Advertisement

Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 267–286 | Cite as

Institutions, size and age in transition economies: Implications for export growth

  • George A Shinkle
  • Aldas P Kriauciunas
Article

Abstract

We consider the influence of economic institutions on firm performance by examining how size and age are related to export growth under different levels of free-market institutional development. Using a multi-country sample of Central and Eastern European firms, we test our predictions that size and age will have a positive diminishing relationship with export growth in transitional economies, but a U-shaped relationship in less advanced transitional economies. We find significant relationships largely in line with our predictions, demonstrating the importance of considering both economic institutions and firm characteristics when examining export growth.

Keywords

institutions size age exports transition economies 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the support of the University of Michigan Business School, the William Davidson Institute, CASE-Ukraine, the Central Securities Depository of Lithuania, the Institute for Market Economics, the Institute for Privatization and Management, and Kaunas Technological University, Romualdas Kriauciunas, Kevin Mumford, Mona Makhija, Xavier Martin, Klaus Meyer, Anne Parmigiani, Miguel Rivera-Santos, our editor Arjen van Witteloostuijn, and three anonymous JIBS reviewers.

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Ansoff, I. H. 1987. The emerging paradigm of strategic behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 8 (6): 501–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (3): 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aulakh, P. S., Kotabe, M., & Teegen, H. 2000. Export strategies and performance of firms from emerging economies: Evidence from Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. The Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 342–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum, J. A. C. 1989. Liabilities of newness, adolescence, and obsolescence: Exploring age dependence in the dissolution of organizational relationships and organizations. Proceedings of the Administrative Science Association of Canada, 10 (5): 1–10.Google Scholar
  6. Baum, J. A. C., & Shipilov, A. V. 2006. Ecological approaches to organizations. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence & W. Nord (Eds), Handbook of organization studies: 55–110. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baum, J. R., & Wally, S. 2003. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (11): 1107–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benson, J. K. 1975. The interorganizational network as a political economy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20 (2): 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergh, D. D., & Fairbank, J. F. 2002. Measuring and testing change in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (4): 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bilkey, W. J. 1978. An attempted integration of the literature on the export behavior of firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 9 (1): 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blau, P. M. 1970. A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review, 35 (2): 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blumentritt, T. P., & Nigh, D. 2002. The integration of subsidiary political activities in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (1): 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonaccorsi, A. 1992. On the relationship between firm size and export intensity. Journal of International Business Studies, 23 (4): 605–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calof, J. L. 1994. The relationship between firm size and export behavior revisited. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (2): 367–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cavusgil, S. T. 1982. Some observations on the relevance of critical variables for internationalization stages. In M. R. Czinkota & G. Tesar (Eds), Export management: An international context: 276–278. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  16. Cheng, J. L. C. 1994. On the concept of universal knowledge in organizational science: Implications for cross-national research. Management Science, 40 (1): 162–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chiaburu, D. S. 2006. Managing organizational change in transition economies. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19 (6): 738–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cuervo, A., & Villalonga, B. 2000. Explaining the variance in the performance effects of privatization. Academy of Management Review, 25 (3): 581–590.Google Scholar
  19. de Haan, J., & Sturm, J.-E. 2000. On the relationship between economic freedom and economic growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 16 (2): 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., Zahra, S. A., Floyd, S. W., Janney, J. J., & Lane, P. J. 2003. Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29 (3): 351–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dobrev, S. D., & Carroll, G. R. 2003. Size (and competition) among organizations: Modeling scale-based selection among automobile producers in four major countries, 1885–1981. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (6): 541–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Douma, S., George, R., & Kabir, R. 2006. Foreign and domestic ownership, business groups, and firm performance: Evidence from a large emerging market. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (7): 637–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dunning, J. H. 1980. Toward an eclectic theory of international production: Some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies, 11 (1): 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dunning, J. H. 1988. The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19 (1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellis, P., & Pecotich, A. 2001. Social factors influencing export initiation in small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (1): 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Evans, D. S. 1987. The relationship between firm growth, size, and age: Estimates for 100 manufacturing industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35 (4): 567–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Filatotchev, I., Buck, T., & Zhukov, V. 2000. Downsizing in privatized firms in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 286–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Filatotchev, I., Dyomina, N., Wright, M., & Buck, T. 2001. Effects of post-privatization governance and strategies on export intensity in the former Soviet Union. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (4): 853–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. 1983. The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48 (5): 692–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Frydman, R., Gray, C., Hessel, M., & Rapaczynski, A. 1999. When does privatization work? The impact of private ownership on corporate performance in the transition economies. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (4): 1153–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gelbuda, M., Meyer, K. E., & Delios, A. 2008. International business and institutional development in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of International Management, 14 (1): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Geringer, J. M., Tallman, S., & Olsen, D. M. 2000. Product and international diversification among Japanese multinational firms. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (1): 51–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3): 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gregory, P. R., & Stuart, R. C. 1990. Soviet economic structure and performance. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Hannan, M. T. 1998. Rethinking age dependence in organizational mortality: Logical formalizations. The American Journal of Sociology, 104 (1): 126–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49 (2): 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Haveman, H. A. 1993. Organizational size and change: Diversification in the savings and loan industry after deregulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (1): 20–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heckman, J. J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47 (1): 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Helfat, C. 1997. Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (5): 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Henderson, A. D. 1999. Firm strategy and age dependence: A contingent view of the liabilities of newness, adolescence, and obsolescence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (2): 281–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Heston, A., Summers, R., & Aten, B. 2006. Penn world table version 6.2. Philadelphia, PA: Center for International Comparisons of Production Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  42. Hitt, M., Dacin, T., Levitas, E., Arregle, J. L., & Borza, A. 2000. Partner selection in emerging and developed market contexts: Resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 449–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Huckman, R. S., & Zinner, D. E. 2008. Does focus improve operational performance? Lessons from the management of clinical trials. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (2): 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jaffe, A. B. 1986. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. American Economic Review, 76 (5): 984–1001.Google Scholar
  46. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8 (1): 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kane, T., Holmes, K. R., & O’Grady, M. A. 2007. 2007 Index of economic freedom. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.Google Scholar
  48. Kelly, D., & Amburgey, T. L. 1991. Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3): 591–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000. The future of business groups in emerging markets: Long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 268–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J. W. 2001. Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (1): 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kimberly, J. R. 1976. Organizational size and the structuralist perspective: A review, critique and proposal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21 (4): 571–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kriauciunas, A., & Kale, P. 2006. The impact of socialist imprinting and search on resource change: A study of firms in Lithuania. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (7): 659–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lages, L. F., Jap, S. D., & Griffith, D. A. 2008. The role of past performance in export ventures: A short-term reactive approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (2): 304–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lyles, M. A., & Baird, I. S. 1994. Performance of international joint ventures in two Eastern European countries: The case of Hungary and Poland. Management International Review, 34 (4): 313–329.Google Scholar
  55. Majumdar, S. K. 1997. The impact of size and age on firm-level performance: Some evidence from India. Review of Industrial Organization, 12 (2): 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Makhija, M. 2003. Comparing the resource-based and market-based views of the firm: Empirical evidence from Czech privatization. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (5): 433–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Makhija, M., & Stewart, A. C. 2002. The effect of national context on perceptions of risk: A comparison of planned versus free-market managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (4): 737–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Makino, S., Isobe, T., & Chan, C. M. 2004. Does country matter? Strategic Management Journal, 25 (10): 1027–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. May, R. C., Stewart Jr, W. H., & Sweo, R. 2000. Environmental scanning behavior in a transitional economy: Evidence from Russia. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 403–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (12): 1133–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meyer, K. E. 2001. Institutions, transaction costs, and entry mode choice in Eastern Europe. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (2): 357–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Meyer, K. E., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources, and institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (6): 600–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. K., & Peng, M. W. 2009. Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (1): 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Newman, K. L. 2000. Organizational transformation during institutional upheaval. Academy of Management Review, 25 (3): 602–619.Google Scholar
  65. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16 (1): 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (9): 697–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Park, S. H., & Luo, Y. 2001. Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (5): 455–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Peng, M. W. 2002. Towards an institution-based view of business strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19 (2): 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2): 275–296.Google Scholar
  71. Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. S. 1996. The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations and strategic choice. Academy of Management Review, 21 (2): 492–528.Google Scholar
  72. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  73. Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. 1997. The influence of the management team's international experience on the internationalization behaviors of SMEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 28 (4): 807–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Roth, K., & Kostova, T. 2003. Organizational coping with institutional upheaval in transition economies. Journal of World Business, 38 (4): 314–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rubin, D. B. 1987. Multiple imputation for non-response in surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. 2002. Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27 (2): 222–247.Google Scholar
  77. Shaver, M. J. 1998. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Science, 44 (4): 571–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Spicer, A., McDermott, G. A., & Kogut, B. 2000. Entrepreneurship and privatization in Central Europe: The tenuous balance between destruction and creation. The Academy of Management Review, 25 (3): 630–649.Google Scholar
  79. Stinchcombe, A. L. 1965. Social structures and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations: 142–193. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  80. Sullivan, D. 1994. Measuring the degree of internationalization of a firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (2): 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Svejnar, J. 2002. Transition economies: Performance and challenges. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (1): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. White, S. 2000. Competition, capabilities, and the make, buy, or ally decisions of Chinese state-owned firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 324–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wiersema, M. F., & Bowen, H. P. 2008. Corporate diversification: The impact of foreign competition, industry globalization, and product diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (2): 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Williamson, O. E. 2000. The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (3): 595–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (1): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., Gutierrez, I., & Hitt, M. A. 2000. Privatization and entrepreneurial transformation: Emerging issues and a future research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 25 (3): 509–524.Google Scholar
  87. Zander, U., & Kogut, B. 1995. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6 (1): 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • George A Shinkle
    • 1
  • Aldas P Kriauciunas
    • 1
  1. 1.Krannert School of Management, Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations