIATT, Benjamin M./ MCDOUGALL, Patricia P. (2000): How

new ventures exploit trade-offs among international risk factors: Lessons for the

29

accelerated internationalization of the 21st century. In: Academy of Management

Journal, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 1227 -1247.

SHRADER, Rodney C. (2001): Collaboration and performance in foreign markets: The case

of young high -technology manufacturing firms. In: Academy of Management Journal,

Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 45 -60.

TURNBULL, P.W. (1987): A challenge to the stages theory of the internationalization

process. In: ROSSON, P.J./ REID, S.D. (eds.): Managing export entry and expansion.

New York 1987.

VERNON, Raymond (1966): International investment and international trade in the product

cycle. In: Quarterly Journal of Economics, No. 80 , pp. 190 -207.

VERNON, Raymond (1979): The product cycle hypothesis in a new international

environment. In: Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, No. 41 , pp. 255 -268.

WELCH, Lawrence/ LOUSTARINEN, Reijo (1988): Internationalization: Evolution of a

concept. In: Journal of General Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 34 -55.

WILLIAMSON, Oliver E. (1975): Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust

implications. New York.

ZAHRA, Shaker A./ IRELAND, R. Duane/ HITT, Michael A. (2000): International

expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry,

technological learning, and performance. In: Academy of Management Journal, Vol.

43, No. 5, pp. 925-950.

J e n a e r S c h r i f t e n z u r W i r t s c h a f t s w i s s e n s c h a f t

2 0 0 5

1 Reinhard Haupt: Patent analysis of a company’s technology strength.

2 Axel Braßler, Christoph Grau, Herfried Schnei-der: Wissenslabor Betriebswirtschaft - Eine Lehr-, Lern- und Kommunikationsumgebung für die uni-versitäre und betriebliche Aus- und Weiterbildung.

3 Wolfgang Kürsten: Risikomanagement und aktio-närsorientierte Unternehmenssteuerung - Mehr Fragen als Antworten.

4 Roland Helm, Reinhard Meckl, Nicole Sodeik: Wissensmanagement – Ein Überblick zum Stand der empirischen Forschung.

5 Uwe Cantner, Kristina Dreßler, Jens J. Krüger: Knowledge and Creative Destruction over the In-dustry Life Cycle - The Case of the German Auto-mobile Industry.

6 Reinhard Meckl, Robert Schramm: Empirical evi-dence for a theory of international new ventures.

2 0 0 4

1 Uwe Cantner, Werner Güth, Andreas Nicklisch, Torsten Weiland: Competition in Innovation and Imitation – A Theoretical and Experimental Study.

2 Uwe Cantner, Andreas Freytag: Eliten, Wettbe-werb und langer Atem – Ein praktikabler Vorschlag zur Schaffung von Eliteuniversitäten. Erschienen als: Elite-Universitäten können nur im Wettbewerb entstehen, Orientierungen zur Wirtschafts- und Ge-sellschaftspolitik 99 (2004), S. 51-52.

3 Johannes Ruhland, Kathrin Kirchner (Hrsg.): Räumliche Datenbanken – Überblick und prakti-scher Einsatz in der Betriebswirtschaft.

4 Uwe Cantner, Holger Graf: The Network of In-novators in Jena – An Application of Social Net-work Analysis.

5 Uwe Cantner, Jens J. Krüger: Empirical Tools for the Analysis of Technological Heterogeneity and Change – Some Basic Building Blocks of “Evolu-metrics”. Erscheint in: Hanusch, H., Pyka, A. (Hrsg.), The Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, 2005.

6 Roland Helm: Export Market Entry Strategy and Success – Conceptual Framework and Empirical Examination. Erschienen als: Conceptual Framework and Empirical Examination, in: International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, Vol. 1, No. 1 2004, S. 58-78.

