Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 20

Internationalisation of SMEs: Options, Incentives, Problems, And Business Strategy

Mohd Khairuddin Hashim & Romle Hassan Faculty of Business Management University Utara Malaysia

ABSTRACT Internationalisation presents firms with various opportunities to expand their business activities. The review of the small business literature however, indicates that as a field of study, internationalisation has not attracted much research attention, particularly among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the Malaysian context. This study initiated an attempt to address this issue. More specifically, the study strived to explore the internationalisation options, incentives, problems, and business strategy among manufacturing SMEs.

INTRODUCTION Globalisation offers various internationalisation opportunities to not only large enterprises, but also to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Internationalisation provides firms with opportunities to expand their sales, lower their costs, and improve their profits. Although internationalisation presents firms with tremendous opportunities, the complexities and challenges of international marketplace appear to restrict their interest and frustrate their efforts at internationalising (De Noble et.al, 1989; and Burpitt and Rondinelli, 2000).

In the case of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), they seemed to be slacking in the area of internationalisation. In spite of the fact that international markets can provide them better opportunities for long term growth and profitability, their share of export sales is disproportionately lower than their share of sales in the domestic economy (Acs, Morck, Shaver, and Yeung, 1997). For example, in Malaysia, although SMEs made up of more than 90 percent of the total manufacturing firms, currently these firms are just exporting less than 20 percent of their total output. Since this figure amounted to about 10 percent of Malaysias total exports of manufactured products, relatively manufacturing SMEs have huge potential to expand their portion of exports. However, as an area of research, internationalisation among small businesses has not attracted much attention. Despite the importance of internationalisation, the literature review shows very few empirical studies have attempted to examine internationalisation among small businesses. According to Miesenbock (1988), Crick and Barr (2007), Han, (2007), there are not only limited empirical studies on internationalisation of small businesses, but also a lack of a conclusive framework for understanding small business internationalisation.

The literature also indicates that previous studies on internationalisation have mainly focused on small firms in the western business society. The review of the small business literature in Malaysia reveals little research exists that examines internationalisation among SMEs in the local context. This study was conducted to address this research issue. More specifically, the purpose of the study was to explore the internationalisation options, incentives, problems, and business strategies among manufacturing SMEs in Malaysia.

LITERATURE REVIEW The review of the small business literature indicates that issues concerning incentives, problems, and strategies of internationalisation for small businesses have received inadequate research attention. The literature suggests not only limited studies conducted to examine these issues, but also indicates the findings of these studies were also mixed. For instance, with regard to motives and barriers to successful internationalisation, the study by Karagozoglu and Lindell (1998) indicated that individual differences rather than uniform patterns.

Furthermore, of the past studies conducted on internationalisation of small and medium firms, the general emphasis has been to focus on exporting. The literature however, highlights not only exporting, but several other internationalisation options available for SMEs as well. According to Dana and Etemad (1995), Karagozoglu and Lindell (1998), and Zafarullah et. al (1998), the internationalisation options include not only exporting, but also other modes such as licensing, partnerships, joint ventures, strategic alliance, international networking, consortia, and franchising. According to these studies, each option varies in terms of its critical factors, resource requirement, risk, scope for gains, control, required time for fruition, and potential.

The study by Ogbuchi and Longefellow (1994) indicated that the inability of small business to conduct business internationally resulted mainly from their lack of knowledge about international marketing and international markets. Nevertheless, the studies by Burpitt and Rondinelli (2000), Julien et. al (1997) and Kathawala et. al (1989) showed

that small business failed to internationalise not only because of insufficient information on the possibilities and constraints of foreign markets, but also narrow attitudes of owners/managers, insufficient resources, lack of managerial expertise, weak formal planning, and poorly-developed strategies were also preventing small firms from competing in international markets.

As far as incentives are concerned, previous studies by De Noble et. al (1989) and Julien et. al (1997) found that government support programmes do not seem to be effective in assisting small firms to enter international markets. On the contrary, findings of the study by Alvarez (2004) suggested that greater effort in international business, process innovation, and the utilisation of export promotion programs contribute positively to export performance of SMEs.

