International Entrepreneurship in China: Lessons from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
Ilan Alon, Ph.D.* Petters Professor of International Business Executive Director of Rollins-China Center Rollins College 1000 Holt Ave - 2722 Winter Park, Florida 32789 United States of America Email:
[email protected] Skype: alonilan Phone: (407) 646-1512 Cell: (407) 913-8842 Fax: (407) 646-1550 www.rollins.edu www.rollins.edu/chinacenter
Miri Lerner, Ph.D. The School of Management and Economics The Academic College of Tel-Aviv Jaffa Tel-Aviv, 4 Antokolsi St. And the Faculty of Management Tel-Aviv University Israel Phone: (972) 9-9540253 Cell: (972) (0)528353522 Fax: (972) 9-9587992 Email:
[email protected]
* Corresponding Author Key Words: International Entrepreneurship, Dragon multinationals, China, ResourceBased Theory, New International Ventures in Emerging Markets
International Entrepreneurship in China: Lessons from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
Abstract While much is known about American and European foreign operations in China, less is known about why and how Chinese firms go global. In particular, studies of the decision-making processes of nascent international entrepreneurs who begin their operations on the Chinese mainland are few. Although some case studies and descriptive studies are available on the internationalization of Chinese enterprises (particularly large ones), this study adds to the scant empirical literature on international entrepreneurship in China by testing the characteristics of the entrepreneur and his/her organization associated with Chinese SMEs and entrepreneurial firms’ export expectations. Using resource based theory on a wellresearched and an extensive database of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), this study develops and tests a model of Chinese international entrepreneurship. According to our model, Chinese international entrepreneurship is positively affected by the levels of education and skill of the entrepreneur and the projected number of employees, and negatively affected by the fear of failure and lack of competition.
Introduction Dragon multinationals are considered the new players in the 21st Century, and are predicted to usher a new wave of globalization that will change the balance of economic and political power worldwide (Matthews, 2006). Chinese firms are on the tipping point of an explosive growth in international activity (Child & Rodrigues, 2005). After years of being on the receiving end of inward foreign direct investment (Tse, Pan, & Au, 2007), Chinese firms are propelled by the “go global” policy, international competition, and upgrading of their economic system. Given the emergence of the trend towards outward foreign direct investment, very few empirical studies have been conducted on the internationalization of Chinese
1
companies. Buckley, Clegg, Cross, Liu, Voss and Zheng (2007) explain the paucity of research on the topic as insufficiency of disaggregated data on outward foreign direct investment, resulting in a preponderance of descriptive studies and in-depth case studies of high profile companies. In the Chinese context, Zhao and Zou (2002) stated that while China has become a major export powerhouse, Chinese firms exhibit low export propensity. Despite late and low internationalization, Chinese companies springboard international business buying critical assets from mature MNEs to compensate for competitive weaknesses, lack of strategic resources, and institutional and market constraints (Luo & Tung, 2007).
In their use of the general theory of foreign direct investment, Buckley, et al.(2007) are among the few to empirically investigate Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Their study finds that Chinese outward foreign direct investment is positively related to host market economy, cultural proximity, and policy liberalization. Our study complements theirs by examining the internal factors associated with Chinese companies internationalization of SMEs, explaining why some companies “go global” while others pursue a domestic market only, and by focusing on exporting rather than investment.
While scant literature is available on the internationalization of Chinese enterprises, even less is known about the fates of small private enterprises. Such small and young firms, also termed nascent entrepreneurs, are playing an increasing role in emerging markets. According to the GEM study (Acs, Arenius, Hay, & Minniti, 2004), about 50% of all start-ups around the world expect to export. The same study suggests that the percentage of emerging markets international entrepreneurs is much smaller and in some countries, such as India, negligible. Oviatt and McDougall (1994: 49) coined the term "international new ventures" (INVs) as firms that think and act global from inception, and they defined 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." According to Oviatt and McDougall,
2
accelerated internationalization, defined as increased involvement outside the firm’s home, is a feature of the new global competitive reality.
