Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 (2014) 24 – 34

10th International Strategic Management Conference

The effect of intangible resources and competitive strategies on the

export performance of small and medium sized enterprises
Ömer Kumlua
a
Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract

This paper provides an explanation for export process and perceived export performance of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises
(SMEs) from Resource-Based View (RBV) which is an important, emerging theory of firm heterogeneity. Following the philosophy
of RBV, the author has developed a research model explaining how SMEs improve their Perceived Export Performance (PER) via
the integrated application of firms’ Intangible Resources (IR) and Competitive Export Strategies (CES) where both IR and CES are
assumed to be most effective means of improving PER. To explore their effects on PER, a mail survey was conducted with 1415
companies from Metal, Textile, Chemical and Furniture industry from Turkey. And 271 responses have been received for further
analysis. Regression and Correlation analysis were used to test the hypotheses and to reach the final relationship equation. The
results indicated that there is a positive relationship between all IR, CES and PER. We found that combination of IR and CES make
more contribution than individual IR and CES on PER. Also our results showed that combination of competitive export strategies
makes more contribution than individual strategies on export performance. Additionally, it is found that the effect of IR makes more
contribution than CES on PER. In the final model equation the biggest contributions on PER comes from “Export Committed
Experience” and “Export Customer Orientation” variables. And the contribution of "Quality Focus" comes out to be nagative in the
final equation. This paper has important contributions to the literature as it brings an additional step for the theory development on
the export process of SMEs. Additionally it is very helpful for the SMEs which are looking for better export results; they should pay
particular attention on developing these intangible resources to reach desired export performance. Also, the results will provide
useful hints for government export offices, which are encouraging their SMEs to involve in international business.

© 2014
© 2014 The Authors.
Published by Published by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd. Ltd.
Selection This peer-review
and/or is an open access
underarticle under the of
responsibility CCthe
BY-NC-ND license Strategic
10th International
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Management Conference
Peer-review under responsibility of the International Strategic Management Conference.
Keywords: Intangible resources, Export performance, Small and medium size enterprises

1. Introduction

The world has been facing many dramatic changes within the last few decades. Previously closed foreign markets
have opened, liberalization of trading systems has increased, much regional economic integration have been developed,
due to the advances in transportation, information and communication technologies, the connectedness with customers
and marketing partners has increased and improved (Keegan and Green 2005). Because of all these transformations
many companies face with fierce global competition which in turn strongly affect all firms’ activities and pressed them
to compete in international markets. Despite these dramatic transformations in the international marketplace, a large
number of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) are not yet represented in the international economy as much
as large firms are (Fujita, 1998). However, the global competition is an inescapable reality for those SMEs who
traditionally have a small financial base, a domestic focus and a limited geographic scope or stayed within their
national boundaries (Barringer and Greening, 1998; Pleitner, 1997). Exporting has become an increasingly popular
strategy for SMEs as spreading business risks across different markets, generating more revenues and providing a
better profit base for shareholders (Keegan and Green 2005; Terpstra and Sarathy 2000). Therefore many studies have

Corresponding author. Tel. + 90-532-396-9427 fax. +90-352-322-1613
Email address: omerkumlu@hotmail.com

1877-0428 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the International Strategic Management Conference.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.004
 Ömer Kumlu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 (2014) 24 – 34 25

been conducted about export performances of SMEs. Gemunden (1991) noted that there are over 700 explanatory
variables that have been advanced in the literature as determinants of export performance. Some examples to those
variables are; firm characteristics (e.g. firm size, management characteristics and ideology), firm competencies (e.g.
management skills, labour skills and production) and marketing strategy variables (e.g. market research, promotion and
distribution). Some authors like Aaby and Slater (1989), Styles and Ambler (1994), Leonidou (1994) and etc.
consolidated the growing body of those researches, and have come to a general agreement that firm resources and
export marketing strategies are the most important two determinants of export performance. In this paper we studied
the relationship between these three constructs.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis

2.1. The Resource Based View (RBV)

The origins of the resource-based view (RBV) can be traced back to Penrose (1959) who points to the fact that a
firm is a collection of physical, human and intangible resources, which are deployed by administrative decisions. RBV
defines organization as a collection of unique resources and capabilities which provide the basis for its competitive
strategies which in turn define about the performance of the firm. According to classical strategy models like Porter's
(1980) Five Forces Model, it is argued that firm’s performance depends critically on the characteristics of the industry
environment in which it competes, on the contrary to this classical view, RBV adopts the
http://www.1000ventures.com/products/bec_mc_market_leaders.htmlview that; differences in firms'
performances are driven primarily by their unique resources and capabilities rather than by an industry's structural
characteristics. Most of these classical strategy models do not attempt to look inside the company and do not consider
the internal factors of the firms. These paradigms cannot answer the question of “why different firms in the same
industry perform differently?” Many empirical researches found performance differences, between firms in the same
industry (Cubbin 1988; Hansen and Wernerfelt 1989; Cool and Schendel 1988; Lewis and Thomas 1990). Further, it
has been observed that some firms perform badly in attractive industries while other firms do well in declining
industries. Notably, the RBV emerged very much as a critical response to these criticisms. It directed attention on firm-
specific resources and its implications for firm performance (Conner, 1991; Rumelt, 1984). Management literature
highlighted examples and cases of where companies with particular skills and capabilities were able to out-perform
their rivals (Coyne 1986; Ghemawat 1986; Grant 1991; Hall 1989; and Williams 1992). Firm resources are the stocks
of available tangible or intangible factors and they are inputs into a firm's production process, such as capital,
equipment, the skills of individual employees, patents, finance, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes,
knowledge, talented managers and etc that are controlled by the firm that enable the firm to design and apply value-
enhancing strategies and improve its efficiency (Penrose, 1959; Daft, 1983). In practice the RBV pushes firm's
management to deal with an important task of identifying, developing and deploying key resources to maximise
returns.

2.2. Intangible Resources and Exporting of SMEs

Inadequacy of resources for exporting may become internal export barriers intrinsic to the firm (Collis, 1991;
Tallman, 1991). For example; problems regarding to meeting export market quality standards and establishing the
suitable design and image for the export market (Kaynak and Kothatri, 1984); insufficient information about export
markets (Lefebvre and Lefebvre, 2001); poor organisation of export departments and non-qualified personnel to
administer exporting activities (Yang et al., 1992); constitute internal issues that influence export performance.
Possession of these resources enables an exporter to identify opportunities in the export market, develop appropriate
export marketing strategy and execute it effectively to yield better export performance. Small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) are often constrained by scarce financial, managerial, and technological resources, lack of
established brands and innovative products (Aulakh et al, 2000) lack of the experience, skills, and knowledge needed
on international markets (Bell, Murray, and Madden, 1992; Dhanaraj, Beamish 2003). It is evident that these limited
resources seem to frustrate the efforts of SMEs to export (Buckley, 1989; Fujita, 1998). There are many types of
resources have appeared in the literature and small firms may face difficulties to identify the critical resources needed
for exporting (Barney, 1991). For example Grant (1995) classified resources into three types, they are Financial
Resources (e.g., firms borrowing capacity), Intangible Resources (e.g., brand names), and Tangible Resources (e.g.,
physical plant capacity). Elango (2000) expands it, to include: intangible, physical, financial, operational, and
economic resources possessed by the firm. In many studies it is approved that; intangible resources and capabilities
have the advantage creating characteristics (e.g. Hall, 1993; Barney and Wright, 1998; Smart and Wolfe, 2000).
Similarly Clulow, Barry, Gerstman (2003), found that intangible assets (client trust, reputation, networks and
intellectual property) and capabilities (knowledge, organizational culture, skills and experience) were very valuable as
they are developed over time, unique to the company and so complex resources resulting in inimitability therefore it
represents competitive advantage for a firm (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). Due to the discussion above in this paper we
selected Intangible Resources and Capabilities to analyse the export performance of SMEs. As the name implies
26 Ömer Kumlu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 (2014) 24 – 34

capabilities are not tangible it is again kind of intangible resource to firm. So we use name intangible resources to cover
also capabilities, and our first hypothesis is that:

H1: Intangible resources are positively related to company’s export performance.

2.3. Types of Intangible Resources (IR)

In this paper we subdivide intangible resources into three categories, which are intellectual property assets,
managerial assets and network assets.

2.3.1 Intellectual Property Assets (IPA)

Intellectual Property Assets refer to resources like intellectual property such as trademarks, patents, reputable brand
names, quality systems, company reputation, and etc, (Chatterjee and Wernerfelt, 1991; Hall 1992; Williams 1992). In
this research we select Legally Protected Rights (patents, trademarks and etc), Quality Focus and Brands as Intellectual
Property Assets. Montobbio and Rampa (2005) tabulated annual growth rate of patents and export shares to world total
and found that export growth increases with number of patents. Yang and Maskus (2009) and Yang and Huang (2009)
found that stronger intellectual property rights would have positive impact on export performance in Taiwan. Quality
Focus implies a system which induces firms for creating superior offerings, prompting enhanced customer satisfaction
and leading to increased customer loyalty and improved performance (Buzzell and Gale, 1987). To attain quality focus
companies establish quality systems like ISO, TQM and etc to assure standard quality level in their products and
services, through these systems they follow up the minimum quality standards required for their products and improve
their quality accordingly. Emprical researches also support the adoption of quality focus to have better export
performance; Figueiredo and Almeida (1988) and Cardoso (1980) bring proofs from Brazil that; poor quality control
techniques affect export performance negatively. Czubala, Shepherdb and Wilson (2009) find robust evidence that non-
harmonised standards with international standards reduce African exports of these products. Brands are also very
important company resources. Exporters who face the poor reputation of their brand may end up with poor export
performance (Cardoso, 1980; Gereffi 1992). Mohy-ud-Din et al. (1997) reported that the Pakistan yarn manufacturers
have lost market share in virtually all their major markets due to image problems. Gereffi (1992) found that, lack of
own internationally recognised brand names affect export performance negatively. Based on the above discussions
regarding to Intellectual Property Assets, it may be proposed that:

H1: Company’s intellectual property assets are positively related to company’s export performance.

2.3.2. Managerial Assets

Managerial Resources are widely accepted as the main variables in SMEs’ exporting (Miesenbock, 1988). Adams and
Hall (1993) studied 1132 SMEs across Europe and they find out that personal factors were to be most important
factors in export performance. In this research Managers’ International Experience, Managers’ Export Commitment,
Managers’ Risk Handling and Innovativeness of the Manager are selected as managerial resources. Filatotchev, Liu,
Buck and Wright (2009) proved that export performance depend very much on managers' international experience.
Eusebio, Andreu and Belbeze (2007) found that international experience is the main factor in the export performance
of the Italian businesses. Wolff and Pett (2000) agree that management experience is a critical resource in the
exporting of small firms. With the word managers' export commitment we mean the priority given to export. Aaby and
Slater, (1989) found that export performance tends to be higher where management is committed firmly to exporting.
Mohammed, Ali and Ramayah (2009) found that export commitment have significant impact on export performance.
For Innovativeness of the Manager; Guan and Ma (2002) found that; export growth is closely related to innovation
capability. Lages, Silva and Styles (2009) ‘s findings reveal that product innovation play a greater role in enhancing
export performance. Nguyen, Pham, Nguyen and Nguyen (2008) found that innovativeness of Vietnamese SMEs
enhances their likelihood of exporting. Some researchers have supported the positive effect of R&D intensity on export
performance (Gemunden 1991; McGuinness and Little 1981; Eusebio, Andreu and Belbeze 2007). Finally in this
research it is assumed that Managers’ Risk Handling chracteristics have positive impact on export performance. Aaby,
and Slater (1989) found that export performance tends to be higher where management has the willingness to take
risks. Based on the above discussions about managerial resources lead us to propose that:

H1.2: Managerial resources are positively related to company’s export performance.

2.3.3. Network Assets

Johanson and Mattsson (1993) define international business as the “process of developing networks of business
relationships in other countries. Johanson and Vahlne (1990) emphasize the importance of network resources that is
relationships to others like customers, suppliers, competitors and etc. on the export performance. Anderson (1995)
 Ömer Kumlu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 (2014) 24 – 34 27

found that networks can positively affect a firms’ degree export performance. Filatotchev, Liu, Buck and Wright
(2009) found out that export performance has close relationship with founder's global networks. In this research we
select three network assets, they are: Export Customer Orientation (ECO), Ability to Monitor Competitors (AMC),
Being a Member of Business group or alliance (BMB). Export Customer Orientation is the set of beliefs in export that
says that customer needs and satisfaction are the priority of an organization (Wikipedia, 2010). In general, this view
indicates that market orientation has a positive linear relationship with business success. For example Miocevic and
Crnjak-Karanovic (2009) conducted a psychometric analysis of export market orientation of Croatian SME exporters,
and their results clearly indicate the necessity of pursuing export market orientation in order to achieve a high level of
export performance. As a final word we argue just like Ogbeuhi and Longfellow (1994) that export market failure often
results from poor market analysis, absence of product market match, ineffective distribution and lack of management
planning which can be cured by customer orientation approach. Ability to monitor competitors is one of the
distinguishing Manager’s capability by which they understand competition and act accordingly. From the domestic
competition point of view, many studies have suggested that there is a positive relationship between intense domestic
market competition and greater international involvement (Reid, 1984; Sullivan and Bauerschmidt, 1988; Jaffe and
Pasternak, 1994 and etc.) so as to escape from the threat of intensified competition at home. Also fierce competition
and/or aggressive competitors in export market negatively affect export intention and export performance (Cardoso,
1980; Fluery, 1986, Hasan, 1998). Business Group is typically a cluster of legally distinct firms with a managerial
relationship (Khanna & Yafeh, 2005). Gemser, Maryse and Sorge (2004) findings provide support for the notion that
being a member of business group may provide an opportunity for companies to share each other’s resources, which
increases the exporting. Also, SMEs could attain legitimacy and reputation by joining to a business group, which
facilitates SMEs entry into foreign markets (Khanna and Rivkin, 2001). According to above discussions about network
resources we may hypothesise H1.3 and under the logic of parsimony we may further hypothesise H1.4;

H1.3: Network resources are positively related to company’s export performance.

H1.4: Combination of intangible resources make more contribution than the individual intangible resources on
export performance.

2.4. Competitive Export Strategies

Madsen (1994) argued that export marketing strategy is the most important explanatory variable in relation to
overall export performance. Shoham et al. (2002) and Thirkell and Dau (1998) also provide additional support for the
importance of export marketing strategy on export performance. Strategy researches in export literature are generally
limited to entry modes. However competitive strategy is more than selection of suitable entry modes; it shows how a
firm competes. When we fix the entry mode with exporting one must say additional strategies that allow the firm to
compete effectively with its competitors. Porter's Generic Competitive Strategies are the basis for much of modern
business strategy and generally the proposed strategies in the literature are a version of Porter’s generic business
strategies. Chaganti, Chaganti and Mahajan (1989) supported the contention that Porter's framework also applies to
small businesses. By following Faulkner and Bowman (1992), in this paper we condensed Michael Porter's four
generic strategies into two - low cost leadership and differentiation. In cost leadership, a firm sets out to become the
low cost producer in its industry. The sources of cost advantage are varied. They may include the pursuit of economies
of scale, proprietary technology, preferential access to raw materials and other factors. Some of the exporting strategies
that fall in cost strategy are as follows: competitive pricing (Namiki,1988), global strategy where firms utilize
standardized products, processes, and marketing approaches that seek to exploit efficiency (Bartlett and Ghoshal,
1987), enhancing competitiveness through changes in the price and quality of the product Kalantaridis (2004). In a
differentiation strategy a firm seeks to be unique in its industry along some dimensions which are widely valued by
buyers and perceived to be better or different from the competition. It is rewarded for its uniqueness with a premium
price (Porter, 1980), this strategy can allow small firms to minimize harmful interaction with competitors, giving rise to
export performance. Man and Wafa (2009) found a significant relationship between differentiation strategy type and
export performance of SMEs. Vargas and Tagle Rangel (2007) found that SMEs whose explicit business strategy
emphasizes innovation and knowledge creation which are the basis for differentiation strategy have been able to
successfully participate in global contexts. Chetty, et al. (2003) find out that in five of the six firms, the development of
a product innovation with global potential was the spur to the firm's rapid globalisation. So, we hypothesise that;

H2.1: Differentiation strategy makes more contribution than cost leadership strategy on export performance.

Both differentiation and cost leadership strategies in themselves appear to be sensible, logical, and coherent,
highlighting the advantages and benefits that a company could gain by using either approach. Note that, marketing
directors and managers are not making one-time one-off choices. A more common approach is to differentiate where
possible and reduce the cost where necessary. Unlike Porter, Faulkner and Bowman (1992) argue that it is false to
choose between these two orientations, they advice to follow up both Cheaper and Better strategy which will gain
sustainable competitive advantage. Chetty and Campbell-hunt (2003) argued that, firms must develop their strategies
that are capable of capturing as many economies of scale as they can, while also supporting multiple product variants.
28 Ömer Kumlu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 (2014) 24 – 34

By this new, hybrid strategy companies do not rely on a single generic strategy, companies integrate the generic
strategies and successfully pursuing the cost leadership and differentiation strategies simultaneously. Differentiation
enables the company to charge premium prices and Cost leadership enables the company to charge the lowest
competitive price. For example; Kim, Nam and Stimpert (2004) found that; integrated strategies will outperform cost
leadership or differentiation strategies. Based on the above discussions we hypothesize that:

H.2.2: Combination of competitive export strategies makes more contribution than individual strategies on export
performance.

2.5. Combination of Intangible Resources and Competitive Export Strategies

Resources in many ways could be a significant factor in influencing a firm's export strategy (Elango, 2000). The
resource-based view provides the theoretical rationale for predicting firm strategy and its subsequent performance
based on corporate resources (Mahoney and Pandian, 1992; Wernerfelt, 1989). Namiki (1988)’s analysis suggests that
small firms do use different competitive patterns of export activity and that these patterns are consistent with their
resource base. Similarly Chandler and Hanks (1994), found that the “fit” between strategies and resource-based
capabilities are positively related to venture performance. Ortega, and Villaverde (2008), show how the competitive
strategy and resource-based view complement each other in a coherent model. In similar vein in this paper it is argued
that when the corporate has adequate resources and with the proper application of strategies, should lead to improved
export performance. Regarding to this discussion we have last two hypotheses:

H.3: Combination of intangible resources and competitive export strategies make more contribution than
individual intangible resources and competitive strategies on export performance.

H.4: Intangible resources make more contribution than competitive export strategies on export performance.

2.6. Model Development

This paper draws upon the relevant literature in exporting, resource based view, competitive export strategies and
export performance and builds specific concepts within an integrated model. This model integrates the intangible
resources and competitive export strategies which are effective on overcoming exporting barriers, facilitate the
exporting and results in a better export performance. The integration of them is necessary because traditionally they are
examined as individually and none of them alone sufficient enough to explain the export process of SMEs. This model
was designed as a research tool which enables us to develop a more holistic and integrated understanding of the
necessary resources and competitive export strategies that defines about their export performance. The research model
and corresponding hypotheses to be investigated in this study is represented in figure 1.

Figure 1. The model: The effect of firm resources and competitive strategies on export performance of SMEs.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Goal

In this research we aim to identify the effect of intangible resources and competitive strategies on the export
performance of small and medium sized manufacturing enterprises through the the model represented in figure 1. To
test the propositions, a field survey using questionnaires was conducted.

3.2. Sample and Data Collection

 Ömer Kumlu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 (2014) 24 – 34 29

The population is small and medium sized manufacturing enterprises (SMEs) from Turkey which are defined
themselves as exporter and registered to IGEME’s (The Center of Export Development) website. The term SME was
defined according to EU norms; a firm, which has 1 to 10 employee and 2 million euro of turnover per year, are called
as micro firms. A firm, which has 11 to 50 employee and at most 10 million euro of turnover per year, are called as
small firms. And a firm, which has 51 to 250 employee and at most 50 million euro of turnover per year, are called as
medium firms (Yonar, 2007). The study sample was drawn from a list of registered exporter from Turkish IGEME’s
website. The list composed manufacturing firms from four main sectors. Metal (metal, metal products, machine and
auto parts), Textile (textile and confection), Chemical and Furniture industries were selected to conduct this study.
According to data obtained from State Statistics Institute (SSI) the total export volume of all these sectors are around
51 billion US dollar, which makes 50 % of total export volume of Turkey in 2009. The questionnaire was sent to this
list. The owners and/or top managers of the firms are requested to fill the survey. To increase the response rate, a
follow up telephone call place to recipients and a second mailing of the questionnaire were used. The mail survey was
sent to 1415 companies. We received 313 responds. Considering the research criteria, 271 of them were used for
further analysis. The final number of cases used in this paper represents a response rate of 22 % of the original targeted
population. Data obtained from those 271 questionnaires were analyzed through the SPSS statistical packet program
and the proposed relations were tested through regression analyses.

3.2. Analysis and Results

Genarally the measurement scales were derived from previous studies. To measure Export Commitment we used
the scale from Cadogan et al (2001). Risk Taking Behavior and Quality Focus scales are adopted from Buzzell and
Gale (1987), Innovativeness and International Experience scales are adopted from Cadogan et al (2001), Export
Customer Orientation Scale and Ability to Monitor Competitors scales are adopted from Kohli and Jaworsky (1993),
Competitive Export Strategies scale is adopted from Frambach et al (2003) and Young (2005) and finally Perceived
Export Performance scale is adopted from Cadogan et al (2002). To measure the Brands, Legally Protected Rights and
Being a Member of Business Group we developed our own scales. Overall, 65 items using 5 point likert-type scales are
used to analyse the effect of these intangible resources and competitive export strategies on perceived export
performance. To determine the underlying factors and construct validity all variables were subjected to factor analysis
using Principal Component Analysis. When we examine the “Intellectual Property Assets” (see Table 1) we realised
that it resulted in two factors explaining 80,703 % of the total variance. The Kaiser- Meyer Olkin (KMO) measure of
sampling adequacy was found out as 0,868 with 0,000 significance. For the first factor “Legally Protected Rights” the
Cronbach’s Alpha is found out to be 0,922 and for the “Quality Focus” it is 0,955. These results indicate that the scales
used to measure “Intellectual Property Assets” revealed two clean factors with high levels of reliability and validity.
We applied factorial analysis and reliability tests for “Managerial Assets” (MA), “Network Assets” (NA), and
“Competitive Export Strategies” (CES) and “Perceived Export Performance (PEP) with the same procedures. The
results are summarized in the tables below.

Table 1 Factor Analysis Results (Intellectual Property Assets)

KMO 0,868 Sig. 0,000
Lable Item LPR Quality
Legally Protected Assets (6 items)(alpha=0,922)
LPR1 We always get patents or industrial design rights to our new developments. 0,884 0,021
LPR2 We always get trademarks when our products get its brand name. 0,843 -0,032
BR1 We continuously invest to strengthen our brands. 0,843 0,285
LPR3 Getting patents, industrial design rights, trademarks and other legal rights is one of our important strategies 0,819 0,416
to improve our export performance.
BR2 Investing to our brands is one of our important strategy to improve our export performance. 0,786 0,400
BR3 Our brands are quite strong in our export markets. 0,654 0,548
Quality Focus (5 items) (alpha=0,955)
Quality3 The performance of a product truly meets the expectations of customers in export market. -0,108 0,914
Quality1 Emphasizing quality customer service is important our firm's strategy in export markets. 0,239 0,911
Quality2 Emphasizing product quality is important our firm's strategy in export markets. 0,251 0,908
Quality5 For us success in export market is driven by truly satisfying the needs of our customers there. 0,069 0,897
Quality4 To increase export we continuously invest for quality systems to standardise our product and service 0,295 0,850
quality.
% of explained variance 80,703
Table 2. Factor Analysis Results (Managerial Assets)
KMO 0,903 Sig. 0,000
Lable Item CE RH Inno
Committed Experience (9 items)(alpha=0,972)
Comm2 We intend to increase the company's exporting activities. 0,944 0,091 0,033
Comm3 We actively explore international market opportunities. 0,932 0,075 0,078
Exp4 We have enough experience and capability to succeed in export markets and we always share it 0,928 0,063 0,113
with our employees.
Exp1 We have adequate amount of experience knowledge about our export markets. We are aware of 0,918 0,147 0,173
its benefits, costs and risks.
30 Ömer Kumlu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 (2014) 24 – 34