The earlier study by Bauerschmidt et. al (1985) found various reasons why American firms failed to internationalise through exporting. According to the study, the reasons the firms failed to export included: (1) high value of the U.S. dollar in relative to foreign currencies; (2) high transportation costs; (3) high risks involved in selling abroad; (4) high foreign tariffs on imported products; (5) lack of capital for foreign expansion; (6) lack of government assistance; (7) competition from local firms; (8) lack of foreign channels of distribution; and (9) language and cultural differences.

Kau and Tan (1986) in their study suggested that certain significant differences existed between small and large firms in Singapore that were involved in internationalisation,

particularly through exporting. In the study, the researchers found that small firms faced more difficulties in overcoming export problems such as in establishing foreign contacts, getting information about foreign markets, establishing distribution network, promoting products overseas, and employing good exports sales personnel when compared to their larger counterparts.

Findings of the study by Bell, Crick, and Young (2004) found the following three factors affecting internationalisation among small firms in United Kingdom. The first factor involves the ownership and management issues. According to the study, ownership and management issues strongly influenced small firms business strategies and their international focus. Second, findings of the study indicated that product and market development strategies were closely for small firms involved in internationalisation. Third, the study suggested that the introduction of new process technologies frequently forced the small firms to reexamine their strategic directions.

Another recent study by Lages and Montgomery (2004) found product strategy, promotion strategy, price strategy, and distribution strategy as four common strategies adopted by exporting firms. In product strategy, the firm stressed on differentiating the products offered in the domestic market and the products sold in the export markets in terms of brand name, design, labeling, variety of main exporting product line, and quality. The promotion strategy focused on adjusting the domestic promotion programme towards the export market in areas such as advertising idea/theme, media channels for advertising, promotion objectives, budget for promotion, public relations emphasis and

direct marketing/mailing. In pricing strategy, the firm used concession of credit, price discount policy, and margins to offer products at different prices across national boundaries. Distribution strategy involved selecting the distribution system,

transportation, budget for distribution and distribution network to the export market.

The review of the literature appears to indicate that understanding about how and why small businesses internationalise is still limited. Although the literature reveals internationalisation of small businesses in the western and developed business societies has attracted increasing attention from researchers, empirical studies on

internationalisation are still limited in scope, focus, and not integrated. Given this, more focused research on small business internationalisation needs to be carried out, particularly in the Malaysian context.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Sampling Frame and Procedure The sample of the study was confined to selected small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In this study, a small and medium-sized enterprise is defined as a manufacturing firm with an annual turnover of less than RM25 million and as one which employs not more than 300 full time employees. On the basis of this definition, 400 firms were identified and selected from the listing obtained from the Malaysian External Trade Development Corporation (MATRADE).

The data for this study was gathered through the mail survey. Structured questionnaires were sent to the owners and senior managers of the 400 firms selected. Out of the total number of 400 questionnaires mailed, 73 usable questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 18.3 percent.

Questionnaire The structured questionnaire adopted in this study consisted of three sections. The nine items in section one were used to obtain the general information concerning the background of the respondents. The items in section two of the questionnaire focused on getting the information on the characteristics of the firms. The remaining items in section three were designed to capture the information on internationalisation options, incentives, problems, and business strategy.

THE RESULTS Profile of the Respondents Of the total of 73 respondents that participated in the study, 46 were managers, 14 were owners and managers, and the remaining 13 were owners as well as CEOs of their companies. Of the 73 respondents, 40 were Malays, 28 Chinese, and 5 were Indians. Fifty six of the 73 respondents were males and 17 females. Sixty respondents were married, eleven never married, one remarried, and one widowed. The years of work experience among the respondents ranged from one to more than 20 years. In terms of education, 22 respondents obtained bachelor degrees, 14 masters degrees, 11 had school certificates, 25 respondents had diplomas, and one respondent earned a PhD degree.