Using data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) project, our study contributes to the literatures of international business and entrepreneurship in general, and the internationalization of emerging markets’ firms more specifically, by exploring the propensity of new entrepreneurial firms to export. We develop a model of international entrepreneurship in China using resource-based theory. Matthews (2006) proposed that resource-based view theory is well suited for the explanation of Dragon (Asian-based) multinationals because, from this theoretical perspective, internationalization is dependent not on domestic assets exploitable abroad, but, rather, on searches for new resources and exploitation of new relationships in developing globally competitive advantages in niche markets. Testing the boundaries of a theory in different contexts contribute to the transnational explanation that has both context-free and context-embedded elements (Peng, 2005).
We test the international entrepreneurship model on the largest emerging economy in the world, China. Most of the empirical evidence on international entrepreneurship has thus far come from the developed markets of North America, Europe and Australia, and a great need exists to learn how and why firms from emerging markets internationalize (Zhou, 2007). China’s institutional environment, characterized by low resource munificence and continuous economic liberalization, creates unique conditions for international ventures (Yiu, Lau, & Bruton, 2007). The paucity of research on the internationalization of Chinese firms, on the one hand, and international entrepreneurial firms from emerging markets, on the other, justify a scholarly investigation of international entrepreneurial firms in China. Literature Review
Resource-based theory has been central to the strategic management literature (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991), particularly in explaining competitive advantage. According to this theory, competitive advantage
3
comes from assets and capabilities that are valuable, rare, imperfectly inimitable, and non-substitutable. Peteraf (1993) suggested that competitive advantage needs to meet four conditions for sustainability: (1) superior resources (heterogeneity within an industry); (2) ex post limits to competition; (3) imperfect resource mobility; and (4) ex ante limits to competition. Using the rationale of resource-based theory, Knight and Cavusgil (2004: 127) suggested that “born globals leverage a collection of fundamental intangible, knowledge-based capabilities in the cultivation of foreign markets early in their evolution.”
Criticism notwithstanding (Periem & Butler, 2001), resource-based theory has been adapted to international business and entrepreneurship research. Peng (2001) connected the research of resourcebased theory to that of more general research on international business, finding strong linkages and identifying 61 studies in top international management journals (1991-2000), citing either the seminal work of Wernerfelt (1984) or Barney (1991). According to Peng, resource-based theory has a high potential in explaining diverse international business activity including international entrepreneurship and emerging markets behaviors. Likewise, Bruton, Lohrke and Lu (2004) expect to see increased research in international strategic management using the resource-based view framework.
Though the internationalization of business is a primary source of new customers, new technology and lower cost products and services, a relatively small number of firms venture into foreign markets, even in the United States of America (Zimmerman & Brouthers, 2004; Javalgi, White, & Lee, 2000; Samiee, Walters, & DuBois, 1993). Studies suggest that factors such as limited financial and managerial resources, lack of knowledge of international opportunities, perceptions of risk, and lack of managerial experience restrict firm expansion into international markets (Javalgi et al. 2000; Leonidou, Katsikeas & Piercy, 1998; Keng & Jiuan, 1989; Aaby & Slater, 1988; Yaprak, 1985).
Exporting is a mode of entry that is low in risk and control and is, thus, an often-used strategy of internationalization by small, medium-sized and entrepreneurial companies. Walters and Samiee (1990) compared small and larger U.S. exporters and found that they were similar with regard to export
4
commitment, but differed in their administrative arrangements and in their export strategies, including the number of countries exported to. Their results showed that management export commitment, administrative arrangements and strategy variables were important success factors. Knight (2001) studied the internationalization of SME’s increased influence in global trade, showing the role of international entrepreneurial orientation, key strategic activities, and the collective effect of these constructs on the international performance of the modern, international SME.
The organizational determinants of exporting and internationalization have been studied extensively in past literature. These studies examined the structural and behavioral parameters within the organization that have a facilitating or inhibiting effect on various aspects of its export behavior, such as export propensity, development and performance (Poutziouris, Soufani, & Michaellas, 2003). Many studies of the international activities of SMEs have been conducted in the field of international marketing, focusing on the motives for exporting, differences between (passive and active) exporters vis-à-vis non-exporters, and market factors leading to export success rather than organizational factors (Poutziouris, et al., 2003). Zhao and Li (1997), for example, analyzed the role of R&D in explaining export propensity and export growth based on a large data set of manufacturing firms in China. Their results show that the influence of R&D on both export propensity and growth are significant and positive.