Comm1 We consider our exporting activities to be important. 0,909 0,017 -0,045

Exp2 We have a systematic approach for export markets which was developed over years. 0,881 0,184 0,247
Exp3 We get many courses about exporting and/or international business in the past. 0,857 0,124 0,289
Comm4 We spend a lot of time in planning international operations. 0,806 0,351 0,065
Exp5 We frequently visit out export markets to observe the changing trends and demands. 0,777 0,211 0,279
Risk Handling (7 items) (alpha=0,882)
Risk6 We like to implement plans only if they are very certain that they will work. 0,201 0,886 0,198
Risk5 We like to "play it safe." 0,186 0,886 0,098
Risk3 In this company we do not like to take big financial risks. 0,132 0,822 0,177
Risk2 We do not accept occasional new product failures as being normal. 0,087 0,798 -0,045
Risk4 We encourage the development of innovative marketing strategies, knowing well that some will 0,185 0,668 0,304
fail.
Inno3 We prefer to adapt for our use methods and techniques that others have developed and proven. 0,021 0,635 -0,135
Risk1 We believe that higher financial risks are worth taking for higher rewards. 0,066 0,581 0,435
Innovativeness (4 items) (alpha=0,832)
Inno2 We favour experimentation and original approaches to problem solving. 0,032 0,043 0,866
Inno1 We favour a strong emphasis on R&D, technological leadership and innovations. 0,202 0,058 0,862
Inno5 In the last five years my firm marketed very many new lines or products or services. 0,115 0,171 0,791
Inno4 We always spare budget for R&D activities. 0,257 0,114 0,771
% of explained variance 75,324
Table 3 Factor Analysis Results (Network Assets)
KMO 0,842 Sig. 0,000
Lable Item CO AMC BMB
Export Customer Orientation (6 items)(alpha=0,936)
CO5 Product development activities in this company are driven by the needs of our customers. 0,933 0,093 0,021
CO4 When we find customers are unhappy with the quality of our products or services we take 0,931 0,106 -0,017
corrective actions immediately.
CO6 Top managers keep telling people around here that they must gear up now to meet customers' 0,849 0,331 -0,039
future needs.
CO1 In this company we regularly meet with international customers to what products or services they 0,787 0,400 -0,102
will need in the future.
CO3 When something important happens to a major customer or market the whole company knows 0,781 0,280 -0,135
about it in a short period.
BMB5 We have distributor in foreign markets that we are exporting. 0,663 0,456 0,028
Ability to Monitor Competitors (3 items) (alpha=0,848)
AMC1 We respond rapidly to competitive actions that threaten us. -0,106 0,910 -0,67
AMC3 In this company we tell employees to be sensitive to the activities of our competitors. -,100 0,899 0,109
AMC4 We always monitor our competitors and adapt their successful actions and escape from their -0,051 0,793 0,171
unsuccessful actions.
Being a Member of Business Group (3 items) (alpha= 0,869)
BMB1 We establish good relations with our competitors. 0,243 0,008 0,884
BMB3 We have contracted relations with some other firms. 0,505 0,032 0,788
BMB2 We establish good relations with our suppliers. 0,212 0,346 0,759
% of explained variance 79,397
Table 4. Factor Analysis Results (Competitive Export Strategies)
KMO 0,903 Sig. 0,000
Lable Item Diff CL
Differentiation (5 items)(alpha=0,964)
Diff5 Our organization distinguishes itself from competition by the quality of its products. 0,943 -0,236
Diff1 Our firm is always the first to market new products. 0,940 -0,232
Diff2 Relative to competition, our firm is always ahead in technological innovations. 0,924 -0,193
Diff3 Research and development of new products is very important within our firm. 0,913 -0,226
Diff4 My company attempts to differentiate itself by providing customers with differentiated or unique products. 0,887 0,026
Cost Leadership (4 items) (alpha=0,833)
CL5 My company focused on being a low cost producer through tight controls, efficient use of resources, and -0,122 0,893
overhead minimization with the primary goal of being to increase productivity.
CL2 In our organization, the production process changes all time with the goal of constantly reducing production -0,285 0,842
cost.
CL1 Our organization emphasizes cost reduction in all its business activities. -0,394 0,755
CL3 Our organization invests mainly in large projects to realize economies of scale. 0,039 0,709
% of explained variance 80,881
Table 5. Factor Analysis Results (Perceived Export Performance)
KMO 0,887 Sig. 0,000
Lable Item PER
Export Performance (6 items)(alpha=0,970)
PER1 We are satisfied with the export sales growth relative to major competitors in the last three years.
PER2 We are satisfied with the export profit growth relative to major competitors in the last three years. Only one
component was
PER3 Export sales significantly contribute to our total turnover growth in the last three years.
extracted. The
PER4 We are satisfied from our export considering its sales volume and profit.
solution cannot be
PER5 Our export customers always like to work with us. rotated.
PER6 Our export customers always advice our firm to others.
 Ömer Kumlu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 (2014) 24 – 34 31

% of explained variance 100

After the factor and reliability analysis we revised research model. Briefly the differences are as follows:
“Intellectual Property Assets” revealed two clean factors with high levels of reliability and validity instead of three.
The previous constructs “Brands” and “Legally Protected Rights” comes out to be single construct (factor) and we
called this new factor as again “Legally Protected Rights”. “Managerial Assets” revealed three factors. The previous
constructs “Export Commitment” and “International Experience” comes out to be single construct (factor) and we
called this new factor as “Export Committed Experience”. See figure 2 for the revised model.

Figure 2. The model: The effect of firm resources and competitive strategies on export performance of SMEs.