Characteristics of the Sample Firms The characteristics of the sample firms are presented in Table 1 The information in Table 1 include; legal forms of the firms, number of employees, age of the firms, the total sales, and the net profit before tax of the firms for the year 2006.
Table 1: Characteristics of the Sample Firms Sole proprietor Partnership Private Limited Total Number of Employees: 1-100 employees 101-200 employees 201-300 employees Total Age of Firm: Less than 5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than 20 years Total Total Sales of Business (2006): Less than RM1,000,000.00 RM1,000,001-RM5,000,000 RM5,000,001-RM10,000,000 RM10,000,001-RM15,000,000 RM15,000,001-RM20,000,000 RM20,000,001-RM25,000,000 Total Net Profit (before tax) (2006): Less than RM100,000 RM100,001-RM200,000 RM200,001-RM300,000 RM300,001-RM400,000 RM400,001-RM500,000 RM500,001-RM600,000 More than RM600,000 Total Frequency 19 11 43 73 41 4 28 73 7 0 27 13 26 73 18 12 9 3 3 28 73 15 7 8 4 3 2 34 73 Percentage 26.0 15.1 58.9 100.0 56.2 5.5 38.3 100.0 9.6 0 37.0 17.8 35.6 100.0 24.7 16.4 12.3 4.1 4.1 38.3 100.0 20.5 9.6 11.0 5.5 4.1 2.7 46.6 100.0

Legal Form of Business:

The information on the firms involvement in exporting is presented in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, more than half the firms in the study had been exporting for more than four years. The exporting destinations of the firms ranged from less than three countries to more than 13 countries. The percentage of export sales to the total sales among the firms in the study ranged from less than 10% to more than 30%.
Table 2: The Firms Involvement in Exporting Less than 3 years 4 to 6 years 7 to 9 years 10 to 12 years More than 13 years Total Number of countries exported to: Less than 3 countries 4 to 6 countries 7 to 9 countries 10 to 12 countries More than 13 countries Total Percentage of export sales to total sales: Less than 10% 11% to 15% 16% to 20% 21% to 25% 26% to 30% More than 30% Total Frequency 32 8 15 10 8 73 Percentage 43.8 11.1 20.5 13.7 10.9 100.0

Number of years involved in exporting:

38 12 12 2 9 73 28 11 8 3 4 19 73

52.2 16.4 16.4 2.7 12.3 100.0 38.4 15.1 11.0 4.1 5.5 26.0 100.0

Distribution of the Sample Firms by Type of Industry The firms in this study represented different industries. The distribution of the sample firms by type of industry is presented in Table 3. The information in Table 3 shows that the 73 firms represented at 13 different types of industries.

Table 3: The Firms by Type of Industry Types of Industry Automotive Pharmaceutical product Shipping and maritime Information and communication technology Electrical and electronic product Furniture and finishing Hardware and machinery Food and beverage Textile Household product Plantation and agriculture Office supplier and automation Miscellaneous Total Frequency 2 6 10 16 1 1 4 9 5 7 1 3 8 73 Percentage 2.7 8.2 13.7 21.9 1.4 1.4 5.5 12.3 6.8 9.6 1.4 4.1 11.0 100.0

Internationalisation Options The respondents in the study were requested to rate the feasibility of the 11 common options of entry into international business based on a four point scale ranging from (1) Not Feasible At All to (4) Very Feasible. Table 4 ranks and lists the 11 options based on the mean scores of the responses from the 73 firms.
Table 4: Internationalisation Options Options: Mean SD 1. Exporting 3.85 0.79 2. Joint Ventures 3.53 1.00 3. Strategic Alliances 3.47 0.91 4. Franchising 3.42 0.91 5. Contract Manufacturing 3.40 0.97 6. Foreign Direct Investment 3.38 1.05 7. Outsourcing 3.37 0.84 8. Importing 3.36 0.92 9. Mergers and Acquisitions 3.32 1.04 10. Management Contracts 3.28 0.80 11. Licensing 3.16 0.90 Scale: (1) Not feasible at all; (2) Some Feasibility; (3) Feasible; (4) Very Feasible

10

As indicated in Table 4, the mean scores of the 11 options ranged from 3.16 to 3.85. Of the 11 options, exporting had the highest mean score (3.85) and management contracts had the lowest score (3.16). At the general level, the mean scores of the degree of feasibility of the 11 options suggest that the firms in the study perceived the 11 options as feasible.

