EXPORT BARRIERS FACED BY JAMAICAN SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED MANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

EXPORT BARRIERS FACED BY JAMAICAN SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED

MANUFACTURING BUSINESSES

Internationalization as a business strategy allows organizations to achieve growth; this

strategy can act as a competitive advantage by broadening an organization’s customer base and

allowing it to enter new markets (Kahiya & Dean, 2016). Researchers established the positive

influence of internationalization on an enterprise's growth potential and performance (Lu &

Beamish, 2001). In addition, researchers have found that export-led growth can also positively

impact a country's economy (Narayan et al., 2007). Nevertheless, small and medium-sized

(SMEs) firms, especially those in the least developed and developing countries, face many

unique challenges and barriers when competing internationally with large multinational

organizations (Kahiya & Dean; Williams, 2012, 2015). While many of these challenges are

known, a concerted effort by export experts to categorize these barriers across the globe is

underway.

This quantitative, descriptive, and exploratory research study ranked the categorized

export barriers that Jamaican manufacturing SMEs experienced. Jamaica has a small and open

economy and is considered one of 152 developing countries by the International Monetary Fund

standards (Worlddata.info, 2022). Chapter 1 introduces the background and overview of the

business problem and the research purpose, research questions, rationale, and theoretical

framework. Finally, Chapter 1 explains the study’s significance, defines essential terms, provides

its assumptions, limitations, and delimitations, and concludes by outlining Chapters 2 through 5.

Background

SMEs affect the development of nations. Therefore, the internationalization of SMEs has

captured the interest of scholars and enterprise owners worldwide (Kahiya & Dean, 2016; Lu &

Beamish, 2001; Paul et al., 2017). In the business context, internationalization is the expansion of

a company's operations from local, domestic operations to establishing an international presence

that ultimately results in income from global sales (Alexander & Myers, 2000). Many scholars in

the extant literature have discussed internationalization as a critical strategy firms use to achieve

and sustain competitive advantage (Arteaga-Ortiz & Fernández-Ortiz, 2010; Kahiya & Dean;

Nicholson & Lashley, 2016; Williams, 2015). However, due to an inherent lack of resources and

capabilities, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), particularly those in developing

economies, often struggle to achieve export levels that contribute meaningfully to the growth of

the organization (Kahiya & Dean; Kahiya et al., 2014). In small, open, and developing

economies like Jamaica's, the impact of small and medium firms on the national economy is

significant in terms of employment and output/performance, hence the need to understand and

resolve factors that restrict the growth potential and survival chances of these SMEs (Kahiya et

al.; Williams).

Jamaica’s economy has unique export-specific development challenges faced by SMEs.

In 2016, Jamaica's merchandise trade deficit was $3.56 billion, reflecting a decline of $60 million

in overall export earnings from the previous year (Planning Institute of Jamaica [PIOJ], 2017).

The POIJ (2017) cited the manufacturing industry contributing significantly to this downturn.

The manufacturing industry also accounted for approximately 8.5% of Jamaica's

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2016, and export earnings in the sector declined relative to

2015 (PIOJ, 2017). However, the manufacturing industry's employment level increased to 77,500

persons, reflecting 6.6% of the total employed labor force (PIOJ, 2017). With a population of

2,730,900 in 2016, the country had a relatively small market size (PIOJ, 2017). Worldometer

(2022) noted Jamaica’s population at 2,985,094 as of May 21, 2022, an increase of 8.5% over 5

years. MIIC (2013) discussed a resulting "low customer base" (p. 11) that emphasized the need

for international diversification and globalization in the country. In addition, as of 2016, the

economy carried a heavy debt burden, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 122% (PIOJ, 2017). The

government was trending toward increasing and maintaining debt, negatively affecting private

sector firms, including SMEs (PIOJ, 2017; Williams & Jones, 2010).

The PIOJ (2019) noted that by 2020, improvements to the Jamaican export and

manufacturing economy had begun as per their plans. Unfortunately, in 2019, a new virus named

SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Asia. This virus is now known as the cause of the disease COVID-19.

The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses was responsible for naming the virus with

the SARS prefix (World Health Organization [WHO], 2020a). In 2020, the WHO named the

disease COVID-19. The new name represented the year the virus first appeared and delineated it

from the original SARS virus, which had frightening connotations for Asians who had

experienced a deadly SARS epidemic in 2003 (WHO, 2020a). On February 11, 2020, WHO

reported monitoring the disease’s spread throughout the world. On that date, 43,103 global cases

of COVID-19 existed in 25 countries (WHO, 2020b). WHO declared the global pandemic

officially on March 11, 2020 (Cucinotta & Vanelli, 2020).

Jamaica reported its first COVID-19 cases the week of March 9, 2020. Since that time

(and as of June 2022), the PIOJ has not provided new statistics on the economic growth

projections. The Jamaican export sectors have declined significantly due to the pandemic

(International Monetary Fund, 2022).

Business Problem

SMEs in developing countries struggle to compete internationally (Williams, 2015). The

general business problem is that SMEs lose competitive advantages and market share when they

cannot export their products. Most of the currently available business resources for exporters

facilitate established and experience organizations’ growth; many of these resources are not

applicable or relevant to the strategies needed by SMEs (Paul et al., 2017). This problem inhibits

the effectiveness of interventions by owners and policymakers, as the needs in each specific

context (economy, industry, and culture) direct the type of aid needed to effectively "increase

exporting from microeconomic and macroeconomic perspectives" (Arteaga-Ortiz & Fernández-

Ortiz, 2010, p. 415).

The specific business problem this study addressed is the loss of market share of

manufacturing SMEs located in Jamaica. Multiple export researchers have called out the lack of

resources, information, and data regarding many developing countries and the types of

challenges, barriers, and struggles that SMEs face in attempting to enter the export market

(Arteaga-Ortiz & Fernández-Ortiz, 2010; Nicholson & Lashley, 2016; Paul et al., 2017; Tybout,

2000). In Jamaica's case, the country's export performance was “anemic” and had not recovered

since the global economic recession in 2008–2009 (NES, 2015). This anemia worsened due to

the global pandemic (International Monetary Fund, 2022).

The manufacturing sector's contribution to GDP in Jamaica remains below the global

average (International Monetary Fund, 2022; NES, 2015), which highlights the need for

increased growth in the industry. While the government of Jamaica set a target to grow its

manufacturing export sector by 25% and reach an export level of $25 million by the year 2019

(NES), the global pandemic stopped the progress which was beginning to occur. As noted in

February 2022, both service and traditional goods exports from Jamaica have dropped below the

2000 levels, removing all of the hard-earned gains achieved through 2019.

Research Purpose

This quantitative descriptive study aimed to categorize and rank export barriers perceived

by actual manufacturing SMEs in Jamaica. In charting a course for future research on the topic,

Paul et al. (2017) highlighted that very few studies currently exist in (a) the context of

developing economies and (b) industry-specific contextual settings related to barriers in specific

markets. Indeed, the researchers highlighted that a significant gap exists, as they have done most

studies in the context of developed countries.

Scholars in export barrier research have agreed that several geographic regions are

underrepresented in available studies (Nicholson & Lashley, 2016; Paul et al., 2017; Tybout,

2000; Williams, 2015). Indeed, there is a shortage of scholarship regarding enterprise

globalization in the Caribbean, which researchers need to address. This quantitative research

adds to the body of practitioner knowledge and updates the work previously done in the field,

recognizing that the literature agreed that the presence and relative influence of barriers would

change over time due to the economy, policy changes, and fluctuating industry environment

(Nicholson & Lashley; Paul et al.; Williams). With SMEs accounting for over 95% of firms and

80% of all employment in Jamaica (Small Business Association of Jamaica, 2017), the survival

and growth of SMEs are of great significance to the Jamaican economy. Finding out more

information regarding the types of challenges experienced by those currently exporting or the

barriers faced by those SMEs who chose not to export has been called out as a pivotal need by

export experts and the Jamaican government.

Research Questions

The following research questions (RQs) guided the study. In Chapters 3, 4, and 5,

additional subquestions probed potential ranking differences between SME owners with

exporting experience and those without exporting experience.

RQ1. What are the rankings of the perceived barriers to export facing SME owners in the

manufacturing industry in Jamaica?

RQ2. Which perceived export barrier factor facing SME owners in the manufacturing

industry is most important?

RQ3. Which of the four export barrier groups (exogenous, procedure, knowledge, and

resources) is most important to Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing industry?

RQ4. Which of the two export barrier types (internal/external) is more critical to

Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing industry?

Rationale

While growth by international diversification has been an increasing trend among SMEs,

managers' perceptions of export barriers and activities continue to be among the most critical

factors influencing a firm's export performance (Narayanan et al., 2007; Nicholson & Lashley,

2016). Paul et al. (2017) highlighted that differences in the cultural and sociopolitical

environment lend themselves to various weighting and effects. This study can respond to the

appeal by Narayanan for scholars to demonstrate (with statistical evidence and models) an

improved understanding of export barriers with the ultimate aim of tackling them in a structured

way. Not only does Jamaica qualify as a developing country and, therefore, of scholarly interest

(NES, 2015; PIOJ, 2017; United Nations, 2012), but the country needs increased exports into the

global marketplace (International Monetary Fund, 2022).

Theoretical Framework

The export barrier theory (Paul et al., 2017) guided this study. For developing countries

such as Jamaica, barriers to exports can create financial and economic hardships, as described by

Paul et al. (2017). This study extended the work of two fundamental research studies. Kahiya et

al. (2014) tested the influence of export barriers across time (longitudinally). Arteaga-Ortiz and

Fernández-Ortiz (2010) and Kahiya et al. (2014) proposed and extended the idea that they could

simplify all barriers faced by SMEs to a four-dimensional barrier typology—exogenous,

procedure, knowledge, and resource barriers. They aimed to standardize the measurement of

export barriers based on a comprehensive review of the extant literature. This study’s goal was to

compile data from Jamaican SMEs to allow export researchers to compare Jamaica’s results with

other countries using similar instruments.

Kahiya et al. (2014) noted that an export barrier matrix aligns barriers to perspectives. In

this case, exogenous resource, procedure, and knowledge barriers align to the locus of origin,

managerial control, and effect. Figure 1 depicts this concept. Further, Kahiya (2013) identified

factors that could map individual barriers (See Table 1). Whether a barrier specific to SMEs or

an individual organization or country is controllable depends on many factors. The collection of

the varying countries’ data regarding export barriers will assist researchers in understanding

which barriers could be removed or reduced by SME leaders or policymakers. Kahiya and Dean

(2015) noted other potential barriers not yet mapped to factors and called out for more research

to assist their mapping process.

Figure 1. Export Barrier Matrix and Study Framework

Note. The matrix for the framework was adapted with permission from “Export barriers in a changing institutional

environment: A quasi-longitudinal study of New Zealand’s manufacturing exporters,” by E. T. Kahiya, D. L. Dean, &

J. Hey, 2014, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 12(4), 337, ( https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-014-01317).

are bullet points, but these do not represent the full complement of barriers.

Table 1. Mapping of Individual Barriers and Their Factors, Groups, and Types

Logistical and

Distribution Factors

Handling export documentation

Knowing export procedures

Shipping and distribution overseas

Types

Groups

External

Procedure

Barriers

Adaptation Factors

Adapting products to overseas markets Product

usage differences

Pricing and promotion

Factors

Individual Barriers

Locating distributors overseas

Currency & Payment Foreign exchange rate risk/fluctuations Risks

Collecting and transferring payments

Exogenous

Barriers

Government Policy

Home Market

Factors

Lack of JA government

support/assistance

Inconsistent JA government

Export Policy

Interest rates and inflation

Internal

Trade-Related

Factors

Foreign non-tariff barriers

Foreign government

restrictions/regulations Foreign

tariff barriers

Knowledge

Barriers

Resource

Barriers

Export Market

Knowledge

Inability to identify market

opportunities

Knowing foreign business practices

Lack of overseas marketing

experience

Unfamiliarity with foreign laws

Managerial Focus

Management focused on the

domestic market

Low perceived profitability in

exporting

Lack of management time

Lack of management’s effort in

export marketing

Internal Resource

Constraints

Insufficient productive capacity

High cost of labour*

Lack of skilled/flexible labour

Financing exports (working capital)

Quality assurance requirements

Note. Transformed with permission by C. Miller (2022) from Kahiya et al. (2014) and Kahiya (2015). JA = Jamaica.