In this study we have 9 hypotheses to test them regression analysis is conducted. When we examined the table 6 the
significance of RISK is 0,313 which is higher than 0,05. Except RISK, all intangible resources have individually
significant contribution on export performance, with high explanation powers (R2). Therefore our hypotheses H1, H1,1,
H1,2, and H1,3 are supported. Following hierarchical regression analysis (see table 7) we also realised that the R2 for IPA
is 0,610, then we put IPA and MA in the same equation, the related R2 comes out to be 0,829, which is higher than R2
of individual variables. When we put IPA, MA and NA in the same equation, the related R 2 comes out to be 0,835,
which is higher than R2 of individual variables. These results suggest that combination of Intangible Resources make
more contribution on export performance than individual intangible resources. From the table 6 also we understand that
both “Differentiation (Diff)” and “Cost Leadership (CL)” strategy have statistically significant impact on “Export
Performance”. R2 for “Cost Leadership” strategy is bigger than “Differentiation” strategy which means that “Cost
Leadership” strategy has more contribution on Export Performance, therefore hypothesis 2,1 is not supported. R2 of
multiple regression where we put both strategies in the equation comes out to be 0,217 so we can conclude that
combination of both strategies make more contribution on export performance. Therefore Hypothesis 2,2 is supported.
From the results we also realised that R2 for “Intangible Resources” (0,835) is bigger than that of “Competitive Export
Strategies” (0,217) which means that “Intangible Resources” has more contribution on “Export Performance”.
Therefore Hypothesis 4 is supported. Additionally from hierarchical regression analysis (Table 7), the R2 of
combination of IR and CES comes out to be higher than R2 of individual variables. That means combination of IR and
CES make more contribution on PER than individual IR and CES. Therefore Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Table 6: Regression Analysis Results of the Effect of Intangible Resources and Competitive Export Strategies on the Export Performance
Regression Model Independent Dependent Variable R2 B t value ρ value VIF CD CI
Variable
Intellectual Property LPR 0,316 7,838 0,000* 1,354 7,348
PERFORMANCE 0,678 58
Assets (IPA) QUALITY 0,616 15,290 0,000* 1,1354 7,648
*
Managerial Assets COMEX 0,870 30,663 0,000 1,233 6,650
(MA) RISK PERFORMANCE 0,826 0,040 1,012 0,313 1,190 131 7,049
INNO 0,096 2,450 0,015* 1,232 11,389
*
Network Assets CO 0,740 16,231 0,000 1,763 7,140
(NA) AMC PERFORMANCE 0,688 -0,115 -3,207 0,002* 1,096 96
BMB 0,112 2,444 0,015* 1,799 9,795
Differentiation Str. DIFF PERFORMANCE 0,019 0,135 2,282 0,023* 1,000 27 5,184
Cost Leadership Str. CL PERFORMANCE 0,114 0,338 5,900 0,000* 1,000 58 7,628
Competitive Export DIFF 0,217 0,358 5,943 0,000* 1,508 81 4,177
CL PERFORMANCE 0,497 8,250 1,508 7,678
Strategies 0,000*

Table 7: Regression Analysis Results of the Effect of Intangible Resources and Competitive Export Strategies on the Export Performance
Hiararchical Regression Model Dependent Variable R R2 R2 Change F Change ρ value
a. Predictors: (Costant), LPR, Quality 0,681 184,691
0,825a 0,000*
b. Predictors: (Costant), LPR, Quality, PERFORMANCE 0,912b 0,829 0,1480 78,966
0,000*
Risk, Inno, Comex
c
c. Predictors: (Costant), LPR, Quality, 0,916 0,835 0,1540 4,303 0,006*
32 Ömer Kumlu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 (2014) 24 – 34

Risk, Inno, Comex, CO, AMC, BMB

a. Predictors: (Costant), IR 0,916a 0,835 170,869 0,000*
b. Predictors: (Costant), IR and CES PERFORMANCE 0,921b 0,843 0,008 7,730
0,01*
LPR: Legally Protected Rights, QUALITY: Quality Focus, COMEX: Committed Experience, RISK: Risk Handling, INNO: Innovativeness, CO:
Customer (Export) Orientation, BMB: Being a Member of Business Group, AMC: Ability to Monitor Competitors, IR: Intangible Resources, CES:
Competitive Export Strategeis, *Significant at 0,05

The Model Equation: PER = -0,711+ 0,748COMEX+ 0,173CO + 0,135LPR - 0,116QUALITY + 0,088CL

According to multiple regression results (see table 8) the variables “Innovativeness”, “Risk Handling” “Ability to
Monitor Competitors”, “Being a Member of Business Group”, and “Differentiation” strategy are excluded from the
model equation as they have statistically insignificant constants. The R2 of final regression model is 0,849 so the model
equation has very high explanation power with a statistically high significance. The model equation is as follows. As it
can be seen from the equation the biggest contribution on PER comes from “Export Committed Experience”
(COMEX). It’s constant (0,748) which is significantly higher than that of other variables. Second important one is
“Export Customer Orientation” (CO) with the coefficient of 0,173. Interestingly it is found that PER decreases with
“Quality Focus” (QUALITY). And finally "Cost Leadership" (CL) has very little effect on PER.

Table 8 Multiple Regression Output of All Independent and Dependent Variables

Regression Model Independent Dependent Variable R2 B t value ρ value VIF
Variable
Multiple Regression CONSTANT -0,711 -3,863 0,000*
Output of All QUALITY EXPORT 0,116 -2,131 0,034* 5,035
Independent and LPR PERFORMANCE 0,849 0,135 4,337 0,000* 1,646
Dependent CO 0,173 3,192 0,002* 4,967
(PER)
Variables COMEX 0,748 13,139 0,000* 5,547
CL 0,088 3,337 0,001* 1,172
*Significant at 0.05 Level