Leonidou (1998) classified organizational determinants of exporting into four categories: (1) company demographics, such as location, age of the firm, size, business ties, and business activities; (2) operating elements such as product characteristics, domestic expansion, and operating capacity; (3) enterprise resources, marketing capabilities, financial resources, human resources, technological background, research and development; and (4) corporate objectives such as business growth, profitability and stability
5
International Entrepreneurship in China: Hypotheses
We now review the factors associated with Chinese entrepreneurship and hypothesize about their ability to influence internationalization.
Intellectual and Social Capital of the Entrepreneur
Studies of international entrepreneurship have found a link between personal characteristics of the entrepreneur and internationalization. Westhead, Wright and Ucbasaran (2001) studied the internationalization of small and medium- sized entrepreneurial firms using resource-based theory, drawing on a sample of 621 manufacturing, construction, and services businesses located in twelve contrasting environments in Great Britain. They conclude that principal human capital (know-how and abilities), industry, business and environmental variables impact exporting behavior. Their research led to five conclusions: (1) Previous experience of selling goods or services abroad is a key influence encouraging firms to export. (2) Businesses with older principal founders, with more resources, denser information and contact networks, and considerable management know-how are significantly more likely to be exporters. (3) Businesses with principal founders that had considerable industry-specific knowledge are markedly more likely to be exporters. (4) Businesses principally engaged in the service sectors and those located in urban areas are significantly less likely to be exporters. (5) The resource-based explanatory variables selected failed to explain employment-growth or survivability in the selected sample. The authors suggested that characteristics of principal founders, businesses, and the external environment should be used in understanding a firm’s propensity to export.
Alvarez and Busenitz (2001) examined the relationship between resource-based theory and entrepreneurship and extended its boundaries to include individual characteristics such as the cognitive ability of the entrepreneurs. The authors conclude that entrepreneurs have individual-specific resources
6
that facilitate the recognition of new opportunities and the assembling of resources for the venture (Alvarez and Busenitz, 2001). Entrepreneurs embody individual-specific resources such as opportunity recognition, ability to organize these resources into a firm, and creation of heterogeneous outputs through the firm that are superior to the market.
Particular to the Chinese business literature is the importance of social capital, known as guanxi. Many books and articles have been written about guanxi, some suggesting that it is critical to new business development and internationalization (e.g., Luo, 2007, Alon, 2003). Justin (2006) emphasized that Chinese society is widely considered to be bundled by informal interpersonal ties that exist in almost every aspect of social interaction. In the Beijing ZGC Science Park, for example, a technology hub in China, entrepreneurs have transformed their informal interpersonal networks into informal and formal inter-organizational ties for information sharing and input-output transactions, which has partly facilitated internationalization. Zhou, Wu and Luo (2007) suggested that social networks in the form of guanxi mediate the role in the relationship of inward and outward internationalization and firm performance in entrepreneurial firms by providing knowledge of foreign market opportunities, advice and experiential learning, and referral trust and solidarity.
Based on evidence from resource-based studies and international entrepreneurship studies above, we offer
Hypothesis1: Entrepreneur’s intellectual and social capital will positively influence his/her likelihood to export
H1a The higher the education of the entrepreneur, the more likely is exporting; H1b The greater the business skills of the entrepreneur, the more likely is exporting; H1c The greater the entrepreneurial contact base of the entrepreneur, the more likely is exporting.
7
Entrepreneurial Proclivity
Zhou (2007) developed a relationship between international entrepreneurial proclivity –defined as firms’ predispositions to engage in cross-national entrepreneurial processes and activities characterized by organization cultures for innovativeness, risk taking, and proactiveness – and newly internationalized firms. Entrepreneurial orientation, characterized by risk taking, opportunity recognition, capabilities and outlook, and coupled with intangible knowledge-based resources may lead to an early leap into the global arena (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994; Zhou, 2007).
