Case question

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tepn20

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development An International Journal

ISSN: 0898-5626 (Print) 1464-5114 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tepn20

International entrepreneurship and the small business

Denise Fletcher

To cite this article: Denise Fletcher (2004) International entrepreneurship and the small business, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16:4, 289-305, DOI: 10.1080/0898562042000263267

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0898562042000263267

Published online: 20 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1444

View related articles

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

International entrepreneurship and the small business

DENISE FLETCHER Nottingham Business School, The Nottingham Trent University, Burton

Street, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK; e-mail: [email protected]

The topic of ‘international entrepreneurship’ is becoming increasingly popular with researchers concerned with examining how international and entrepreneurial activities intersect when people in organizations engage in pro-active brokering and risk-taking behaviour in cross-border con- texts. Some caution is needed in over-generalizing the meaning and significance of international entrepreneurship – especially in relation to small businesses. Not all entrepreneurial risk-taking, brokering and opportunity-seeking activities lead to internationalization (as the statistics on small business international activities indicate). This might suggest then that the only truly internationally entrepreneurial firms are those that are ‘born global’. However, their entrepre- neurial activities are more ‘spatial’, concerned with what can be constructed again in relation to global markets rather than in relation to the local/regional context in which the business is located. For small firms that internationalize a few years after start-up (late starters), processes of international entrepreneurship are different. For ‘later starters’, international entrepreneur- ship is distinctive in that it is characterized by extending and modifying entrepreneurial under- standings and practices that have been socially constructed in relation to the local and regional context in which the small firm is located.

Keywords: small business; international entrepreneurship; opportunity enactment; creative envisioning; social construction; transformation.

1. Introduction

The role and contribution of small firms as international market actors has received widespread attention in both the small firm and international business literature. Publication of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] Report (1997), which highlighted that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) account for 25–35% of the world’s manufactured exports and 4–6% of OECD countries’ exports, stimulated further academic, research and policy attention towards the internationalization activities of SMEs. Also, as technological and regu- latory advances continue to ease the flow of transport, information, goods/services and finance across national borders, the small firm is often heralded as facilitating the transition towards a global economy. As a result, many studies and publications have been concerned with the international behaviour of small firms.

International business is constituted by a variety of transactions and exchanges that are carried out across national borders to satisfy the needs of individuals, customers and organizations (Rugman and Hodgetts 1995, Czinkota et al. 1996). In terms of the small business, some studies take forward Levitt’s arguments and focus on the role of standard/differentiated market strategies in terms of product focus/quality, innova- tion, customer service, pricing strategies and specialization (Kleinschmidt and Cooper 1984, Namiki 1988, Christensen 1991, Aerts 1992). Some studies emphasize industry characteristics (Boter and Holmquist 1996), environmental factors (Zahra et al. 1997),

Entrepreneurship and Regional Development ISSN 0898–5626 print/ISSN 1464–5114 online # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/0898562042000263267

ENTREPRENEURSHIP & REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 16, JULY (2004), 289–305

the resource dependence needs of firms as they internationalize (Westhead et al. 2001) and transaction costs (Zacharakis 1997). Whilst other studies discuss the internal capabilities required to facilitate either staged internationalization (Ghoshal 1987) or ‘global start-ups’ (Lindqvist 1988, Birley and Macmillan 1995, 1997, Madsen and Servais 1997, Harveston et al. 2000, Bell et al. 2001). The internal capabilities highlight: level of experience (Cannon and Willis 1981), key decision-maker’s characteristics or orientations (Morgan 1997), managerial skills/international orienta- tion (Solberg 1997), or age of the firm (Czinkota and Johnston 1982, Smallbone and Wyer 1994), timing of international market entry (Dichtl et al. 1990), knowledge intensity (Autio et al. 2000) and networking relationships (Coviello and Munro 1995, 1997).

In the UK, however, there is conflicting evidence on the number of small businesses operating internationally. Twenty years ago, Cannon and Willis (1981) found that while small firms accounted for 25% of the UK’s gross national product, they con- tributed only 10% of all manufactured exports (Ibeh 2000). Also, the Department of Trade and Industry reported in 1996 that only 2–3% of small firms were export active. Likewise Matlay and Fletcher (2000) also found that only 2–3% of small firms directly managed some form of international business activity. Concern about the small portion of small firms involved in international activities has led to a range of studies on the barriers inhibiting small firms from becoming involved in cross-border exchanges and transactions. These studies emphasize why smaller firms are less likely to export due to limited resources/management skills, perceived lack of demand, regulation, red tape, cultural differences, language inability and psychic distance (Miesenbock 1988, Aaby and Slater 1989, Westhead 1993, Bell and Young 1996, O’Farrell et al. 1998).

A closer look at the internationalization activities of small businesses, however, highlights that in becoming too preoccupied with increasing the numbers of small firms directly involved in some form of international business, policy interests and research have neglected another important feature of small business internationaliza- tion. This centres on the extent of indirect internationalization whereby small firms are involved in exporting, sourcing or distribution agreements with intermediary companies who manage, on their behalf, the transaction, sale or service with overseas customers. The extensiveness of indirect internationalization was borne out in Matlay and Fletcher’s (2000) research where 86% of micro firms (1–10 employees) and 84% of small firms (employing 11–49 people) were involved in some form of international activity. This means that although small firms are not necessarily directly involved in managing the final transaction with the end customer or consumer of their goods or services, they are still involved in international activities by virtue of their association (albeit indirect) with overseas clients and the necessity of being responsive to the requirement of these overseas customers.

Two issues become particularly important for policy support and research purposes. The first is to account for the different and diverse ways in which many small firms are involved in international business (both directly and indirectly). This would enable a more comprehensive understanding of small business activity and internationalization on the one hand, and go some way in accounting for why advances in e-commerce and the use of web-sites has not led to a dramatic increase in direct forms of small business internationalization. This would require large scale and detailed surveys of the dif- ferent forms of internationalization and diverse ways in which small business owners measure their internationalization activities. The second is to shift attention from

290 DENISE FLETCHER

why many small firms are not involved in international business and the barriers they face (such as lack of resources) to a close and detailed analysis of why and how internationalization is undertaken by the small minority of firms that do. This requires close and intensive analysis of how processes of internationalization come about and how owner-managers enact images or opportunities of international business as they construct locally responsive cross-border activities.

In this paper, close analysis is given to two accounts of small business internation- alization in which the lead entrepreneurs are speaking about how their companies became international. In Section 2 the entrepreneurs are introduced and some dia- logue from their interviews is presented. In analysing how these businesses came to be international, a processual view of international business is outlined in Section 3. However, in taking a processual view, it is possible to draw out a range of practices from the accounts which are more usually associated with entrepreneurship. In Section 4 the ways in which international business and entrepreneurship intersect when people engage in brokering, risk-taking, pro-active behaviour are outlined. The McDougall and Oviatt (2000) definition of international entrepreneurship is evaluated here. Also social constructionist ideas are drawn in to provide a further level of analysis. The analysis then moves on to consider the relationship between pro- cesses of entrepreneurship and internationalization for small firms that internation- alize a year or two after start-up (late starters). It is argued that an integrated view of international entrepreneurship is less helpful for analysing these firms. In Sections 5 and 6 further empirical material is presented in order to consider the role that internationalization plays in entrepreneurship. Here the ‘opportunity enactment’ perspective of entrepreneurship, which has not been widely studied in an international context, is considered. Section 6 contains further analysis and reflections on how international entrepreneurship is distinctive in small firms who internationalize a year or two after start-up. The paper concludes with some thoughts and reflections on the social construction of international entrepreneurship.

2. Two small businesses: health care international and peripherals industrial design

It is helpful at this point to consider how entrepreneurs speak about the internation- alization of their companies. Two entrepreneurs owning and managing their own small businesses were asked during interview to ‘tell me about how your company became international’. The companies were not selected for their ability to be representative of their sector but for their involvement in international activities at an early stage of business emergence. Each interview lasted from 1–3 hours and was recorded and transcribed. The first speaker is Colin Stewart, founder and co-managing director of Health Care International. This company turns over £0.5m, employs 10 people and markets over-the-counter health care products within the pharmaceutical industry.

My business partner has had extensive contacts in Japan and he came across a product concept which he felt was strong enough that he should leave his company to start up something and I was able to join in with that. What is tremendously important is having a view of the world. So there are a lot of opportunities in the market. It is also a very international market. So initially we were negotiating an agreement with a Japanese supplier for imported products into the UK and Europe. From our own point of view we started trading in 1995. In 1995 we launched the product in the UK with a view to establishing a stable UK base. International sales was always expected to occur but was

INTERNATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 291

planned for, I would say, 1–2 years down the road, possibly 2–3 years depending on how long it took to establish UK sales. But what happened – we started to get export enquiries from day one.

The second company, Peripherals Industrial Design, was started by David Smith in 1991. The company designs and manufactures an innovative product for use in industrial applications. The company has a recognized world brand and is now one of the top ten world companies for this product. Since 1991 their turnover has increased from £150,000 to a peak of £3.8 in 1995 and has fluctuated between £1.5 and £2 m between 1995 and 1999. They employ 10 staff in the UK. David, the owner of the company comments that:

I think it is difficult for us to say when the company actually became international. Traditionally the business has been very much a global type business because it has pro- vided a product which is very much a niche product historically and therefore this product was the only one in the world at this time so people had to come to us. Although we were operating in a global business environment, the company wasn’t proactive in gaining additional business internationally, it was more by accident through word of mouth, recommendations.

In recalling how their companies became international, both Colin and David speak of the international/global nature of the market they are operating in. The accounts highlight that internationalization is about creating various images of the business world, thinking globally, but being locally responsive in a variety of social, cultural and political contexts. Both owners have identified niche products that have been bought out from large companies. Both owners chose to respond to international opportunities ‘accidentally’ when export orders started to ‘come in’ through recom- mendations and word of mouth. In each case becoming international was constructed as a reactive process of responding to the unexpected.

3. A processual view of small business internationalization

From these two short interview segments, it is possible to argue that the language of strategy and structure, which is often prescribed by many models of international business to enable firms to survive in competitive global markets (Levitt 1983, Bartlett and Ghoshal 1989, Ohmae 1989), is somewhat limited for explaining small business internationalization. As can be seen from the accounts, internationalization is processual, iterative and fluctuating and does not occur in the neat sequential stages often implied in product or market life cycle business models (Czinkota and Johnston 1981, Churchill and Lewis 1983, Reid 1984, Ohmae 1989, Dawes 1995, Greiner 1997). Indeed, the stages models are often limited for assessing how entrepreneurs with limited resources respond intuitively to international opportunities, learning experientially from their experiences there ( Johannisson 1987). Close consideration of small business practice highlights the importance of multi-faceted frameworks of analysis which go beyond the structural, strategic and behavioural and which take account of the often chaotic, opportunistic and incremental process through which entrepreneurs build international relationships and transactions (Buckley 1991, Anderson 1993, Calof and Beamish 1995, Bell and Young 1996, Jones 1999).

Shifting from staged or planned views of internationalization to more processual or learning approaches is an important development in small business internation- alization studies (Pettigrew et al. 1991, Andreu and Ciborra 1996, Segal-Horn and

292 DENISE FLETCHER

Faulkner 1999, Autio et al. 2000).1 However, while the emphasis on process and learning is important to take account of the emergent or ad hoc nature of these activ- ities, these approaches do not necessarily account for some particular features of inter- national business activity. I return to the two accounts to draw out some other key features that are central to talk of internationalization.

4. Small business internationalization and entrepreneurship

First, Colin Stewart’s account is considered.

The background of my business partner and myself is really germane to your research and why we have approached some of the export situations as we have. My background is international pharmaceutical product development, sales and marketing as is my business partner. He was based with a large pharmaceutical company for 17 years in the UK but operating on an international basis. I have spent l5 years living in the States, Sweden, Belgium and Germany working in the industry and returned to this country and started this company with my business partner. Now during that period working for large inter- national organizations, a certain amount of international experience has been gained . . . . Now, with very little resources both financial and personnel wise (just the two of us), we had to make a decision, we would either close a door on the export opportunities to concentrate on the UK, or, do what we eventually decided to do, [was that] with all of these products, there are only limited windows of opportunity. Had we said no to some- thing was that opportunity going to be there in 1–2 years time when we wanted to do it. So we decided that, based on our experience, gearing up for international distribution was not that big a deal and that we would immediately start looking for a good UK distributor to take responsibility for the marketing and sales of the product in the UK and we would capitalize on the export interest straight away and that is what we did and within the first year had found a UK distributor and established two export markets for the product. For us the UK is not our home market, it does not enter into our thinking. The UK is like a niche of Europe; it is the way you approach it.

