1、 外文翻译 原文 Internationalization from a Small Domestic Base: An Empirical Analysis of Foreign Direct Investments of Icelandic Firm Material Source:http:/ Author:staladttir There are two traditional approaches to internationalization: the innovationmodel(cavusgil,1980)and the Uppsala model(Johanson,1977
2、;Vahlne,1977;Johanson,1975;Wiedersheim,1975)Both models are referred to as “stages models” because they propose that the internationalization occurs in incremental steps. Earlier studies concerning the internationalization from a Nordic perspective are mainly based on the stage models or the Uppsala
3、 internationalization model. According to the Uppsala model, firm internationalization has long been regarded as an incremental process, where in firms gradually internationalize through a series of evolutionary stages. They enter “psychically close markets” andincrease their commitment to internati
4、onal markets step by step. the learningand commitment stages that a firm gradually progresses through as it internationalizes are as follows: no regular export; export through agents; grounding of an overseas sales subsidiary or overseas production (Johanson,1975;Wiedersheim,1975). In this tradition
5、al view, firms make their export debut when theyhave a strong domestic market base. The choice of market also occurs in stages: firms begin to export to a market that has a close psychic distance. Then they expand the export sales into markets that have increasingly greater psychic distances. The co
6、ncept of psychic distance relates to differences from the home country in terms of language, culture, political systems, information flow, business practice, industrial development and educational systems (Johanson,1977;Vahlne,1990). The firm chooses an incremental approach to internationalization b
7、ecause it lacks experiential knowledge and because the decision to internationalize is risky. Johanson and Vahlnes central argument is that, as the firm gainsmore knowledge about a market, it will commit more resources to that market. Newly established firms tend to start their internationalization
8、on nearby markets, and with increasing commitment and better understanding of marketsabroad, firms enter into markets that are increasingly dissimilar to their home market. It has been argued that if firms have surplus resources, they can be expected to take larger steps toward internationalization
9、(Johanson,1990;Vahlne,1990).Once market conditions are stable and homogeneous, important market knowledge can be acquired by the firms in other ways than through their own experience. A firm may have considerable experience from markets that have similar characteristics and in a situation like this
10、it may be possible to generalize this experience to the specific market (Johanson,1990;Vahlne,1990). Another important aspect is the claim by several authors (Porter,1980;Levitt,1983) that the world generally has moved towards homogenization. Levitt claims that technology especially is the contribut
11、ing factor to a more homogeno us business world since development within the field of information technology has “made” the distances between countries smaller, and thus the communication flows faster. An underlying assumption of stage models, including the Uppsala model, is that firms are well esta
12、blished in the domestic market before venturing abroad. criticisms that such conceptualizations wrongly assume step-wise progression and forward motion, pay insufficient attention to industry, company or people contexts and are generally too deterministic emanated as longago as the late 1970s(Willis
13、,1981;Rosson,1984). Firms may choose different entry modes and internationalization patterns in different countries. Entry modes and internationalization processes also tend to differ by industry. Despite criticism of the Uppsala model, there is empirical evidence that many firms have internationali
14、zed in incremental stages and that others continue to do so. Several streams of research in the 1990s have served to challenge seriously stage process models. Although challenged, the importance of the stage model isthat it makes clear the importance of cautious and incremental steps in the internat
15、ionalization process. The model is valid for any firm size and it analyzes the whole internationalization process. In the recent literature, there has been clear evidence of rapid and dedicated internationalization by so-called bornglobal firms. This view holds that firms do not internationalize inc
16、rementallybut rather enter international markets soon after the firms inception. This contradicts the stages model, which posits that firms begin to export from a strong domestic market base. Born global are thought to be smaller entrepreneurial firms that internationalize from inception or shortly
17、thereafter, targeting small, highly specialized global niches and implementing a global strategy from inception (McNaughton,2003,McDougall,2003;Oviatt,2003;Shrader,2003). Born global firms perceive international markets as providing opportunities rather than obstacles (Madsen,1997;Servais,1997). Suc
18、h firms may not even have sales in their domestic market (Jolly,1992;Alahuhta,1992;Jeannet,1992;Knight,1996;Cavusgil,1996;McKinsey and Co. 1993;Oviatt,1994;McDougall,1994).An increasing number of smaller firms behave in a manner that is contradictory to the stages models. Jolly, Alahuhta, and Jeanne
19、t identify sets of entrepreneurial com-internationalization from a small Domestic Base 65% as drivers of competitive advantage, such as having a global vision, a focused approach to doing business, the ability to recognize technological opportunities and to capitalize on them, together with the insi
20、ght of the founder of the organization. The resultant internationalization behavior experienced by these hi-tech firms is describedas a functionally specialized global network that needs careful management. Knight and Cavusgil see this born global phenomenon as a challenge to accepted internationali
21、zation theories in which “small technology oriented companies are operating in international markets from the earliest days of their establishment and tend to be managed by entrepreneurial visionaries who view the world as a single, borderless marketplace from the time of the firms founding.” Some c
22、ompanies internationalize rapidly by developing international networks, offering adapted and customized products and generally being much moreflexible and faster in their approach to business than their larger competitors.By operating in niche markets and utilizing their distinct sets of competencie
23、s, the smaller firm can compete with larger organizations, despite resource limitations (Madsen,1997;Servais,1997). The same can be said for firms from small economies: they tend to be competitive in a few niche sectors, as they have limited resources and prefer to engage in activities in selected s
24、ectors, rather than spreading the available resources thinly across several industries (Benito,2002). In addition, they also draw on the work of Oviatt and McDougall (1994), who identify an international new inventors as an organization which may initially have one or a few employees but has a proac
25、tive international strategy from the inception of the business. It is also important, according to Madsen and Servais, to understand the background characteristics of the founder of the organization in shaping internationalization behavior. There are several different definitions of born global, so
26、it is not clearly determined howmany markets such a firm should enter in a certain period of time, how soon after its establishment a company should expand to foreign markets or which countries it should select. Oviatt and McDougall define born global as “abusiness organization that, from inception,
27、 seeks to derive significant competitive advantage from the use of resources and the sale of outputs in multiple countries.” they are global from inception or internationalize within two yearsof their establishment. Knight and Cavusgil define born global as “small, technology oriented companies that
28、 operate in international markets from the earliest days of their establishment.” Then they define them further and say that born global: “are small firms; have fewer than 500 employees; have an annual turnover of approximately USD 100 million; have leading-edge technology; and manufacture high tech
29、nology products for a particular niche in international markets”. (Knight,1996;cavusgil,1996) the literature reveals a considerable difference of opinion about how quickly and how widely a firm must internationalize for it to be recognized as a born global. To be considered a born global, the maximu
