• No results found

The Effect of Intangible Resources and Competitive Strategies on the Export Performance of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The Effect of Intangible Resources and Competitive Strategies on the Export Performance of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises"

Copied!
11
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 ( 2014 ) 24 – 34

1877-0428 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

Peer-review under responsibility of the International Strategic Management Conference. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.004

ScienceDirect

Corresponding author. Tel. + 90-532-396-9427 fax. +90-352-322-1613 Email address: omerkumlu@hotmail.com

10

th

International Strategic Management Conference

The effect of intangible resources and competitive strategies on the

export performance of small and medium sized enterprises

Ömer

Kumlu

a

a Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract

This paper provides an explanation for export process and perceived export performance of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) from Resource-Based View (RBV) which is an important, emerging theory of firm heterogeneity. Following the philosophy of RBV, the author has developed a research model explaining how SMEs improve their Perceived Export Performance (PER) via

the integrated application of firms’ Intangible Resources (IR) and Competitive Export Strategies (CES) where both IR and CES are assumed to be most effective means of improving PER. To explore their effects on PER, a mail survey was conducted with 1415 companies from Metal, Textile, Chemical and Furniture industry from Turkey. And 271 responses have been received for further analysis. Regression and Correlation analysis were used to test the hypotheses and to reach the final relationship equation. The results indicated that there is a positive relationship between all IR, CES and PER. We found that combination of IR and CES make more contribution than individual IR and CES on PER. Also our results showed that combination of competitive export strategies makes more contribution than individual strategies on export performance. Additionally, it is found that the effect of IR makes more contribution than CES on PER. In the final model equation the biggest contributions on PER comes from “Export Committed Experience” and “Export Customer Orientation” variables. And the contribution of "Quality Focus" comes out to be nagative in the final equation. This paper has important contributions to the literature as it brings an additional step for the theory development on the export process of SMEs. Additionally it is very helpful for the SMEs which are looking for better export results; they should pay particular attention on developing these intangible resources to reach desired export performance. Also, the results will provide useful hints for government export offices, which are encouraging their SMEs to involve in international business.

© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the 10th International Strategic

Management Conference

Keywords: Intangible resources, Export performance, Small and medium size enterprises

1. Introduction

The world has been facing many dramatic changes within the last few decades. Previously closed foreign markets have opened, liberalization of trading systems has increased, much regional economic integration have been developed, due to the advances in transportation, information and communication technologies, the connectedness with customers and marketing partners has increased and improved (Keegan and Green 2005). Because of all these transformations many companies face with fierce global competition which in turn strongly affect all firms’ activities and pressed them to compete in international markets. Despite these dramatic transformations in the international marketplace, a large number of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) are not yet represented in the international economy as much as large firms are (Fujita, 1998). However, the global competition is an inescapable reality for those SMEs who traditionally have a small financial base, a domestic focus and a limited geographic scope or stayed within their national boundaries (Barringer and Greening, 1998; Pleitner, 1997). Exporting has become an increasingly popular strategy for SMEs as spreading business risks across different markets, generating more revenues and providing a better profit base for shareholders (Keegan and Green 2005; Terpstra and Sarathy 2000). Therefore many studies have © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

(2)

been conducted about export performances of SMEs. Gemunden (1991) noted that there are over 700 explanatory variables that have been advanced in the literature as determinants of export performance. Some examples to those variables are; firm characteristics (e.g. firm size, management characteristics and ideology), firm competencies (e.g. management skills, labour skills and production) and marketing strategy variables (e.g. market research, promotion and distribution). Some authors like Aaby and Slater (1989), Styles and Ambler (1994), Leonidou (1994) and etc. consolidated the growing body of those researches, and have come to a general agreement that firm resources and export marketing strategies are the most important two determinants of export performance. In this paper we studied the relationship between these three constructs.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis

2.1. The Resource Based View (RBV)

The origins of the resource-based view (RBV) can be traced back to Penrose (1959) who points to the fact that a firm is a collection of physical, human and intangible resources, which are deployed by administrative decisions. RBV defines organization as a collection of unique resources and capabilities which provide the basis for its competitive strategies which in turn define about the performance of the firm. According to classical strategy models like Porter's (1980) Five Forces Model, it is argued that firm’s performance depends critically on the characteristics of the industry environment in which it competes, on the contrary to this classical view, RBV adopts the

http://www.1000ventures.com/products/bec_mc_market_leaders.html

view that; differences in firms'

performances are driven primarily by their unique resources and capabilities rather than by an industry's structural characteristics. Most of these classical strategy models do not attempt to look inside the company and do not consider the internal factors of the firms. These paradigms cannot answer the question of “why different firms in the same industry perform differently?” Many empirical researches found performance differences, between firms in the same industry (Cubbin 1988; Hansen and Wernerfelt 1989; Cool and Schendel 1988; Lewis and Thomas 1990). Further, it has been observed that some firms perform badly in attractive industries while other firms do well in declining industries. Notably, the RBV emerged very much as a critical response to these criticisms. It directed attention on firm-specific resources and its implications for firm performance (Conner, 1991; Rumelt, 1984). Management literature highlighted examples and cases of where companies with particular skills and capabilities were able to out-perform their rivals (Coyne 1986; Ghemawat 1986; Grant 1991; Hall 1989; and Williams 1992). Firm resources are the stocks of available tangible or intangible factors and they are inputs into a firm's production process, such as capital, equipment, the skills of individual employees, patents, finance, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes, knowledge, talented managers and etc that are controlled by the firm that enable the firm to design and apply value-enhancing strategies and improve its efficiency (Penrose, 1959; Daft, 1983). In practice the RBV pushes firm's management to deal with an important task of identifying, developing and deploying key resources to maximise returns.