*This dissertation uses British/Jamaican English variants (versus United States [U.S.]) when applicable to the study

process. Jamaicans speak and write using the British/Jamaican English variants and received survey items in that

form. Words such as “Acknowledgments” (see section) appear using the U.S. variants.

Significance

The existing literature inadequately examines the influence of export challenges SMEs

face in developing countries (Nicholson & Lashley, 2016; Paul et al., 2017; Williams, 2015).

This study can contribute to the body of knowledge on export barriers and their effect on

financial factors that ultimately impact the growth and survival of small and medium-sized

enterprises. With numerous SMEs, Jamaica's firm owners and policymakers stand to benefit from

any studies that enhance the understanding of export barriers most affecting SMEs in the

manufacturing industry in Jamaica. This quantitative descriptive research may provide helpful

information for the manufacturing industry in the developing country of Jamaica, increasing the

opportunity for future longitudinal or industry-specific comparisons.

Definition of Terms

Anemic Economy. An anemic economy is an economy that has slow or no growth

(Silaski & Kilyeni, 2014; United Nations, 2012).

Degree of Internationalization. The enterprise's export diversity and intensity measure

export progression and strategy in a firm (Bilkey & Tesar, 1977; Dhanaraj & Beamish, 2003;

Wernerfelt, 1984).

Developing Country. It is defined as per the United Nations Economic and Social

Council. In most studies, a developing country has a gross national product per capita of $14,000

or less (United Nations, 2012).

Exogenous Export Barriers. Barriers to exporting include unpredictable circumstances,

such as exchange rate fluctuations, governments, the action of competitors, and other

uncertainties in international markets (Narayanan, 2015). Exogenous export barriers are in the

research questions. They are barriers to export facing SME owners in the manufacturing industry

in Jamaica. Exogenous export barriers are the four export barrier types (exogenous, procedure,

knowledge, resource) that are most important to Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing industry.

Export Barriers. Constraints hinder a firm from sustaining business operations in overseas

markets (Leonidou, 2004). The research questions include export barriers that are barriers to

export facing SME owners in the manufacturing industry in Jamaica.

Export Factors. Barrier factors represent the most granular theoretical grouping of

individual barriers and provide an initial theme or similarity between barrier items. Between 7

and 10 factors typically emerge in studies that employ multi-item barrier scales (Kahiya, 2013).

This study assumed an eight-factor structure using the following mapping to barrier items.

Export Diversity. A measure of the internationalization level in a firm, variety is

categorized by the number of country markets an organization serves (Dhanaraj & Beamish,

2003).

Export Intensity. Intensity shows the degree of internationalization and the extent of

internationalization in a firm (Dhanaraj & Beamish, 2003).

Export Performance. Reflective of the sales growth, foreign market share, and

profitability of a firm's export strategy (Dhanaraj & Beamish, 2003).

Gross Domestic Product. The total market value of goods and services produced by a

country's economy during a specific period. It is a nation's total economic activity and measures

a country's economy (Murry & Nan, 1994).

Internationalization. Also termed international expansion, globalization, or international

diversification (Leonidou, 1995; Sharkey et al., 1989). For this study, the term

internationalization was defined, as in Calof and Beamish (1995), to mean "the process of

adapting a firm's operations to international environments" (p. 116).

Knowledge Export Barriers. Barriers to exporting occur due to a lack of information on

shipping in the target region or established support, such as export assistance programs

(Narayanan, 2015). The research questions include knowledge export barriers. They are barriers

to export facing SME owners in the manufacturing industry in Jamaica. Knowledge export

barriers are the four export barrier types (exogenous, procedure, knowledge, resource) most

important to Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing industry.

Pandemic. The classic definition of a pandemic is “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or

over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of

people” (Kelly, 2011, p. 540). Kelly noted that “true” pandemics occur “when almost

simultaneous transmission takes place worldwide” (p. 540). Singer et al. (2021) noted that the

term pandemic was not well defined, and no widely accepted definition existed. The U.S. Center

for Disease Control and Prevention (2022) defines a pandemic as “when new (novel)...viruses

emerge which are able to infect people easily and spread from person to person in an efficient

and sustained way” (para. 1). This study defined the COVID-19 pandemic as beginning on

March 11, 2020, when WHO officially declared its existence (WHO, 2020b).

Procedural Export Barriers. Barriers include logistical, bureaucracy, or cultural and

linguistic obstacles that impede exporting (Narayanan, 2015). Procedural export barriers are in

the research questions. They are barriers to export facing SME owners in the manufacturing

industry in Jamaica. Procedural export barriers are the four export barrier types (exogenous,

procedure, knowledge, resource) that are most important to Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing

industry.

Resource Export Barriers. Barriers to exporting result from a lack of financial (and

other) resources within the firm (Narayanan, 2015). These include insufficient staffing,

specialists, financing, banks, and production capacity (Narayanan). Resource export barriers are

in the research questions. They are barriers to export facing SME owners in the manufacturing

industry in Jamaica. Resource export barriers are one of the four export barrier types (exogenous,

procedure, knowledge, resource) that are most important to Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing

industry.

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). The size of a firm is an ordinal

categorization determined by measures of its total sales or number of employees (Dhanaraj &

Beamish, 2003). The definition differs from country to country and ranges from firms with no

more than 50 employees to those with no more than 500 employees (Corporate Finance Institute,

2022).

Assumptions and Limitations

The assumptions and limitations of this study are detailed below.

Assumptions

The study plan included a few assumptions. First, the study findings assume that

participants answered the survey questions truthfully (Simon, 2011). Next, it was assumed that

the instrument used in the study applied to the Jamaican business environment, despite it not

having been used in Jamaica previously. Kahiya et al. (2014) constructed the instrument using

numerous studies across compiled literature. It was also tested and verified for validity in

different contexts (Kahiya & Dean, 2014).

Limitations

The research faced limitations. First, there was a limitation in that only privately-owned

manufacturing SMEs in Jamaica were surveyed. Paul et al. (2017) emphasized that SME

internationalization factors, barriers, and hence the extent of their influence differ depending on

the industry to which they belong. The second limitation, by design, was the financial data that

the study used. Williams (2015) found, as did many who have researched Jamaican SMEs, that

owners do not readily give information related to their business (especially of a financial nature).

The third limitation is that the researcher did not have direct access to the participants, reducing

the ability to clarify responses to survey questions. Market Research Services Limited, a

thirdparty company in Jamaica, distributed the survey to a pre-defined/agreed group. Hence, the

research is limited to the comprehensiveness of the eligibility criteria and compliance of Market

Research Services Limited to the required guidelines set by the study’s proposal. This sampling

method—non-random selection of participants—represents an additional limitation.

Delimitations

Delimitations affect the transferability of the study's results due to intentional exclusions

by the researcher (Creswell, 2009). The first delimitation of the study was about the eligibility

criteria. The definition of SMEs used, for example, has potential implications on the applicability

of results to international populations that utilize different SME definitions. The same applies to

criteria surrounding the designation of manufacturing SMEs.

Organization of the Remainder of Study

This study includes five chapters. Chapter 1 presented the introduction. Chapter 2

contains a literature review covering export barrier measurement, history, constructs, financial

performance, and pertinent controversies in scholarship. Chapter 3 presents the research

methodology and design, while Chapter 4 describes the analysis and results. The final chapter

presents a summary of results and recommendations for future research.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Previous studies have shown a significant correlation between export barriers and firm

performance and internationalization. Anil et al. (2016), Jalali (2012), and Nee et al. (2018)

found that export barriers significantly affected performance, while Kahiya (2013) found that

export barriers significantly predicted internationalization. However, a gap exists in the literature

that examines the impact of export barriers on SMEs' export performance and

internationalization in specific developing countries. This quantitative study aimed to fill this gap

in the context of SMEs in Jamaica's manufacturing industry. The study aimed to contribute

meaningfully to the literature by ranking and categorizing the export barriers that most affect

SMEs in the manufacturing industry in Jamaica.

This chapter examines the theory and literature guiding this study. In addition, this

chapter presents previous literature relevant to the relationship between export barriers and

export performance and the relationship between export barriers and internationalization. Finally,

this chapter describes methods for assessing the export barrier.

Search Strategy

The researcher used Google Scholar online and the journals and databases in Capella’s

library to select the most relevant literature. Search keywords included export barriers,

internationalization, exporting, challenges, and SMEs. Search keywords also included

combinations of terms—the relationship between export barriers and performance, the

relationship between export barriers and internationalization, the relationship between export

barriers and export intensity, and the relationship between export intensity and export

performance—seeking peer-reviewed articles and seminal literature.

Theoretical Framework

This quantitative descriptive study relied on the export barrier theory as its basis. For

developing countries such as Jamaica, barriers to exports can create financial and economic

hardships, as described by Paul et al. (2017). Arteaga-Ortiz and Fernández-Ortiz (2010) and

Kahiya et al. (2014) proposed and extended the idea that all barriers faced by SMEs could

include a four-dimensional barrier typology—exogenous, procedure, knowledge, and resource

barriers. Kahiya et al. (2014) examined the impact of export barriers. Their findings suggested

that the effect of export barriers can vary across time. According to Kahiya et al., export barriers

impede firms from engaging in internationalization. The authors standardized the measurement

of export barriers based on a comprehensive review of the extant literature. It may facilitate

making comparisons between Jamaica and other regions previously surveyed and enable

conducting a financial analysis of the impact of each dimension.

Kahiya et al. (2014) noted that an export barrier matrix aligns barriers to classifications.

The barriers Kahiya et al. found important to SMEs included exogenous, resource, procedure,

and knowledge barriers; some of these barriers are controllable by SMEs, but others are not (i.e.,

those under the control of policymakers, the environment, the economy, and similar).

Kahiya et al. (2014) also differentiated barriers as those which are locus of origin

(comprised of internal and external dimensions), managerial control (can be controllable or

noncontrollable), and effect (are either dynamic or static). Exogenous barriers comprise factors

external to the company, fixed, and uncontrollable. Resource barriers are static and consist of

factors that are internal to the company and uncontrollable. Procedure barriers are dynamic and

include factors external to the company but are controllable. Knowledge and experience barriers

are active, consist of factors that are internal to the company, and controllable. (p. 379). These

factors contribute to the export barrier matrix and the study framework (See Figure 1).

Kahiya et al. (2014) developed the export barrier theory, which supports the research

questions and fits the study because it examines export barriers. The approach developed by

Arteaga-Ortiz and Fernández-Ortiz (2010) aligns with the research and the research questions

because it also includes export barriers.

Using Kahiya et al.’s export barrier theory, the constructs from the study's theoretical

framework guided the study (Table 1). The theoretical framework constructs included individual

perceived barriers and the eight export barrier factors (i.e., managerial focus, internal resource

constraints, export market knowledge, currency risk and payment obstacles, trade-related

barriers, government policy/home market factors, adaptation factors, logistical and distribution

factors), the four export barrier groups (exogenous, procedure, knowledge, and resources), and

the two export barrier types (internal and external). The theoretical framework led to research

questions aligned among individual, factor, group, and type of barriers.

Review of the Literature

The literature review follows the historical perspective of SME growth strategies, the

variables included within the export theory matrix and framework, and the business problem. The

review focused on the methodologies used with the instruments for export research and provides

support for this study’s methodology (a descriptive quantitative technique).

Growth Strategies for SMEs

The academic history of studies on growth strategies for SMEs has yielded varying and

mixed results. Many owners of businesses of all sizes have turned to export as a strategy to

increase their profits. Therefore, several scholars have investigated the level and direction of

influence that exporting has had on SME growth. Racic et al. (2008) found that exporting could

benefit SMEs. The authors surveyed 535 exporters in Croatia, whose 262 responses, and

analyzed them using chi-square tests. They found that high-growth SMEs in Croatia were most

active in exporting and providing new, innovative products, using new technologies, and

investing in research and development (p = 0.013). Their study helped show a connection

between exports and SME growth.

Cantele et al.'s (2016) findings differed from Racic et al. (2008). After surveying and

analyzing data from 1,235 firms in Italy, using correlation and regression analyses, they

concluded that exporting can be detrimental to SMEs if internationalization is not achievable due

to barriers to exporting. Cantele et al.’s findings showed that three stages exist – stage one, where

exporting is too expensive and unknown (thus detrimental); stage two, where exporting becomes

profitable; and stage three, where increased costs reduce the value of exportation. Although

these two perspectives on export and growth of SMEs are contradictory, their ultimate conclusion

was that exporting can benefit SMEs if internationalization is present. The two studies

highlighted the differences between and among various countries, which helps explain why

export experts made calls for more country-focused research.

