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 Lorenz
h.w.lorenz@wiwi.uni-jena.de
Prof. Dr. Armin Scholl
a.scholl@wiwi.uni-jena.de
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
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
1
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.
2
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 INVtheory.
3
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.
4
Table 1: Overview of the empirical studies
Author (Date)
Theoretical
Methodology
Key research findings
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 Organizational
& Almeida
learning theory
(2000)
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)
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
framework
Aspelund &
Moen (2001)
5
Model presented
by Aaby & Slater
(1989) for
assessing export
performance,
including firm
competencies,
manager
orientation, export
strategy and
market conditions
Stage models
Author (Date)
Theoretical
Methodology
Key research findings
Bloodgood,
*Review of five
Sapienza &
traditional
Almeida (1996) internationalization theories
*Establish that
monopolistic
advantage and
stage theory most
applicable
*Use resourcebased 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 firmspecific 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 &
*Review the
Campbell-Hunt sample cases of
(2004)
the extent to which
they follow
traditional
(Uppsala- and
innovation-)
models or bornglobal theories of
internationalization
Data collection method:
Historiographic case
research, semistructured 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
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
framework
Coviello &
Munro (1995)
6
Author (Date)
Theoretical
Methodology
Key research findings
framework
Coviello &
Munro (1997)
Stage models
Data collection method:
Network approach 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
internationalization 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
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
Jolly, Alahuhta N/a
& Jeannet
(1992)
7
Author (Date)
Theoretical
Methodology
Key research findings
framework
McAuley
(1999)
Moen (2002)
Moen &
Servais (2002)
Oviatt &
McDougall
(1995)
8
Stage models
Network
perspective
*Evidence of instant
internationals in unusual
sector and with smaller size
(micro-businesses)
*Largely unplanned,
responsive approach to
internationalization by micro
businesses
Model presented
Data collection method: *Suggested that born globals
by Aaby & Slater Mail questionnaire
remain global and local firms
(1989) for
Sample size: 335
remain local, thus destiny of
assessing export
Norwegian, 70 French
firm determined at inception
performance,
firms
*Born globals similar to old,
including firm
Country: Norway,
global firms in terms of
competencies,
France
international orientation,
manager
Industry: Overall
export strategy, competitive
orientation, export approach
advantage, market situation
strategy and
*For INVs concepts of
market conditions
psychic distance and gradual
involvement do not hold true
*Understanding INVs needs
consideration of founder
background, industry-specific
factors and market conditions
Stage models
Data collection method: *Future export behavior of
Mail survey
firm largely dependent on
Sample size: 677 SMEs short time after formation,
Country: Norway,
importance of international
France, Denmark
orientation stressed
Industry: Overall
*Establishment phase
approach
determines development of
basic resources and
competencies
*Gradual internationalization
process challenged
N/a
Data collection method: *Characterize successful
N/a
global start-up as displaying
Sample size: 12 INVs
global vision from inception,
Country: Czech Rep.,
having internationally
France, Germany, UK, experienced founders/
USA
managers, possessing strong
Industry: High-tech
international business
networks, exploiting
preemptive technology,
owning unique intangible
asset, linking product/service
extensions closely, tightly
manage organization
Data collection method:
Mail survey, followed
by interview
Sample size: 15 micro
businesses
Country: Scotland
Industry: Arts and crafts
Author (Date)
Theoretical
Methodology
Key research findings
Preece, Miles
Theories on
& Baetz (1999) international
activities of earlystage technologybased firms
Data collection method:
Mail survey
Sample size: 75 private
early-stage technologybased 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
Rennie (1993)
N/a
Reuber &
Fischer (1997)
Resource-based
and behaviorbased approaches
toward
internationalization
framework
9
*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
Data collection method: *Found new type of firm:
Mail survey, followed
The born global
by 60 interviews
*Began exporting after
Sample size: 300 firms average of two years after
Country: Australia
foundation
Industry: Overall
*Compete on advantages in
approach
quality, technology and close
customer relations
*Reasons for the rise of
SMEs: Emerging niche
markets, process innovations,
developments in computer
and communication
technology
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
Author (Date)
Theoretical
Methodology
Key research findings
Roberts &
*Product life cycle
Senturia (1996) theory
*More generic
internationalization 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
Data collection method:
From investment
manuals, phone
interviews to complete
information
Sample size: 70 public
new ventures
Country: USA
Industry: Hightechnology
framework
Transaction cost
theory
Shrader, Oviatt Risk management
& McDougall theory
2000
10
*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
Data collection method: *As opposed to previous risk
Data from annual
management research, INVs
reports, phone
in one foreign market can
interviews to complete lower risk by trading-off
information
three factors: political risk,
Sample size: 87 INVs
degree of commitment,
making 212 foreign
percentage of foreign revenue
market entries
exposure in that country
Country: USA
*Allows INVs to manage risk
Industry: Overall
on smaller scale because they
approach
do not own resources to
diversify geographically
*Thus new venture
internationalization not
unreasonable risk
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 lowtech firms. (Porter 1998; Oviatt & McDougall 1999)
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
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)
16
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
17
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
18
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.
19
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.
20
Table 2: An integrated model
Traditional theory
Element applying to INVs
The concept of tacit market
Empirical support
Bell (1995)
knowledge is transferred from Oviatt & McDougall (1995)
Stages model
Monopolistic advantage
theory
the new venture to the
Bloodgood et al. (1996)
entrepreneur or the INV’s
Reuber & Fischer (1997)
network.
Rasmussen et al. (2001)
INVs still internationalize in
Coviello & Munro (1997)
stages, but in a compressed
Jones (1999)
time frame.