2.2. Intangible Resources and Exporting of SMEs

Inadequacy of resources for exporting may become internal export barriers intrinsic to the firm (Collis, 1991; Tallman, 1991). For example; problems regarding to meeting export market quality standards and establishing the suitable design and image for the export market (Kaynak and Kothatri, 1984); insufficient information about export markets (Lefebvre and Lefebvre, 2001); poor organisation of export departments and non-qualified personnel to administer exporting activities (Yang et al., 1992); constitute internal issues that influence export performance. Possession of these resources enables an exporter to identify opportunities in the export market, develop appropriate export marketing strategy and execute it effectively to yield better export performance. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are often constrained by scarce financial, managerial, and technological resources, lack of established brands and innovative products (Aulakh et al, 2000) lack of the experience, skills, and knowledge needed on international markets (Bell, Murray, and Madden, 1992; Dhanaraj, Beamish 2003). It is evident that these limited resources seem to frustrate the efforts of SMEs to export (Buckley, 1989; Fujita, 1998). There are many types of resources have appeared in the literature and small firms may face difficulties to identify the critical resources needed for exporting (Barney, 1991). For example Grant (1995) classified resources into three types, they are Financial Resources (e.g., firms borrowing capacity), Intangible Resources (e.g., brand names), and Tangible Resources (e.g., physical plant capacity). Elango (2000) expands it, to include: intangible, physical, financial, operational, and economic resources possessed by the firm. In many studies it is approved that; intangible resources and capabilities have the advantage creating characteristics (e.g. Hall, 1993; Barney and Wright, 1998; Smart and Wolfe, 2000). Similarly Clulow, Barry, Gerstman (2003), found that intangible assets (client trust, reputation, networks and intellectual property) and capabilities (knowledge, organizational culture, skills and experience) were very valuable as they are developed over time, unique to the company and so complex resources resulting in inimitability therefore it represents competitive advantage for a firm (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). Due to the discussion above in this paper we selected Intangible Resources and Capabilities to analyse the export performance of SMEs. As the name implies

(3)

capabilities are not tangible it is again kind of intangible resource to firm. So we use name intangible resources to cover also capabilities, and our first hypothesis is that:

H1: Intangible resources are positively related to company’s export performance

.

2.3. Types of Intangible Resources (IR)

In this paper we subdivide intangible resources into three categories, which are intellectual property assets, managerial assets and network assets.

2.3.1 Intellectual Property Assets (IPA)

Intellectual Property Assets refer to resources like intellectual property such as trademarks, patents, reputable brand names, quality systems, company reputation, and etc, (Chatterjee and Wernerfelt, 1991; Hall 1992; Williams 1992). In this research we select Legally Protected Rights (patents, trademarks and etc), Quality Focus and Brands as Intellectual Property Assets. Montobbio and Rampa (2005) tabulated annual growth rate of patents and export shares to world total and found that export growth increases with number of patents. Yang and Maskus (2009) and Yang and Huang (2009) found that stronger intellectual property rights would have positive impact on export performance in Taiwan. Quality Focus implies a system which induces firms for creating superior offerings, prompting enhanced customer satisfaction and leading to increased customer loyalty and improved performance (Buzzell and Gale, 1987). To attain quality focus companies establish quality systems like ISO, TQM and etc to assure standard quality level in their products and services, through these systems they follow up the minimum quality standards required for their products and improve their quality accordingly. Emprical researches also support the adoption of quality focus to have better export performance; Figueiredo and Almeida (1988) and Cardoso (1980) bring proofs from Brazil that; poor quality control techniques affect export performance negatively. Czubala, Shepherdband Wilson(2009)find robust evidence that non-harmonised standards with international standards reduce African exports of these products. Brands are also very important company resources. Exporters who face the poor reputation of their brand may end up with poor export performance (Cardoso, 1980; Gereffi 1992). Mohy-ud-Din et al. (1997) reported that the Pakistan yarn manufacturers have lost market share in virtually all their major markets due to image problems. Gereffi (1992) found that, lack of own internationally recognised brand names affect export performance negatively. Based on the above discussions regarding to Intellectual Property Assets, it may be proposed that:

H1: Company’s intellectual property assets are positively related to company’s export performance.

2.3.2. Managerial Assets

Managerial Resources are widely accepted as the main variables in SMEs’ exporting (Miesenbock, 1988). Adams and

Hall (1993) studied 1132 SMEs across Europe and they find out that personal factors were to be most important

factors in export performance. In this research Managers’ International Experience, Managers’ Export Commitment, Managers’ Risk Handling and Innovativeness of the Manager are selected as managerial resources. Filatotchev, Liu, Buck and Wright (2009) proved that export performance depend very much on managers' international experience. Eusebio, Andreu and Belbeze (2007) found that international experience is the main factor in the export performance of the Italian businesses. Wolff and Pett (2000) agree that management experience is a critical resource in the exporting of small firms. With the word managers' export commitment we mean the priority given to export. Aaby and Slater, (1989) found that export performance tends to be higher where management is committed firmly to exporting. Mohammed, Ali and Ramayah (2009) found that export commitment have significant impact on export performance. For Innovativeness of the Manager; Guan and Ma (2002) found that; export growth is closely related to innovation capability. Lages, Silva and Styles (2009) ‘s findings reveal that product innovation play a greater role in enhancing export performance. Nguyen, Pham, Nguyen and Nguyen (2008) found that innovativeness of Vietnamese SMEs enhances their likelihood of exporting. Some researchers have supported the positive effect of R&D intensity on export performance (Gemunden 1991; McGuinness and Little 1981; Eusebio, Andreu and Belbeze 2007). Finally in this

research it is assumed that Managers’ Risk Handling chracteristics have positive impact on export performance. Aaby,

and Slater (1989) found that export performance tends to be higher where management has the willingness to take risks. Based on the above discussions about managerial resources lead us to propose that:

H1.2: Managerial resources are positively related to company’s export performance.

2.3.3. Network Assets

Johanson and Mattsson (1993) define international business as the “process of developing networks of business relationships in other countries. Johanson and Vahlne (1990) emphasize the importance of network resources that is relationships to others like customers, suppliers, competitors and etc. on the export performance. Anderson (1995)