That opportunity driven entrepreneurs are more likely to internationalize was also suggested by the GEM study and its evidence on developed and developing countries. According to GEM, about 50% of all startups around the world expect to export, but in low-income countries, that ratio is down to about 33%. The GEM report suggests a relationship between necessity/opportunity entrepreneurship and internationalization. Based on Zhou’s concept of international entrepreneurial proclivity and the GEM study, we, therefore, suggest
Hypothesis 2: Entrepreneur’s entrepreneurial proclivity will positively influence his/her likelihood to export
H2a The entrepreneur’s fear of failure will decrease the likelihood of exporting; H2b The entrepreneur’s perceived opportunity will increase the likelihood of exporting; H2c: Opportunity-driven founder's motivation in starting the business will be positively related with his/her likelihood to export compared to necessity driven founder's motivation.
8
Entrepreneur’s Unique Offering/Innovativeness
Bloodgood, Sapienza and Almeida (1996) examined the internationalization of 61 new high-potential ventures in the U.S and showed that internationalization is directly related to the use of product differentiation as a source of competitive advantage, the international work experience of the board of directors, and size at the point of the IPO; further, they indicate that the level of internationalization at the time of the IPO is positively related to earnings two years later. Knight and Cavusgil (2004) proposed that unique product and technology advantages contribute to the internationalization of young entrepreneurial firms. From these two studies one may surmise that firms with new technology, new products/services, and/or with little competition will be more likely to internationalize.
Studies of the Chinese environment have had different results. Zheng (2005) examined146 Chinese companies operating in Beijing and Shanghai, looking at the effectiveness of international strategy in international entrepreneurial firms (IEFs). The data showed that the more innovative a company is, the more it has to focus on its geographical market to gain better performance. The author also found that the more innovative a firm is, the more likely it is going to benefit from using intermediaries and other modes of market entry rather than direct export. From the study of the Chinese environment, one may reach the opposite conclusion from the studies by Almeida, et al. (1996) and Knight and Cavusgil (2004). We thus test the conventional wisdom and suggest
Hypothesis 3: Entrepreneur’s unique offering/innovativeness (new tech, new product, new to competition) will positively influence his/her likelihood to export.
H3a Entrepreneurs employing new technology will more likely export; H3b Entrepreneurs with new product/service will more likely to export; H3c Entrepreneurs with little competition in the domestic market will more likely export.
9
Scale of New Business
Studies using resource-based theory, internationalization and emerging markets often proxy firm resources by the size of the firm. Dhanaraj and Beamish (2003) applied resource-based theory to the study of export performance by comparing US and Canadian small and medium exporters. They found firm size and technological intensity as key predictors of export strategy and degree of internationalization. Studying the emerging market of India, Pradhan (2004) examined the international production activities of Indian firms. Firm-specific characteristics such as age, size, R&D intensity, skill intensity and export orientation were found to be significant for outward FDI. Since skill and technology were hypothesized about in H1 and H3, respectively, we suggest here
Hypothesis 4: Size (measured in terms of employment) of the entrepreneur’s
company will
be positively related with his/her likelihood to export.
Control Variables
The firm’s age of the entrepreneur, age of business and gender were shown in selected studies to have an impact on internationalization (Glas, Hisrich, Vahcic, & Antoncic, 1999; Zimmerman & Brouthers, 2004; Westhead, et al., 2001)
Glas, et al. (1999) examined the internationalization pattern of SMEs in Slovenia, a small transition economy, assuming that SMEs there would follow the patterns of internationalization found in the western literature because Slovenia has been reorienting itself to a western-style market economy over the last decade. Their hypothesis was that the extent of SME operations in foreign markets will grow with SME maturity because the incremental internationalization of SMEs is in large degree based on the owner-manager’s experience effects of internationalization performance (Glas, et al., 1999). Other
10
research has shown opposite results; for example, Alon’s (1999) research on the internationalization of retail franchising in the USA found that younger firms are more likely to internationalize to escape competition and increase their scale quickly.