Internationalisation Incentives The respondents in the study were also requested to indicate their agreement or disagreement that the internationalisation incentives provided by the Malaysian External Trade Development Corporation (MATRADE) and the Export Import Bank of Malaysia (EIBM) had contributed to their firms export success. Based on a numerical scale of four ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (4) Strongly Agree, the respondents were asked to rate the internationalisation incentives offered by MATRADE and EIBM.

The responses to the questions on the internationalisation incentives are summarized in Table 5 and Table 6 The mean scores and standard deviations (SD) of the responses for the incentives provided by the Malaysian External Trade Development Corporation (MATRADE) are reported in Table 5. The mean scores of the responses for the incentives offered by MATRADE ranged from 3.13 to 3.81. These results to a certain extent suggest that the respondents agreed that the incentives extended by the Malaysian External Trade Development Corporation had contributed to their firms export success.

11

Table 5: Incentives Provided by MATRADE Incentives: Mean Special Incentives to Increase Export 3.60 Deduction on Cost of Developing Websites 3.13 Double Deduction of Export Credit Insurance Premiums 3.43 Export Credit Insurance Scheme 3.38 Single Deduction for Quality Certification 3.45 Malaysia Export Exhibition Center (MEEC) 3.48 Single Deduction for Hotel Accommodation 3.25 Industrial Building Allowance (IBA) 3.33 Incentives to Acquire a Foreign Company 3.38 Single Deduction for Registration of Patents 3.26 Seminars and Workshops 3.49 Made-in-Malaysia In-Store Promotion 3.49 Tax Incentives for Offshore Trading Via Websites 3.52 Tax Exemption for Malaysian International Trading Company (MITC) 3.61 Double Deduction for Promotion of Export of Services 3.42 Bilateral Payment Arrangement (BPA) 3.32 Technology Acquisition Fund for Woman (TAP-W) 3.30 Malaysian Product Exhibition (MPE) 3.64 Double Deduction for Promotion of Exports 3.58 Export Financing Facilities 3.64 Market Development Grant (MDG) 3.55 Duties and Sales Tax Exemption 3.81 International Trade Fairs Overseas 3.72 Tax Exemption on the Value of Increased Exports 3.68 Double Deduction for Promotion of Malaysian Brands 3.59 Technology Acquisition Fund (TAF) 3.42 Commercialization of RND Fund (CRDF) 3.35 Tax Exemption for Tour Operators, Conventional Fair Organizers 3.26 Scale: (1) Strongly Disagree; (2) Disagree; (3) Agree; (4) Strongly Agree SD 1.27 1.12 0.95 0.91 0.87 1.07 0.98 0.90 1.07 0.89 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.14 1.12 0.96 0.97 0.91 1.03 1.06 1.02 0.90 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.02 0.90 1.12

Table 6 presents the mean scores and standard deviation (SD) of the responses for the incentives provided by the Export Import Bank of Malaysia (EIBM). As shown in Table 6, the mean scores of the responses for the incentives offered by the EIBM ranged from 3.26 to 3.64. Again, these results in general indicate that the respondents agreed that the incentives offered by the Export Import Bank of Malaysia had contributed to their success in exporting.

12

Table 6: The Export Import Bank of Malaysia (EIBM) Incentives Incentives: Mean SD Guarantee and Bond Indemnity Support facility 3.38 1.08 Comprehensive Policy (Shipments/ Contact) 3.26 1.04 Buyer Credit Guarantee 3.50 1.06 Overseas Investment Insurance 3.47 1.00 Bank Letter of Credit and Policy (BLCP) 3.47 1.15 Export Credit Refinancing (ECR) 3.30 1.14 Export of service facility 3.39 0.97 Overseas project financing facility 3.64 1.02 Buyer credit facility 3.61 1.04 Supplier credit facility 3.48 1.22 Scale: (1) Strongly Disagree; (2) Disagree; (3) Agree; (4) Strongly Agree