(4)

found that networks can positively affect a firms’ degree export performance. Filatotchev, Liu, Buck and Wright (2009) found out that export performance has close relationship with founder's global networks. In this research we select three network assets, they are: Export Customer Orientation (ECO), Ability to Monitor Competitors (AMC), Being a Member of Business group or alliance (BMB). Export Customer Orientation is the set of beliefs in export that says that customer needs and satisfaction are the priority of an organization (Wikipedia, 2010). In general, this view indicates that market orientation has a positive linear relationship with business success. For example Miocevic and Crnjak-Karanovic (2009) conducted a psychometric analysis of export market orientation of Croatian SME exporters, and their results clearly indicate the necessity of pursuing export market orientation in order to achieve a high level of export performance. As a final word we argue just like Ogbeuhi and Longfellow (1994) that export market failure often results from poor market analysis, absence of product market match, ineffective distribution and lack of management planning which can be cured by customer orientation approach. Ability to monitor competitors is one of the distinguishing Manager’s capability by which they understand competition and act accordingly. From the domestic competition point of view, many studies have suggested that there is a positive relationship between intense domestic market competition and greater international involvement (Reid, 1984; Sullivan and Bauerschmidt, 1988; Jaffe and Pasternak, 1994 and etc.) so as to escape from the threat of intensified competition at home. Also fierce competition and/or aggressive competitors in export market negatively affect export intention and export performance (Cardoso, 1980; Fluery, 1986, Hasan, 1998). Business Group is typically a cluster of legally distinct firms with a managerial relationship (Khanna & Yafeh, 2005). Gemser, Maryse and Sorge (2004) findings provide support for the notion that being a member of business group may provide an opportunity for companies to share each other’s resources, which increases the exporting. Also, SMEs could attain legitimacy and reputation by joining to a business group, which facilitates SMEs entry into foreign markets (Khanna and Rivkin, 2001). According to above discussions about network resources we may hypothesise H1.3 and under the logic of parsimony we may further hypothesise H1.4;

H1.3: Network resources are positively related to company’s export performance.

H1.4: Combination of intangible resources make more contribution than the individual intangible resources on export performance.

2.4. Competitive Export Strategies

Madsen (1994) argued that export marketing strategy is the most important explanatory variable in relation to overall export performance. Shoham et al. (2002) and Thirkell and Dau (1998) also provide additional support for the importance of export marketing strategy on export performance. Strategy researches in export literature are generally limited to entry modes. However competitive strategy is more than selection of suitable entry modes; it shows how a firm competes. When we fix the entry mode with exporting one must say additional strategies that allow the firm to compete effectively with its competitors. Porter's Generic Competitive Strategies are the basis for much of modern business strategy and generally the proposed strategies in the literature are a version of Porter’s generic business strategies. Chaganti, Chaganti and Mahajan (1989) supported the contention that Porter's framework also applies to small businesses. By following Faulkner and Bowman (1992), in this paper we condensed Michael Porter's four generic strategies into two - low cost leadership and differentiation. In cost leadership, a firm sets out to become the low cost producer in its industry. The sources of cost advantage are varied. They may include the pursuit of economies of scale, proprietary technology, preferential access to raw materials and other factors. Some of the exporting strategies that fall in cost strategy are as follows: competitive pricing (Namiki,1988), global strategy where firms utilize standardized products, processes, and marketing approaches that seek to exploit efficiency (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1987), enhancing competitiveness through changes in the price and quality of the product Kalantaridis (2004). In a differentiation strategy a firm seeks to be unique in its industry along some dimensions which are widely valued by buyers and perceived to be better or different from the competition. It is rewarded for its uniqueness with a premium price (Porter, 1980), this strategy can allow small firms to minimize harmful interaction with competitors, giving rise to export performance. Man and Wafa (2009) found a significant relationship between differentiation strategy type and export performance of SMEs. Vargas and Tagle Rangel (2007) found that SMEs whose explicit business strategy emphasizes innovation and knowledge creation which are the basis for differentiation strategy have been able to successfully participate in global contexts. Chetty, et al. (2003) find out that in five of the six firms, the development of a product innovation with global potential was the spur to the firm's rapid globalisation. So, we hypothesise that;

H2.1: Differentiation strategy makes more contribution than cost leadership strategy on export performance.

Both differentiation and cost leadership strategies in themselves appear to be sensible, logical, and coherent, highlighting the advantages and benefits that a company could gain by using either approach. Note that, marketing directors and managers are not making one-time one-off choices. A more common approach is to differentiate where possible and reduce the cost where necessary. Unlike Porter, Faulkner and Bowman (1992) argue that it is false to choose between these two orientations, they advice to follow up both Cheaper and Better strategy which will gain sustainable competitive advantage. Chetty and Campbell-hunt (2003) argued that, firms must develop their strategies that are capable of capturing as many economies of scale as they can, while also supporting multiple product variants.

(5)

By this new, hybrid strategy companies do not rely on a single generic strategy, companies integrate the generic strategies and successfully pursuing the cost leadership and differentiation strategies simultaneously. Differentiation enables the company to charge premium prices and Cost leadership enables the company to charge the lowest competitive price. For example; Kim, Nam and Stimpert (2004) found that; integrated strategies will outperform cost leadership or differentiation strategies. Based on the above discussions we hypothesize that:

H.2.2: Combination of competitive export strategies makes more contribution than individual strategies on export performance.

2.5. Combination of Intangible Resources and Competitive Export Strategies

Resources in many ways could be a significant factor in influencing a firm's export strategy (Elango, 2000). The resource-based view provides the theoretical rationale for predicting firm strategy and its subsequent performance based on corporate resources (Mahoney and Pandian, 1992; Wernerfelt, 1989). Namiki (1988)’s analysis suggests that small firms do use different competitive patterns of export activity and that these patterns are consistent with their resource base. Similarly Chandler and Hanks (1994), found that the “fit” between strategies and resource-based capabilities are positively related to venture performance. Ortega, and Villaverde (2008), show how the competitive strategy and resource-based view complement each other in a coherent model. In similar vein in this paper it is argued that when the corporate has adequate resources and with the proper application of strategies, should lead to improved export performance. Regarding to this discussion we have last two hypotheses:

H.3: Combination of intangible resources and competitive export strategies make more contribution than individual intangible resources and competitive strategies on export performance.

H.4: Intangible resources make more contribution than competitive export strategies on export performance. 2.6. Model Development

This paper draws upon the relevant literature in exporting, resource based view, competitive export strategies and export performance and builds specific concepts within an integrated model. This model integrates the intangible resources and competitive export strategies which are effective on overcoming exporting barriers, facilitate the exporting and results in a better export performance. The integration of them is necessary because traditionally they are examined as individually and none of them alone sufficient enough to explain the export process of SMEs. This model was designed as a research tool which enables us to develop a more holistic and integrated understanding of the necessary resources and competitive export strategies that defines about their export performance. The research model and corresponding hypotheses to be investigated in this study is represented in figure 1.

Figure 1. The model: The effect of firm resources and competitive strategies on export performance of SMEs. 3. Methodology

3.1. Research Goal

In this research we aim to identify the effect of intangible resources and competitive strategies on the export performance of small and medium sized manufacturing enterprises through the the model represented in figure 1. To test the propositions, a field survey using questionnaires was conducted.