Gender is probably another key variable that is related to exporting intentions in many countries. Zimmerman and Brouthers (2004) claimed that women entrepreneurs and their firms face unique barriers that may restrict their strategic choices. For example, women entrepreneurs face more difficulties (1) raising financial resources, (2) creating legitimacy for them and their organizations, (3) have access to different networks and support structures, and (4) for national cultural reasons may be discriminated against in international business dealings.
International Entrepreneurship in the China Model
Exporting (Yes/No) = a + B1 (Education) + B2 (Skills) + B3 (Contact base) + B4 (Fear of Failure) + B5 (Perceived Opportunity) + B6 (opportunity/necessity founder's motivation)+ B7 (New Technology) + B8 (New Product/Service) + B9 (No Competition) + B10 (employment scale) + Control Variables (B11 Age of Bus, B12 Age of Entrepreneur, B13 Gender).
Data and Methods
The dependent and independent variables come from the GEM project. GEM is a multi-country, multiyear study of entrepreneurship founded and sponsored by Babson College, the London Business School, and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Participating countries increased from 10 in 1999 to 37 in 2002 (Reynolds, Bygrave, Autio, Cox, & Hay, 2002; Acs, et al., 2004). The study is currently the most comprehensive and up-to-date research of entrepreneurship globally, representing samples of 1,000 to 15,000 randomly selected adults in each country. The purpose of the GEM study is to measure the
11
differences in the entrepreneurial capacity of various countries, looking for systematic relationships between national entrepreneurship, economic growth, and other factors.
Our dependent variable is export expectations. According to GEM, exporting is important to the production of national wealth, tradeable goods, specialization, and allowing the country to develop a comparative advantage. For the firm, exports increase revenue, diversify geographical risk, and extend the lifecycle of mature products. We coded companies as domestic (0) or international (1), lending support for a logistical regression model.
Our model has 10 hypotheses and sub-hypotheses divided into four dimensions: entrepreneurs’ intellectual and social capital, entrepreneurial proclivity, unique offering/innovativeness, and scale. Three control variables previously shown to have an impact on internationalization were included to ensure that the impact of our independent variables is not explained by yet another influential variable.
The first set of hypotheses, entrepreneurial intellectual and social capital, was measured by questions 1-3 from the questionnaire in Appendix 1; the second set, international entrepreneurial proclivity, was obtained from questions 4-6; the third set, entrepreneurial unique offering/innovativeness, were obtained from questions 7-9. Scale, the fourth hypothesis, was obtained from question 10, and questions 11-13 are the control variables.
Insert Table 1 About Here (Descriptive Statistics)
12
Results
Our model of international entrepreneurship performed well overall, with a Cox & Snell R square of 19.6% and a Negelkerke R square of 29.1%. Table 2 provides correlation tables for the variables in our study.
Insert Table 2 About Here (Correlation Table)
The results of our logistic regression model are presented in Table 3. In all three of the categories of factors influencing entrepreneurs to export, at least one variable was found to be significant. In the category of intellectual and social capital, we confirmed hypotheses H1a and H1b, but not H1c. In other words, we find that the level of education and skills of the entrepreneur positively affect the decision to export. Our research confirms the research of Westhead, et al. (2001) and Alvarez and Busenitz (2001), that the entrepreneur’s individual characteristics, in general, and educational and business skills, more specifically, are positively related to export expectations. Knowledge of other entrepreneurs did not necessarily have a positive impact on the internationalization of the entrepreneur.
Insert Table 3 About Here (Regression Model)
For the second dimension, international entrepreneurial proclivity, fear of failure was negative and significant as predicted, but perceptions of opportunity or opportunity-motivated entrepreneurs were not necessarily more likely to export. Entrepreneurs with higher risk tolerance are more likely to go global. Our model provides partial support for Zhou’s (2007) theory, which argues that entrepreneurial proclivity positively influences internationalization.
13
The dimension associated with the entrepreneur’s unique offering/innovativeness offers interesting results. Our model of Chinese international entrepreneurs shows that neither new products nor new technology is likely to support global aspirations. Furthermore, entrepreneurs with no competition are more likely to focus on domestic customers. Our study, therefore, supports Zheng’s (2005) conception of Chinese companies: innovative companies are more likely to focus geographically. Given the size of the Chinese market, it is possible that sufficient domestic demand can occupy a firm’s resources fully, delaying internationalization of new and innovative products and technologies. While H3a and H3b cannot be confirmed, H3c results are surprising, in opposition to the hypothesis.