Internationalisation Problems Faced by the Firms Table 7 presents the mean scores and standard deviation (SD) of the severity of the 25 common internationalisation problems as identified in the literature. The mean scores of the problems ranged from 2.56 to 3.17. These results in general suggest that the respondents perceived the 25 common internationalisation problems as not so serious.
Table 7: Internationalisation Problems Internationalisation Problems: 1. Quality of product 2. Competition in foreign markets 3. Tariff-duty barriers 4. Malaysian export regulation 5. Currencies exchange rates 6. Collection of payment from foreign customer 7. Foreign import regulation and procedures 8. Providing after sales service 9. High cost of selling in foreign markets 10. High export tax by Malaysian government 11. Lack of government assistance in exporting 13. High domestic cost of production 14. Competition from local firms in foreign markets 15. Appointment of foreign market distributors 16. Lack of capital to finance business expansion into foreign market 17. Appointment of a sale force in foreign markets 18. High transportation costs to ship products to foreign markets 19. Lack of production capacity to export Mean 3.08 2.56 2.74 3.14 3.02 3.00 2.80 2.97 2.91 3.17 2.98 3.09 2.79 2.97 2.90 2.98 2.97 3.15 SD 1.32 1.30 1.04 1.00 1.14 1.15 1.11 1.11 1.03 1.10 1.04 1.16 1.13 1.14 1.11 1.02 1.08 1.08

13

20. Lack of tax incentives for exporting companies 3.03 21. Insufficient personnel to manage exporting activity 3.02 22. Gathering accurate information on foreign markets 2.97 23. High foreign tariffs on imported products by foreign government 2.89 24. Non-tariff barriers 2.94 25. Responding to foreign customer inquiries 3.11 Scale: (1) Very Serious; (2) Serious; (3) Not So Serious; (4) Not A Problem at All

1.12 1.14 0.98 0.90 0.96 1.01

In the study, the firms were also asked to indicate the most pressing internationalisation problems that they faced in the last couple of years. Table 8 lists the most pressing internationalisation problems faced by the participating firms in the last two years.
Table 8: Most Pressing Internationalisation Problems Faced by the Firms Problems: Frequency 1. Competition in foreign markets *(c) 14 2. Fluctuation in currency exchange rate*(c) 7 3. Lack in product quality *(c) 4 4. Late delivery 3 5. Need export financing facilities 2 6. High freight charges 2 7. Lack of transportation 2 8. Problem with legal requirements 2 9. Competition from China 2 10. Competition from India 2 11. Not enough financing *(c) 2 12. Problem with collecting payments *(c) 2 13. Lack of raw materials for expansion 2 14. Unable to target the right market 2 15. Unable to get government assistance *(c) 2 16. Not familiar with foreign rules and regulation *(c ) 2 17. Too many government regulations 2 18. Changes in government regulations (local and foreign) 2 19. Lack of expertise (R&D and technology) 2 20. High cost of raw materials 2 21. Problem with custom declarations 2 22. Export duty and taxation *(c ) 2 23. Constraint by quota system 2 24. Low profit 2 25. Lack of product acceptance 2 26. Problem with international piracy and hijacking 2 27. Difficulty getting health certificate 1 28. Limited range of products for export 1 29. Poor after sales service *(c ) 1 Note: * (a) common exporting problems as found in previous studies