(6)

The population is small and medium sized manufacturing enterprises (SMEs) from Turkey which are defined themselves as exporter and registered to IGEME’s (The Center of Export Development) website. The term SME was defined according to EU norms; a firm, which has 1 to 10 employee and 2 million euro of turnover per year, are called as micro firms. A firm, which has 11 to 50 employee and at most 10 million euro of turnover per year, are called as small firms. And a firm, which has 51 to 250 employee and at most 50 million euro of turnover per year, are called as medium firms (Yonar, 2007). The study sample was drawn from a list of registered exporter from Turkish IGEME’s website. The list composed manufacturing firms from four main sectors. Metal (metal, metal products, machine and auto parts), Textile (textile and confection), Chemical and Furniture industries were selected to conduct this study. According to data obtained from State Statistics Institute (SSI) the total export volume of all these sectors are around 51 billion US dollar, which makes 50 % of total export volume of Turkey in 2009. The questionnaire was sent to this list. The owners and/or top managers of the firms are requested to fill the survey. To increase the response rate, a follow up telephone call place to recipients and a second mailing of the questionnaire were used. The mail survey was sent to 1415 companies. We received 313 responds. Considering the research criteria, 271 of them were used for further analysis. The final number of cases used in this paper represents a response rate of 22 % of the original targeted population. Data obtained from those 271 questionnaires were analyzed through the SPSS statistical packet program and the proposed relations were tested through regression analyses.

3.2. Analysis and Results

Genarally the measurement scales were derived from previous studies. To measure Export Commitment we used the scale from Cadogan et al (2001). Risk Taking Behavior and Quality Focus scales are adopted from Buzzell and Gale (1987), Innovativeness and International Experience scales are adopted from Cadogan et al (2001), Export Customer Orientation Scale and Ability to Monitor Competitors scales are adopted from Kohli and Jaworsky (1993), Competitive Export Strategies scale is adopted from Frambach et al (2003) and Young (2005) and finally Perceived Export Performance scale is adopted from Cadogan et al (2002). To measure the Brands, Legally Protected Rights and Being a Member of Business Group we developed our own scales. Overall, 65 items using 5 point likert-type scales are used to analyse the effect of these intangible resources and competitive export strategies on perceived export performance. To determine the underlying factors and construct validity all variables were subjected to factor analysis using Principal Component Analysis. When we examine the “Intellectual Property Assets” (see Table 1) we realised that it resulted in two factors explaining 80,703 % of the total variance. The Kaiser- Meyer Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was found out as 0,868 with 0,000 significance. For the first factor “Legally Protected Rights” the Cronbach’s Alpha is found out to be 0,922 and for the “Quality Focus” it is 0,955. These results indicate that the scales used to measure “Intellectual Property Assets” revealed two clean factors with high levels of reliability and validity. We applied factorial analysis and reliability tests for “Managerial Assets” (MA), “Network Assets” (NA), and “Competitive Export Strategies” (CES) and “Perceived Export Performance (PEP) with the same procedures. The results are summarized in the tables below.

Table 1 Factor Analysis Results (Intellectual Property Assets)

KMO 0,868 Sig. 0,000

Lable Item LPR Quality

Legally Protected Assets (6 items)(alpha=0,922)

LPR1 We always get patents or industrial design rights to our new developments. 0,884 0,021

LPR2 We always get trademarks when our products get its brand name. 0,843 -0,032

BR1 We continuously invest to strengthen our brands. 0,843 0,285

LPR3 Getting patents, industrial design rights, trademarks and other legal rights is one of our important strategies

to improve our export performance. 0,819 0,416

BR2 Investing to our brands is one of our important strategy to improve our export performance. 0,786 0,400

BR3 Our brands are quite strong in our export markets. 0,654 0,548

Quality Focus (5 items) (alpha=0,955)

Quality3 The performance of a product truly meets the expectations of customers in export market. -0,108 0,914 Quality1 Emphasizing quality customer service is important our firm's strategy in export markets. 0,239 0,911 Quality2 Emphasizing product quality is important our firm's strategy in export markets. 0,251 0,908 Quality5 For us success in export market is driven by truly satisfying the needs of our customers there. 0,069 0,897 Quality4 To increase export we continuously invest for quality systems to standardise our product and service

quality. 0,295 0,850

% of explained variance 80,703 Table 2. Factor Analysis Results (Managerial Assets)

KMO 0,903 Sig. 0,000

Lable Item CE RH Inno

Committed Experience (9 items)(alpha=0,972)

Comm2 We intend to increase the company's exporting activities. 0,944 0,091 0,033

Comm3 We actively explore international market opportunities. 0,932 0,075 0,078

Exp4 We have enough experience and capability to succeed in export markets and we always share it

with our employees. 0,928 0,063 0,113

Exp1 We have adequate amount of experience knowledge about our export markets. We are aware of

(7)

Comm1 We consider our exporting activities to be important. 0,909 0,017 -0,045 Exp2 We have a systematic approach for export markets which was developed over years. 0,881 0,184 0,247 Exp3 We get many courses about exporting and/or international business in the past. 0,857 0,124 0,289 Comm4 We spend a lot of time in planning international operations. 0,806 0,351 0,065 Exp5 We frequently visit out export markets to observe the changing trends and demands. 0,777 0,211 0,279 Risk Handling (7 items) (alpha=0,882)

Risk6 We like to implement plans only if they are very certain that they will work. 0,201 0,886 0,198

Risk5 We like to "play it safe." 0,186 0,886 0,098

Risk3 In this company we do not like to take big financial risks. 0,132 0,822 0,177 Risk2 We do not accept occasional new product failures as being normal. 0,087 0,798 -0,045 Risk4 We encourage the development of innovative marketing strategies, knowing well that some will

fail. 0,185 0,668 0,304

Inno3 We prefer to adapt for our use methods and techniques that others have developed and proven. 0,021 0,635 -0,135 Risk1 We believe that higher financial risks are worth taking for higher rewards. 0,066 0,581 0,435 Innovativeness (4 items) (alpha=0,832)

Inno2 We favour experimentation and original approaches to problem solving. 0,032 0,043 0,866 Inno1 We favour a strong emphasis on R&D, technological leadership and innovations. 0,202 0,058 0,862 Inno5 In the last five years my firm marketed very many new lines or products or services. 0,115 0,171 0,791

