Innovation strategy and export intensity of Chinese SMEs: the moderating role of the home-country business environment
- 118 Downloads
Drawing upon a contingency approach, the present study investigates which types of technological innovations are effective in increasing Chinese exporting SMEs’ degree of internationalization (measured as export intensity) within the Chinese institutional context. Our research highlights that the impact of their technological innovation inputs (external and internal R&D intensity) and outputs (product and process innovations) on their degree of export internationalization is contingent upon several home-specific business-environmental constraints. Thus, the better Chinese exporting SMEs align their technological-innovation strategy with the local institutional environment, the more they can increase their export intensity.
KeywordsTechnological innovations Export internationalization Export intensity Transition economies Institutional environment Chinese exporting SMEs
The authors wish to thank the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Ministerio de Economía y Competividad), project reference: ECO2013-44027-P for financial support.
- Acs, Z. J., and Terjesen, S. 2006. Born local: Two views of internationalization. Working paper. Atlanta, GA: Academy of Management.Google Scholar
- Aragón-Correa, J.A., and S. Sharma. 2003. A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review 28 (1): 71–88.Google Scholar
- Bishop, K. 2001. The first phase of the internationalisation process: export determinants in firms of the Former Soviet Union. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/17580/. Accessed 16 May 2017.
- Cavusgil, S.T. 1980. On the internationalization process of firms. European Research 8 (6): 273–281.Google Scholar
- Chen, M.J. 2001. Inside Chinese business: A guide for managers worldwide. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Filipescu, D., A. Rialp, and J. Rialp. 2009. Internationalization and technological innovation: Empirical evidence on their mutual relationship. Advances in International Marketing 20: 125–154.Google Scholar
- Gorodnichenko, Y., J. Svejnar, and K. Terrell. 2010. Globalization and innovation in emerging markets. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 2 (2): 194–226.Google Scholar
- López, J., and J. López. 2005. Technological Resources and Export Intensity: A Microview. International Business and Economics Research Journal 4 (11): 55–63.Google Scholar
- Peng, M.W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review 28 (2): 275–296.Google Scholar
- Rigby, D., and C. Zook. 2002. Open-market innovation. Harvard Business Review 80 (10): 80–93.Google Scholar
- Scott, W.R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Sousa, C.M. 2004. Export performance measurement: An evaluation of the empirical research in the literature. Academy of Marketing Science Review 9 (12): 1–23.Google Scholar
- Venkatraman, N. 1989. The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review 14 (3): 423–444.Google Scholar
- Verspagen, B., and Wakelin, K. 1993. International competitiveness and its determinants. Working paper 93-008. Maastricht: MERIT.Google Scholar
- Wolf, J.A., and T.L. Pett. 2000. Internationalization of small firms: An examination of export competitive patterns, firm size, and export performance. Journal of Small Business Management 38 (2): 34–47.Google Scholar
- World Bank. 2012. Enterprise Surveys. http://www.enterprisesurveys.org/. Accessed 15 May 2017.
- Zahra, S., and G. George. 2002. International entrepreneurship: The current status of the field and future research agenda. In Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset, ed. M.A. Hitt, R.D. Ireland, S.M. Camp, and D.L. Sexton, 255–288. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Zhu, H., M.A. Hitt, and L. Tihanyi. 2007. The internationalization of SMEs in emerging economies: Institutional embeddedness and absorptive capacities. Journal of Small Business Strategy 17 (2): 1–26.Google Scholar