The following extract is from David Smith of Peripherals Industrial Design.

A year ago we decided that – we looked at our market, we analysed the rate of market growth in sectors and saw that 70% of our business 2 years ago was export and of that a large proportion came from the USA and Germany, so we launched the product in Germany in 1997. Through analysing our markets we discovered that the overseas markets were very ripe for growth, whereas the UK market is saturated and so we started a campaign just over a year ago to increase penetration in overseas markets and what we did was work with existing distributors and appoint new ones in certain market sectors. We also did an element of advertising in certain key publications but more importantly we produced a number of press releases and structured the company so that it appeared as an international organization – and that is probably the most important thing we did and probably because we wanted to strengthen our position in the US market, we restructured ourselves so that the way we marketed and presented ourselves was as an American company. The other key market sector for us was Germany; in analysing it, the key markets in the world are America and Germany by far so that is why we became established there and to work in the German market – we needed a German presence and speaking cap- ability, so we opened an office there (one person and phone) to communicate with market opportunities. We also appointed a new distributor in Germany, they were looking for a new product, they found us through the web site, approached us, we visited them, they were already selling a competitor’s product and were willing to substitute a competitor’s product for ours – brand replacement.

In these accounts, both Colin and David speak of international opportunities ‘coming to them’, neither were looking for internationalization. For Colin and his

INTERNATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 293

business partner, they were not sure that the opportunity would be there later so they decided to open that particular ‘window of opportunity’ when it came. For David, it was the demand for his niche product that encouraged him to ‘open the window’. Colin speaks of how their extensive contacts and special knowledge led them to identify an opportunity for a niche product concept and their experience working in the market meant that they were able to secure the business from the Japanese client. It was also this experience that encouraged the partners to internationalize earlier than they were planning. It was seen as ‘no big deal’ although internationaliza- tion was not planned to happen until later. This is also the case for David of PC Peripherals where he uses his experience and special knowledge to formalize their international activity.

By closely examining the process through which entrepreneurs speak about inter- nationalization a number of key features can be identified. There is the negotiation of competitive threats and an attempt to ‘bridge and create conversions between [cross border] spheres of exchange’ (Stewart 1989: 145). There is an attempt to combine technologies and businesses practices in new ways so as to effect the economic change or development that Knight (1921) Cantillon (1931) Schumpeter (1934), and Kirzner (1973) spoke of in the context of entrepreneurship. In particular, there is a vision of how things might be different and the development of new international networks of contacts that facilitates access to market information. There is also the organizing of resources according to opportunity ( Johannisson 2000) and what Shane and Venkataraman (2000) refer to as the discovery of means-end relationships that facilitate the activation (or combination) of resources. In addition, there is the enactment of opportunities in an international context.

In short, when examining the process through which owners speak about inter- nationalization, it is possible to draw out a range of practices that are more usually associated with entrepreneurship. This means that when evaluating the international activity of small firms, there is a closer relationship to entrepreneurship than there is to international strategy and structure that has tended to dominate small business research. It is surprising then that the relationship between internationalization and entrepreneurship has not received closer research attention than has hitherto been the case. Birley and Macmillan (1995, 1997) examine international and global per- spectives of entrepreneurship. However, McDougall and Oviatt (2000) argue that the paths of entrepreneurship and international business research have not been widely intersected. Also, in an empirical review of work relating to international small and medium enterprises, Coviello and McAuley (1999) found that studies failed to expli- citly integrate entrepreneurship issues or theory. The ways in which the relationship between international business and entrepreneurship is intersected is now considered.

5. International entrepreneurship

In an attempt to examine how international business and entrepreneurial activities interconnect McDougall and Oviatt (2000: 903) propose a definition of international entrepreneurship. This definition emphasizes brokering, resource leverage or stretch- ing, value creation and opportunity seeking through a combination of innovative, proactive and risk seeking behaviour. It also implies that all international activities are entrepreneurial because they can only occur through brokering, leveraging and risk-taking practices. Likewise, all entrepreneurial activities potentially have an

294 DENISE FLETCHER

international dimension because in acting entrepreneurially internationalization is likely to occur.

This view of international entrepreneurship infers that acting entrepreneurially and becoming international are dual processes that become integrated in practice. This ‘intersection’ view is particularly helpful for small business researchers who generally emphasize how small firms need to build up financial, market and entrepreneurial resources in domestic markets first with a view to capitalizing on these resources later by extending entrepreneurial capabilities into international markets. Likewise, for international business inquirers, the integrative view facilitates access to a whole set of new concepts and vocabulary from the entrepreneurship literature (such as oppor- tunity enactment, bridging and brokering). For researchers interested in entrepreneur- ial processes, they are provided with concepts from international business strategy and structure (such as emergent, proactive, reactive, poly-centric or ethnocentric).

For example, in speaking of internationalization, each manager constructs this as something that happened unexpectedly, almost by accident. So, the researcher could draw upon notions of process, emergence, incrementalism or learning from the strategy literature to account for how small businesses become international over time. Likewise, a range of global, trans-national, multi-domestic, poly- or ethno- centric strategies, organizational structures and cultures (Perlmutter 1969, Hamel and Prahalad 1985, Kogut 1985, Ghoshal 1987, Yip 1992) could be used to evaluate how small firms attempt to survive competitive global markets (Levitt 1983, Bartlett and Ghoshal 1989, Ohmae 1989). Also, in the accounts both Colin and David refer to international opportunities ‘out there’ in the market. Here the researcher can consider notions of opportunity seeking, recognition or enactment that are frequently high- lighted in the entrepreneurship literature. For Colin, timing was stated to be the key issue and his judgement that there are only ‘limited windows of opportunity’. For David opportunity enactment was more about having greater presence in the international market. Also, when Colin comments that: ‘the background of my business partner and myself is really germane to your research and why we have approached some of the export situations as we have’, he is relating his special knowl- edge to industry experience. He relates the continued internationalization of his company to previous experience, knowledge of European markets in order to explain their increased penetration into the USA and Germany.

However, while it is tempting to emphasize what Shane and Venkataraman (2000) refer to as the special cognitive processes for evaluating opportunities that enable entrepreneurs to respond to international situational cues, to do so only highlights one part of the story. To adopt the words of Pfeffer and Salancik (1976: 72), the events of the [global] world ‘do not present themselves with neat labels and interpretation. . . but rather we give meaning to those events’. As such, there is not a singular, fixed [global] environment that exists detached from and external to people. Entrepreneurs cannot respond to all the demands and possibilities that external global market pres- sures create. Through bracketing, they attend to some aspects of it, ignore a lot of it and talk to others about what they think, see or do (Weick 1995: 31). In this way entrepreneurs are constantly evaluating information, making choices about which environmental or situational ‘cues’ to respond to and weighing up the risks, gains, losses and added-value to be created from enacting a particular opportunity (Gartner et al. 2003). However, this does not imply ‘discovery’ of opportunities that already exist out there in the market. Neither does it necessarily imply special cognitive processing skills that need to be in place to make opportunities happen. What is

INTERNATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 295

important is that although retrospectively the process is spoken of as ‘accidental’, international opportunities are enacted according to some processes of selection which are themselves always being constructed (and re-constructed) in the present. It was not only that the window of opportunity was there at that time but that they chose to recognize the ‘window’ and construct it as an opportunity. Central to inter- national entrepreneurship activities, then, are social construction processes.

5.1 International entrepreneurship from a social constructionist perspective

Social constructionist ideas are more concerned with how people come to be and know the world interactively through dialogue, exchanges, conversations, relations, joint acts and co-ordinations. They emphasize the social self but focus on the inter- active (rather than cognitive) aspects of social or international being and becoming. Although not acknowledged widely in international business research, these ideas are receiving wider attention in entrepreneurship studies (Bouwen and Steyaert 1992, Steyaert 1998, Fletcher 2004).

In terms of entrepreneurship, social constructionist ideas emphasize how entrepre- neurs are constantly evaluating information, talking through different options or scenarios and bringing to their interactions with clients, stakeholders or suppliers previous understandings, experiences, conversations and history of relationships. In this way international entrepreneurship is a construction of the past in the present that is then envisioned into the future. Colin and David, for example, ‘chose’ to recognize the window of opportunity because they could envision ‘how things might be in the future’ (Gartner 1993, Johannisson 2000). Each company had a vision of the future, of how things might be different or better in becoming international.

This means that research interest moves away from attempting to capture the essence of what that person is about entrepreneurially but instead explores how entre- preneurial activities are constructed and co-ordinated between people in conversations and joint acts. These constructions occur at a number of levels. During the interviews entrepreneurs are constructing meanings and giving expression to their internation- alization process. Opportunities are enacted and understandings of entrepreneurship are produced relationally according to interactions and exchanges (in partnerships, groups or with customers or international clients). In recounting their experiences of internationalization, entrepreneurs are dialoguing with the researcher generating meanings. Also, after the interview a further construction occurs as the entrepreneur- ship researcher becomes a writer and is constructing an account. This written account is concerned with analysing how entrepreneurs create meanings and descriptions of the internationalization of their companies. It uses concepts and sensitizing themes such as opportunity enactment, emergence and envisioning. However, in constructing this text, the writer is inviting the reader into further conversation and dialogue through which new worlds of meaning can be created and transformed.

A conceptualization of international entrepreneurship from a social constructionist perspective might be expressed as: the creative enactment and envisioning of future scenarios and opportunities for service/product/organizational transformation that are socially constructed and realized through joint cross border co-ordinations. Research questions, as in this paper, would consider how some notion of international entre- preneurial ‘reality’ is brought into being through dialogue, interaction or joint acts between economic actors. Also, there would be a concern with how entrepreneurs

296 DENISE FLETCHER

learn, adapt, build, transform and create new or different ways of working through internationalization. So, in analysing international entrepreneurship, it is helpful for inquirers to examine the dualism or ‘coming together’ of international and entrepre- neurial processes in small business work. Neither would necessarily be given dominant emphasis. Each process is socially constructed, interacting and mutually supporting the other. So, it would not be possible to examine internationalization without some concepts from entrepreneurship and vice versa.

However, having applied social constructionist ideas to enhance a conceptualiza- tion of international entrepreneurship, a further, more general question needs to be addressed. This is the extent to which all entrepreneurial activity necessarily leads to internationalization and whether all international activities are entrepreneurial. The definition of McDougall and Oviatt (2000) infers that this is the case because in taking risks, being innovative, creating value, or enacting opportunities people are acting entrepreneurially and cannot, therefore, avoid becoming international. However, as seen earlier from the statistics on the numbers of small firms involved in some form of internationalization, many small entrepreneurial firms do not (or indeed) want to become international. This might suggest then that the only truly internationally entrepreneurial firms are ‘born global’ firms. For them, it might be more appropriate to suggest that internationalization is the process through which entrepreneurship occurs. This is certainly an area for further research.

By focusing intensive analysis on some of the small firms who are involved in some form of international activity two or three years after start-up, this conceptualization suggests that there is something distinctive about how these late starters socially construct their international entrepreneurship which is different from ‘born globals’. This is because usually they have developed entrepreneurially ‘at home’ first for a year or so to build up resources and capabilities and then extended these activities to an international market. For these firms, it might be more helpful to see entrepreneurship as the process through which international activities are realized.

This implies a different sort of relationship between entrepreneurship and interna- tionalization whereby internationalization has as much a role to play in constructing and shaping entrepreneurial activity (rather than vice versa). Otherwise small busi- ness owner managers with limited time and resources would not become involved. So, while the integrative view of international entrepreneurship gives equal attention to processes of internationalization and entrepreneurship, it is also important to empha- size other aspects of this relationship whereby entrepreneurial practice is constructed and adapted through internationalization. This is the emphasis now taken when analysing further the two accounts given by Colin and David.

5.2 International entrepreneurship: the case of peripherals industrial design

We have increased our enquiry rate from 10–15 enquiries a month to 350 just through low cost but carefully selected marketing and increased our number of customers quite drama- tically, taking on a new one every two weeks – which is a higher level than before. Most of this exercise has resulted in the percentage of export now over 80%. We focused on Germany first because it is nearer and easier. We have only really turned to extended effort in the USA in the last few weeks, started promoting ourselves over there in the last 2 weeks, enquiries are high but sales not yet – it is early days. We think that our efforts in Europe could lead to a doubling of our sales in Europe within 2 years and we think in the USA potential is much higher but it is just a case of being in the market and being seen. We are one of 10 companies in this sector and we try to make sure that we are the

INTERNATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 297

benchmark company. Although we are seen as the most proactive and the one that it is the most ahead, the most aggressive.

Eighty percentage is extremely successful but we have had our failures in China, it cost us a lot. In the end we reverted back to a Japanese supplier who is good but we pay a bit more for it because quality is good. We are about to move some of our UK cable assembly to China, just finalizing this. We work on low infrastructure but high level of capability. We established ourselves out there but because we think our market penetration, sales

and culture is quite specific and so the best way to establish that was to create our own culture. Our product is so niche market, that we understand the selling requirements of our products and have to manage our customers and to manage the conversion from sale – and we train our people such that they understand that and they become a seed in that market.

Although they have begun a more formal evaluation of their international activities, from the above accounts David is weighing up, evaluating (and visualizing) the ‘means-end relationships’ that are needed to realize the new opportunities and poten- tial in the German and US markets. This formal analysis stems from a concern about the dangers of becoming involved in many foreign markets. ‘The more areas you cover in the world, the more diluted the elements of similarity become’. In this way, he is applying his long-time experience in international markets in order to modify entrepreneurial practices. As a result of international exposure, David is changing the way in which he develops his distribution network and manages entrepreneurial practices. For example, in the early days, the company was concerned with facilitating market spread, building network contacts, gaining experience and building capability. In the past, their main approach to finding partners was to establish distribution agree- ments with carefully selected partners who were chosen for their ability to perform to stringent quality requirements. Internationalization was shaped by the trying out of certain entrepreneurial practices which were concerned with facilitating effective co-ordination of network contacts in that David personally visited every distributor in the world in order to evaluate his partners’ operations in terms of: basic global systems, penetration in market sectors, technical capability, good quality. This is also evident when he talks about his experiences in China and finding a suitable sub-contract company.

As a result of international exposure, a concern about the dilution of elements of similarity has resulted in David modifying his entrepreneurial practice by trying to ensure greater control over the way in which the brand is promoted and customer support service is provided in their key markets (Germany and the USA). A realign- ment of their approach means that David hopes to work more closely with existing clients at the same time as achieving greater penetration in two of their key markets. However, their entrepreneurial practice is different in each according to the needs of the clients in each market. David is highlighting how important local responsiveness is to him and his willingness to be adaptable and flexible in approach. For the American market, he has restructured the company to appear as an American company, as he sees this as important. As such they have now set up sales and marketing offices in these countries, which is an approach they have not done before. Also, to prevent elements of dilution, David has personally selected the two individuals who run these offices and carefully monitors, supports and trains these individuals himself with a view to ‘training our people such that they understand that and they become a seed in that market’. David’s entrepreneurial practice is very much connected to his wish to be ‘seen in the market’ to be the most aggressive and best company in their sector.

298 DENISE FLETCHER

To further facilitate this, internationalization provides a means of securing this posi- tion and status for his company.

6. International entrepreneurship in process: the case of Health Care International

In responding to the export interest, Colin is also highlighting a degree of flexibility in their approach, which was initially to set up and establish a UK base. However, they changed this because of the export interest, as a result of which they found a UK company to look after the UK side of the business. Internationalization is framed as a positive even casual experience (‘no big deal’). Even the decision to forego the company’s brand name in order to establish a good working relationship and to show commitment to their German customer is spoken of optimistically.

In Germany they were so positive about the product, they wanted to spend a lot of money on TV advertising so it was natural for them to want their own brand and positioning, so we agreed to that in Germany.

Interviewer: Were you OK about that – forgoing your brand name?

Yes, because we did not have a brand image to protect. Nobody knows our company; we get some credibility as it were from our company name on the packaging but at that time, we did not have anything to build on and protect as a small company. Somebody comes along, says they would like to spend several million on advertising and we are going to order millions of your product, you generally don’t have to think too long about it. And now, we will have other activities and new products later in the year in which we are using our trademarks and intellectual property, so we can build the product range, extend the identity of the brand, then having a brand will mean something. We were a dynamic small firm and our preference was to work with other small companies. This strategy has proved to be questionable because you are always taking a risk if those small dynamic firms do not make headway. Latterly our strategy has been to work with our Japanese and German suppliers and other big companies, and they have generally taken us seriously – that is because we can offer an innovative product. If we were going in there with another me-too type product then I don’t think they would give us the time of day but they see some mileage in it. The downside is that they are very bureaucratic, which does not suit us, but it is swings and roundabouts. If any of these companies take a product then any sales forecast is huge. So we are not losing anything. At the same time there is a lot to gain. We are starting to receive moderate success. There has been an underlying strategy and I think it all comes down to if you don’t have

an open mind then you don’t give it a try then you are probably not going to make it work for you. So we have tried different ways and we quickly realized which were better than others and we have observed very closely how others have done it and tried to learn from that. The current strategy is that in order to be truly successful in this market you need to look into which niches – where our products can be seen as product line extensions to large firms – establish a dialogue with them. The Japanese have made it clear that when we have reached a critical mass, they want to set up a European manufacturing and they want us to be involved with that. We intend to be a link in the chain.

Internationalization is spoken of positively to show willingness to co-operate and respond to what they felt was right at that point in their development. He also talks about ‘swings and roundabouts’ and the importance of weighing up what was to be gained or lost by exchanging internationally. They decided there was more to gain from going international earlier than they had planned and forgoing their brand name in the German market. This was constructed in terms of the gains this would give and how they could get volume sales and eventually extend their product lines

INTERNATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 299

into other countries, thereby gaining greater market presence and stronger brand identity. So their flexibility in changing their approach in order to respond to oppor- tunities is constructed in a positive way.

A key aspect of their entrepreneurial practice was building relationships with other companies. Although this began with seeking relationships with other small dynamic firms, this again changed and meaning is attributed to relationships with other large health care organizations that need small, innovative companies with whom to ‘extend their tired product lines’. In terms of relationships with other large health care companies, Colin speaks of the need to observe large players in the market, ‘establishing a dialogue’ and ‘trying to be taken seriously’. At the same time, they are prepared to keep an open mind, give things a try and learn by watching and doing. ‘Entering into dialogue’ is spoken of as important but this can be more easily achieved because of their distinctive product. This is also expressed as ‘being a link in the chain’, that is being connected or related to other companies. This aspect of the international story is also expressed in terms of small firms ‘being noticed’, ‘getting yourself above the background noise’. Also, Colin mentions that a key aspect of their entrepreneurial practice is not to ‘build empires’ but to be taken seriously and establish credibility/reputation for running a professional business. ‘Having a world view’ and ‘an open mind’, being prepared to observe and learn from others has been a key feature of their international entrepreneurial activ- ities meaning that Health Care International have now secured what they refer to as ‘moderate success’ with plans to extend this practice and build on these relationships and key strengths in the future.

7. Reflections and conclusions: international entrepreneurship and the small business

In contrast to the McDougall and Oviatt (2000) definition which gives greater emphasis to internationalization as a process through which entrepreneurship is real- ized, from the preceding analysis of the two accounts of internationalization, it is suggested that for firms that start late in their cross-border activity, entrepreneurship is the process through which internationalization occurs. In making this distinction, there is only a slight analytical difference of emphasis. However, the distinction is an important one because processes of international entrepreneurship are different according to the point at which internationalization occurs.

For born global firms the realization of entrepreneurial activities cannot be sepa- rated from the international business context and market in which they are being created. International entrepreneurship is a tightly integrated process whereby entre- preneurs envision and realize the emergence of their business as an international entity. For these firms, internationalization is not an extension of what has already occurred or ‘has been’ in the home market. Instead, entrepreneurial activities are more spatial, concerned with what can be constructed anew or afresh in relation to global markets rather than in relation to the local or regional context in which the business is located.

For small firms that internationalize a few years after start-up, the international arena is seen as another ‘site’ in which entrepreneurial activities are tried out or practised. Internationalization is an extension of what has already occurred in the domestic market and in this sense is also local or regional. Internationalization, for these firms, has a different purpose. Entrepreneurs are enacting and extending their

300 DENISE FLETCHER

entrepreneurial capabilities, which have been created and constructed in the familiar local/regional context. In some cases this international enactment occurs for reactive reasons such as competition or saturation in home markets. For other firms (as with the cases discussed in this paper) internationalization occurs because cross-border opportunities are seen as ‘windows’ to be opened. What is important is that these windows are opened and enacted in order to bring about product/service/organiza- tional transformations. Furthermore, in internationalizing, entrepreneurs are working something out which might mean losing, negotiating or trading some aspect of their entrepreneurial practice. In so doing, they are extending entrepreneurial skills: taking calculated risks, bringing together new combinations of product, service or tech- nologies, utilizing network contacts and acting upon the special knowledge that has been constructed in the local/regional context in which the business is located. In addition, entrepreneurial issues get resolved, worked through, realized, created, shaped and adapted through international exposure.

For Health Care International, they were trying to develop their business and build relationships with large pharmaceutical partners who would appreciate their innovative product and professionalism and give them sufficient sales volume to get a reputation in the market and build their brand name. Colin spoke of developing a dialogue with customers, observing, watching, learning from their experiences, taking on board some of their Japanese customer’s values and working practices and looking to blend these with their own and nurture them in relationships with network part- ners. They were even prepared to lose their brand name in order to secure important relationships with major pharmaceutical companies. Thus, something of entrepre- neurial practice was lost (their autonomy and independence) but also something was gained (future business, positive relationships with main clients, professional reputation).

For Peripherals Industrial Design, internationalization was initially associated with market spread and responding to the export inquiries that came in. However, a concern about the dilution of elements of similarity between them and international partners resulted in David trying to ensure greater control over entrepreneurial prac- tices and the way in which the brand is promoted and customer support service is provided in their key markets. For David, he is moving away from just being seen in the market, to being a key player and achieving greater presence there through capability and local responsiveness. This highlights how David was keen to transfer and secure his own values and ways of working onto his network partners at the same time as responding to the needs of customers in those countries. As a result, however, David has had to make more resource commitment to his overseas activities that entails greater risk but at the same time he is working towards his entrepreneurial goals of achieving more prominent market and brand presence.

As a result of the analysis here, it is argued that in staged internationalization, international entrepreneurship is characterized by the extension and broadening of entrepreneurial capabilities that have already been developed at home. It has been frequently cited how networking is important for servicing the resource dependence needs of entrepreneurs (Boissevain 1974, Tichy et al. 1979, Birley 1985, Aldrich and Zimmer 1986, Szarka 1990, Butler and Hansen 1991) as they try to grow or develop their organizations (Curran and Blackburn 1991, Larson 1992, Larson and Starr 1993). This is also true of internationalization where joint co-ordinations are con- structed and managed in cross-border contexts. This partly explains why previously autonomous entrepreneurs accept commercial risk and become ‘tied’ into elaborate

INTERNATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 301

business structures in the form of distribution networks or licensing arrangements in order to realize their dream of creating a worldwide business ( Johannisson 2000). They want access to new resources, markets, opportunities and ways of work- ing. It is this desire for expansion, trying out new ideas or experiences, finding new partners and realizing new possibilities that dilutes the desire for autonomy and independence. In internationalizing, late starters are concerned with validating or proving the viability of their activities in cross-border contexts. In this way, entrepre- neurial practices are organically regulated and shaped through international activities ( Johannisson 1993).