Export Barriers and Profitability/Performance Research

Export barriers correlate significantly with profitability/performance. Anil et al. (2016)

surveyed 135 exporters in Turkey, and subsequent analysis of their data found that perceptions of

external barriers significantly affected performance.

Regression analysis, the most appropriate approach for measuring the impact of an

independent variable on a continuous dependent variable, was conducted. Although Anil et al.

(2016) confirmed that they met some assumptions, they did not verify others within the

information provided in the article.

• First, the authors should have shown results by checking the independence of

observations using the Durbin-Watson statistic (Cooper & Schindler, 2014).

• Second, the authors should have provided results of testing a linear relationship

between the dependent and independent variables using a scatterplot (Vaishnavi &

Kuechler, 2015).

• Third, the authors should have provided the results of testing the assumption of

normality using skewness and kurtosis and a Normal P-P Plot (Cooper & Schindler,

2014).

• Fourth, homoscedasticity should have been shown by plotting residual values against

predicted values (Vaishnavi & Kuechler, 2015).

• Fifth, multicollinearity needed to be verified using Tolerance/VIF values (Cooper &

Schindler, 2014).

• Finally, the authors should have explained how they checked for outliers (Vaishnavi

& Kuechler, 2015).

The reported Cronbach’s alpha values (α = 0.79–0.91) were acceptable under usual social

science research standards (Nunnally, 1978). Thus, the scale showed internal reliability.

However, the authors did not report examining its discriminant or convergent validity.

Anil et al.'s (2016) findings were similar to Jalali's (2012) findings. Jalali agreed with

Anil et al.; Jalali’s perspectives were positive, concluding that export barriers significantly

affected performance. In surveying and analyzing 141 firms in Greek, a structural equation

model, which is the most appropriate for analyzing a complicated path model, was successfully

performed. Jalali developed the complex path model.

Six dimensions explained about 85.12% of the total variance. Jalali (2012) used the total

variance as the validity measure of the model. However, Jalali did not examine the reliability of

the scale.

Jalali's (2012) findings were similar to those of Nee et al. (2018). Jalali and Anil et al.

examined the relationship between export barriers and profitability/performance. Their

perspectives on that relationship were negative. Nee et al. agreed with Jalali; their views were

also negative.

Nee et al. (2018) found that export barriers significantly affected performance.

Ninetyseven exporters in Malaysia were surveyed and analyzed. The authors successfully

conducted the most appropriate structural equation model for studying a complicated path model.

Nee et al. developed the complex path model. Average variance extracted (AVE) values were

acceptable (0.56–0.70, > 0.50), as were composite reliability values (0.88–0.91, >0.70). Thus, the

scale showed high convergent validity. However, the authors did not examine the scale's

reliability and discriminant validity.

Altintas et al.'s (2007) findings were similar to those of Jalali (2012) and Anil et al.

(2016). Like Jalali (2012) and Anil et al. (2016), their perspectives were also negative. After

surveying 2,000 companies and analyzing their data, Altintas et al. found that export barriers

significantly affected performance. The authors successfully performed exploratory factor

analysis and a structural equation model. Altintas et al. developed the complicated path model.

Jaeger (2008) disagreed with Nee et al. (2018), Jalali (2012), Altintas et al. (2007), and

Anil et al. (2016). Jaeger's findings differed from those of the above studies. Based on a survey

and analysis of 50 export firms in New Zealand, Jaeger found that export barriers did not

significantly affect performance.

Jaeger (2008) performed case studies, the most appropriate approach for examining a

complicated issue in its real-life context. However, regression analyses are appropriate for

examining the impact of the independent variables on continuous dependent variables. Jaeger

examined the effects of export barriers on performance.

Anil et al. (2016), Jalali (2012), Jaeger (2008), Altintas et al. (2007), and Nee et al.

(2018) examined the relationship between export barriers and profitability or performance.

Except for Jaeger, all these researchers found that export barriers significantly affected

performance; Jaeger found no significant relationship. Nevertheless, the critical recommendation

was a meaningful relationship between export barriers and profitability or performance. Because

they examined that relationship, the above studies fit with the research questions, the problem,

and the study's significance.

Export Barriers and the Degree of Internationalization Research

A significant relationship has appeared between export barriers and the degree of

internationalization (Kahiya, 2013). This conclusion came after surveying and analyzing the data

from 129 companies. Kahiya found that export barriers significantly and positively predicted

internationalization. Kahiya performed logistic regression, the most appropriate approach to

examining an independent variable's impact on a categorical dependent variable. Cronbach’s

alpha values were acceptable (α = 0.70 – 0.82), indicating internal reliability. Ten dimensions had

eigenvalues greater than one.

Similarly, Wąsowska (2016) also examined the effects of export barriers on the

company's internationalization process. Consistent with other studies, Wąsowska found that

export barriers significantly affected the perception of internationalization barriers. Wąsowska

surveyed 7,515 European SMEs using the Flash Eurobarometer survey.

Wąsowska successfully utilized a one-way ANOVA to examine the hypothesis.

Cronbach’s alpha values were acceptable (α = 0.78 – 0.86) (Nunnally, 1978). Thus, the scale

showed sufficient internal reliability. However, Wąsowska did not examine the discriminant and

convergent validity of the scale.

In line with other studies, Diem (2020) also investigated the effects of export barriers on

the internationalization of SMEs. Diem surveyed SMEs in Vietnam using the SMEs survey

questionnaire. Diem also found that SME managers'/owners' perceptions of export barriers

significantly affected their internationalization. Diem conducted a binary logistic regression

analysis to examine the research question.

Similarly, Akter (2018) also examined the effects of export barriers on

internationalization. Akter also found that perception of export barriers in SMEs'' significantly

affected their internationalization. Akter surveyed 107 SME exporters in Bangladesh using a

structured questionnaire.

Akter (2018) utilized factor analysis and Pearson Product-Moment Correlation.

Cronbach’s alpha values were acceptable (α = 0.84 – 0.91), showing internal reliability. Factor

analysis extracted five factors influencing international export barriers of SMEs' exporters. These

factors show 81.268 percent of the variance of the variables. However, the author did not

examine the discriminant and convergent validity of the scale.

Similarly, Köhr et al. (2018) also investigated the effects of export barriers on the

internationalization process of Italian wine SMEs. The authors found that export barriers

significantly affected the difficulties perceived in the internationalization process. The

researchers surveyed and analyzed 57 exporting wineries in Italy. The researchers used Mann–

Whitney U tests and Spearman correlations to analyze the data and answer the research

questions. Mann–Whitney U tests and Spearman correlations are most appropriate when the data

are nonparametric. Explorative factor analysis yielded one factor with an Eigenvalue larger

than1. Cronbach's alpha value was .73, indicating it is acceptable (Nunnally, 1978).

Köhr et al.’s (2018) viewpoints on the relationship between export barriers and

internationalization were positive, while Kennedy and Nicholas's (2009) findings differed and

were negative. Kennedy and Nicholas found that perceived export barriers were significantly and

negatively associated with internationalization, based on a survey of 100 export firms in Ghana

and an analysis of its results. Kennedy and Nicholas developed their instrument for the study.

Kennedy and Nicholas performed a structural equation model using the complicated path model

to determine whether factors of export barriers negatively or positively affected export

performance. Variables reviewed included firm size, internal management forces,

internationalization, perceived export barriers, and export performance. The authors tested the

assumption of normality using skewness and kurtosis. Cronbach’s alpha values ranged between

.59–.79; the authors removed from their scale those items which did not score above .70. The

barriers that most influenced export performance included the following:

• human resource barrier ([34.8% of the total variance], i.e., too few export experts);

• the financial barrier ([15% of the total variance], i.e., overseas payment slowness);

and

• market barriers ([11.2% of the total variance, but with low Cronbach’s], i.e.,

bureaucracy of overseas markets and requirements).

A commitment to exporting by management was correlated and significantly related to

the increase in export performance (p < .05); the authors noted this was consistent with previous

findings of other researchers.

Audretsch et al. (2021) examined the effects of export barriers on two types of

internationalization (i.e., direct exporting activities and outward foreign direct investment).

Audretsch et al. found that export regulations partially affected direct exporting activities but did

not affect outward foreign direct investment. The authors used data from 96 countries between

2000 and 2018 and 1,433 observations to examine the hypotheses.

Audretsch et al. successfully utilized a regression analysis. The authors tested the

multicollinearity assumption using the variance inflation factor (2 – 5). However, the researchers

did not test the other regression analysis assumptions. In addition, the authors did not test the

internal reliability of the scale. Finally, the authors did not examine the discriminant and

convergent validity of the scale.

Kahiya (2013), Kennedy and Nicholas (2009), Wąsowska (2016), Akter (2018), and

Köhr et al. (2018) examined the relationship between export barriers and internationalization.

Most of these researchers found that export barriers significantly and positively predicted

internationalization. However, Kennedy and Nicholas found that perceived export barriers were

significantly and negatively associated with internationalization. Although these viewpoints are

contradictory, the essential conclusion was that a significant relationship exists between export

barriers and internationalization. However, the levels of and specific barrier relationships seem to

vary based on location, firm size, and other exogenous and internal variables. Thus, a continued

examination of multiple industries’ and countries’ export practices is warranted.

Internationalization and Performance Research

Correlations between internationalization and performance have been found. In a study by

Cho and Lee (2018), 232 firms in Korea were surveyed and analyzed. Regression analyses

showed that the degree of internationalization was significantly and positively associated with

performance. Although Cho and Lee confirmed that they met some regression analysis

assumptions, they did not verify the scale's reliability and discriminant and convergent validity.

The participants were in Korea; while the findings cannot be generalized to other countries, their

work did add to the overall body of knowledge desired by export experts. Adding other countries,

such as Jamaica, to the body of knowledge could better understand how different variables might

relate to export performance and overcoming export barriers.

Cho and Lee's (2018) findings were similar to Lu and Beamish's (2001) findings from

Japan (17 years earlier). In analyzing data from a survey of 164 export companies in Japan, Lu

and Beamish found that internationalization was significantly and positively associated with

performance. The views of Lu and Beamish and Cho and Lee on the relationship between

internationalization and performance were positive. Cantele et al. (2016) agreed with Lu and

Beamish; their regression findings were also positive for a significant relationship. Surveying

231 firms and analyzing the data collected concluded that internationalization was significantly

and positively associated with performance.

In examining the relationship between internationalization and performance, Lu and

Beamish (2001), Cho and Lee (2018), and Cantele et al. (2016) agreed that the relationship is

positive. Like Borda et al.'s (2017) findings, Sun et al.'s (2019) perspectives were also positive,

based on their survey analysis of 1,220 companies. They concluded that internationalization

significantly affected firm performance among those having considerable marketing ability.

Lu and Beamish (2001), Cho and Lee (2018), Cantele et al. (2016), and Sun et al. (2019)

examined the relationship between internationalization and performance. Their views regarding

the relationship between export barriers and profitability or performance were positive, as were

those of Bobillo et al. (2012), but differed from the findings of Buigues et al. (2018).

Bobillo et al. (2012) found a stronger relationship between internationalization and

performance in service companies than industrial companies in their study of 1,721 companies in

Europe. Still, they also failed to verify their results by running additional tests as described above

and examining the scale's reliability and discriminant and convergent validity.

Lu and Beamish (2001), Cho and Lee (2018), Cantele et al. (2016), Bobillo et al. (2012),

and Sun et al. (2019) had positive views about the relationship between export barriers and

profitability or performance. Borda et al.'s (2017) findings were similarly positive. Still, they

observed that business group diversification had a more significant impact on the relationship

between export barriers and profitability or performance for service companies than

manufacturing companies. Their study comprised 103 companies in Latin America. Multilevel

models were successfully applied, most appropriate for examining grouped or clustered data.

However, the authors did not discuss the scale's reliability and discriminant and convergent

validity.

In examining the relationship between internationalization and performance, Buigues et

al.'s (2018) perspectives were negative, unlike those of Lu and Beamish (2001), Cho and Lee

(2018), Cantele et al. (2016), Bobillo et al. (2012), and Borda et al. (2017). Buigues et al. found

that internationalization affected performance positively at first but later negatively. Their data

included the results of a survey of the largest transnational companies. They failed to perform the

recommended verification procedures, but they checked multicollinearity using the correlation

matrix and multicollinearity diagnostic. The correlation matrix implied multicollinearity. They

further examined it using the multicollinearity diagnostic. VIF values were less than three,

confirming no multicollinearity. However, the authors did not discuss the scale's reliability and

discriminant and convergent validity.