Inno4 We always spare budget for R&D activities. 0,257 0,114 0,771

% of explained variance 75,324 Table 3 Factor Analysis Results (Network Assets)

KMO 0,842 Sig. 0,000

Lable Item CO AMC BMB

Export Customer Orientation (6 items)(alpha=0,936)

CO5 Product development activities in this company are driven by the needs of our customers. 0,933 0,093 0,021 CO4 When we find customers are unhappy with the quality of our products or services we take

corrective actions immediately. 0,931 0,106 -0,017

CO6 Top managers keep telling people around here that they must gear up now to meet customers'

future needs. 0,849 0,331 -0,039

CO1 In this company we regularly meet with international customers to what products or services they

will need in the future. 0,787 0,400 -0,102

CO3 When something important happens to a major customer or market the whole company knows

about it in a short period. 0,781 0,280 -0,135

BMB5 We have distributor in foreign markets that we are exporting. 0,663 0,456 0,028 Ability to Monitor Competitors (3 items) (alpha=0,848)

AMC1 We respond rapidly to competitive actions that threaten us. -0,106 0,910 -0,67 AMC3 In this company we tell employees to be sensitive to the activities of our competitors. -,100 0,899 0,109 AMC4 We always monitor our competitors and adapt their successful actions and escape from their

unsuccessful actions. -0,051 0,793 0,171

Being a Member of Business Group (3 items) (alpha= 0,869)

BMB1 We establish good relations with our competitors. 0,243 0,008 0,884

BMB3 We have contracted relations with some other firms. 0,505 0,032 0,788

BMB2 We establish good relations with our suppliers. 0,212 0,346 0,759

% of explained variance 79,397 Table 4. Factor Analysis Results (Competitive Export Strategies)

KMO 0,903 Sig. 0,000

Lable Item Diff CL

Differentiation (5 items)(alpha=0,964)

Diff5 Our organization distinguishes itself from competition by the quality of its products. 0,943 -0,236

Diff1 Our firm is always the first to market new products. 0,940 -0,232

Diff2 Relative to competition, our firm is always ahead in technological innovations. 0,924 -0,193 Diff3 Research and development of new products is very important within our firm. 0,913 -0,226 Diff4 My company attempts to differentiate itself by providing customers with differentiated or unique products. 0,887 0,026 Cost Leadership (4 items) (alpha=0,833)

CL5 My company focused on being a low cost producer through tight controls, efficient use of resources, and

overhead minimization with the primary goal of being to increase productivity. -0,122 0,893 CL2 In our organization, the production process changes all time with the goal of constantly reducing production

cost. -0,285 0,842

CL1 Our organization emphasizes cost reduction in all its business activities. -0,394 0,755 CL3 Our organization invests mainly in large projects to realize economies of scale. 0,039 0,709

% of explained variance 80,881

Table 5. Factor Analysis Results (Perceived Export Performance)

KMO 0,887 Sig. 0,000

Lable Item PER

Export Performance (6 items)(alpha=0,970)

PER1 We are satisfied with the export sales growth relative to major competitors in the last three years.

Only one component was

extracted. The solution cannot be

rotated. PER2 We are satisfied with the export profit growth relative to major competitors in the last three years.

PER3 Export sales significantly contribute to our total turnover growth in the last three years. PER4 We are satisfied from our export considering its sales volume and profit.

PER5 Our export customers always like to work with us. PER6 Our export customers always advice our firm to others.

(8)

% of explained variance 100

After the factor and reliability analysis we revised research model. Briefly the differences are as follows: “Intellectual Property Assets” revealed two clean factors with high levels of reliability and validity instead of three. The previous constructs “Brands” and “Legally Protected Rights” comes out to be single construct (factor) and we called this new factor as again “Legally Protected Rights”. “Managerial Assets” revealed three factors. The previous constructs “Export Commitment” and “International Experience” comes out to be single construct (factor) and we called this new factor as “Export Committed Experience”. See figure 2 for the revised model.

Figure 2. The model: The effect of firm resources and competitive strategies on export performance of SMEs.

In this study we have 9 hypotheses to test them regression analysis is conducted. When we examined the table 6 the significance of RISK is 0,313 which is higher than 0,05. Except RISK, all intangible resources have individually significant contribution on export performance, with high explanation powers (R2). Therefore our hypotheses H

1, H1,1,

H1,2, and H1,3 are supported.Following hierarchical regression analysis (see table 7) we also realised that the R2 for IPA

is 0,610, then we put IPA and MA in the same equation, the related R2 comes out to be 0,829, which is higher than R2

of individual variables. When we put IPA, MA and NA in the same equation, the related R2 comes out to be 0,835,

which is higher than R2 of individual variables. These results suggest that combination of Intangible Resources make

more contribution on export performance than individual intangible resources. From the table 6 also we understand that both “Differentiation (Diff)” and “Cost Leadership (CL)” strategy have statistically significant impact on “Export Performance”. R2 for “Cost Leadership” strategy is bigger than “Differentiation” strategy which means that “Cost

Leadership” strategy has more contribution on Export Performance, therefore hypothesis 2,1 is not supported. R2 of

multiple regression where we put both strategies in the equation comes out to be 0,217 so we can conclude that combination of both strategies make more contribution on export performance. Therefore Hypothesis 2,2 is supported. From the results we also realised that R2for “Intangible Resources” (0,835) is bigger than that of “Competitive Export

Strategies” (0,217) which means that “Intangible Resources” has more contribution on “Export Performance”. Therefore Hypothesis 4 is supported. Additionally from hierarchical regression analysis (Table 7), the R2 of

combination of IR and CES comes out to be higher than R2 of individual variables. That means combination of IR and

CES make more contribution on PER than individual IR and CES. Therefore Hypothesis 3 is supported. Table 6: Regression Analysis Results of the Effect of Intangible Resources and Competitive Export Strategies on the Export Performance

Regression Model Independent Variable

Dependent Variable R2 B t value ρ value VIF CD CI

Intellectual Property Assets (IPA) LPR PERFORMANCE 0,678 0,316 7,838 0,000 * 1,354 58 7,348 QUALITY 0,616 15,290 0,000* 1,1354 7,648 Managerial Assets (MA) COMEX PERFORMANCE 0,826 0,870 30,663 0,000* 1,233 131 6,650 RISK 0,040 1,012 0,313 1,190 7,049 INNO 0,096 2,450 0,015* 1,232 11,389 Network Assets (NA) CO PERFORMANCE 0,688 0,740 16,231 0,000* 1,763 96 7,140 AMC -0,115 -3,207 0,002* 1,096 BMB 0,112 2,444 0,015* 1,799 9,795