Finally, it is argued that international entrepreneurship is a complex process that cannot be explained by descriptive categories of entrepreneurial behaviour (such as proactivity, risk-taking and brokering). Instead, international entrepreneurship is a heavily contextualized and socially constructed activity that occurs through joint cross-border co-ordinations. Through internationalization entrepreneurs are in dialo- gue and interaction with the worlds of others. Here understanding about the self and others is maximized and entrepreneurial ideas, visions, practices are enacted anew (for born globals) or extended/modified (for late starters). What is distinctive about international entrepreneurship for late starters is that this process occurs in close relation to ‘what has gone before’ for that business in its local and regional context. It is important, then, that studies take account of the ways in which international entrepreneurship is a relational process occurring and being constructed in relation to past (and future) conversations, events, experiences, ideas (Burr 1995, Dachler et al. 1995, Gergen 1999) in particular social, cultural and economic contexts. In this way, a much richer appreciation of international entrepreneurship processes can be achieved.

Note

1. Segal-Horn and Faulkner (1999) refer to these as technical, systemic and strategic learning loops, which are alternatively expressed by Andreu and Ciborra (1996) as routinization, capability and strategic learning loops. At the technical or routinization phase, it is argued that international learning is concerned with the implementation of techniques, resources, practices and routines that encourage efficient working practices that aid internationalization. At the ‘systemic’ or capability learning level, the learning experience is concerned with applying new organizational systems and procedures to enhance international capability in workplace routines. At the strategic level, learning is concerned with changing the mindsets (and mental maps) of senior managers and encouraging greater sharing of strategic lessons from international experiences with other organizational members (see also Pettigrew et al. 1991).

References

Aaby, N. E. and Slater, S. F. 1989 Management influences on export performance: a review of empirical literature 1978–1988, International Marketing Review, 6 (4): 7–26.

Aerts, R. 1992 Becoming International: Benefits and Pitfalls for Entrepreneurial SMEs (Brussels: Small Business Research Institute).

Aldrich, H. and Zimmer, C. 1986 Entrepreneurship through social networks, in Sexton, D. and Smilor, R. (eds), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship (New York: Ballinger).

Anderson, O. 1993 The internationalization process of firms: a critical analysis, Journal of International Business Studies, 24 (2): 209–231.

Andreu, R. and Ciborra, C. 1996 Core capabilities and information technology: an organisational learning approach, in Moingeon, B. and Edmondson, A. (eds), Organisational Learning and Competitive Advantage (London: Sage).

302 DENISE FLETCHER

Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J. and Almeida, J. G. 2000 Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity and imitability on international growth, Academy of Management Journal, 43: 909–924.

Bartlett, C. A. and Ghoshal, S. 1989 Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution (London: Hutchinson Business Books).

Bell, J., McNaughton, R. and Young, S. 2001 Born-again global firms: an extension to the born global phenomena, Journal of International Management, 7 (3): 173–189.

Bell, J. and Young, S. 1996 Towards an integrative framework of the internationalisation of the firm. Proceedings of the Academy of International Business Conference, March: 24–45.

Birley, S. 1985 The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process, Journal of Business Venturing, 1: 107–118. Birley, S. and Macmillan, I. (ed.) 1995 International Entrepreneurship (London: Routledge). Birley, S. and Macmillan, I. (ed.) 1997 Entrepreneurship in a Global Context (London: Routledge). Boissevain, J. 1974 Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulations and Coalitions (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). Boter, H. and Holmquist, C. 1996 Industry characteristics and internationalisation processes in small firms,

Journal of Business Venturing, 11: 471–487. Bouwen, R. and Steyaert, C. 1992 Opening the domain of entrepreneurship: a social constructionist per-

spective, paper presented at the RENT, VI Workshop, Barcelona, November. Buckley, P. J. 1991 The analysis of international corporate strategy: an integrated framework and research

agenda, paper presented at An Enlarged Europe in the Global Economy, 17th Annual Conference, European International Business Association, Copenhagen Business School, 15–17 December.

Burr, V. 1995 An Introduction to Social Construction (London: Routledge). Butler, J. E. and Hansen, G. S. 1991 Network evolution, entrepreneurial success and regional development,

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 3: 1–16. Calof, J. L. and Beamish, P. W. 1995 Adapting to foreign markets: explaining internationalisation,

International Business Review, 4 (2): 115–131. Cannon, T. and Willis, M. 1981 The smaller firm in overseas trade, European Small Business Journal, 1 (3):

45–55. Cantillon, R. 1931 Essai sur la nature du commerce en general, edited and translated by Higgs, H. (London:

Macmillan). Christensen, P. R. 1991 The small and medium-sized exporters’ squeeze: empirical evidence and model

reflexions, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 3: 49–65. Churchill, N. C. and Lewis, V. L. 1983 The five stages of business growth, Harvard Business Review, 61 (3):

30–50. Coviello, N. E. and Munro, H. J. 1995 Growing the entrepreneurial firm: networking for international

market development, European Journal of Marketing, 29 (7): 49–61. Coviello, N. E. and Munro, H. J. 1997 Network relationships and the internationalisation process of small

software firms, International Business Review, 6: 361–386. Coviello, N. E. and McAuley, A. 1999 Internationalisation and the smaller firm: a review of contemporary

empirical research, Management International Review, 39: 223–256. Curran, J. J. R. and Blackburn, R. A. 1991 Small firms and networks: methodological strategies – some

findings, International Small Business Journal, 11 (2): 13–25. Czinkota, M. R. and Johnston, W. J. 1982 Managerial motivations as determinants of industrial

context behaviour, in Czinkota, M. R. and Tesar, G. S., Export Management, An International Context (New York: Praeger).

Czinkota, M. R., Ronkainen, I. A. and Moffett, M. H. 1996 International Business (Florida Harcourt, Brace & Co.).

Dachler, H. P., Hosking, D. M. and Gergen, K. J. 1995 Relational Alternatives to Individualisation: Management and Organisation (Aldershot: Avebury).

