1、 外文翻译 原文 Internationalization of Small Firms: An Examination of Export Competitive Patterns, Firm Size, and Export Performance *. Material Source:Journalof Small Business Management Author: Pett, Timothy Analysis of data taken from 157 small firms actively exporting to markets outside the U.S. revea
2、led that small firms differ among themselves with respect to the competitive pattern used in their export activities. Larger (small) firms exhibited competitive patterns consistent with their size-related resource base. However, smaller (small) firms did not exhibit competitive patterns that could b
3、e viewed as consistent with their size-related resource base. In addition, no significant difference in export intensity across three size categories was found. The implications of these findings with respect to the explanatory power of the stage theory of international development and the resource-
4、based theory of the firm are discussed. To unravel the complex issues involved in extending small business activities internationally via exporting, our first step is to attempt to sort out some of the ways that small firms undertake export activity. Following the resource-based view, firms implemen
5、t strategic actions that are consistent with the resources and capabilities available to them. Because firms are heterogeneous with respect to their resources and capabilities (Barney 1991), they are likely also to differ in the actions taken to formulate and implement strategy. Baird, Lyles, and Or
6、ris (1994) concluded that small firms become global competitors when this strategic action fits their unique resources. Further, as Galbraith and Kazanjian (1986) effectively argued, there are multiple paths firms may take to reach a similar outcome. One may conclude that with unique resource combin
7、ations there will be infinite variance in strategic actions. However, we believe that meaningful competitive patterns do emerge from company-specific variance. It is well accepted that large firms compete in their respective product markets using one of three generic business-level strategies (Dess
8、and Davis 1984; Porter 1980). Chaganti, Chaganti, and Mahajan (1989) supported the contention that Porters framework also applies to small businesses. Hence, just as large and small firms pursue different strategies because of different resource endowments, so too are their strategic actions likely
9、to differ. Specifically related to exporting, Namikis (1988) exploratory work revealed four competitive patterns that small firms use in pursuit of export markets: (1) “competitive pricing; brand identification; control over distribution; advertising; and innovation in marketing techniques and metho
10、ds“; (2) “capability to manufacture specialty products for customers, broad range of products; and new product development“; (3) “technological superiority of products and new product development“; (4) “customer service and high quality products“ (Namiki, 1988, p. 35). Consistent with Namikis work,
11、we propose that there are discernable patterns of action undertaken by small firms to carry out export activity. We expect to find meaningful and different activity patterns within our sample of small exporters. As indicated earlier in the discussion, the stage theory of export development is condit
12、ionally compatible with the resource-based view of the firm. Following Dierickx and Cools (1989) path-dependence arguments, the development of resources and capabilities through time implies that firms seeking to export would do so from a well-developed base of activity in the firms domestic market.
13、 Hence, larger firms are more likely to have the resource base necessary to pursue an export strategy effectively. Moinis (1995) results indicate that firm size is positively correlated with export activity and export success. Calof (1993) found that smaller firms (measured by dollar-volume of sales
14、) exhibited greater export intensity as measured by the ratio of export sales to total sales. However, Leonidou and Katsikeas review reported that “the empirical testing of several models found no significant relationship between firm size and the degree of export development“ (1996, p. 535). Confli