Like Buigues et al. (2018), Hitt et al.'s (1997) perspectives and views were also negative

on the relationship between internationalization and performance. Their investigation of 1,721

companies demonstrated that internationalization was negatively associated with performance in

non-diversified companies and positively associated with performance in highly

productdiversified companies. However, the authors did not examine the scale's reliability and

discriminant and convergent validity.

Garcia-Garcia et al.'s (2017) findings were similar to those of Hitt et al. (1997) and

Buigues et al. (2018). The study conducted by Garcia-Garcia et al. with 103 companies in Spain

indicated a significant and negative correlation between internationalization and profitability. The

authors successfully performed a Heckman analysis; this is the most appropriate instrument for

estimating regression models suffering from sample selection bias. However, the authors did not

examine the scale's reliability and discriminant and convergent validity. The participants were in

Spain.

Export Barriers and Export Intensity Research

Previous researchers have found a significant correlation between export barriers and

export intensity. Martinovic and Matana (2017) found a significant correlation between perceived

export barriers and export intensity in the survey results from 100 firms in Croatia. The

relationship was negative. The authors performed regression analyses. Martinovic and Matana

checked that they met some regression analysis assumptions. However, according to the

previously-mentioned recommended procedures, the authors had not verified others. Most

Cronbach’s alpha values were acceptable (α = 0.63–0.87). Thus, the scale showed internal

reliability. The external environment factor explained about 38.22% of the total variance.

Martinovic and Matana's (2017) findings were similar to Jalali's (2012) findings and

Milanzi’s (2012) findings. Milanzi found that export barriers significantly affected export

intensity in a study of 122 companies in Tanzania. The Tobit regression model, which is most

appropriate for measuring the impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable when

there is censoring in the dependent variable, was successfully applied. Most Cronbach's alpha

values were acceptable (α = 0.60–0.83), showing internal reliability. The first group, including

internal barriers, accounted for 68.9% of the variance. The second group accounted for 66.2%.

Martinovic and Matana (2017) found a significant correlation between perceived export

barriers and export intensity. Milanzi (2012) also concluded that export barriers significantly

affected export intensity. The important conclusion was that a significant relationship exists

between export barriers and export intensity.

Export Intensity and Export Performance Research

Significant correlations between export intensity and export performance were found in

previous research. In a survey and analysis of the data of 249 employees at firms in Spain, Stoian

(2010) found a significant correlation between export intensity and export performance. The

author successfully performed univariate and multivariate analyses and a structural equation

model. Cronbach's alpha values were acceptable (α >0.70) (Nunnally, 1978). Thus, the scale

showed high internal reliability. Composite reliability values were good (>0.70). Thus, the scale

showed a high degree of convergent validity. However, the author did not examine the reliability

of the scale. In addition, the author did not discuss the discriminant validity of the scale.

Stoian's (2010) findings were similar to Kahiya and Dean's (2014) findings. Kahiya and

Dean's perspectives were positive. A survey of 118 exporters in New Zealand found that export

intensity significantly predicted export performance. The authors successfully performed

regression analysis. Although Kahiya and Dean checked that they met some regression analysis

assumptions, they had not verified others by the previously recommended procedures. Kahiya

and Dean’s, and Stoian’s research studies provided findings regarding the relationship between

export intensity and export performance; both studies found that export intensity significantly

predicted export performance.

The Drivers of Internationalization

There are various drivers of internalization. Kahiya and Dean (2015) found that export

barriers drove internalization. The authors surveyed 95 SME exporters in New Zealand in 1995.

The authors analyzed 129 SME exporters in New Zealand in 2010 using the same survey

instrument.

Kahiya and Dean (2015) utilized exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor

analysis. In addition, the authors successfully used binary logistic regression to examine the

research question. Exploratory factor analysis identified an eight-factor solution, showing 60.4

percent variability in the scale. Cronbach's alpha values were acceptable (α = 0.70–0.83),

indicating internal reliability.

Similarly, Kraus et al. (2017) also examined the drivers of internalization. Kraus et al.'s

findings are different from Kahiya and Dean's (2015) findings. Inconsistent with Kahiya and

Dean's studies, the authors found that a suitable market selection, proactive motives, and a

longterm scope could drive SMEs' internalization. In addition, the authors found that strategic

factors were more likely to drive internationalization than structural factors.

Kraus et al. (2017) utilized 187 German SME managers and 2244 internationalization

decisions. The authors successfully used a hierarchical Bayes procedure to develop the

multinomial logit model. However, the authors did not examine the scale's reliability and

discriminant and convergent validity.

Amos et al. (2020) investigated the drivers of the internationalization of SMEs in Nigeria.

Consistent with Kraus et al.'s (2017) studies, the authors also found that strategic factors

significantly affected the internationalization of companies. The authors surveyed and analyzed

200 employees of 10 SMEs in Nigeria. Amos et al. successfully conducted multiple regression to

examine the research question. The authors tested and met the assumptions of multiple regression

(e.g., normality, multicollinearity, homoscedasticity). However, the authors did not examine the

scale's reliability and discriminant and convergent validity.

Fernandes et al. (2019) also examined the drivers of internalization. However, Fernandes

et al.'s findings are different from Kraus et al.'s (2017) findings. The authors found that market

orientations significantly and positively affected internationalization. The authors emailed a

questionnaire to 8,103 exporting companies interested in exporting and received 320 responses.

Fernandes et al. used three multiple linear regression models to examine the research question.

Exploratory factor analysis showed that the first factor represented 10.7 % of the total variation.

Cronbach's alpha values were between 0.84 and 0.95, indicating internal reliability.

Lobo et al. (2020) examined the drivers of the internationalization of 320 SMEs in

Portugal. The authors' findings are different from other researchers' findings. The authors found

that external pressures in the home country were significant drivers of SEMs'

internationalization. Exploratory factor analysis identified the significant factors. In addition, the

authors used six items to measure the market characteristics construct. Three factors explained

73.8% of the variability. The authors used 11 items to measure the predictor construct of

inhibitors. In addition, exploratory factor analysis delivered four factors explaining 68% of the

variability. The strategic approach to internationalization construct consisted of four items. The

exploratory factor analysis yielded two factors explaining more than 68.0% of the variability.

Lobo et al. (2020) conducted multiple linear regression models to test the research

question. Multiple linear regression is most appropriate for testing the effects of several

independent variables on the dependent variable. However, the authors did not examine the

reliability and validity of the scale.

Kim (2017) examined the drivers of the internationalization of SMEs in South Korea. The

author found that entrepreneurial orientation and investment in employee human capital drove

the internationalization of SMEs in South Korea. 150 SMEs in South Korea were surveyed and

analyzed. Kim successfully performed correlation and logistic regression analyses to examine the

research questions. The author examined construct validity using principal component factor

analysis to present factor loadings. The factor loadings of the scales indicated convergent and

discriminant validity of the constructs. Cronbach's alpha values were higher than

0.70, showing internal validity.

Falahat et al. (2020) examined if four essential export capabilities (market intelligence,

product innovation, pricing, and marketing communication) drove SMEs' internationalization.

The authors found that three of the mentioned capabilities lead to competitive advantages after

surveying 119 exporting Malaysian SMEs. The authors utilized partial least squares structural

equation modeling. The authors tested the reliability of measures using the composite reliability

(CR) index and the average variance extracted (AVE) index. Both indices were higher than the

evaluation criteria, 0.7 for the CR index and 0.5 for the AVE index. All values were within the

recommended threshold, indicating internal consistency reliability and convergent validity. To

assess the discriminant validity, the square root of AVE should be higher than the absolute value

of inter-construct correlations. All constructs met this criterion. In addition, all

heterotraitmonotrait ratio of correlations values of the constructs were less than 0.85, indicating

no discriminant validity issue.

Vătămănescu et al. (2017) examined the effects of openness, context exploitation,

credibility, and specialized networks on SMEs' internationalization. The authors found that the

considered factors explained over 55% of the variance in internationalization. The authors

surveyed and analyzed 107 managers from European metal wholesalers SMEs. The authors

tested convergent validity using factor loadings and cross-loadings, AVE and composite

reliability, individual item reliability, composite reliability, and discriminant validity of the

measurement model. The reflective item factor loadings were higher than 0.65. Composite

reliability (CR) values were between 0.8 and 0.91 (i.e., > 0.70), and AVE was from 0.67 to 0.84,

meeting all criteria. The authors tested the discriminant validity of constructs by comparing the

square roots of the AVEs with other correlation scores. The construct correlations did not exceed

the corresponding square root of AVE.

The authors used PLS structural model to answer the research question. The authors

evaluated the extent of multicollinearity among constructs using the variance inflation factor

(VIF). As VIF scores ranged from 1.16 to 2.15 (< 3.3), multicollinearity did not alter the data.

In summary, Amos et al. (2020), Falahat et al. (2020), Fernandes et al. (2019), Kahiya and

Dean (2015), Kim (2017), Kraus et al. (2017), Lobo et al. (2020), and Vătămănescu et al. (2017)

examined the drivers of internalization. They found that many country SMEs exhibited multiple

drivers.

Internal/External Factors and Internationalization Research

Significant correlations between internal/external factors and internalization were found

in research conducted in 2021. Miorini et al. (2021) found a significant correlation between

external factors (i.e., the governmental and socio-cultural barriers) and internalization. The

authors also found that internal factors such as market barriers and managers' dimensions

significantly affected internalization. The authors collected 71 responses and analyzed them.

The authors used confirmatory factor analysis to test the validity and reliability of the instrument.

The authors successfully conducted a structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the

research question.

Zaki et al. (2020) also examined the relationship between internal/external factors and

internationalization. The authors found that management characteristics (e.g., entrepreneurial

orientation, foreign market knowledge, attitudes towards risks) were significantly associated with

internalization. In addition, the authors found that internal factors (products' quality and

uniqueness, reputation and trust, technology) were significantly associated with internalization.

Finally, the authors found that external factors (e.g., industry networking/ association,

globalization phenomena, financial funding opportunities, ethics) were significantly associated

with internalization.

Zaki et al. (2020) used descriptive statistics to answer the research question. However, a

correlation analysis is most appropriate for examining the relationship between variables.

Therefore, using a correlation analysis would lead to more accurate results.

Santhosh (2019) also examined the impact of internal and external factors on the

internalization of SMEs. The author found that internal and external factors (i.e., the

characteristics of SMEs, CEO's age, international experience, and export barriers) significantly

affected the internalization of SMEs. The author's study was rooted in a model created by

Leonidou (2004). Leonidou analyzed the impact of barriers delaying the export activities of small

businesses. Leonidou classified export barriers as internal and external barriers.

Santhosh (2019) analyzed 1,271 exporting SMEs in Karnataka. The author successfully

utilized exploratory factor analysis. The final model extracted a six-factor solution explaining

63.4 % of the total variance concerning internal barriers and 49 % of the total variance relating to

external obstacles. Cronbach's alpha values were between 0.63 and 0.99. The author conducted a

binary logistic regression analysis to examine the research question.

Talebi et al. (2017) also examined the relationship between internal factors and the

internalization of SMEs. Talebi et al.'s findings were rooted in Leonidou's (2004) study. Talebi et

al. found that internal factors such as firm-level variables (i.e., company characteristics,

resources, top management team characteristics) significantly affected the internationalization of

SMEs. The authors surveyed 250 top managers of international SMEs in Iran's ICT sector and

collected 120 valid responses. The authors used path analysis to answer the research question.

The authors utilized confirmatory factor analysis to examine the validity of the scale.

Levels above 0.90 for NFI showed a good fit. Results indicated that variables are valid.

Miorini et al. (2021), Santhosh (2019), Talebi et al. (2017), and Zaki et al. (2020)

examined the relationship between internal/external factors and internalization. They found a

significant correlation between Internal/external factors and internalization. Therefore, their

studies fit the research questions, the problem, and the study's significance in the relationship

between Internal/external factors and internalization.

Critique of Previous Research Methods

Anil et al. (2016), Jalali (2012), Jaeger (2008), Altintas et al. (2007), and Nee et al. (2018)

used quantitative methods to measure the relationship between export barriers and performance.

Quantitative methods are appropriate for measuring the relationship between export barriers and

performance. They also provide descriptive and exploratory data for emerging markets, initial

forays into a market, and contributing data toward future research. Multiple researchers have

used differing export barrier instruments and methods to analyze their data. While many of them

were adequate for the country and period, initial data analyses described processes to ensure a

base understanding of the type of export environment.

Differences among studies existed – many due to the studies being focused on varying

industries and locations. For example, out of five studies examining the relationship between

export barriers and firm performance, four concluded that export barriers significantly affected

performance. In contrast, Jaeger (2008) came to the opposite conclusion.

Kahiya (2013) and Kennedy and Nicholas (2009) used quantitative methods to measure

the relationship between export barriers and internationalization. Quantitative methods are

appropriate for measuring the relationship between export barriers and internationalization.

Kahiya found that export barriers significantly and positively predicted internationalization.

However, Kennedy and Nicholas found that perceived export barriers were significantly and

negatively associated with internationalization in Ghana. There are differing viewpoints

concerning the relationship between export barriers and internationalization. However, the main

conclusions were that a significant relationship exists between export barriers and

internationalization.

Cho and Lee (2018), Lu and Beamish (2001), Cantele et al. (2016), Sun et al. (2019),

Bobillo et al. (2012), Buigues et al. (2018), Hitt et al. (1997), Garcia-Garcia et al. (2017), and

Borda et al. (2017) used quantitative methods to examine the relationship between

internationalization and performance. Quantitative methods are appropriate for measuring the

relationship between internationalization and performance.

Cho and Lee (2018) found that the degree of internationalization was significantly and

positively associated with performance. Lu and Beamish (2001) found that internationalization

was significantly and positively associated with performance. Cantele et al. (2016) also

concluded that internationalization was significantly and positively associated with performance.

Sun et al. (2019) found that internationalization affected firm performance for those firms with

high marketing ability. In addition, Bobillo et al. (2012) found a stronger relationship between

them in service companies than in industrial companies. Borda et al.'s (2017) findings were

similar to Bobillo et al.’s findings. They also found that business group diversification has a more

substantial impact on the relationship between internationalization and performance for service

companies than for manufacturing companies. However, Buigues et al.'s (2018) findings differed

from those of the above studies. They found that internationalization affected performance

positively at first but then negatively. Hitt et al. (1997) found that internationalization was

negatively associated with performance in non-diversified companies and positively associated

with performance in highly product-diversified companies. GarciaGarcia et al. (2017) found a

significant and negative correlation between internationalization and profitability.

There were different points of view on the relationship between internationalization and

performance. The important conclusion is that a significant relationship exists between

internationalization and performance.

Synthesis of the Research Findings

Cantele et al. (2016) and Racic et al. (2008) examined exporting as a growth strategy for

SMEs. Racic et al. suggested that exports can benefit SMEs, but Cantele et al. indicated that

exporting can be detrimental when internationalization is not achievable. There were different

standpoints concerning export and SMEs. The main recommendation was that exports could be

beneficial to SMEs.

Anil et al. (2016), Jalali (2012), Jaeger (2008), Altintas et al. (2007), and Nee et al. (2018)

examined the relationship between export barriers and profitability or performance. Four of them

found that export barriers significantly affected performance, while Jaeger found that they did

not significantly affect performance. While viewpoints differed concerning the relationship

between export barriers and profitability or performance, the main recommendations were a

significant relationship between export barriers and profitability or performance. The above

studies fit with the research questions, the problem, and the study's significance by examining the

relationship between export barriers and profitability or performance.

Kahiya (2013) and Kennedy and Nicholas (2009) examined the relationship between

export barriers and internationalization. Kahiya found that export barriers significantly and

positively predicted internationalization. However, Kennedy and Nicholas concluded that

perceived export barriers were significantly and negatively associated with internationalization.

Despite these differing findings, the main recommendations were a significant relationship

between export barriers and internationalization.

Lu and Beamish (2001), Cho and Lee (2018), Cantele et al. (2016), Buigues et al. (2018),

Bobillo et al. (2012), Borda et al. (2017), Garcia-Garcia et al. (2017), and Hitt et al. (1997)

examined the relationship between internationalization and performance. Lu and Beamish, Cho

and Lee, and Cantele et al. found that internationalization was significantly and positively

associated with performance. Buigues et al. found that internationalization positively affected

performance initially and negatively affected it. Bobillo et al. found a stronger relationship

between internationalization and performance in service companies than in industrial companies.

Borda et al. found that business group diversification had a more substantial impact on the

relationship between internationalization and performance for service companies than

manufacturing companies. Hitt et al. found that internationalization was negatively associated

with performance in non-diversified companies and positively associated with performance in

highly product-diversified companies. Garcia-Garcia et al. found a significant and negative

correlation between internationalization and profitability. Despite these differing standpoints, the

vital recommendation was a meaningful relationship between internationalization and

performance.

Martinovic and Matana (2017) and Milanzi (2012) examined the relationship between

export barriers and export intensity. Martinovic and Matana found a significant correlation

between perceived export barriers and export intensity, and Milanzi found that export barriers

significantly affected export intensity. Thus, the conclusion was that a significant relationship

exists between export barriers and export intensity.

Kahiya and Dean (2014) and Stoian (2010) examined the relationship between export

intensity and export performance. Both studies reported that export intensity significantly

predicted export performance, confirming a significant relationship between export intensity and

export performance.

Researchers examined relationships between internationalization and performance, export

intensity and performance, and export barriers and internationalization. However, there is a gap

in the literature concerning ranking and categorizing export barriers most affecting

manufacturing SMEs in developing countries. This study aimed to fill this gap by an initial

quantitative exploration of SME owners in the manufacturing industry in Jamaica. In this study,

export barriers most affecting SMEs in the manufacturing industry in Jamaica were ranked and

categorized using a quantitative method.

The theory developed by Kahiya et al. (2014) supports the research questions and fits the

study because it examines the impact of export barriers. The approach developed by ArteagaOrtiz

and Fernández-Ortiz (2010) aligns with the research and supports the research questions because

it looks at export barriers. The researcher examined the research questions using the theories

developed by Kahiya et al. and Arteaga-Ortiz and Fernández-Ortiz.

Instruments and Measures

Export Barriers

The researcher used the modified version of the export barrier scale developed by Kahiya

et al. (2014) to categorize export barriers (i.e., exogenous, procedure, knowledge, or resource

export barriers). The export barrier scale is appropriate for this study because it is suitable for

measuring export barriers. Participants rated 42 export barriers using a five-point Likert scale.

In Kahiya and Dean's (2014) initial study using the instrument, Cronbach alphas were

acceptable (0.71–0.88). They surveyed 118 exporters in New Zealand and found that strategic

factors significantly predicted export intensity and export intensity growth. The authors

successfully performed linear regression analysis.

Kahiya et al.’s (2014) study was similar to Kahiya and Dean’s (2014) study. Kahiya has

done multiple studies throughout the world using the instrument used in this study. Kahiya et al.

also found that internal reliability existed, reporting Cronbach's alphas (0.70–0.82), coefficients

(> 0.50), and acceptable eigenvalues ( > 1). They reported that the impact of export barriers was

different across the periods reviewed (1995, n = 94 exporters; 2010, n = 129 exporters). The

authors successfully performed discriminant analysis. Kahiya et al. (2014) found the similarity

with Kahiya and Dean's study, which utilized the scale and found good Cronbach's alphas

(0.745–0.795).

Summary and Conclusion

Previous research has found correlations between export barriers and profitability or

performance. Anil et al. (2016), Jalali (2012), Altintas et al. (2007), and Nee et al. (2018) found

that export barriers significantly affected performance. However, Jaeger (2008) disagreed,

reporting that export barriers did not significantly affect performance. Although these studies

reflect differing standpoints, the critical conclusion was that a significant relationship exists

between export barriers and profitability or performance. Therefore, determining the extent to

which SME owners face barriers is essential to their business performance and chances of

success.

There was a significant correlation between export barriers and internationalization.

Kahiya (2013) found that export barriers significantly predicted internationalization. However,

Kennedy and Nicholas (2009) found that internationalization was significantly and negatively

associated with perceived export barriers. Although the results differ, the critical observation was

that a significant relationship exists between export barriers and internationalization.

Researchers examined the relationship between export barriers, performance, and

internationalization. However, a gap exists in the literature that ranks and categorizes export

barriers most affecting SMEs within the manufacturing industry in Jamaica. This study can

contribute to the literature by exploring the manufacturing industry in Jamaica.

For the remaining of this project and dissertation, Chapter 3 examines the planned

methodology, Chapter 4 presents the data collection and analyses results as aligned with the

study’s propositions and subpropositions, and Chapter 5 discusses the findings, answers to the

research questions and subquestions, implications, future research ideas, and conclusions.

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This quantitative descriptive study aimed to rank and categorize the export barriers that

most affected SMEs in the manufacturing industry in Jamaica during the initial part of 2022. The

purpose of Chapter 3 is to detail the research instruments related to export barriers faced by

SMEs and discuss the planned sampling procedures, data collection, reliability and validity, and

data analysis.

Design and Methodology

The quantitative research method is most appropriate for collecting and analyzing

numerical data and is the fairest method for examining independent variables’ impact on

dependent variables (Cooper & Schindler, 2014). Conversely, a qualitative approach is suitable

for finding information hidden in participants’ responses (Leedy & Ormrod, 2016). Thus, the

quantitative research method was most appropriate for this study.

A descriptive design aligns with the research questions. It can be used to measure the

components and is appropriate for ranking and categorizing export barriers most affecting SMEs

in the manufacturing industry in Jamaica (Leedy & Ormrod, 2016; Bernard, 2013; Cooper &

Schindler, 2014). Racic et al.’s (2008) methods supported this selection for the study’s

methodology. The researcher used a quantitative descriptive design to examine the research

questions. This study followed the method and design of Racic et al.’s study. While this is not a

replication study, due to different locations, instruments, and industries, it mirrors Racic et al.’s

initial movement into a location to begin cataloging and categorizing the defining factors within

that sample.

Population and Sampling

The target population was SME business owners in the manufacturing industry in

Jamaica. As of 2017, the total of such a population was 1,100 manufacturing SME businesses

(PIOJ). In 2022, this number was much lower (as low as 400, according to the Jamaican

Manufacturing and Export Association), and statistics have become much more difficult to

determine because of the pandemic’s impact on government and private sector reporting.

Due to the large area of geography (an entire country) from which to select the sample,

the choice was made to use a cluster sampling method, as explained and supported by sampling

recommendations by Sekaran and Bougie (2006). The number of SMEs in Jamaica is dispersed

across an enormous geographic area. The samples of manufacturing SMEs were randomly pulled

from four geographical regions within Jamaica.

The researcher performed a power analysis with the Epic Info program to derive the

sample size. The expected frequency (10%), the acceptable margin of error (6%), the design

effect (1), and the value of cluster (1) were applied to determine the sample size for descriptive

studies (Erdfelder et al., 2005) and reported that a sample size of 94 was appropriate to create

significant power within the established sample of manufacturing SMEs. Thus, the a priori

sample size planned for the study was N = 94 total SME owner participants.

Setting

The Jamaican culture and environment contributed to a more personalized and hands-on

approach to collecting quantitative data than most scholarly research. While the same

quantitative instrument collected Likert-styled answers from each participant, some participants

used the technology input method to answer the questions. In contrast, others received personal

attention, had the questions read to them, and the research firm representatives marked the

answers for them. As the a priori determined sample size required, the plan was to send surveys

until 94 surveys were fully completed.

Data Collection

The initial plan included requesting and receiving IRB approval from the Capella

University IRB. After receiving IRB approval, data collection using the validated survey

instrument created by Kahiya et al. (2014) was planned to measure the perceptions of Jamaican

manufacturing SMEs regarding how significant/impactful specific export barriers were upon

their decision to export goods from Jamaica.

Initial screening ensured that all participants would meet the eligibility criteria.

Recruitment information was provided to the hired survey company using approved documents

from the Capella IRB. Only SME manufacturing company owners or leaders were eligible to

contribute to the study. No incentives or compensation for participation were to be provided to

the participants. A negotiated payment to Market Research Services Limited was made after

signing appropriate nondisclosure agreements. The market research firm used Survey-to-Go

software for data capture but did not provide compensation or incentives to the participants.

At the beginning of each survey meeting, the market team provided participants with an

Informed Consent Agreement form, including the right to privacy and confidentiality and the

right to drop out of the study. The participants read the Informed Consent Agreement form; only

those participants who accepted the terms of the Agreement were to be surveyed using the

previously approved, validated, and applicable instrument designed and previously used by

Kahiya et al. (2014).

Instrumentation

Kahiya et al. (2014) developed the export barrier scale appropriate for the study because

it fits the research questions by measuring four export barrier groups (i.e., exogenous, procedure,

knowledge, and resource export barriers). Two demographic questions were planned: Have you

exported or been interested in exporting in the past? If yes, how many countries have you been

able to export to? These demographic questions were planned to elicit data that could be aligned

with SME owners who tried exporting. Those who were interested in but had not exported

would also provide insightful information about their desire to export and barriers to their

ultimately exporting.

Export Barriers

The researcher used a modified version of the export barrier scale developed by Kahiya et

al. (2014) to measure export barriers (i.e., exogenous, procedure, knowledge, and resource export

barriers). Table 1 shows how the barriers align with factors, groups, and types. Participants rated

42 export barriers using a 5-point Likert scale. Sample questions on the survey included asking

participants to rate the importance/impact of a specific barrier on exporting decisions (where 1 =

not important and 5 = very important) to questions such as “Rate the impact of high

transportation costs on exporting,” or “Rate the lack of skilled/flexible labour on exporting.”

Neutral (as in no impact) was a 1, whereas the 3 (center) was a gradation of importance, as

opposed to a neutral item, and was presented to participants like this:

Rate each potential barrier in terms of the level of importance it has on your ability to

export. For example, if the barrier is very important to your ability to export, you may

select "5", but if you believe it is somewhat important to your ability to export you may

select "4", "3" or "2". You would select "1" if the barrier has not affected your ability to

export.

Research Questions and Propositions

Four propositions were provided, aligned with the research questions, to guide the data

analysis of this quantitative, exploratory study. Four subquestions and subpropositions probed the

potential for groups emerging with varying export experience. The descriptive study planned to

explore the what and which questions rather than relationships regarding how, when, or why. The

research questions and subquestions, aligned with propositions and subpropositions, were as

follows:

RQ1. What are the rankings of the perceived barriers to export facing SME owners in the

manufacturing industry in Jamaica?

Proposition 1: The export barrier rankings would show that the barriers had varying

importance levels to the SME manufacturers.

Subquestion 1. Would the export barrier rankings change between SME owners with or

without export experience?

Subproposition 1: The export barrier rankings would not differ based on export

experience.

RQ2. Which perceived export barrier factor facing SME owners in the manufacturing

industry is most important?

Proposition 2. One of the eight established export barrier factors would be most important

to the Jamaican manufacturing industry.

Subquestion 2. How would the barrier factor rankings differ between SME owners with

or without export experience?

Subproposition 2: The barrier factor ranking would not differ based on export experience.

RQ3. Which of the four export barrier groups (exogenous, procedure, knowledge, and

resources) is most important to Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing industry?

Proposition 3: The four export barrier groups (exogenous, procedure, knowledge, and

resources) would clearly show a rank of export importance.

Subquestion 3. Would the barrier group rankings differ between SME owners with or

without export experience?

Subproposition 3: The barrier group ranking would not differ based on export experience.

RQ4. Which of the two export barrier types (internal/external) is more critical to

Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing industry?

Proposition 4: One of the two export barrier types (internal/external) would be more

important to the Jamaican manufacturing industry.

Subquestion 4. Would experience contribute to the importance ranking of export barrier

type?

Subproposition 4: The export barrier type determined as most important would not differ

based on export experience.

Data Analysis

Data analyses were planned to review, clean, and describe the data collected. Cleaning

was planned to ensure that all data was accurate and provided solid evidence of the descriptions

they purported to represent; a manual review of all data was part of the proposed plan. Further,

no missing data was expected since the research company hired was to ensure only fully

completed surveys were provided as part of the package. A missing data analysis using SPSS was

planned. Both Excel and SPSS files were to be provided by the research vendor. The data

analysis plan included describing and reporting the following items:

• Descriptive statistics measuring the percent, frequency, and mean of the answers to each

survey question;

• Demographic descriptive statistics based on the limited demographic questions,

purposely limited to ensure confidentiality and anonymity;

• Identifying in a table form the export barriers ranked by mean for all experienced and

inexperienced exporters, if applicable;

• Identifying in a table form the export barrier factors ranked by mean for all experienced

and inexperienced exporters, if applicable;

• Identifying in a table form the export barrier groups ranked by mean for all experienced

and inexperienced exporters, if applicable;

• Identifying in a table form the export barrier type ranked by mean for all experienced and

inexperienced exporters, if applicable;

• Identifying in a table form the noncategorized barriers on the scale by mean for all

experienced and inexperienced exporters, if applicable.

Validity and Reliability

In Kahiya and Dean's (2014) initial study using the instrument, Cronbach alphas were

acceptable (0.71–0.88). Kahiya et al. (2014) found that internal reliability existed, reporting

Cronbach's alphas (0.70–0.82), coefficients ( > 0.50), and acceptable eigenvalues ( > 1).

The construct alphas for this study appear in the Appendix, discussed in Chapter 4.

Ethical Considerations

The study conformed to the ethical conduct of research norms by IRB requirements and

received IRB approval. Participants were assured of the voluntary nature of the research and the

confidentiality of their data, that there were minimal risks associated with participation, and that

they could withdraw from the study with no consequences. By signing an Informed Consent

Agreement form, they affirmed their willingness to participate.

A random code was assigned to identify each participant. No personally identifying data

was collected or connectable to the survey responses. All data collected will be stored for seven

years and then destroyed using proper technology to ensure participant confidentiality. All data

was to be kept on protected external hard drives and locked within cabinets or protected by

passwords.

Minimal Risk Study

There were minimal risks to participants of this study—loss of time was one of the only

stated risks, similar to normal daily activities for most individuals. The proposed study followed

the Protection of Human Subjects guidelines set forth by law (45CFR, Part 46.102; 46.103[c]).

The informed consent form provided details about the study's risk, time, and effort, and all

participants were to be required to agree and consent prior to moving forward with the study

questions. Data were to be collected using the Survey-to-Go technology, and therefore only

technological protections were necessary.

All sensitive data transported on a laptop, USB drive, CD, DVD, or over a network were

password protected and encrypted. The data protection plan included creating appropriate and

protected identifiers, securing any paper forms (e.g., consent forms) in locked cabinets, and

ensuring participant names were not stored with the collected data. The researcher connected

Computers and removable drives with data during storage.

All sites, participants, and other identifying information were to be kept separate from the

data collected. All collected data and information regarding participants will be destroyed after 7

years.

Research Protocols in Jamaica

The protocols that apply to research conducted in Jamaica include the same standards as

those conducted in the United States, except for studies regarding specific participants'

management or treatment. Treatment study plans must be submitted to the Ministry of Health for

evaluation. This study did not include the treatment of participants and, therefore, did not require

submission to the Ministry of Health. The standard Capella University IRB and ethical

requirements sufficed for the Jamaican requirements for quantitative minimal risk studies.

Summary

Chapter 3 provided the proposed steps for sample size, collecting data, analyzing data,

and reporting the analysis for this descriptive, quantitative study. Chapters 4 and 5 will provide

details regarding the process used to collect and analyze data, the actual findings and description

of the data collected, and any implications and discussion. Answers to the research questions and

discussion of the propositions and subpropositions appear in Chapters 4 and 5.

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of the study was to explore the perceptions of SME manufacturers in

Jamaica regarding which export barriers impact their decisions to export goods from Jamaica

overseas. A study goal included ranking, identifying, describing, and categorizing impactful

export barriers and contributing to the export experts’ global body of knowledge. Chapter 3

described the research data collection and analyses proposed plan. Chapter 4 presents the data

collection, analysis, sampling, descriptive statistics, proposition resolutions, results, and findings.

Data Collection Results

Upon obtaining IRB approval, Market Research Services Limited screened and recruited

participants that met the study’s inclusion criteria. A priori sample size was set at 94 surveys.

The research team began surveying participants on April 25, 2022 and ended surveying on May

6, 2022. A total of 102 individual responses were tallied and included in the results. One survey

included answers which were “all 5’s” but remained in the final results because that participant

responded accurately to the demographic questions with pertinent information. Market Research

Service Limited provided the data in two files: an excel file and an SPSS-ready file. The data

within the files provided the content for the analyses following the initial plan described in

Chapter 3. The data was examined, reviewed for missing data (none found), and analyzed. Two

groups emerged – experienced and inexperienced exporters, leading to the addition of

subquestions and subpropositions in the study plan.

Descriptive Analysis

The final sample size was 102. Of those, all but five participants were owners or CEOs of

their organizations; the remaining five were sales and marketing managers or directors. Over

two-thirds of the participants had exported manufactured goods from Jamaica to another country

(n = 71, 69.6%); the remaining participants (n = 31, 30.4%) had no experience in exporting. All

SME participants reported their interest in exporting. Therefore, the responses from the

nonexporters were relevant to this study. The two groups provided comparison options within the

descriptive statistics. Table 2 provides initial descriptive exporting information from the sample.

Table 2. Participant Export Experience by Countries Exported

Number of Countries Exported

Participants

Percentage

1 or more

4 to 8

9 to 13

14 or more

30.4

69.6

9.8

11.7

25.5

6.8

5.8

Note. N = 102. More than half of the exporters (n = 71) exported to 4 or more overseas countries (n = 38).

Total employees employed by the participants ranged from 10 to 169. The sample

represented five specific manufacturing sectors, with the most significant sector coming from the

food manufacturing sector (n = 49, 48%), representing nearly half of the participants. “Other”

contributed to a third of the total. See Table 3, including Note.

Table 3. Manufacturing Industries’ Representation

Industries

Participants

Percentage

Food

Beverage

Furniture

Metal

Paper

Other

48%

4.7% 5.8%

4.7%

2.9%

33%

Note. The other option provided participants with the ability to write in their sector; representative groupings

included chemicals, cosmetics, clothing, paints, and various building materials.

Validity and Reliability

A Cronbach’s alpha was run on the factors within the scaled items of the instrument. The

results (see Appendix) show that the alpha coefficients for each scaled factor were between 0.60

and 0.86, except for currency. Thus, but for the currency factor, all factors were acceptable for

scale reliability (Ursachi et al., 2015). Currency’s alpha at .370 indicated something anomalous

with that factor’s scaled items, possibly having to do with the unusual situation occurring with

the currency exchange rates in Jamaica. (See Chapter 4, Research Question 3 and Subquestion 3,

discussion on Jamaican exchange rates).

Analysis of Propositions

The study planned to address four propositions and four subpropositions, each aligned

with a corresponding research question. This section analyzes the propositions and

subpropositions. Because this was a descriptive rather than predictive study, propositions were

more appropriately part of the study content than hypotheses. Chapter 5 provides the research

question answers and discussions.

The scale used for the instrument was a Likert scale with five levels, where 1 = not

important and 5 = very important. The scale's 2s, 3s, and 4s were gradations towards both polar

ends. Thus, a Likert score of 4 would mean the barrier was considered more important by a

manager in deciding whether to export a product or not than an item that scored 3. A mean Likert

score from a group of participants of 4.2 would mean that barrier was considered more important

by the group of participants than one which scored a 3.9. Table 4 provides the data and means

consolidated from all participants, with the appropriate framework focused on barriers, factors,

groups, and types.

Proposition and Subproposition 1

The first research question and proposition pairing relied on reviewing the mean scores of

the barriers from all participants and organizing them based on those considered the most

important to those considered the least important. See Table 4.

RQ1. What are the rankings of the perceived barriers to export facing SME owners in the

manufacturing industry in Jamaica?

Proposition 1: The export barrier rankings would show that the barriers had varying

importance levels to the SME manufacturers.

Proposition 1 was supported; the rankings show that the mean scores varied, and a “most”

to “least” set of rankings was achieved. Using the mean scores of all participants, high

transportation costs, interest rates & inflation, and unfavorable exchange rates were the

topranked barriers. The highest-ranking barrier was an uncategorized barrier, which is a

significant finding.

