THE IMPACT OF PROXIMATE ENVIRONMENT ON EXPORT PERFORMANCE: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY ON SMES IN THE NETHERLANDS AND TURKEY

Yıl 2017, , 1 - 18, 29.09.2017

Melih Astarlıoğlu

https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.340691

Cited By: 2

Öz

In
the research on export performance many researchers focus on the resource-based
view and analyze the effect of firm resources on firms` export performance.
This is explained by the fact that firms are able to control their resources
and can change their strategy accordingly. However, there is also a need to
analyze the effect of both domestic and foreign environmental conditions on
export performance of companies. In this study, contingency approach is
utilized and two variables are determined to measure the effect of domestic
market characteristics on exporting companies: export assistance programs and
environmental hostility. Moreover, the moderating effect of institutional
quality on these relationships is also investigated throughout the study. In
the study an online questionnaire is utilized and the data is collected from
exporting SMEs in the Netherlands and Turkey, which differ extensively from
each other in terms of the institutional quality index. The data collection
process delivered 325 usable surveys and at the end of an OLS Regression
Analysis, the importance of the export assistance programs on export
performance is confirmed. Moreover, the positive effect of environmental
hostility on exports is found to be strengthened by the institutional quality.

YEREL PİYASA KOŞULLARININ İHRACAT PERFORMANSI ÜZERİNE ETKİLERİ: HOLLANDA VE TÜRKİYE'DEKİ KOBİ'LER ÜZERİNE KANTİTATİF BİR ÇALIŞMA

Öz

İhracat
performansı üzerine yapılmış çok sayıda çalışma olmakla beraber bunların çoğu
kaynak bazlı yaklaşım üzerine inşa edilmiş çalışmalardır. Söz konusu
çalışmalarda firmaların kaynaklarını kontrol edebilecekleri ve bu sayede
stratejilerini belirleyebilecekleri öne sürülmektedir. Mevcut çalışmada ise
durumsallık teorisi üzerine bir model oluşturulmuş ve firmaların içinde
bulundukları çevre koşullarının ihracat performansları üzerindeki etkisi ile
ilgili bir araştırma gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu çerçevede oluşturulan modelde, “ihracat
destek programları” ve “çevresel tehdit” ile “ihracat performansı” arasındaki
ilişki analiz edilmiştir. Buna ek olarak, içinde bulunulan ülkenin “kurumsal
kalitesinin”, yukarıda belirtilen ikili ilişki üzerindeki düzenleyici rolü de
ayrıca ele alınmıştır. Veriler, kurumsal kalite endeksi yönünden birbirinden
farklılaşmış iki ülke olan Hollanda ve Türkiye’deki KOBİ düzeyindeki
ihracatçılardan çevrimiçi anketler vasıtasıyla toplanmış ve toplam 325 yanıt
elde edilmiştir. Bu yanıtların Kısmi En Küçük Kareler Regresyon Yöntemi ile
incelenmesi sonucunda ihracat destek programlarının, firmaların ihracat
performansları üzerinde pozitif bir etkisinin olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca
kurumsal kalitenin yüksek olduğu ortamlarda çevresel tehdidin ihracat
üzerindeki pozitif etkisinin güçlendiği çalışma sonunda ortaya konmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İhracat Performansı, ihracat destek programı, uluslararasılaşma, ihracat stratejisi, moderatör analizi