15、cting or confusing results across studies may suggest that an important dynamic related to firm size might be at work. We believe that this dynamic is the way in which small firms carry out export activities. Very small firms, because they lack the broad resource base generally associated with large
16、r firms, may be able to compensate by focused use of a narrow but critical set of skills. For example, Reuber and Fishers (1997) finding that internationally experienced top managers move a small firm toward internationalization more quickly than their counterpart firms without such resources. Such
17、limited skill sets may also allow small firms to pursue a relatively narrow, albeit international, market segment. In other words, very small firms may be able to pursue a focused strategy (Porter 1985) internationally by employing a specific skill base. At the same time, larger (small) firms, with
18、more broad-based skill sets and capabilities, may likely approach internationalization in a way that is commensurat e with their breadth of skills. To illustrate the preceding arguments more clearly, we call attention back to Namikis (1988) four competitive patterns. For a firm to compete successful
19、ly using pattern one (pricing, branding, distribution, advertising, and marketing innovation) requires significant sophistication in the marketing function. Brand recognition takes time to develop and requires significant organizational effort on a sustained basis. Similar requirements exist for wel
20、l-developed distribution systems and innovation in marketing effort. Likewise, the second pattern requires significant organizational resources to tailor products, to make broad product offerings available, and to innovate. These patterns of activity are more likely to be present in firms that have
21、sufficiently developed their resource base. As an organization grows, it is more likely to acquire or develop the resources necessary to be successful when using either Namikis first or second competitive pattern. In contrast, competitive patterns three (technological superiority and product innovat
22、ion) and four (customer service and high quality) can be argued to require a much narrower resource base. Breakthrough products and innovations can be accomplished by very small or start-up firms and marketed internationally without pricing, distribution, or innovative marketing capabilities as part
23、 of the interna l resource base. The same logic holds for a firm that focuses on the quality of its (possibly narrow) product line and the service it offers. Taken together, patterns one and two are likely to require a greater resource base or a broad-based skill set than are patterns three and four
24、. The broad-based skill set is more likely to be found in larger firms, while smaller firms are more likely to use a focused skill set. Thus, this discussion suggests the following relationship: H.sub.1A: Very small exporting firms use a competitive pattern of focused export activity. H.sup.1B: Larg
25、er small exporting firms use a competitive pattern of broad-based export activity. The last element in our study examines whether an exporting firms size is related to its export performance. According to the stage theory, export activity develops as an outgrowth of a firms success in its domestic m
26、arket. In other words, domestic success allows a firm the ability to extend its competitive reach into foreign markets that seem relatively similar to its domestic environment (Johanson and Vahlne 1977). Once familiarity is gained or learning occurs, the know-how gained facilitates extension and gro
27、wth into additional foreign markets (Barkema, Bell, and Pennings 1996).Therefore, one would expect to see an increase over time in the ratio of export sales to total sales and export intensity. In other words, the larger (small) firms will exhibit greater export intensity. However, recent propositio
28、ns and empirical findings presented by Bonaccorsi (1992), Calof (1993), Oviatt and McDougall (1994), and Reuber and Fisher (1997) raise significant questions about the preceding logic. Increased emphasis on international activities, more internationally savvy managers and entrepreneurs, government t
29、rade policies and pacts, and technological changes may be changing the business environment sufficiently that very small manufacturers are pursuing export activities out of necessity, early and often. Additionally, very small firms may be able to focus resources and efforts narrowly enough to be as
30、export-effective as their larger counterparts. In summary, empirical results that demonstrate a positive relationship between firm size and export intensity is supportive of the stage theory. Conversely, the finding of no relationship would support the recent stream of research derived from the reso
31、urce-based view of the firm. Thus, we state our second hypothesis consistent with the premises of stage theory, with the recognition that the finding of no relationship, or a negative relationship, supports recent resource-based results: H.sub.2: There is a positive relationship between firm size an
32、d export intensity Larger (small) firms exhibit greater export intensity than do very small firms. 译文 企业国际化：出口竞争格局 、 企业规模与出口绩效 的检验 资料来源 : 小企业管理杂志 作者： Pett, Timothy 从积极出口到美国以外的市场 157 个小型企业中获得的数据分析表明，小企业相互之间的不同就在其出口的竞争格局活动。大（小）企业展示他们的大小相关的资源基础一致的竞争模式。然而，大（小）公司并没有表现出可能被认为符合其大小相关的资源基础的竞争模式。此外，没有出口的强度在三个
33、类别的大小显着差异。关于对国际发展和企业资源基础理论阶段理论的解释力，这些结果 的影响进行了讨论。 为了解开在扩大出口的小企业通过国际活动所涉及的复杂问题，我们的第一步是试图理清了小企业的方式进行活动的某些出口。继资源基础观点，企业所实施的资源和能力向他们提供一致的战略行动。因为企业是相对于他们的资源和能力（巴尼 1991）异类，他们很可能也不同，采取的制定和实施战略的行动。贝尔德，莱尔斯和奥里斯（ 1994）认为，小企业成为全球性的竞争对手时，这一战略行动符合自己的独特资源。此外，由于加尔布雷思和 Kazanjian（ 1986）有效地认为，公司有可能采取多种途径达成类似的结果。人们 可以得
34、出这样的结论具有独特的资源组合，将有无限方差的战略行动。不过，我们认为，有意义的竞争模式确实摆脱公司特定变异。 这是可接受的，大型企业在各自的产品市场竞争使用三个通用业务级战略（ Dess 和戴维斯 1984 年 ;波特 1980）之一。 Chaganti， Chaganti 和马哈詹（ 1989）支持的论点，即波特的框架也适用于小型企业。因此，正如大型和小型企业，因为追求不同的资源禀赋不同的策略，所以也可能是他们的不同的战略行动。具体涉及到出口，并木（ 1988）探索性工作发现四个竞争模式，小企业在出口市场的追 求使用：（ 1）“竞争力的价格，品牌标识，超过分配控制，广告和营销技术和方法的创
35、新” ; （ 2）“特种产品制造能力，为客户广泛的产品和新产品开发” ;（ 3）“产品的技术优势和新产品开发” ;（ 4）“客户服务和高品质的产品”。符合并木的工作，我们建议，也有小公司进行出口活动采取的行动可辨别的模式。我们期望找到在我们的小型出口商样品有意义和不同的活动模式。 正如先前在讨论中，出口的发展阶段理论是有条件的企业与资源基础观点兼容。继 Dierickx 和 Cool 的（ 1989）路径依赖的论点，资源和能力，通过时代的发展意 味着企业寻求出口会做从在该公司的国内市场活动发达的基础，使。因此，较大的公司更可能有必要采取资源基础的出口战略，有效。 Moini 的（ 1995）的
36、结果表明，企业规模正与出口相关的活动，并成功出口。 Calof（ 1993）发现，规模较小的公司（按美元计算的销售额）具有更大的出口强度，由出口销售总销售额的比例计算。然而， Leonidou 和 Katsikeas 的审查报告说，“几个模型的实证检验没有发现企业规模和发展程度的出口显着的关系” 在冲突或混淆的研究结果可能表明，一个重要的动态相关企业规模可能在起作用。我们相信，这个充满活力的方式，是小企业进行出口活动。非常小的公司，因为他们缺乏广泛的资源基础，一般与大公司相关联，或许能够弥补的技能为重点的狭窄而关键的设置使用。例如， Reuber 和 Fisher（ 1997）发现，国际经验的
37、高层管理人员比没有这些资源将其对应的企业迈向国际化的小公司更迅速。这种有限的技能也可以让小企业追求一个相对狭窄，尽管国际化，市场划分。换句话说，很可能是小企业能够追求的一个焦点战略（波特 1985）国际通过采用特 定的技术基础。与此同时，大（小）公司中有更广泛的技能和能力，可能在某种程度上可能的办法是与他们的技能国际化。 为了说明上述论点更清楚，我们称之为注意力拉回并木（ 1988）四个竞争模式。对于一个企业的竞争成功使用模式一（价格，品牌，分销，广告和营销创新）需要在营销功能显着的复杂性。品牌识别需要时间去培养，需要一个持久的基础上显着的组织工作。类似的规定存在发达的分销系统和市场营销工作的
38、创新。同样，第二个模式需要大量的组织资源来定制产品，使产品提供广泛的产品，并不断创新。这些模式的活动都更有可能是在已经充 分开发的资源基础 firms 存在。作为一个组织的发展，它更有可能获取或发展所需的资源，无论是成功使用并木的第一或第二的竞争格局。 与此相反，三（技术优势和产品创新）和四个（客户服务和高品质）竞争格局可以说，要求一个更窄的资源基础。突破性的产品和创新可以通过很小或创业公司和销售无定价，分销，或创新能力，国际市场营销作为内部资源基础的一部分。同样的逻辑成立的公司，在其（可能缩小）产品线的质量和服务它提供的重点。两者合计，模式一，两个有可能需要一个更大的资源基地或一个基础广泛的
39、技能比是模式三，四。基础广泛的 技能更容易被发现在较大的公司，而较小的公司更可能使用一个集中的技能。因此，这种讨论建议如下关系： 第一：非常小的出口企业利用出口活动的重点竞争格局。 第二：较大的小型出口企业使用的具有广泛基础的出口活动的竞争格局。 在我们的研究的最后一个元素探讨是否出口公司的大小取决于其出口表现。根据阶段理论，出口活动的发展作为一个公司在其国内市场的成功产物。换句话说，允许国内的成功企业的能力延伸到国外市场的竞争达到比较相似，似乎对国内环境（ Johanson 和 Vahlne 1977 年）。一旦熟悉的取得或学习时，技术诀窍并获 得了有利于延长附加（ Barkema，钟，彭宁
40、斯 1996）国外市场的增长。因此，人们希望看到一个随着时间的推移，出口销售总额的比例增加销售和出口力度。换句话说，较大（小）公司将展出更多的出口力度。 然而，最近由 Bonaccorsi 提出主张和实证研究结果（ 1992 年）， Calof（ 1993），奥维亚特和麦克杜格尔（ 1994）， Reuber 和 Fisher（ 1997）提出有关重大问题上的逻辑。增加对国际活动的重点，更具有国际精明的管理者和企业家，政府的贸易政策和协定，技术变化可能会改变的商业环境非常小的制造商足够的 出口活动所追求出于需要，及早并经常。此外，非常小的企业可能能够集中资源和努力足以被狭隘的出口作为他们的同行更大的效益。 总之，这表明企业规模之间的正相关关系强度和出口实证结果是阶段理论支持。反之，没有关系的发现将支持该公司从基于资源的视图派生的最新研究流。因此，我们国家与我们的第二个阶段的理论假设的前提一致，认识到了没有关系，或呈负相关关系，发现支持了最近的资源为基础的结果：有一个企业规模和出口之间的强度大（小）企业出口表现出更大的强度比小企业做的非常积极的关系。