Differentiation Str. DIFF PERFORMANCE 0,019 0,135 2,282 0,023* 1,000 27 5,184

Cost Leadership Str. CL PERFORMANCE 0,114 0,338 5,900 0,000* 1,000 58 7,628

Competitive Export Strategies DIFF PERFORMANCE 0,217 0,358 5,943 0,000 * 1,508 81 4,177 CL 0,497 8,250 0,000* 1,508 7,678

Table 7: Regression Analysis Results of the Effect of Intangible Resources and Competitive Export Strategies on the Export Performance

Hiararchical Regression Model Dependent Variable R R2 R2 Change F Change ρ value

a. Predictors: (Costant), LPR, Quality

PERFORMANCE

0,825a 0,681 184,691 0,000*

b. Predictors: (Costant), LPR, Quality, Risk, Inno, Comex

0,912b 0,829 0,1480 78,966

0,000* c. Predictors: (Costant), LPR, Quality, 0,916c 0,835 0,1540 4,303 0,006*

(9)

Risk, Inno, Comex, CO, AMC, BMB a. Predictors: (Costant), IR

PERFORMANCE

0,916a 0,835 170,869 0,000*

b. Predictors: (Costant), IR and CES 0,921b 0,843 0,008 7,730

0,01*

LPR: Legally Protected Rights, QUALITY: Quality Focus, COMEX: Committed Experience, RISK: Risk Handling, INNO: Innovativeness, CO: Customer (Export) Orientation, BMB: Being a Member of Business Group, AMC: Ability to Monitor Competitors, IR: Intangible Resources, CES: Competitive Export Strategeis, *Significant at 0,05

The Model Equation: PER = -0,711+ 0,748COMEX+ 0,173CO + 0,135LPR - 0,116QUALITY + 0,088CL According to multiple regression results (see table 8) the variables “Innovativeness”, “Risk Handling” “Ability to Monitor Competitors”, “Being a Member of Business Group”, and “Differentiation” strategy are excluded from the model equation as they have statistically insignificant constants. The R2 of final regression model is 0,849 so the model

equation has very high explanation power with a statistically high significance. The model equation is as follows. As it can be seen from the equation the biggest contribution on PER comes from “Export Committed Experience” (COMEX). It’s constant (0,748) which is significantly higher than that of other variables. Second important one is “Export Customer Orientation” (CO) with the coefficient of 0,173. Interestingly it is found that PER decreases with “Quality Focus” (QUALITY). And finally "Cost Leadership" (CL) has very little effect on PER.

Table 8 Multiple Regression Output of All Independent and Dependent Variables

Regression Model Independent Variable

Dependent Variable R2 B t value ρ value VIF

Multiple Regression Output of All Independent and Dependent Variables CONSTANT EXPORT PERFORMANCE (PER) 0,849 -0,711 -3,863 0,000* QUALITY 0,116 -2,131 0,034* 5,035 LPR 0,135 4,337 0,000* 1,646 CO 0,173 3,192 0,002* 4,967 COMEX 0,748 13,139 0,000* 5,547 CL 0,088 3,337 0,001* 1,172 *Significant at 0.05 Level 4. Conclusion

This paper provides an explanation for export process of SMEs from resource-based perspective. On the contrary to large firms, SMEs usually have limited resources, which restrain them to have a domestic focus and stay within their national boundaries. Therefore Aulakh et al. (2000) argued that many models developed based on large firms in the literature are not good fit for SMEs’ export business. In order to make a contribution to this deficiency the author of this paper proposed a model which explains the critical intangible resources and important competitive export strategies that influence export performance of small and medium-sized enterprises. According to regression analysis we found that eight out of nine hypotheses were supported. Only our hypothesis H2.1 that is; “Differentiation strategy

makes more contribution than Cost Leadership strategy on export performance” was not supported and “Cost Leadership” strategy comes out to have more contribution on perceived export performance. The results indicate that all the intangible resources (IPA, MA, and NA) and competitive export strategies (CES) play an important role on perceived export performance and intangible resources make more contribution than competitive export. Combination of intangible resources makes more contribution than the individual intangible resources on perceived export performance. On the contrary to Porter 's (1980) argument, our results showed that combination of competitive export strategies makes more contribution than individual strategies on export performance. In sum we may conclude that; companies which hold or gather these intangible resources and apply both differentiation and cost leadership strategy at the same time most probably reach its best export performance. In the final regression equation, we obtained very high explanation power with the R2 of 0,849. As it can be seen from the equation the biggest contribution on Perceived

Export Performance” comes from “Export Committed Experience” with the coefficient of 0,748. This result strongly concludes that highly export committed firms with sufficient export experience will most probably succeed in exporting. The coefficient of “Quality Focus” comes out to be -0,116, which means that “Export Performance” decreases with “Quality Focus”. This result seems illogical and not confers with the previous researches. In our research “Cost Leadership” strategy comes out to have more contribution on perceived export performance. Therefore we may conclude that overemphasizing quality may be perceived by Turkish SMEs as increasing the cost and which result in low export performance.

This study and the developed export model for SMEs have important contributions to the world academy, companies and governments. From academic perspective this study brings additional steps for the theory development on the theory of export process of SMEs. As difference to previous studies intangible resources and competitive export strategies are integrated in the same setting and investigate their link to export performance. In international business literature researches about the link between competitive strategy and export performance is very rare and generally the market entry modes are accepted as strategy, our study contributes additional knowledge to this defficiency. Network

(10)

Resources are also included into the model, which is generally lacking in the literature. The proposed model and findings are also very helpful for the SMEs managers, and the government export officers. SME owners and/or managers may use the proposed model to their firms and pay particular attention to develope these intangible resources to improve their export performance.