Kaynakça

• Astarlıoğlu, M. (2012), “Moderating Effect of Porter’s Diamond Framework between Firm Strategies and Export Performance: A Conceptual Model”, EUL Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 35-65.
• Astarlıoğlu, M. (2013), Evaluating the Dynamics of Export Performance: Moderating Effects of Proximate Environment on firm Strategies and Export Performance, Thesis (Ph.D.)-Bogazici University, Institute for Graduate Studies in Social Sciences.
• Alonso, J., C. Garcimartín (2010), “The Determinants of Institutional Quality. More on the Debate”, Journal of International Development, 25(2), 206-226.
• Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage”, Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
• Beleska-Spasova, E. (2014), “Determinants and Measures of Export Performance– Comprehensive Literature Review”, Journal of Contemporary Economic and Business Issues, 1(1), 63-74.
• Clark, D.P., D.J. Kaserman, F. Melese (1992), “Domestic Market Structure and International Trade in an Open Economy”, Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 32, 3–15.
• Clougherty, J., A. Zhang (2004), “Domestic Rivalry and Export Performance: Theory and Evidence from International Airline Markets”, SSRN Electronic Journal.
• Covin, J. (1991), “Entrepreneurial Versus Conservative Firms: A Comparison of Strategies and Performance”, Journal of Management Studies, 28(5), 439-462.
• Covin, J., D. Slevin (1989), “Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments”, Straegic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87.
• Czinkota, M., E. Dichtl (1996), “Export Controls and Global Changes”, der Markt, 35(3), 148-155.
• Dean, D.L., B. Menguç, C.P. Myers (2000), “Revisiting Firm Characteristics, Strategy and Export Performance Relationship: a Survey of the Literature and an Investigation of New Zealand Small Manufacturing Firms”, Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 461–477.
• Diamantopoulos, A., B. Schlegelmilch, K. Katy Tse (1993), “Understanding the Role of Export Marketing Assistance: Empirical Evidence and Research Needs”, European Journal of Marketing, 27(4), 5-18.
• Francis, J., C. Collins-Dodd (2004), “Impact of Export Promotion Programs on Firm Competencies, Strategies and Performance”, International Marketing Review, 21(4/5), 474-495.
• Gençtürk, E., M. Kotabe (2001), “The Effect of Export Assistance Program Usage on Export Performance: A Contingency Explanation”, Journal of International Marketing, 9(2), 51-72.
• Gülsoy, T., Ö. Özkanlı, R. Lynch (2012), “The Role of Innovation in the Effective International Expansion of an Emerging-Country Firm: The Case of Arçelik”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41, 116-129.
• Hair, Joseph F., Jr., Black, William C., Babin, Barry J., R. Tatham, Anderson, Rolph E. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
• Hollis, A. (2003), “Industrial Concentration, Output, and Trade: an Empirical Exploration”, Review of Industrial Organization, 22, 103–19.
• Khandwalla, Pradip N. (1977), “Some Top Management Styles, Their Context and Performance”, Organisation and Administrative Sciences, 7(4), 21-51.
• Kim, D., B.W. Marion (1997), “Domestic Market Structure and Performance in Global Markets: Theory and Empirical Evidence from U.S. Food Manufacturing Industries”, Review of Industrial Organization, 12, 335–54.
• Lee, D.J. (1998), “The Effect of Cultural Distance on the Relational Exchange Between Exporters and Importers: the Case of Australian Exporters”, Journal of Global Marketing, 11, 7–22.
• Lesch, W.C., A. Eshghi, G. Eshghi (1990), A Review of Export Promotion Programs in the Ten Largest Industrial States. in S. Tamer Cavusgil & Michael R. Czinkota (Eds.), International Perspectives on Trade Promotion and Assistance, New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc..
• Li, J., I. Vertinsky, H. Zhang (2012), “The Quality of Domestic Legal Institutions and Export Performance”, Management International Review, 53(3), 361-390.
• Löfsten, H., P. Lindelöf (2005), “Environmental Hostility, Strategic Orientation and the Importance of Management Accounting—an Empirical Analysis of New Technology-Based Firms”, Technovation, 25(7), 725-738.
• Marvel, H. (1980), “Foreign Trade and Domestic Competition”, Economic Inquiry, 18(1), 103-122.
• Moen, O. (1999), “The Relationship Between Firm Size, Competitive Advantages and Export Performance Revisited”, International Small Business Journal, 18(1), 53-72.
• Ngo, V., F. Janssen, L. Leonidou, P. Christodoulides (2016), “Domestic Institutional Attributes as Drivers of Export performance in an Emerging and Transition Economy”, Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2911-2922.
• O’Cass, A., C. Julian (2003), “Examining Firm and Environmental Influences on Export Marketing Mix Strategy and Export Performance of Australian Exporters”, European Journal of Marketing, 37, 366–384.
• Öz, Ö. (1999), The Competitive Advantage of Nations: The Case of Turkey: Assessing Porter’s Framework for National Advantage, England: Brookfield.
• Pagoulatos, E., Sorensen, R. (1976), “International Trade, International Investment and Industrial Profitability of U. S. Manufacturing”, Southern Economic Journal, 42(3), 425.
• Porter, M. (1990), “Competitive Advantage of Nations”, Competitive Intelligence Review, 1(1), 14.
• Porter, M.E. (2002), “Building the Macroeconomics Foundations of Prosperity: Findings from the Microeconomic Competitiveness Index”, The Global Competitiveness Report, World Economic Forum, Geneva Switzerland.
• Robertson, C., S. Chetty (2000), “A Contingency-Based Approach to Understanding Export Performance”, International Business Review, 9(2), 211-235.
• Seifert, B., J. Ford (1989), “Are Exporting Firms Modifying Their Product, Pricing and Promotion Policies?”, International Marketing Review, 6(6).
• Sousa, C.M.P. (2004), “Export Performance Measurement: an Evaluation of the Empirical Research in the Literature”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, 9, 1-22.
• Sousa, C., F. Martínez-López, F. Coelho (2008), “The Determinants of Export Performance: A review of the Research in the Literature between 1998 and 2005”, International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(2), 1-32.
• White, L.J. (1974), “Industrial Organization and International Trade: Some Theoretical Considerations”, American Economic Review, 64, 1013–20.
• Zahra, S., D. Garvis (2000), International Corporate Entrepreneurship and Firm Performance”, Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 469-492.