14

Business Strategies Emphasized By the Firms Table 9 presents the six business strategies as emphasized by the firms in the study.
Table 9: Business Strategies as Emphasized by the Firms A) Niche Mean SD 1. Focus on specialty products. 2.22 1.06 2. Focus on a specific range of products 2.25 0.85 3. Focus on a specific foreign market 2.17 0.87 4. Focus on specific foreign customers 2.33 0.93 5. Focus on new product 2.42 1.06 B) Product Differentiation Mean SD 1. Product quality 1.80 1.04 2. Packaging 2.14 1.09 3. Design and style 2.13 1.08 4. Product uniqueness 2.07 1.05 5. Maximize perceived value of product 2.10 0.89 C) Marketing Differentiation Mean SD 1. Adopt competitive pricing 2.10 0.94 2. Create new distribution channel 2.23 0.97 3. Increase advertising and promotion 2.33 1.01 4. Brand building 2.25 1.17 5. Update product line 2.41 0.97 6. Use market research 2.26 0.93 7. Use personal selling 2.57 0.98 8. Develop new market for product 2.58 1.06 D) Service Differentiation Mean SD 1. Quick product delivery 2.04 1.04 2. Prompt response to customers orders 1.93 1.00 3. Offer extensive customer service 2.16 0.98 4. Personal contacts with overseas distributors 2.22 0.94 5. Provide quality service 1.90 1.03 E) Innovation Mean SD 1. Technological superiority of product 2.13 0.95 2. Focus on new innovative product 2.17 0.98 3. Use advanced communication technologies 2.22 1.00 4. Improve existing product 2.04 0.91 5. Improve product process 2.16 0.90 F) Low Cost Mean SD 1. Purchase materials in large volumes 2.36 1.06 2. Mass produce products 2.52 1.04 3. Limited range of products 2.77 0.97 4. Maximize economies of scale 2.20 1.01 5. Sell product at budget price 2.55 1.08 (1)Extremely Important; (2) Important; (3) Fairly Important; (4) Not Important; (5) Not Important At All.
15

In the study, to gather the information on the six common business strategies emphasized by the firms, the respondents were requested to rate the importance of each business strategy with respect to their firms export success. The respondents were asked to rate the importance of each business strategy based on a five point scale ranging from (1) Extremely Important to (5) Not Important At All. Table 9 presents the mean scores and standard deviation of the responses as recorded from the participating firms. As indicated in Table 9, the mean scores of the importance of the business strategies as perceived by the respondents ranged from 1.80 to 2.77. The results in Table 9 indicate that in general majority of the respondents found the six common business strategies to be important to their firms export success. These results suggest a general agreement on the importance of the six business strategies among the manufacturing firms in this study.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This study initiated an attempt to examine the internationalisation options, incentives, problems, and business strategy among manufacturing SMEs. Based on the literature review, the study identified 11 internationalisation options available for SMEs. The results of the study indicate that the mean scores of the 11 options ranged from 3.16 to 3.85, with exporting having the highest mean score (3.85) and management contracts having the lowest score (3.16). In general, these results suggest that the firms in the study perceived the 11 internationalisation options as documented in the literature as feasible.

16

In terms of the internationalisation incentives, the results to a certain extent suggest that the respondents agreed that the 10 different incentives offered by the Export Import Bank of Malaysia had contributed to their success in exporting. The results of the study also suggest that to a certain degree the respondents agreed that the 28 incentives extended by the Malaysian External Trade Development Corporation had contributed to their firms export success.

In the case of the internationalisation problems, the results of the in general suggest that the respondents in the study perceived the 25 common problems as identified in the literature as not so serious. However, in addition to the 25 common problems, the respondents in the study identified 20 other pressing internationalisation problems that their firms encountered in the past two years. Among the 20 pressing problems include; late delivery, need export financing facilities, high freight charges, lack of transportation, legal requirements, competition from China and India, lack of raw materials for expansion, unable to target the right market, too many government regulations, changes in government regulations, lack of R&D, high cost of raw materials, problem with custom declarations, constraint by quota system, low profit, lack of product acceptance, international piracy and hijacking, difficulty getting health certificate, limited range of products for export, and export duty.

As for the business strategies emphasized by the firms, the results of the study show that in general, majority of the respondents found the six common business strategies to be important to their firms effort to internationalise. These results suggest a general

17

agreement concerning the importance of the six business strategies (niche, product differentiation, marketing differentiation, service differentiation, innovation and low cost) among the 73 small and medium manufacturing firms in this study.