There may be some limitations to this study. First, the questionnaires were being sent to managers of the exporters from the list obtained from IGEME's website so self-selection bias may exist because the randomness of the respondent firms cannot be assured. Second limitation may arouse from measurement scales as the scales were obtained from literature which are English in language, they were translated into Turkish. These translated questions may be perceived as different by the respondents. In order to generalize the results further researches needed. Future studies might consider conducting a cross national study or focus on firms from other sectors. It is possible to re-evaluate the literature to find other critical resources or competitive export strategies or find other appropriate scales. In this research intangible resources and competitive export strategies are used as independent variable, another research may be designed as assigning one of them as moderator or mediator variable to other.

5. References

Aaby, N.-E. and Slater, S.F. (1989, "Management influences on export performance: a review of the empirical literature 1978-88", International Marketing Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 7-26.

Anderson, P.H. (1995). Collaborative Internationalization of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Copenhagen: DJOF Publishing.

Aulakh, P.S., Kotabe, M., & Teegen, H. (2000). Export strategies and performance of firms from emerging economies: evidence from Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 342-361.

Barney, J.B. (1991). "Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage," Journal of Management 17(1), 99-120.

Barney, J.B. And Wright, P.M. (1998). "On becoming a strategic partner: the role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage", Human Resource Management, Vol.37 No.1, pp.31-46

Barringer BR, Greening DW (1998) Small business growth through internationalization: A comparative case study. J Bus Vent 13:467–492 Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1987). Managing across borders: New strategic requirements. Sloan Management Review, Summer, 717. Bell, J., Murray, M., & Madden, K. (1992). Developing expertise: An Irish perspective. International Small Business Journal, 10 (2), 37-53. Buckley, P.J. (1989), "Foreign Direct Investment by Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: The Theoretical Background," Small Business

Economics, 1 (1), 89-100.

Buzzell, R. and Gale, B. (1987) The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance, The Free Press: New York.

Cadogan,J.W., Paul,N.J, Salmienen, R.T., Pumalainen,K. and Sundgvist, S.(2002),"Key antecedents to export behaviors:Their antecedents and performance concequences",Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.33(3),pp.615-628

Cadogan,J.W., Paul,N.J, Salmienen, R.T., Pumalainen,K. and Sundgvist, S. (2001), "Key antecedents to export behaviors:A cross national emprical examination",International Journal in marketing, vol.18 (3), pp.261-282

Chatterjee,S. And Wernerfelt, B. (1991) the link between resources and type of diversification:Theory and evidence. Strategic Management Journal,12.33-48

Chetty,S., Campbell-Hunt, C. (2003), "Paths to internationalisation among small- to medium-sized firms: A global versus regional approach" European Journal of Marketing. Bradford: Vol. 37, Iss. 5/6; pg. 796, 27 pgs

Clulow , V., Gerstman, J.and Barry ,C. (2003), "The resource-based view and sustainable competitive advantage:the case of a financial services firm", Journal of European Industrial Training , Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 220-32

Collis, D.J. (1991) 'A resource-based analysis of global competition', Strategic Management Journal 12(Summer, Special Issue): 49-68.

Conner, K. (1991), “A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: do we have a new theory of the firm?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 121-54.

Cool, K. and Schendel, D. (1988) "Performance differences among strategic group members."Strategic Management Journal.9 (May-June):207-233 Coyne, K.P. (1986) ."Sustainable copetitive advantage-What it is and what it isn't." Business Horizons. 29 (January-February):54-61

Cubbin J. (1988). " Is it better to weak firm in a strong industry or a strong firm in weak industry? ." London :London Business School , Center for Business Starategy. No: 49

Czubala, W., Shepherdb, B. and Wilson J.S.( Nov 2009) ," Help or Hindrance?The Impact of Harmonised Standarts on African Exports", Journal of American Economies, Oxford , Vol.18, Iss.5;pg.711

Daft, R. (1983) Organization theory and design.Newyork : West Publishing

Eusebio, R., Andreu, J.L. and Belbeze, M.P.L. (2007), "Internal key factors in export performance: A comparative analysis in the Italien and Spanish textile-clothing sector (part 1)",Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol.11, No.1,2007 pp.9-23

Filatotchev, I., Liu X., Buck T. and Wright, M. (Aug 2009) , " The export orientation and export performance of high-technology SMEs in emerging markets: The effects of knowledge transfer by returnee entreepreneurs", Journal of International Business Stud

Frambach,R.T. and Prabhu.Verhallen,T.M.M. (2003),"The influence of business strategy on new product activity:the role market orientation",International Journal of research in Marketing, Vol.20,pp.377-397

Fujita, M.(1998), "The Transnational Activities of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises", Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher

Gemunden, H.G. (1991). "Success Factors of Export Marketing: A Meta-Analytic Critique of the Empirical Studies," in New Perspectives on International Marketing. Ed. S.J. Paliwoda. London: Routledge, 33-62.

Ghemawat ,P.1986."Sustainable advantage." Harvard Business Review. 64 (September-October):53-58

Grant, R.M. (1991), “A resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-35.

Grant, R.M. (1995) . Contemprory strategy analysis:concepts, techniques, applications. Cambridge, MA :Blackwell

Guan, J, and Ma, N. ( 2002) ,"Innovative capabilty and export performance of Chinese firms", School of Management , beijing University of Aeronautics and astronautics, Beijing 100083, People's Republic of China,

(11)

Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 144-153.

Hall, R. (1993). "A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage", Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 14,pp. 607-18

Hansen, G.S. and Wernerfelt , B. (1989). " Determinants of firm performance :The reltive importance of ecoenomic and organizational factors." Strategic Management Journal. 10 (September-October) :399-411

Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), "Market orientation: antecedents and consequences", Journal of MarketingVol. 57 July, pp. 53-70. Johanson J. & Mattsson, L. G.(1993). Internationalisation in Industrial Systems - a Network Approach, in Hood N./Vahlne J. E. (eds.), Strategies in

Global Competition, London: Croom Helm 1988, pp. 287-314.

Johanson, J. and J.-E. Vahlne (1990), "The Mechanism of Internationalization, " International Marketing Review, 7 (4), 11-24.

Kalantaridis, C. (2004), "Internationalization, Strategic Behavior, and the Small Firm: A Comparative Investigation", Journal of Small Business Management. Milwaukee: Jul 2004. Vol. 42, Iss. 3; pg. 245, 18 pgs

Kaynak, E. and Kothari, V. (1984), "Export behaviour of small and medium sized manufacturers: some policy guidelines for international marketers",Management International ReviewVol. 24 No. 2, pp. 61-9.

Keegan, W.S. and Green, M.S. (2000), Global Marketing, Second Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Khanna, T. & Rivkin, J.W. (2001). Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 45-74.