7 Roland Helm, Michaela Ludl: Kundenkarten als Kundenbindungsinstrument des Handels. Erscheint als: Kundenbindung im Handel durch Kundenkar-ten [...], in: Bauer, H. H., Huber, F. (Hrsg.), Stra-tegien und Trends im Handelsmanagement, 2004, Vahlen, München, S. 61-82.

8 Uwe Cantner, Kristina Dreßler, Jens J. Krüger: Firm Survival in the German Automobile Industry.

9 Marcus Lange, Martin Zimmermann: Patent-Chart – Das Monitoring von Patentportfolios auf der Basis von Zitatbeziehungen.

10 Jens J. Krüger: Capacity Utilization and Technol-ogy Shocks in the U.S. Manufacturing Sector.

11 Andreas Freytag: EMU Enlargement: Which Con-cept of Convergence to Apply?

12 Andreas Freytag, Simon Renaud: From Short-Term to Long-Term Orientation – Political Econ-omy of the Policy Reform Process.

13 Martin Kloyer, Roland Helm, Wolfgang Burr: Compensation Preferences of R&D-Suppliers – Some Empirical Results.

14 Roland Helm, Michael Gehrer: Interaktion und Information in der Anbieter-Nachfrager-Bezie-hung: Voraussetzungen, Konsequenzen und Impli-kationen der zentralen und peripheren Informati-onsverarbeitung.

15 Wolfgang Kürsten: Synergies, Shareholder Value and Exchange Ratios in “Value Creating” Mergers – Why Shareholders Should Doubt Management’s Pre-Merger Promises. Erscheint in: Managerial Fi-nance.

16 Jens J. Krüger: Using the Manufacturing Pro-ductivity Distribution to Evaluate Growth Theo-ries.

17 Andreas Freytag, Klaus Winkler: The Economics of Self-regulation in Telecommunications under Sunset Legislation.

18 Markus Pasche, Sebastian von Engelhardt: Volks-wirtschaftliche Aspekte der Open-Source-Software-entwicklung.

19 Robert Klein, Armin Scholl: Software zur Ent-scheidungsanalyse – Eine Marktübersicht.

II

20 Roland Helm, Michael Steiner, Armin Scholl, Laura Manthey: A Comparative Empirical Study on Common Methods for Measuring Preferences.

21 Wolfgang Kürsten: Unternehmensfinanzierung – Grundlagen, Entwicklungslinien und aktuelle Per-spektiven. Erscheint in: Vahlens Kompendium der Betriebswirtschaftslehre.

22 Markus Pasche: Voluntary Commitment to Envi-ronmental Protection: A Bounded Rationality Ap-proach.

23 Andreas Freytag, Simon Renaud: Langfristorien-tierung in der Arbeitsmarktpolitik.

24 Reinhard Haupt, Karsten Jahn, Marcus Lange, Wolfgang Ziegler: Der Patentlebenszyklus: Me-thodische Lösungsansätze der externen Technolo-gieanalyse.

25 Axel Braßler, Christoph Grau: Modulare Organi-sationseinheiten.

26 Werner Jammernegg, Peter Kischka: Performance Measurement for Inventory Models with Risk Preferences.

27 Reinhard Haupt, Armin Scholl: Fundamental-entscheidungen bei unvollkommener Information – UMTS-Lizenzen ersteigern oder verweigern, über-nehmen oder übernommen werden, Rentenwende oder -ende, Glaube oder Unglaube?

28 Roland Helm, Oliver Mauroner: Innovative Spin-offs aus der Forschung als neue Unternehmen – Zum Stand der empirischen Forschung.

29 Simone Martin: Sabotagekosten als Ursache für geschlechtsspezifische Unterschiede in Einkom-menshöhe und Fluktuationswahrscheinlichkeit?

30 Jens J. Krüger: Productivity Dynamics and Struc-tural Change in the U.S. Manufacturing Sector.

Empirical evidence for a theory of international new · PDF file ·...

Documents

Transcript of Empirical evidence for a theory of international new · PDF file ·...