As for the scale of the new business, the forth dimension examined, employment, was positive and significant as predicted. International entrepreneurs also expected to have more employees, thus generating more jobs than purely domestic entrepreneurs. Seen through the lens of resource-based theory, more employees provide more unique permutations of resources and skills that are difficult to imitate, providing a platform for international business. Thus, H4 is confirmed.
Conclusions and Discussions
Resource-based theory can adequately explain at least part of why some new and young firms in China decide to explore foreign markets. According to our study of China, the entrepreneur’s individual characteristics, entrepreneurial proclivity, and size of the organization influence global aspirations more so than the newness of the product or technology.
An individual’s education and skills were shown to be positive and significant to exporting. A study of individual entrepreneurs may yield interesting insight into their process of going global. Given the transitional nature of the institutional environment in China, due to policy and societal changes, a study of
14
individual entrepreneurs may reveal on a broader scale why and how these changes are happening. Other entrepreneurial traits, skills and habits should be explored by future research.
The link between exporting and employment was reaffirmed by our study. Larger firms tend to be more international. Seen another way, international firms employ more people. It is in the best interest of policy makers to promote the establishment of international entrepreneurial firms. Acs, et al. (2004) noted the many contributions of international entrepreneurship including increases in national wealth, tradeable goods, specialization, and competitiveness. Entrepreneurial firms also can benefit by exporting through the increase in sales, decrease in geographic risk and extension of the product life cycle. Research on Chinese firms suggests that they internationalize to gain skills and capabilities, rather than just seek out new markets (Child & Rodrigues, 2005).
The lack of competition has, indeed, puzzled us as a barrier to internationalization, but makes sense from a practical perspective. China is a large and emerging market with economic growth rates exceeding those of the rest of the world. In some industries, growth rates are high double or even triple digit. Many foreign multinational firms, including most of the Fortune 500, have already set beachheads in China to tap this growth. It is possible that firms in China that don’t face strong competition will want to stay in the Chinese market and exploit its growth and size opportunities before venturing abroad. If this were true, we would not expect the lack of competition to have the same influence on small, developed economies.
A lack of export culture was noted among SMEs, in general. Alam and Pacher (2003), for example, noted that Australian SMEs which want to internationalize their operations mention several barriers, such as lack of export culture, inadequate managerial expertise, inadequate use of information technology, lack of support for innovation, lack of well-defined industry policy, and inadequate relationships with overseas companies. Chinese companies are even less sophisticated and operate in a more constrained environment than the Australians. According to the Index of Economic Freedom of the Heritage Foundation (2007),
15
Australia ranks 3rd, while China ranks 119th. Barriers to exporting may be larger in China. Chinese companies’ internationalization has been weakened by low R&D, limited marketing capabilities, brand development, and administrative restraints (Child & Rodrigues, 2005). Liberalization of the business environment, support for SME internationalization, and entrepreneurship and international business education can alleviate some of the future problems in this area.
Future research can test the model on other countries to see if context-specific influences change the relationships between the individual and organizational variables and internationalization. Multi-country studies of international entrepreneurship will need to control for institutional and cultural factors. Still in China, much work is needed to better understand the desire of entrepreneurs to export. Future studies of individual entrepreneurs, on the one hand of the spectrum, and macro studies of global entrepreneurship at the national level, on the other hand, will allow both the depth and breadth required to be expanded.
References
Acs, Z. J., Arenius, P., Hay, M., & Minniti, M. 2004. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2004 Executive Summary, Mass: Babson College and London Business School. Alam, Q., & Pacher, J. 2003. Internationalizatopn of Australian SMEs: Challenges and Opportunities. In H. Etemad, & R. Wright (Eds.), Globalization and Entrepreneurship: Policy and Strategy Perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK,
Alon, I. 1999. The internationalization of US franchising systems. New York: Garland Publishing. Alon, Ilan, ed. 2003. Chinese Culture, Organizational Behavior, and International Business Management, Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers. Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L.W. 2001. The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 27(6): 755-775. Barney, J. B. 1996. The resource-based theory of the firm. Organization Science, 7(5): 469.