Khanna, T. & Yafeh,Y. (2005), Business Groups in Emergings Markets: Paragons or Parasites?

Lages L.F., Silva G. and Stlyles C. ( Dec 2009),"Reletionship Capabilties, Quality,and Innovation as Determinants of Export Performance", Journal of International Marketing, Vol., Iss.4; pg.47

Leonidou, L.C. (1994), "Empirical research of export stimuli: review and synpaper", Working Paper Department of Public and Business Administration, School of Economics and Management, University of Cyprus, Nicosia.

Lewis,P. And thomas, H, (1990). " The linkage between strategy, strategic groups and performance in the UK retail grocery industry." Strategic Management Journal. 11 (September) :385-397

Madsen, T.K. (1994), "A contingency approach to export performance research ", in Cavusgil ,S.T. Axinn, C. (Eds) , Advances in International Marketing, Vol.6, pp.25-42.

Mahoney ,J., & Pandian, R. (1992). The resource -based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,13:363-380

Man, M.M.K., and Wafa, S.A. (2009). "The relationship between innovativeness, strategy types, environment and the export performance of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) of Malaysian manufacturing sector," The Business Review, Vol.13, Num.2, Cambridge

McGuinness, N.W., and Little, B. (1981a). "The Influence of Product Characteristics on the Export Performance of New Industrial Products," Journal of Marketing 45(Spring), 110-122.

Miesenbock, K.J. (1988), "Small Business and Exporting: A Literature Review," International Small Business journal, (6) 2, 42-61. Namiki, N. (1988). "Export Strategy for Small Business," Journal of Small Business Management 26(2), 32-37.

Nguyen,A.N., Pham,N.Q.,Nguyen,C.D., Nguyen,N.D. (2008),"Innovation and exports in Vietnam's SME sector", The European Journal of Development Research,Vol.20,No:2,pp.262-280

Ogbeuhi, A.O. and Longfellow , T.A. (1994), "Perceptions of U.S manufacturing SME'sconcerning exporting. a comparison based on experience", Journal of Small Business management , Vol.32 No.4, pp.37-50

Penrose, E. (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Basil Blackwell: London.

Pleitner, J.H. (1997), “Globalization and entrepreneurship: entrepreneurs facing the ultimate challenge”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 27-55.

Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy, The Free Press: New York.

Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) 'The core competence of the corporation', Harvard Business Review 68(3): 79-91.

Reid, S.D. (1984), "Market expansion and firm internationalization", in Kaynak, E. (Ed.), International Marketing Management Praeger Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 197-206.

Rumelt, R.P. (1984) 'Towards a Strategic Theory of the Firm', in R.B. Lamb (ed.) Competitive Strategic Management, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. pp. 131-145.

Shoham, A., Evangelista , F. and Albaum ,G. (2002) , "Strategicfirm type and export performance ", International Marketing Review, Vol. 19 No.3, pp.236-58

Smart, D.L. And Wolfe, R.A. (2000), "Examining sustainable competetive advantage in intercollegiate athletics: a resource based view", Journal of Sport Management, Vol.14,pp.133-53

Styles,C. and Ambler, T (1994) , "Successful export practice:the UK experience", International Marketing Review ,Vol.11, No.6, pp.23-47 Sullivan, D. and Bauerschmidt, A. (1988), "Common factors underlying incentives to export: studies in the European forest products

industry",European Journal of MarketingVol. 22 No. 10, pp. 41-55.

Talman, S.B. (1991). Strategic management models and resource- based strategies among MNEs in a host market. Starategic Management Journal , 12 (Special Issue) :69-82

Terpstra, V. and Sarathy, R. (1997), International Marketing, Seventh Edition, Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.

Thirkell ,P.C. and Dau, R. 81998) , "Export performance success:determinants for New Zealand manufacturing exporters", European Journal of Marketing , Vol.32 Nos 9/10, pp.813-29

Wernerfelt, B. (1989)."Form critical resources to corporate strategy." Journal of General Management. 14 (Spring) :4-12 Williams, J.R. (1992). "How sustainable is your competitive advantage." California Management Review. 34 (Spring) :29-51 Wolff, J.A., Pett, T.L., (2000), "Internationalization of small firms: an examination of export competitive patterns, firm size, and export

performance", Journal of Small Business Management. Milwaukee: Vol. 38, Iss. 2; pg. 34, 14 pgs

Yang C.-H., Huang Y.-J (Oct 2009) ,"Do Intellectual Property Rigts Matter To Taiwan's Exports? A Dynamic Panel Approach", Pacific Economic Yang, L. and Maskus K.E.(Nov 2009) ,"Intellectual property rigts, technology transfer and exports in developing countries ", Journal of development

Economics,Amsterdam, Vol.90,Iss.2,pg.231

Young,B.R. (2005), "Factors influency export market orientation and export performance:An emprical investigation", PHD Theisis in Cleveland state Univercity,Retrieved from Proquest

Figure

Figure 1. The model: The effect of firm resources and competitive strategies on export performance of SMEs
Table 1 Factor Analysis Results (Intellectual Property Assets)
Table 5. Factor Analysis Results (Perceived Export Performance)
Table 6: Regression Analysis Results of the Effect of Intangible Resources and Competitive Export Strategies on the Export Performance  Regression Model  Independent
+2

References

Related documents

Multi-alignment of sequences: (A) Multialign of three sequence amplified for 16S rDNA mitochondrial gene for zebrafish species detection; this sequences showed all of

The aggregate matching function, M ( u, v ), represents the number of matches in a period when there are u unemployed workers and v vacancies has standard features; we

A surface area overlap model was developed to help us understand the factors controlling grain size and defects in

Aboriginal people of southern Queensland and northern New South Wales have special kinship with the Bunya tree, Bunya Bunya Gatherings and with Booburrgan Ngmmunge as outlined

[[8]] investigated the free vibration behaviors of axially loaded laminated composite beams having arbitrary lay -up using the dynamic stiffness method taking into

FUNCTIONAL HYPOSPLENIA IN CYANOTIC CONGENITAL HEART

Twenty-five percent of our respondents listed unilateral hearing loss as an indication for BAHA im- plantation, and only 17% routinely offered this treatment to children with

Methods: We trained four binary text classifiers (support vector machines, k-nearest neighbor, random forest, and elastic-net regularized generalized linear models) in combination