Why Don't Entrepreneurial Firms Internationalize More?

摘要: The area of "international entrepreneurship" has received significant scholarly attention with the development strong conceptual models during last decade (e.g., McDougall and Oviatt, 2000; DeClercq et al., 2005; Zahra George, 2002). These consider impact organizational environmental characteristics entrepreneurial firms on patterns internationalization, wealth creation, survival, growth. However, while internationalization its consequences have been focus extensive research (Werner, 2002), question "Why don't internationalize?" much less attention. Considering that in spite "march globalization" often trumpeted by business press, fact most high-performing North American still are domestically oriented (Cox Camp, 2001) makes this an interesting question. Research concluded lack age (Oviatt McDougall, 1994) size (Westhead no longer reasons for not pursuing internationalization. Therefore, perceptual experiential factors may be primary do internationalize (Manlova Two possible stream domestic success entry barriers. "domestic success" argument, inherently assumed Uppsala model firm (Johanson Vahlne, 1977), suggests will pursue international activities only when their markets matured. If there is abundant opportunity, internationalize. Conversely, "barriers to internationalization" argument because differences knowledge and/or national cultures between headquarters country other countries, perceived financial or economic risks. According interested but external hurdles discourage them from doing so. issue become increasingly relevant firms. We define as one which designed create through new activity bringing together unique packages resources exploit marketplace opportunities (Davidsson, Davidsson 2002; Ireland 2001; Shane Venkataraman, 2000). Recent entrepreneurship these located beyond borders firm's home (Lechner Dowling, 2003; 2000), relatively few growing domestically, let alone internationally (Barringer Gilbert 2006; investigates explanations state affairs appears warranted. This study considers barriers "non-internationalization" studying a sample 872 17 thereby providing opportunity extend work U.S.-centric orientation studies date. found cultural risk were negative predictors whereas success, including growth rates, generally was predictor. remainder article divided into three sections. In next section, we review literature arguments non-internationalization. Then, report results study. noteworthy result stronger predictor non-internationalization than success. final describe how our findings build upon previous literature, identify directions future research, discuss potential implications entrepreneurs public policy makers. …