Autio et al. (2000)
INVs overcome the liability
Rennie (1993)
of foreignness with the help
Oviatt & McDougall (1995)
of a monopolistic advantage
McAuley (1999)
in the form of a knowledge-
Shrader et al. (2000)
intensive product.
Aspelund & Moen (2001)
If the funding level is
Internalization theory
sufficient, then INVs
internalize technological
Shrader (2001)
advantages.
Given the resource
constraints, INVs frequently
Network theory
leverage the resources of
partners for at least the initial
foreign market entry.
Coviello & Munro (1995,
1997)
Oviatt & McDougall (1995)
Preece et al. (1998)
McAuley (1999)
Aspelund & Moen (2001)
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
21
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.
22
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.
23
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.
24
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.
25
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.
26
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.
27
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 hightechnology 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
28
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.
29
Jenaer Schriften zur Wirtschaftswissenschaft
2005
1
Reinhard Haupt: Patent analysis of a company’s
technology strength.
2
Axel Braßler, Christoph Grau, Herfried Schneider: Wissenslabor Betriebswirtschaft - Eine Lehr-,
Lern- und Kommunikationsumgebung für die universitäre und betriebliche Aus- und Weiterbildung.
3
Wolfgang Kürsten: Risikomanagement und aktionärsorientierte 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 Industry Life Cycle - The Case of the German Automobile Industry.
6
Reinhard Meckl, Robert Schramm: Empirical evidence for a theory of international new ventures.
2004
1
Uwe Cantner, Werner Güth, Andreas Nicklisch,
Torsten Weiland: Competition in Innovation and
Imitation – A Theoretical and Experimental Study.
9
2
Uwe Cantner, Andreas Freytag: Eliten, Wettbewerb und langer Atem – Ein praktikabler Vorschlag
zur Schaffung von Eliteuniversitäten. Erschienen
als: Elite-Universitäten können nur im Wettbewerb
entstehen, Orientierungen zur Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftspolitik 99 (2004), S. 51-52.
10 Jens J. Krüger: Capacity Utilization and Technology Shocks in the U.S. Manufacturing Sector.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Johannes Ruhland, Kathrin Kirchner (Hrsg.):
Räumliche Datenbanken – Überblick und praktischer Einsatz in der Betriebswirtschaft.
Uwe Cantner, Holger Graf: The Network of Innovators in Jena – An Application of Social Network Analysis.
Uwe Cantner, Jens J. Krüger: Empirical Tools for
the Analysis of Technological Heterogeneity and
Change – Some Basic Building Blocks of “Evolumetrics”. Erscheint in: Hanusch, H., Pyka, A.
(Hrsg.), The Elgar Companion to NeoSchumpeterian Economics, 2005.
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.
Roland Helm, Michaela Ludl: Kundenkarten als
Kundenbindungsinstrument des Handels. Erscheint
als: Kundenbindung im Handel durch Kundenkarten [...], in: Bauer, H. H., Huber, F. (Hrsg.), Strategien und Trends im Handelsmanagement, 2004,
Vahlen, München, S. 61-82.
Uwe Cantner, Kristina Dreßler, Jens J. Krüger:
Firm Survival in the German Automobile Industry.
Marcus Lange, Martin Zimmermann: PatentChart – Das Monitoring von Patentportfolios auf
der Basis von Zitatbeziehungen.
11 Andreas Freytag: EMU Enlargement: Which Concept of Convergence to Apply?
12 Andreas Freytag, Simon Renaud: From ShortTerm to Long-Term Orientation – Political Economy 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-Beziehung: Voraussetzungen, Konsequenzen und Implikationen der zentralen und peripheren Informationsverarbeitung.
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 Finance.
16 Jens J. Krüger: Using the Manufacturing Productivity Distribution to Evaluate Growth Theories.
17 Andreas Freytag, Klaus Winkler: The Economics
of Self-regulation in Telecommunications under
Sunset Legislation.
18 Markus Pasche, Sebastian von Engelhardt: Volkswirtschaftliche Aspekte der Open-Source-Softwareentwicklung.
19 Robert Klein, Armin Scholl: Software zur Entscheidungsanalyse – Eine Marktübersicht.
II
20 Roland Helm, Michael Steiner, Armin Scholl,
Laura Manthey: A Comparative Empirical Study
on Common Methods for Measuring Preferences.
26 Werner Jammernegg, Peter Kischka: Performance
Measurement for Inventory Models with Risk
Preferences.
21 Wolfgang Kürsten: Unternehmensfinanzierung –
Grundlagen, Entwicklungslinien und aktuelle Perspektiven. Erscheint in: Vahlens Kompendium der
Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
27 Reinhard Haupt, Armin Scholl: Fundamentalentscheidungen bei unvollkommener Information –
UMTS-Lizenzen ersteigern oder verweigern, übernehmen oder übernommen werden, Rentenwende
oder -ende, Glaube oder Unglaube?
22 Markus Pasche: Voluntary Commitment to Environmental Protection: A Bounded Rationality Approach.
23 Andreas Freytag, Simon Renaud: Langfristorientierung in der Arbeitsmarktpolitik.
24 Reinhard Haupt, Karsten Jahn, Marcus Lange,
Wolfgang Ziegler: Der Patentlebenszyklus: Methodische Lösungsansätze der externen Technologieanalyse.
25 Axel Braßler, Christoph Grau: Modulare Organisationseinheiten.
28 Roland Helm, Oliver Mauroner: Innovative Spinoffs aus der Forschung als neue Unternehmen –
Zum Stand der empirischen Forschung.
29 Simone Martin: Sabotagekosten als Ursache für
geschlechtsspezifische Unterschiede in Einkommenshöhe und Fluktuationswahrscheinlichkeit?
30 Jens J. Krüger: Productivity Dynamics and Structural Change in the U.S. Manufacturing Sector.