16
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across border: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bloodgood, J.M., Sapienza, H.J. & Almeida, J.G. 1996. The Internationalization of New HighPotential U.S. Ventures: Antecedents and Outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(4): 61-76. Bruton, G. D., Lohrke, F. T., & Lu, J. W. 2004. The evolving definition of what comprises international strategic management research. Journal of International Management, 10: 413-429.
Buckley, P. J., Clegg, L. J., Cross, A. R., Liu, X., Voss, H., & Zheng, P. 2007. The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 499518.
Child, J., & and Rodrigues, S. B. 2005. The internationalization of Chinese firms: A case for theoretical extension. Management and Organization Review, 1(3): 381-410. Dhanaraj, C., & Beamish, P. W. 2003. A resource-based approach to the study of export performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(3): 242-261.
Glas, M., Hisrich, R. D., Vahcic, A., & Antoncic, B. 1999. The internationalization of SMEs in transition economies: Evidence from Slovenia. Global Focus, 11(4): 107-124.
Heritage Foundation. 2007. http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm. Accessed 22 August 2007.
Javalgi, R. G., White, D. S. & Lee, O. (2000). Firm Characteristics Influencing Export Propensity: An Empirical Investigation by Industry Type. Journal of Business Research, 47, 3: 217-228. Knight, G. A. 2001. Entrepreneurship and strategy in international SME. Journal of International Management (Autumn): 155-171.
17
Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2004. Innovation, organization capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 124-141.
Leonidou, L. 1998. Organizational determinants of exporting: Conceptual, methodological and empirical insights. Management International Review (Special Issue): 7-52.
Leonidou L.C., C.S. Katsikeas, & N.F. Piercy. 1998. Identifying managerial influences on exporting: Past research and future directions, Journal of International Marketing, 6, 2: 74-102
Luo, Y. 2007. Guanxi and business practices, Singapore. World Scientific Publishing. Singapore.
Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. 2007. International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 481-496. Matthews, J. A. 2006. “Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23: 5-27.
Oviatt, Benjamin M. and Patricia P. McDougal (1994), “Toward a Theory of International New Ventures,” Journal of International Business Studies, 45-64.
Poutziouris, P., Soufani, K., & and Michaellas, N. 2003. On the determinants of exporting: UK evidence. In: H. Etemad, & R. Wright (Eds.), Globalization and entrepreneurship – Policy and strategy perspectives. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Peng, M. W. 2001. The resource-based view and international business. Journal of Management, 27(6): 803-829. Peng, M. W. 2005. Perspectives – From China Strategy to Global Strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22, 123-141. Peteraf, M. A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3): 179-191.
18
Pradhan, J. P. 2004. The determinants of outward foreign direct investment: A firm-level analysis of Indian manufacturing. Oxford Development Studies, 32(4): 619-639.
Priem, R., & Butler, J. 2001. Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 22-40.
Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E., Cox, L.W., & Hay, M. 2002. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2002 Executive Report. . Babson College, London Business School and Kauffman
Foundation.
Tan, J. 2006. Growth of industry clusters and innovation: Lessons from Beijing Zhongguancun Science Park. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6): 827-850.
Tse, D. K., Pan, Y., & Au, K. Y. 1997. How MNCs choose entry modes and form alliances: The China experience. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4): 779-805.
Walters, P. G., & Samiee, S. 1990. A model for assessing performance in small US exporting firms. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 2:33-48.
Wells, L. T. 1998. Multinationals and the developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1): 101-114.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource- based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171-180.
Westhead, P., Wright, M., & Ucbasaran, D., 2001. The internationalization of new and small firms: A resource-based view. Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (4), 333.
Wright, M., & Ucbasaran, D. 2001. The internationalization of new and small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(4): 333-358.
19
Yaprak, A. 1985. A empirical study of the differences between small exporting and nonexporting US firms. International Marketing Review, Summer, pp. 72-83.