30、m time for the firms internationalization debut ranges from within two years (McKinsey and Co,1993), to six years (Zahra,2000;Ireland,2000) or seven years (McDougall,1994;Oviatt,1994).in conclusion, in the past years, the phenomenon of born global has inspired several empirical studies which deal wi
31、th initiating forces and success factors of rapid internationalization.Summing up their results, market conditions and firm resources can be identified as important initiating forces of born global. Particularly relevant are international experiences of the founders or top management team as well as
32、 their integration in worldwide networks with suppliers, customers and cooperation partners. Despite the different definitions of born-global firms in the literature, two central characteristics can be observed which allow distinguishing between born-global firms and traditional internationalization
33、s, namely the speed of internationalization (born) and the geographic scope (global) of internationalization. 译文 基于国内小规模经济的国际化：外商直接投资的实证分析 资料来源 :http:/ 作者 ： staladttir 有两种 企业国际化的传统方法 ： 创新模式 (Cavusgil， 1980)和乌普萨拉模型(Johanson； Vahlne， 1977)这两种模型都被称为 “ 阶段模型 ” ， 因为他们认为国际化发生在较早的阶段 。 增量关于 “ 国际化教育 ” 需由北欧的前景
34、 ， 主要根据阶段模型、乌普萨拉模型 。 根据乌普萨拉模型 ， 公司国际化一直被认为是一个渐进的过程 ， 在逐渐国际 化公司通过一系列的进化 。 他们进入 “ 精神的关闭市场 ” 的承诺 ， 一步一步的提高国际市场 。 学习和承诺阶段 ， 企业逐渐国际化进程如下 ： 没有正式的出口 ； 出口通过代理 ； 接地境外销售子公司或海外生产(Johanson； Wiedersheim， 1975)。 在这传统的观点 ， 公司把他们的出口放在首位当其有一个强大的国内市场的基础 。 市场的选择也出现在此阶段 ： 公司开始向有着紧密地理距离的市场出口 。 然后他们扩大出口销售 ， 向越来越远的市场进军 。
35、心理距离的概念涉及到本国的差异 ， 从语言、文化、政治系统、信息流、业务实践、产业发展、教育系统 (Johanson， 1977； Vahlne 1990)。 公司选择一个增量方法 ， 因为它缺乏国际化经验知识和因为决定国际化是危险的 。 Johanson和 Vahlne 的 (1977)中心论点是 ， 随着慢慢增加对市场的了解 ， 它将对那个市场投入更多的资源 。 新成立的公司倾向于开始在本国附近的国际化市场 ， 越来越多的投入和更好的了解 ， 然后企业进入和他们家乡越来越不相同的市场 。 它已被认为 ， 如果公司剩余着大量资源 ， 他们预计可获取更大的走向国际化的步伐(Johanson，
36、1990； Vahlne， 1990)。 一旦市场情况稳定 ， 重要的市场知 识比他们自己的经历更被承认使用 。 一个企业可以在市场上拥有丰富的经验 ， 类似的特点及在这种情况下 ， 就有可能推广这段经历的特定的市场 (Johanson， 1990；Vahlne， 1990)。 另外几个坐着声明了另一个重要的方面 (Porter， 1980； Levitt，1983)， 世界在渐渐走向均匀化 。 Levitt 声称技术特别是促成因素更均匀的使世界各国在此领域的发展信息技术的产生小国家之间的距离 ,从而通信流动越快一个假设 ， 包括舞台模型乌模式中 ， 公司冒险国外市场前都建立的国内的基础上 。
37、 批判这样的概念化阶梯式的进展 ， 认为错 误向前移动 ， 重视略显不足或人的工业区 ， 公司通常是确定性中起源地早在 20 世纪 70 年代后期 (Willis， 1981；Rosson， 1984)。 公司可以选择不同的入口模式和国际化的模式 ， 在不同的国家 。进入模式和国际化过程也倾向于不同的行业 。 尽管他的批评是经验式的模特 ，证据表明 ， 很多企业国际化阶段 ， 以增加别人继续这样做多种渠道的上世纪 90年代进行的研究曾被用来挑战 。 严重阶段过程虽然受到挑战的重要阶段模型却很明确的谨慎的重要性和增量步骤国际化过程 。 该模型对任何规模的公司都有效而且它分析了整个国际化过程 。
38、在最近的报告 ， 已经有明显的证据表明快速且专注的国际化发展为所谓的天生全球公司 。 这种观点认为 ， 公司还没有国际化打入国际市场后是很快的 。 天生全球化被认为是小公司或者企业家国际化 。从构思或其后不久 ， 针对小、高度专业化的全球角落的全球战略实施从构思(McNaughton， 2003； McDougall， 2003； Oviatt， 2003； Shrader， 2003)。 全球公司认为国际市场出生提供的机会 ， 而不是障碍 (Madsen， 1997； Servais， 1997)。这些公司甚至可能没有再国内进行销售 (Jolly， 1992； alahuhta， 1992；
39、 Jeannet，1992； Knight， 1996； cavusgil， 1996； McKinsey and Co， 1993； Oviatt， 1994；McDougall， 1994)。 越来越多的小公司表现出与阶段模式相矛盾 。 Jollyt， Alahuhta与 Jeannet 确定一套创业从一个很小的国内基地作为引导竞争优势的 ， 例如有具有全球视野 ， 聚焦的方法来做生意 ， 好好利用能识别技术能力机会 ， 连同洞察力的创始人的组织 。 最终的国际化经历这些高新技术企业行为被描述为一个功能专业的全球网络 ， 需要仔细管理 。 Knight 与 cavusgil 视这个天生的全
40、球性的现象为挑战 ， 为接受的国际化理论 “ 小技术型企业在国际市场上操作 ， 成立初期 ， 且往往创业空想家等管理的观点看世界市场作为一个单独的 。” 一些公司国际化迅速发展国际联网 ， 提供改善和客户化的产品和一般是一种更灵活的和更快的做法 ， 相对于竞争对手 。 通过细分市场以及操作和利用独特能力 ， 较小的公司能与更大的组织竞争 ， （ Madsen， 1997； Servais， 1997)。 这同样也可以在小规模经济体竞争中体现 ： 它们很可能是在一些利基产业 ， 因为他们拥有有限的资源 ， 更喜欢从事活动的领域 ， 而不 是选择传播可用的资源而穿越一些行业(Benito， 200
41、2)。 此外 ,他们同样还利用 Oviatt 和 McDougall 识别工作 ， 作为一种组织可能最初有一个或数名员工积极但从起初业务的国际化经营战略 。 同样重要的是 ， 根据 Madsen 和 Servais， 以了解创建人背景特征的组织在塑造国际化的行为有几种不同的天生全球化的定义全局变量 ， 所以这不清楚有多少市场这样的公司应该进入一段时间 ， 不久之后 ， 它如何建立一家公司应该扩大到国外市场或哪些国家应该选择 。 Oviatt 和 McDougall 定义天生全球化为 “ 商业组织 ， 从构思 ， 寻求 获得重要的竞争优势 ， 从的合理利用资源 ， 销售在多个国家输出的 。” 他
42、们是全球化的从构思或国际化成立两年内完成的 。 Knight 与Cavusgil 定义天生全球化为 ， 全球出生的技术型企业在国际市场上运行的成立初期 。 于是他们定义 ， 说他们做进一步的出生全局变量 ： 小公司 ； 有少于 500个员工 ， 年营业额大约 1 亿美元 ； 有领先的技术 ； 和生产高新技术产品为某个利基在国际市场 。 (Knight， 1996； cavusgil， 1996)文献揭示了一个很大的不同意见认为得如此迅速、国际化企业必须有多广 ， 这被认为是一个天生的全球 。被认为是一种全 球出生的最长时间的国际化公司首次在两年内范围到六年或者七年 。 总的来说 ， 在过去的几年中 ， 天生全球化的现象已经激起了一些全局实证研究 ， 用来对付启动部队和国际化快速发展的成功因素 。 总结结果 、 市场状况和公司资源可以看成是重要的力量全局启动天生全球化 。 尤其相关的国际经验进行了系统的创始人或高层管理团队 。 在世界范围内网络供应商 、 客户和合作伙伴关系 。 尽管不同的定义 ， 天生全球化的公司在文献中 ， 两个主要的特性可以观察到天生全球化之间的区别 ， 使公司和传统 ， 即国际化的速度生于和地理范围 (全球 )的国际化 。