Dawes, B. 1995 International Business: A European Perspective (Cheltenham, Glos: Stanley Thornes). Dichtl, E., Koegelmayr, H. G. and Mueller, S. 1990 International orientation as a pre-condition for export

success, Journal of International Business Studies, 21 (1): 23–40. Fletcher, D. E. 2004 (under review) The promise of interpretive and social constructionist inquiry in

entrepreneurship research, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Gartner, W. B. 1993 Words lead to deeds: towards an organisational emergence vocabulary, Journal of

Business Venturing, 8: 231–239. Gartner, W. B., Carter, N. M. and Hills, G. E. 2003 The language of opportunity, in Steyaert, C. and

Hjorth, D., New Movements in Entrepreneurship (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar). Gergen, K. K. 1999 An Invitation to Social Construction (London: Sage). Ghoshal, S. 1987 Global strategy: an organising framework, Strategic Management Journal, 8: 425–440. Greiner, L. 1997 Evolution and revolution as firms grow, Harvard Business Review, 75 ( July–August): 37–46. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. 1985 Do you really have a global strategy? Harvard Business Review, 63

( July–August): 139–148. Harveston, P. D., Kedia, B. L. and David, P. S. 2000 Internationalization of born global and gradual

globalising firms: the impact of the manager, Advances in Competitiveness Research, 8 (1): 92–99. Ibeh, K. 2000 Internationalisation and the small firm, in Carter, S. and Jones-Evans, D., Enterprise and Small

Business, Principles, Practice and Policy (Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education).

INTERNATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 303

Johannisson, B. 1987 Anarchists & organisers: entrepreneurs in a network perspective, International Studies of Management and Organisation, XVII (1): 49–63.

Johannison, B. 1993 In search of a methodology for entrepreneurship research, paper presented at European Doctoral Programme, Copenhagen Business School, February–June 1993.

Johannisson, B. 2000 Networking and entrepreneurial growth, in Sexton, D. and Landström, H. (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship (London: Blackwell) pp. 368–386.

Jones, M. V. 1999 The internationalisation of small high technology firms, Journal of International Marketing, 7 (4): 15–41.

Kirzner, I. 1973 Competition and Entrepreneurship (Chicago: Chicago University Press). Kleinschmidt, E. J. and Cooper, R. G. 1984 A typology of export strategy applied to the export performance

of industrial firms, in Kaynak, E. (ed.), International Marketing Management (Toronto: Praeger Special Studies) pp. 217–231.

Knight, F. H. 1921 Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (New York: Houghton Mifflin). Kogut, B. 1985 Designing global strategies: comparative and competitive value added chains, Sloan

Management Review, 26 (4): 15–28. Larson, A. 1992 Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: a study of the governance of exchange relation-

ships, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 76–104. Larson, A. and Starr, J. A. 1993 A network model of organisation, Entrepreneurship, Theory & Practice, 17 (2):

pp. 5–15. Levitt, T. 1983 The globalisation of markets, Harvard Business Review, 61 (May/June): 92–102. Lindqvist, M. 1988 Internationalisation of small technology-based firms, three illustrative case studies on

Swedish firms, Stockholm School of Economics Research Paper 88/15. Madsen, T. K. and Servais, P. 1997 The internationalization of born globals: an evolutionary process?

International Business Review, 6: 561–583. Matlay, H. and Fletcher, D. E. 2000 Globalisation and strategic change: some lessons for the UK small

business sector, Journal of Strategic Change, 9: 437–449. McDougall, P. P. and Oviatt, B. M. 2000 International entrepreneurship: the intersection of two research

paths, Academy of Management Journal, 43: 902–906. Miesenbock, K. J. 1988 Small business and exporting: a literature review, International Small Business Journal,

6 (1): 42–61. Morgan, R. E. 1997 Export stimuli and export barriers: evidence from empirical research studies, European

Business Review, 97(2). Namiki, N. 1988 Export strategy for small business, Journal of Small Business Management, 26 (2): 33–37. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] 1997 Globalisation and Small and Medium

Enterprises (SMEs), Vol. 1 (Paris: OECD). O’Farrell, P. N., Wood, P. A. and Sheng, J. 1998 Internationalisation by business service SMEs: an

inter-industry analysis, International Small Business Journal, 16 (2): 13–33. Ohmae, K. 1989 Managing in a borderless world, Harvard Business Review, 67 (May–June): 152–161. Perlmutter, H. V. 1969 The tortuous evolution of the MNC, Columbia Journal of World Business, 4 (9): 18. Pettigrew, A., Macdonald, S., Gustavsson, P. and Melin, L. 1991 The learning process behind the european

activities of large UK and Swedish firms, paper presented at An Enlarged Europe in the Global Economy, 17th Annual Conference, European International Business Association, Copenhagen Business School, 15–17 December.

Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. 1976 The External Control of Organisations: A Resource Dependence Approach (New York: Harper & Row).

Reid, S. 1984 Market expansion and firm internationalisation, in Kaynak, E., International Marketing Management (New York: Praeger).

Rugman, A. M. and Hodgetts, R. M. 1995 International Business: A Strategic Management Approach (Maidenhead, Berks: McGraw-Hill).

Schumpeter, J. A. 1934 The Theory of Economic Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Segal-Horn, S. and Faulkner, D. 1999 The Dynamics of International Strategy (London: International

Thompson Business Press). Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. 2000 The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research, Academy of

Management Review, 25 (1): 217–221. Smallbone, D. and Wyer, P. 1994 SMEs and exporting: developing an analytical framework, Small Business

and Enterprise Development Conference, Manchester, March. Solberg, C. A. 1997 Framework for analysis of strategy development in globalising markets, Journal of

International Marketing, 5 (1): 9–30. Steyaert, C. 1998 A qualitative methodology for process studies of entrepreneurship, International Studies of

Management and Organisation, 27 (3): 13–33. Stewart, A. 1989 Team Entrepreneurship (Newbury Park, CA: Sage). Szarka, J. 1990 Networking and small firms, International Small Business Journal, 8 (1): 2. Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L. and Fomburn, C. 1979 Social network analysis for organisations, Academy of

Management Review, 4: 507–519. Weick, K. 1995 Sensemaking in Organisations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).

304 DENISE FLETCHER

Westhead, P. 1993 A matched pairs comparison of exporting and non-exporting small firms in GB, Working Paper No.19. Small and Medium Enterprise Centre, Warwick Business School, Warwick.

Westhead, P., Wright, M. and Ucbasaran, D. 2001 The internationalisation of new and small firms: a resource based view, Journal of Business Venturing 16: 333–358.

Yip, G. 1992 Total Global Strategy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall). Zacharakis, A. L. 1997 Entrepreneurial entry into foreign markets: a transaction cost perspective,

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21 (3): 23–39. Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. and Huse, M. 1997 The effect of the environment on export performance among

telecommunications new ventures, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22 (1): 25–46.

INTERNATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 305