Yiu, D. W, Lau, C. M., & Bruton, G. D. 2007. International venturing by emerging economy firms: The effects of firm capabilities, home country networks, and corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 519-540.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. 2002. International entrepreneurship: The current status of the field and future research agenda. In M. Hitt, D. Ireland, D. Sexton & M. Camp (Eds.), Strategic
Entrepreneurship: Creating an Integrated Mindset., Oxford, Blackwell Publishers: 255 – 288
Zhao, H., & Li, H. 1997. R&D and export: An empirical analysis of Chinese manufacturing firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 8(1): 89-105.
Zhao H., & Shaoming, Zou. 2002. The impact of industry concentration and firm location on export propensity and intensity: An empirical analysis of Chinese manufacturing firms". Journal of International Marketing , 15(3):52-71.
Zheng, C. 2005. The contingent effect of technological innovation on the relationship between international strategy and performance of entrepreneurial firms. In: Zahra, S.A., Brush, C.G., Davidsson, P. et al. (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2005, MA: 300. Zhou, L. 2007. The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and foreign market knowledge on early internationalization. Journal of World Business, 42, 3:281-293.
Zhou, L., Wu, W., & Luo, X. 2007. Internationalization and the performance of born-global SMEs: The mediating role of social networks. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 673-690.
20
Zimmerman, M. Treichel, & Brouthers, K. D. 2004. Women entrepreneurs and international expansion. In Zahra, S. A. , Brush, C.G., Davidsson, P. et al. (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 2004, MA.pp. 493.
21
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of the Variables Variable
N
Mean (SD)
Range
Frequency %
Demographic variables Gender: Male Female
482
Entrepreneur’s age
482
Entrepreneur’s education
477
Business skills
469
Entrepreneurial contacts
477
Fear of failure
462
Perceived opportunity
428
Opportunity versus necessity
404
58.5 41.5 37.98 (10.70) 1.64 (.77) .66 (.47) .78 (41) .28 (.45) .40 (.49) .52 (.50)
18-64 1-3 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1
Business Variables: Business age
318
4.38 (3.86)
0-12
Number of employees
292
10.20 (22.92)
1-241
Lan of number of employees
292
0-5.48
New technology
408
New products
408
No competition
408
Export
366
1.33 (1.24) .93 (.18) 1.30 (.58) 1.30 (.57) .39 (.84)
Merge - export
366
.39 (.84)
0-1
0-1 1-3 1-3 0-5
Not exporting 73%
22
Table 2: Correlation Matrix for the Independent and Dependent Variables Variable 1. Export Expectations 2. Education
Mean
S.D
1
.27
.44
----
2
3
4
1.64
.77
.36***
----
3. Skills
.66
.47
.17**
.16***
---
4. Entrepreneurial Contacts 5. Fear of failure
.78
.41
.10a
.15***
.25***
----
.28
.45
-.12*
-.12*
-.08
-.05
-----
6. Perceived opportunity 7. Opportunity driven 8. New technology 9. New products for customers
.40
.49
.20***
.17***
.20***
.12*
-.10*
----
.52
.50
.26***
.32***
.29***
.19***
-.07
.30***
----
.03
.18
.14*
.05
.05
.03
-.04
.11*
.13*
----
1.29
.58
.21***
.21***
.02
.01
-.003
.13*
.21***
.16***
-----
10. No competition
1.30
.57
-.10*
-.08
.02
.01
-.10*
-.04
.01
.21***
.01
-----
11. Employment
1.33
1.23
.33***
.42***
.25***
.16**
-.07
.16**
.36***
.13*
.33***
-.07
-----
12. Age of entrepreneur 13. Age of Bus
37.98
10.7
-.16**
-.23***
-.12*
-.15***
.003
-.21***
-.21***
-.01
-.08
.07
-.16**
---
3.60
.28
-.07
-.16**
.05
-.02
.04
-.12*
.04
-.07
-.06
.003
-.03
.10a
----
14. Gender
1.41
.49
-.10a
-.15***
-.17***
-.02
.15***
-.14**
-.15**
-.10*
-.09a
.01
-.16**
.04
-.01
a P