Table 4. Ranked Barriers by all Participants

Barriers

Mean Score

Factors

Groups

Type

High transportation costs

Interest rates and inflation

Unfavourable exchange rate movements

Minimizing foreign exchange rate risk/fluctuations

Cost of market development

Shipping and Distribution Overseas

Knowing Export Procedures

Strong foreign competition in the market

Financing exports (working capital)

Lack of Ja Government support/assistance

Pricing and promotion

Quality assurance requirements

Unfamiliarity with Foreign Laws

High cost of labour

Locating Distributors Overseas

Knowing How to Market Overseas

Foreign government restrictions and regulations

Handling Export Documentation

Lack of skilled/flexible labour

Providing after sales service and support

Knowing foreign Business Practices

Inconsistent JA Government Export Policy

Lack of Overseas Marketing Experience

Adapting products to overseas markets

Inability to identify market opportunities

Foreign tariff barriers

Collecting and Transferring Payments

Insufficient productive capacity

High costs of overseas travel

High perceived risk in selling abroad

Lack of mgmt’s effort in export marketing

Foreign non-tariff barriers

Low cost-to-benefit expectations

Lack of mgmt time

Language and cultural barriers

Mgmt. focused on domestic market

Competition from other Jamaican firms

Lack of mgmt commitment to export development

Low perceived profitability in exporting

Product usage differences

Technically inferior products

Low aspirations for export development

4.16

4.04 4.03

4.00 3.90

3.88 3.85

3.80 3.80

3.75 3.74

3.73 3.71

3.71 3.71

3.69 3.68

3.62

3.60 3.60

3.51 3.50

3.50 3.46

3.43 3.42

3.39 3.38

3.38 3.32

3.32 3.31

3.30 3.30

3.24

3.20 3.14

3.13 3.08

2.98 2.97

2.94

EMK

EMK GP

EMK AF

EMK

Note. The matrixed items included the categorized barriers by Kahiya and Dean (2014) and the additional items on

the scale (NC) that researchers have not yet categorized. The applied framework for the project included the scaled

items (barriers), the factors (C = currency, GP = Government policies and regulations, L = logistics, EMK = export

market knowledge, IC = internal constraints, MF = managerial focus, TR = trade-related, and AF = adaptation

factors), the groups (E = exogenous, P = procedural, K = knowledge, R = resource), and the internal (I) or external

(E) items. Ja = Jamaica; Mgmt. = management.

Regarding all individual barriers, RQ 1 and Proposition 1 included a subquestion and

subproposition. These relied on considering whether inexperienced or experienced Jamaican

manufacturing exporters ranked the individual barriers differently.

Subquestion 1. Would the export barrier rankings change between SME owners with or

without export experience?

Subproposition 1: The export barrier rankings would not differ based on export

experience.

Tables 5 and 6 rank the individual barriers from the perspectives of experienced and

inexperienced exporters (respectively). Those with exporting experience (Table 5) ranked the

high cost of transportation, interest rates and inflation, and unfavorable exchange rates as the

most critical barriers to export they faced.

Table 5. Barrier Rankings of Participants With Export Experience

Barriers

Mean

High transportation costs

Interest rates and inflation

Unfavourable exchange rate movements

Minimizing foreign exchange rate risk/exchange rate fluctuations

Shipping and Distribution Overseas

Strong foreign competition in the market

Lack of Ja Government support/assistance

Financing exports (working capital)

Cost of market development

Knowing Export Procedures

Handling Export Documentation

Lack of skilled/flexible labour

Locating Distributors Overseas

Quality assurance requirements

Pricing and promotion

Providing after-sales service and support

Foreign government restrictions and regulations

High cost of labour

Unfamiliarity with Foreign Laws

Knowing Foreign Business Practices

Lack of Overseas Marketing Experience

Knowing How to Market Overseas

Inconsistent JA Government Export Policy

High costs of overseas travel

Adapting products to overseas markets

Foreign tariff barriers

Foreign non-tariff barriers

Inability to identify Market Opportunities

Insufficient productive capacity

High perceived risk in selling abroad

Lack of management time

Lack of management’s effort in export marketing

Low cost-to-benefit expectations

Collecting and Transferring Payments

Language and cultural barriers

Management focused on the domestic market

Lack of management’s commitment to export development

Competition from other Jamaican firms

Low perceived profitability in exporting

Technically inferior products

Low aspirations for export development

Product usage differences

4.30 4.11

4.10 4.06

3.96 3.90

3.87 3.86

3.86 3.82

3.76 3.73

3.70 3.69

3.68 3.66

3.65 3.65

3.62

3.58 3.56

3.56 3.52

3.52 3.46

3.44 3.42

3.42 3.38

3.38 3.35

3.31 3.31

3.31 3.23

3.13

3.13 3.11

3.11 3.04

2.99

2.93

The two groups provided different rankings. The inexperienced exporters (Table 6)

mainly cared about market development costs, knowing how to market overseas, and knowing

export procedures.

Table 6. Barrier Rankings of Participants Without Export Experience

Barriers

Mean

Cost of market development

Knowing How to Market Overseas

Knowing Export Procedures

Unfamiliarity with Foreign Laws

Unfavourable exchange rate movements

Minimizing foreign exchange rate risk/exchange rate fluctuations

Pricing and promotion

Interest rates and inflation

High transportation costs

High cost of labour

Quality assurance requirements

Foreign government restrictions and regulations

Shipping and Distribution Overseas

Locating Distributors Overseas

Financing exports (working capital)

Strong foreign competition in the market

Collecting and Transferring Payments

Lack of Ja Government support/assistance

Providing after sales service and support

Adapting products to overseas markets

Inability to identify Market Opportunities

Inconsistent JA Government Export Policy

Foreign tariff barriers

Insufficient productive capacity

Lack of Overseas Marketing Experience

Lack of management’s effort in export marketing

Management focused on domestic market

Knowing Foreign Business Practices

Lack of skilled/flexible labour

Handling Export Documentation

Low cost-to-benefit expectations

Language and cultural barriers

Lack of management time

Competition from other Jamaican firms

High perceived risk in selling abroad

Lack of management’s commitment to export development

Product usage differences

Foreign non-tariff barriers

High costs of overseas travel

Low perceived profitability in exporting

Low aspirations for export development

Technically inferior products

4.00 3.97

3.94 3.90

3.87 3.87

3.87

3.87 3.84

3.84 3.81

3.74 3.71

3.71 3.68

3.58 3.58

3.48 3.45

3.45 3.45

3.45 3.39

3.39 3.35

3.35 3.35

3.35 3.29

3.29

3.29 3.26

3.19 3.19

3.19 3.13

3.10 3.06

3.06 3.00

2.84

2.81

With transportation costs falling to the 9th most important for those with no export

experience, it does appear that the barriers keeping Jamaican manufacturers from exporting at all

are different from those causing experienced exporters concerns. Conversely, knowing how to

market overseas was ranked 2nd for SMEs without export experience but 22nd for SMEs with

export experience. Subproposition 1 was not supported; experience did seem to influence how

the barriers were ranked by manufacturing SMEs in Jamaica.

Proposition and Subproposition 2

The second research pairing considered which barrier factors would emerge as more or

less important from the perceptions of SME firms seeking to internationalize using the barrier

factors shown in Table 1.

RQ2. Which perceived export barrier factor facing SME owners in the manufacturing

industry is most important?

Proposition 2: One of the eight established export barrier factors would be most important

to the Jamaican manufacturing industry.

Table 7 provides the ranking of export factors as perceived by all participants.

Uncategorized export barriers were labeled “Not Categorized.”

Table 7. Ranked Export Barrier Factors by All Participants

Groups

Means

Logistical and Distribution Factors

Government Policy/Home Market Factors

Currency Risk and Payment Obstacles

Internal Resource Constraints

Export Market Knowledge

3.76

3.70

3.64

3.54

Trade-Related Barriers

3.47

Not Categorized

Adaptation Factors

3.47 3.39

Managerial Focus

3.23

The mean scores provided a ranked order of “most” to “least” important for barrier

factors. Two factors’ means tied for the most important factor: logistical and distribution factors

and government policy/home market factors ranked as “top” factors by all participants, and

currency risk and payment obstacles were the next highest-ranked factor. Thus, Proposition 2

was not supported because there was no definitive top ranked barrier factor.

Subquestion 2 and Subproposition 2 considered whether those with or without export

experience might rank different barrier factors as most or least important to their decisions to

export.

Subquestion 2. Would the barrier factor ranking change between SME owners with or

without export experience?

Subproposition 2: The barrier factor ranking would not differ based on export experience.

Table 8 shows the results of ranking by the inexperienced exporters.

Table 8. Ranked Export Barrier Factors by SMEs Lacking Export Experience

Means

Currency Risk and Payment Obstacles

Logistical and Distribution Factors

Government Policy/Home Market Factors

Internal Resource Constraints

Export Market Knowledge

3.73

3.66

3.60

3.52

Adaptation Factors

3.47

Trade Related Barriers

3.40

Not Categorized

Managerial Focus

3.39

3.23

Factor

Table 9 shows the rankings by the experienced exporters.

Table 9. Ranked Export Barrier Factors by Participants with Export Experience

Factors

Means

Government Policy/Home Market Factors

Logistical and Distribution Factors

Currency Risk and Payment Obstacles

Internal Resource Constraints Export

Market Knowledge

Not Categorized

3.84

3.81

3.68

3.66

3.55

3.51

Trade Related Barriers

3.50

Adaptation Factors

3.36

Managerial Focus

3.23

Subproposition 2 presumed that experience in exporting would not affect the factor

ranking decisions. While the rankings were similar, the highest-ranked factor for inexperienced

exporters was currency risk and payment obstacles (which was ranked third among the

experienced exporters). In contrast, experienced exporters ranked government policy/home

market factors (ranked third to inexperienced exporters) as the most important. Both groups cited

logistics as second, internal as fourth, and export knowledge as fifth. Therefore, Subproposition

2 was not supported, but distinct similarities existed.

Proposition 3

The third pairing of research question and proposition included the following:

RQ3. Which of the four export barrier groups (exogenous, procedure, knowledge, and

resources) is most important to Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing industry?

Proposition 3: The four export barrier groups (exogenous, procedure, knowledge, and

resources) would clearly show a rank of importance.

Table 10 translates the ranking of export barriers by all participants into export barrier

groups. Uncategorized export barriers were labeled “Not categorized.”

Table 10. Ranked Groups by all Participants

Groups

Means

Exogenous

Procedure

Knowledge

Not Categorized

Resources

3.64

3.58

3.54

3.47

3.43

The exogenous barriers were most important to the participants, with resources being the

least important. The 102 SME firms also called out the procedure group as more instrumental of

a barrier group impacting their decision to export than knowledge, the uncategorized items, or

resources. Proposition 3 was supported.

Proposition 3 also included a subproposition paired with a subquestion to discern whether

experience impacted rankings.

Subquestion 3. Would the barrier group rankings change between SME owners with or

without export experience?

Subproposition 3: The barrier group ranking would not differ based on export experience.

Table 11 shows the inexperienced exporters’ data results.

Table 11. Ranked Groups by Participants Without Export Experience

Groups

Means

Exogenous

Procedure

Knowledge

Resource

Not Categorized

3.58

3.57

3.52

3.41

3.39

Table 12 shows the experienced exporters’ data results.

Table 12. Ranked Groups by Participants With Export Experience

Groups

Means

Exogenous

Procedure

Knowledge

Not Categorized

Resources

3.67

3.58

3.55

3.51

3.44

The rankings for both exporter groups were nearly identical. The exogenous barrier group

was most important among both exporter groups, with resources being the least important.

Inexperienced and experienced exporters ranked the procedure group higher than the knowledge

group; knowledge ranked higher than the resource group. The uncategorized group of barriers

was ranked higher than the resource group by the experienced exporters but lower by the

inexperienced exporters. In this case, the data supported Subproposition 3, showing the

importance of the grouped export barrier rankings was virtually the same, regardless of

experience in exporting.

Proposition 4

The next pairing of research question and proposition included the following:

RQ4. Which of the two export barrier types (internal/external) is more critical to

Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing industry?

Proposition 4: One of the two export barrier types (internal/external) would be more

important to the Jamaican manufacturing industry.

Table 13 shows the results of all of the participants by barrier types.

Table 13. All Participants’ Ranks as Barrier Types

Barrier Type

Mean

External Internal

Not Categorized

3.61

3.49

3.47

For all participants, the external barrier types ranked as most important in deciding

whether to export. Proposition 4 was supported. Subquestion 4 and Subproposition 4 reviewed

the data between the inexperienced and experienced exporters.

Subquestion 4. Would the export barrier type ranked as most important change between

SME owners with or without export experience?

Subproposition 4: The export barrier type ranked as most important would not differ

based on export experience.