On the basis of the results of the study, the following conclusions can be made. First, the empirical information gathered from this study showed that many of the participating SMEs were not only aware of the 11 common internationalisation options, but also found them to be feasible. Second, at the general level, the respondents agreed that the 38 internationalisation incentives had contributed to their firms export success. Third, apart from the internationalisation options and incentives, the study also indicated that the firms faced at least 20 pressing problems related to internationalisation. Fourth, the empirical information generated by this study also suggests that the firms in the study emphasized on six different business strategies in coping with internationalisation.

Finally, based on the results and the problems identified in the study, it seems reasonable to suggest that SMEs need further assistance to internationalise. Although the findings of this study suggest that to a certain degree, the respondents perceived the internationalisation incentives as important, MATRADE and EIBM need to review the manner in which they offered the incentives to further raise their effectiveness. In addition, there is also further need to expose and publicise the internationalisation options and business strategy available to the SMEs in Malaysia.

18

REFERENCES Acs, Z.J., Morck, R., Shaver, J.M. and Yeung, B. (1997). The internationalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises: A policy perspective. Small Business Economics, 9, 7-20. Alvarez, E. R. (2004). Sources of export success in small and medium-sized enterprises: The impact of public programs. International Business Review, 13, 383-400. Bauerschmidt, A., Sullivan D., and Gillespie K. (1985). Common factors underlying barriers to export studies in the U.S. paper industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 111-123. Bell, J. Crick, D., and Yound, S. (2004) Small firm internationalisation and business strategy. International Small Business Journal, 22(1), 23-52. Burpitt, W.J. and Rondinelli, D. A. (2000). Small firms motivations for exporting: To earn and learn? Journal of Small Business Management, October, 1-14. Crick, D, and Barr, P. (2007). SMEs Barriers towards internationalisation and assistance requirements in the UK: Differences between exporters and firms employing multiple modes of market entry. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 20 (3), 233-243. Dana, L. P. and Etemad, H. (1995). SMEs-adapting strategy to NAFTA: A model for small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Small Business and Enterpreneurship, July-September , 4-17. De Noble, A. F., Castaldi, R. M. and Moliver, D. M. (1989). Export intermediaries: Small business perceptions of services and performance. Journal of Small Business Management, April, 33-41. Julien, Pierre-Andre., Joyal, A., Deshaies, L. and Ramangalahy, C. (1997). A typology of strategic behavior among small and medium-sized exporting businesses. A case study. International Small Business Journal, 15 (2), 33-49. Han, Mary (2007). Achieving superior internationalisation through ambidexterity. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 15 (1), 43-77. strategic

Karagozoglu, Necmi and Lindell, Martin (1998). Internationalisation of small and medium-sized technology-based firms: An exploratory study. Journal of Small Business Management, 44-59. Kaynak, E., Ghauri, P. N. and Olofsson-Bredenlow, T. (1987). Export behavior of small Swedish firms. Journal of Small Business Management, April, 26-32.

19

Kathawala, Y., Judd, R., Monipallil, M., and Weinrich, M. (1989). Exporting practices and problems of Illinois firms. Journal of Small Business Management, January, 53-59. Kau, A.K., and Tan, S.J. (1986). A Study of Small and Large Manufacturing Exporters in Singapore. In Roberts, G.(Ed.). Proceedings of the 31st World Conference, International Council of Small Business, 67-74. Lages, L.F. and Montgomery, D.B. (2001). Research Paper #1700. Graduate School of Business, Stanford University. Miesenbrock, K.J. (1988). Small exporting: A literature review. International Small Business Journal, 6(2), 42-61. Ogbuchi, A. O. and Longfellow, T. A. (1994). Perceptions of U.S manufacturing SMEs concerning exporting: A comparison based on export experience. Journal of Small Business Management, October, 37-47. Zafarullah, M., Mujahid A. and Stephen, Y. (!998). The internationalisation of the small firms in developing countries-Exploratory study from Pakistan. Journal of Global Marketing, 11 (3), 21-39. Zou, S. and Stan, S. (1998). The determinants of export performance: A review of the empirical literature between 1987 and 1997. International Marketing Review, 15 (5), 333-356.

20

Вам также может понравиться