Table 14 shows the inexperienced participants’ results.

Table 14. Export Barrier Type Rankings for Participants Without Experience

Barrier Type

Mean

External Internal

Not Categorized

3.63 3.49

3.51

Table 15 shows the experienced participants’ results.

Table 15. Export Barrier Type Rankings for Participants With Experience

Barrier Type

Mean

External Internal

Not Categorized

3.57 3.46

3.39

The export barrier type rankings are the same for each group, with the external barrier

types being most important, supporting Subproposition 4.

Summary

A quantitative, descriptive study with four paired research questions, subquestions,

propositions, and subpropositions occurred to explore the perceptions of 102 Jamaican SME

manufacturing leaders. Data collection occurred in April and May 2022 in Jamaica. SME

manufacturers in Jamaica received a survey containing the list of export barriers compiled by

Kahiya and Dean (2014). The participants provided their perceptions of the relative importance

of the barriers to their decisions made regarding exporting. About a third of the participants

reported that they had not exported their products, although they expressed a plan to export.

About two-thirds had exported their products. Data showed some differences between which

individual barriers and barrier factors the exporters with and without experience found most and

least important. Minimal differences existed when looking at the less granular export barrier

groups and types. Chapter 5 will include further discussion of the results and answers to the

research questions, implications, and ideas for future research.

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

The objective of the quantitative descriptive study was to rank export barriers, factors,

groups, and types most affecting SMEs in the manufacturing industry in Jamaica. The data from

this may contribute to business practices regarding export barriers most affecting SMEs in the

manufacturing industry in Jamaica. The study findings may provide the manufacturing industry

in the developing country of Jamaica with ideas about how to overcome some of the barriers

existing in Jamaica.

The theory guiding this study was the export barrier theory. Data findings fit in with the

theoretical framework presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 2 identified the factors of the export

barrier theory used to examine the highest-ranked perceived barriers to export facing SME

owners in the manufacturing industry in Jamaica. The export barrier theory aligned with the

survey instrument previously validated and used by researchers. For developing countries such as

Jamaica, barriers to exports can create financial and economic hardships, as described by Paul et

al. (2017).

The researcher used a quantitative method and descriptive design in this study. Chapter 5

addresses the research questions, explains how the study fulfilled the research purpose to

business practice, ties any pertinent findings to the literature, and provides recommendations for

future researchers. In addition, Chapter 5 presents the implications of the study's findings.

Evaluation of the Research Questions

The data results provided answers to the research questions while also adding to the

literature and understanding of how the export theory works within Jamaica. Each research

question is discussed separately.

Research Question 1

RQ1. What are the rankings of the perceived barriers to export facing SME owners in the

manufacturing industry in Jamaica?

The data from this study suggested that high transportation costs are the highest-ranked

perceived barriers to export facing SME manufacturing leaders in Jamaica. The analysis findings

aligned with a World Trade Report (2016), which showed that high transportation costs were the

most significant barrier to export facing SME owners. In addition, the findings of the study data

aligned with Tamar et al.'s (2016) study that also demonstrated that high transportation costs

were the most significant barrier to export facing SME owners. The data findings of the study

aligned with previous literature.

Subquestion 1

The data from this study showed that SME owners who had exported previously, agreed

with the 2016 World Trade Report that high transportation costs were their most significant

concern regarding exporting their products. However, SME owners in Jamaica who wanted to

export but had not yet done so noted their most significant barriers were the cost of market

development. For inexperienced exporters, transportation costs ranked ninth. These findings

conflicted with the 2016 World Trade Report’s findings.

The results of this study also conflicted with the findings from Staden’s (2022) study in

Africa. In Africa, management experience was the most significant factor (Staden). For Jamaican

inexperienced exporting SME owners, management experiences were ranked 25, 26, 27, and 33

on the importance level, and experienced exporting SME owners ranked management

experiences at levels 31, 32, 36, and 37. Thus, for Jamaica, the management factor was less

impactful than that noted on the African continent.

It is possible that being an island nation could have contributed to these differences.

Transportation costs, labour costs, and marketing development costs on an island tend to be

significant. In Africa, exporting is a much different event. Moving a product within the African

continent is defined as exporting, whereas in Jamaica, every export situation requires moving a

product overseas, which is much more complicated and costly.

Research Question 2

RQ2. Which perceived export barrier factor facing SME owners in the manufacturing

industry is most important?

The participants determined that logistical factors, government policy and home market

factors, and currency risks and payments were the most important (see Table 7).

Subquestion 2

Subquestion 2. How would the barrier factor rankings differ between SME owners with

or without export experience?

As described in Subproposition 2 results, the factor rankings were very similar. However,

inexperienced exporters listed currency as the top barrier factor, whereas experienced exporters

ranked government policy and home market factors as their top concern. The top three factors

were the same for both groups, ordered slightly differently. Interestingly, the lowest-ranked

barrier factor for Cronbach’s alpha (currency) was also in the top three items for all study

participants.

Research Question 3 and Subquestion 3

RQ3. Which of the four export barrier groups (exogenous, procedure, knowledge, and

resources) is most important to Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing industry?

Subquestion 3. Would the barrier group rankings change between SME owners with or

without export experience?

As the barrier concepts became less granular, the differences seen with experience

became less pronounced. The data from this study suggested that the exogenous barrier group is

most important to Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing industry, regardless of experience. The

answers to both Research Question 3 and its subquestion are the same. The findings of the study

data aligned with Mikilian and Hoelscher's (2021) study that showed that the exogenous barrier

group was the most significant factor affecting SME owners.

Exogenous barriers included foreign exchange rates, interest rates, government

regulations, support, and tariffs. These items create uncontrollable barriers that previous research

showed were highly impactful to decisions to export. In Jamaica, specifically, the currency

exchange rates have become a significant hurdle for working with buyers in other countries. For

example, the Bank of Jamaica publishes the daily exchange rates of United States dollars to

Jamaican Dollars. In January 2015, the exchange rate was $1USD to $115.32JD; in January

2018, the rate increased to $124.93JD. In January 2022, the rate had become even more

disadvantageous to Jamaican exporters ($1USD = $156.01JD). The devaluation of the Jamaican

dollar was potentially a compelling reason for the exchange rates and fluctuations being an

essential barrier to Jamaican SME manufacturing owners.

The exogenous finding fits into the export theory created by Kahiya et al. (2014). Kahiya

et al. explained that the uncontrollable aspect of exogenous barriers does contribute to their

influence on exporting decisions.

Research Question and Subquestion 4

RQ4. Which of the two export barrier types (internal/external) is more critical to

Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing industry?

Subquestion 4. Would experience contribute to the importance ranking of export barrier

type?

The data from this study suggested that external barriers are more critical to Jamaican

SMEs in the manufacturing industry. Both inexperienced and experienced exporters ranked them

the most important. The study data findings agree with Al-Maskari et al.'s (2019) study that

showed that external barriers were the most significant factors affecting SME owners. This

finding also aligns with the concept that uncontrollable factors will be more influential than those

in the control of the organizations and leaders (Kahiya et al., 2014).

Additional Comments

The “uncategorized” factor group fell near the bottom of the importance rankings for the

groups and types, but some important exceptions emerged for individual barriers. Both

inexperienced and experienced exporters rated the group of uncategorized factors below the

internal and external types and the other groups. However, the top item on the list of individual

barriers for experienced exporters was high transportation costs, which was not categorized;

number five on their list was the cost of market development, also not categorized. For

inexperienced exporters, the top-ranked and 2nd ranked barriers, market development cost and

knowing how to market overseas, were uncategorized items. The findings of this study could

contribute toward an expansion of existing categories to include more barrier items or the

addition of new categories such as “costs of exporting” or similar. Doing so could increase

knowledge about exporting barriers from other country-focused research.

Overall, the summary results aligned between all SME participants, inexperienced SMEs,

and experienced SMEs are provided in Table 16.

Table 16. Overall Participant Rankings by Barrier Classifications

Participants

Individual Barrier

Barrier Factor

Barrier

Group

Barrier

Type

All SMEs

Inexperienced

SMEs

Experienced SMES

High Transport Costs

Cost of Market

Development

High Transportation

Costs

Logistics,

Govt. Policy

Currency

Govt. Policy

Exogenous

External

Note. Govt. = Government.

Fulfillment of Research Purpose

This quantitative descriptive study aimed to explore the perceptions of SMEs in the

manufacturing industry in Jamaica regarding their decisions about exporting products overseas.

The findings of this study add to the existing body of knowledge regarding the highest-ranked

perceived barriers, factors, types, and groups to export facing SME owners in the manufacturing

industry in Jamaica. Previously, no researchers had studied Jamaican SME manufacturers to

determine their most impactful barriers to exporting.

The data suggest that high transportation costs are the highest-ranked perceived barriers

to export facing SME owners in the manufacturing industry in Jamaica who have exported

products from Jamaica. However, for those planning or desiring to export but who have not yet

done so, the barriers of the high cost of market development, knowledge of foreign laws, export

procedures, and marketing overseas are their more prominent concerns.

Government policy/home market and logistical factors are most important for all

Jamaican manufacturing SMEs. In addition, the data indicate that the exogenous barrier group

and the external barrier type are the most important to Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing

industry (regardless of experience), which aligns with other countries in previous research.

This study is significant with implications for practitioners and scholars because

practitioners might benefit from understanding business practices regarding the highest-ranked

perceived barriers to export facing SME owners in the manufacturing industry in Jamaica. The

findings from this study can expand and inform practitioners on how the exogenous barrier

groups and the external barrier types are most critical to Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing

industry. Jamaican policymakers should also review and consider it since the perceptions of SME

owners called out government policy/home market factors and logistical factors as the main

barrier factors affecting SMEs interested in exporting. Policymakers should consider the

concerns of Jamaican business owners. Working toward reducing the currency fluctuations and

disparities with other currencies is a critical need toward helping realign exporting of goods from

Jamaica. Further, education about exporting is a critical need since knowledge was called out as a

specific barrier to exporting, especially by the inexperienced exporters.

Contribution to Business Problem

The ability of small companies, especially those based in developing countries, to

compete internationally is a significant challenge faced by business practitioners (Williams,

2015). Despite their importance to the economy, the general problem is that small firms tend to

be more challenged than larger firms when exporting. However, a large proportion of the extant

literature is dedicated to large firms and is not applicable or relevant to the strategies needed by

SMEs (Paul et al., 2017). There is a significant gap in the literature on understanding how export

barriers affect Jamaican manufacturing SMEs (Arteaga-Ortiz & Fernández-Ortiz, 2010;

Nicholson & Lashley, 2016; Paul et al., 2017; Tybout, 2000). This problem inhibits the

effectiveness of interventions by owners and policymakers, as the challenges faced by exporters

in each specific context (economy, industry, and culture) direct the type of aid needed to

effectively "increase exporting from microeconomic and macroeconomic perspectives" (Arteaga-

Ortiz & Fernández-Ortiz, p. 415).

Recommendations for Further Research

Future researchers might measure which of the four export barriers most affect the export

profitability of manufacturing SMEs in Jamaica, controlling for potential confounders by using

hierarchical regression analysis. Researchers may also examine which of the four export barriers

most affect the degree of internationalization of manufacturing SMEs in Jamaica, controlling for

potential confounders by using hierarchical regression analysis.

Qualitative research might be a follow-up to this study. Delving more into what some of

the more successful exporters have done to overcome these barriers would be a good case study

or qualitative inquiry project in the future. Further, more research is warranted to understand the

internal barrier group difference from previous studies, pertinent to Jamaica.

This study polled participants from privately-owned manufacturing companies.

Researchers could include public manufacturing companies in future studies.

Conclusions

Jamaican SMEs in manufacturing may use the study's findings as the data demonstrated

the highest-ranked perceived barriers to export facing SME owners in the manufacturing industry

in Jamaica. The study's findings add to the body of knowledge since small firms tend to be more

challenged than larger firms when exporting. Some Jamaican SMEs in manufacturing do not

know the highest-ranked perceived barriers to export facing SME owners in the manufacturing

industry in Jamaica.

The findings from the study suggested that high transportation costs, logistics &

government policy/home market factors, the exogenous barrier group, and external barrier types

are more critical to Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing industry. They also show that different

barriers block new entries into the Jamaican export business than those impacting experienced

exporters. The study identified several areas that add to the expert knowledge regarding

exporting, especially for Jamaican SMEs in the manufacturing industry. It also provided ideas

for future research studies.

Students also viewed