4. Conclusion

This paper provides an explanation for export process of SMEs from resource-based perspective. On the contrary to
large firms, SMEs usually have limited resources, which restrain them to have a domestic focus and stay within their
national boundaries. Therefore Aulakh et al. (2000) argued that many models developed based on large firms in the
literature are not good fit for SMEs’ export business. In order to make a contribution to this deficiency the author of
this paper proposed a model which explains the critical intangible resources and important competitive export
strategies that influence export performance of small and medium-sized enterprises. According to regression analysis
we found that eight out of nine hypotheses were supported. Only our hypothesis H 2.1 that is; “Differentiation strategy
makes more contribution than Cost Leadership strategy on export performance” was not supported and “Cost
Leadership” strategy comes out to have more contribution on perceived export performance. The results indicate that
all the intangible resources (IPA, MA, and NA) and competitive export strategies (CES) play an important role on
perceived export performance and intangible resources make more contribution than competitive export. Combination
of intangible resources makes more contribution than the individual intangible resources on perceived export
performance. On the contrary to Porter 's (1980) argument, our results showed that combination of competitive export
strategies makes more contribution than individual strategies on export performance. In sum we may conclude that;
companies which hold or gather these intangible resources and apply both differentiation and cost leadership strategy at
the same time most probably reach its best export performance. In the final regression equation, we obtained very high
explanation power with the R2 of 0,849. As it can be seen from the equation the biggest contribution on “Perceived
Export Performance” comes from “Export Committed Experience” with the coefficient of 0,748. This result strongly
concludes that highly export committed firms with sufficient export experience will most probably succeed in
exporting. The coefficient of “Quality Focus” comes out to be -0,116, which means that “Export Performance”
decreases with “Quality Focus”. This result seems illogical and not confers with the previous researches. In our
research “Cost Leadership” strategy comes out to have more contribution on perceived export performance. Therefore
we may conclude that overemphasizing quality may be perceived by Turkish SMEs as increasing the cost and which
result in low export performance.

This study and the developed export model for SMEs have important contributions to the world academy,
companies and governments. From academic perspective this study brings additional steps for the theory development
on the theory of export process of SMEs. As difference to previous studies intangible resources and competitive export
strategies are integrated in the same setting and investigate their link to export performance. In international business
literature researches about the link between competitive strategy and export performance is very rare and generally the
market entry modes are accepted as strategy, our study contributes additional knowledge to this defficiency. Network
 Ömer Kumlu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 (2014) 24 – 34 33

Resources are also included into the model, which is generally lacking in the literature. The proposed model and
findings are also very helpful for the SMEs managers, and the government export officers. SME owners and/or
managers may use the proposed model to their firms and pay particular attention to develope these intangible resources
to improve their export performance.

There may be some limitations to this study. First, the questionnaires were being sent to managers of the exporters
from the list obtained from IGEME's website so self-selection bias may exist because the randomness of the respondent
firms cannot be assured. Second limitation may arouse from measurement scales as the scales were obtained from
literature which are English in language, they were translated into Turkish. These translated questions may be
perceived as different by the respondents. In order to generalize the results further researches needed. Future studies
might consider conducting a cross national study or focus on firms from other sectors. It is possible to re-evaluate the
literature to find other critical resources or competitive export strategies or find other appropriate scales. In this
research intangible resources and competitive export strategies are used as independent variable, another research may
be designed as assigning one of them as moderator or mediator variable to other.

5. References

Aaby, N.-E. and Slater, S.F. (1989, "Management influences on export performance: a review of the empirical literature 1978-88", International
Marketing Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 7-26.
Anderson, P.H. (1995). Collaborative Internationalization of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Copenhagen: DJOF Publishing.
Aulakh, P.S., Kotabe, M., & Teegen, H. (2000). Export strategies and performance of firms from emerging economies: evidence from Brazil, Chile,
and Mexico. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 342-361.
Barney, J.B. (1991). "Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage," Journal of Management 17(1), 99-120.
Barney, J.B. And Wright, P.M. (1998). "On becoming a strategic partner: the role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage", Human
Resource Management, Vol.37 No.1, pp.31-46
Barringer BR, Greening DW (1998) Small business growth through internationalization: A comparative case study. J Bus Vent 13:467–492
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1987). Managing across borders: New strategic requirements. Sloan Management Review, Summer, 717.
Bell, J., Murray, M., & Madden, K. (1992). Developing expertise: An Irish perspective. International Small Business Journal, 10 (2), 37-53.
Buckley, P.J. (1989), "Foreign Direct Investment by Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: The Theoretical Background," Small Business
Economics, 1 (1), 89-100.
Buzzell, R. and Gale, B. (1987) The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance, The Free Press: New York.
Cadogan,J.W., Paul,N.J, Salmienen, R.T., Pumalainen,K. and Sundgvist, S.(2002),"Key antecedents to export behaviors:Their antecedents and
performance concequences",Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.33(3),pp.615-628
Cadogan,J.W., Paul,N.J, Salmienen, R.T., Pumalainen,K. and Sundgvist, S. (2001), "Key antecedents to export behaviors:A cross national emprical
examination",International Journal in marketing, vol.18 (3), pp.261-282
Chatterjee,S. And Wernerfelt, B. (1991) the link between resources and type of diversification:Theory and evidence. Strategic Management
Journal,12.33-48
Chetty,S., Campbell-Hunt, C. (2003), "Paths to internationalisation among small- to medium-sized firms: A global versus regional approach"
European Journal of Marketing. Bradford: Vol. 37, Iss. 5/6; pg. 796, 27 pgs
Clulow , V., Gerstman, J.and Barry ,C. (2003), "The resource-based view and sustainable competitive advantage:the case of a financial services
firm", Journal of European Industrial Training , Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 220-32
Collis, D.J. (1991) 'A resource-based analysis of global competition', Strategic Management Journal 12(Summer, Special Issue): 49-68.
Conner, K. (1991), “A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: do we
have a new theory of the firm?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 121-54.
Cool, K. and Schendel, D. (1988) "Performance differences among strategic group members."Strategic Management Journal.9 (May-June):207-233
Coyne, K.P. (1986) ."Sustainable copetitive advantage-What it is and what it isn't." Business Horizons. 29 (January-February):54-61
Cubbin J. (1988). " Is it better to weak firm in a strong industry or a strong firm in weak industry? ." London :London Business School , Center for
Business Starategy. No: 49
Czubala, W., Shepherdb, B. and Wilson J.S.( Nov 2009) ," Help or Hindrance?The Impact of Harmonised Standarts on African Exports", Journal of
American Economies, Oxford , Vol.18, Iss.5;pg.711
Daft, R. (1983) Organization theory and design.Newyork : West Publishing
Eusebio, R., Andreu, J.L. and Belbeze, M.P.L. (2007), "Internal key factors in export performance: A comparative analysis in the Italien and Spanish
textile-clothing sector (part 1)",Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol.11, No.1,2007 pp.9-23
Filatotchev, I., Liu X., Buck T. and Wright, M. (Aug 2009) , " The export orientation and export performance of high-technology SMEs in emerging
markets: The effects of knowledge transfer by returnee entreepreneurs", Journal of International Business Stud
Frambach,R.T. and Prabhu.Verhallen,T.M.M. (2003),"The influence of business strategy on new product activity:the role market
orientation",International Journal of research in Marketing, Vol.20,pp.377-397
Fujita, M.(1998), "The Transnational Activities of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises", Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher
Gemunden, H.G. (1991). "Success Factors of Export Marketing: A Meta-Analytic Critique of the Empirical Studies," in New Perspectives on
International Marketing. Ed. S.J. Paliwoda. London: Routledge, 33-62.
Ghemawat ,P.1986."Sustainable advantage." Harvard Business Review. 64 (September-October):53-58
Grant, R.M. (1991), “A resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation”, California Management Review,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-35.
Grant, R.M. (1995) . Contemprory strategy analysis:concepts, techniques, applications. Cambridge, MA :Blackwell
Guan, J, and Ma, N. ( 2002) ,"Innovative capabilty and export performance of Chinese firms", School of Management , beijing University of
Aeronautics and astronautics, Beijing 100083, People's Republic of China,
Hall, R. (1989). "The Management of intellectual assets: A new corporate perspective." Journal of General Management. 15 (Autumn):53-68
34 Ömer Kumlu / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150 (2014) 24 – 34

Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 144-153.
Hall, R. (1993). "A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage", Strategic Management Journal ,
Vol. 14,pp. 607-18
Hansen, G.S. and Wernerfelt , B. (1989). " Determinants of firm performance :The reltive importance of ecoenomic and organizational factors."
Strategic Management Journal. 10 (September-October) :399-411
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), "Market orientation: antecedents and consequences", Journal of MarketingVol. 57 July, pp. 53-70.
Johanson J. & Mattsson, L. G.(1993). Internationalisation in Industrial Systems - a Network Approach, in Hood N./Vahlne J. E. (eds.), Strategies in
Global Competition, London: Croom Helm 1988, pp. 287-314.
Johanson, J. and J.-E. Vahlne (1990), "The Mechanism of Internationalization, " International Marketing Review, 7 (4), 11-24.
Kalantaridis, C. (2004), "Internationalization, Strategic Behavior, and the Small Firm: A Comparative Investigation", Journal of Small Business
Management. Milwaukee: Jul 2004. Vol. 42, Iss. 3; pg. 245, 18 pgs
Kaynak, E. and Kothari, V. (1984), "Export behaviour of small and medium sized manufacturers: some policy guidelines for international
marketers",Management International ReviewVol. 24 No. 2, pp. 61-9.
Keegan, W.S. and Green, M.S. (2000), Global Marketing, Second Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Khanna, T. & Rivkin, J.W. (2001). Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22,
45-74.
Khanna, T. & Yafeh,Y. (2005), Business Groups in Emergings Markets: Paragons or Parasites?
Lages L.F., Silva G. and Stlyles C. ( Dec 2009),"Reletionship Capabilties, Quality,and Innovation as Determinants of Export Performance", Journal
of International Marketing, Vol., Iss.4; pg.47
Leonidou, L.C. (1994), "Empirical research of export stimuli: review and synpaper", Working Paper Department of Public and Business
Administration, School of Economics and Management, University of Cyprus, Nicosia.
Lewis,P. And thomas, H, (1990). " The linkage between strategy, strategic groups and performance in the UK retail grocery industry." Strategic
Management Journal. 11 (September) :385-397
Madsen, T.K. (1994), "A contingency approach to export performance research ", in Cavusgil ,S.T. Axinn, C. (Eds) , Advances in International
Marketing, Vol.6, pp.25-42.
Mahoney ,J., & Pandian, R. (1992). The resource -based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management
Journal,13:363-380
Man, M.M.K., and Wafa, S.A. (2009). "The relationship between innovativeness, strategy types, environment and the export performance of small
and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) of Malaysian manufacturing sector," The Business Review, Vol.13, Num.2, Cambridge
McGuinness, N.W., and Little, B. (1981a). "The Influence of Product Characteristics on the Export Performance of New Industrial Products,"
Journal of Marketing 45(Spring), 110-122.
Miesenbock, K.J. (1988), "Small Business and Exporting: A Literature Review," International Small Business journal, (6) 2, 42-61.
Namiki, N. (1988). "Export Strategy for Small Business," Journal of Small Business Management 26(2), 32-37.
Nguyen,A.N., Pham,N.Q.,Nguyen,C.D., Nguyen,N.D. (2008),"Innovation and exports in Vietnam's SME sector", The European Journal of
Development Research,Vol.20,No:2,pp.262-280
Ogbeuhi, A.O. and Longfellow , T.A. (1994), "Perceptions of U.S manufacturing SME'sconcerning exporting. a comparison based on experience",
Journal of Small Business management , Vol.32 No.4, pp.37-50
Penrose, E. (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Basil Blackwell: London.
Pleitner, J.H. (1997), “Globalization and entrepreneurship: entrepreneurs facing the ultimate challenge”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 5 No.
1, pp. 27-55.
Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy, The Free Press: New York.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) 'The core competence of the corporation', Harvard Business Review 68(3): 79-91.
Reid, S.D. (1984), "Market expansion and firm internationalization", in Kaynak, E. (Ed.), International Marketing Management Praeger Publishers,
New York, NY, pp. 197-206.
Rumelt, R.P. (1984) 'Towards a Strategic Theory of the Firm', in R.B. Lamb (ed.) Competitive Strategic Management, Prentice Hall: Englewood
Cliffs, NJ. pp. 131-145.
Shoham, A., Evangelista , F. and Albaum ,G. (2002) , "Strategicfirm type and export performance ", International Marketing Review, Vol. 19 No.3,
pp.236-58
Smart, D.L. And Wolfe, R.A. (2000), "Examining sustainable competetive advantage in intercollegiate athletics: a resource based view", Journal of
Sport Management, Vol.14,pp.133-53
Styles,C. and Ambler, T (1994) , "Successful export practice:the UK experience", International Marketing Review ,Vol.11, No.6, pp.23-47
Sullivan, D. and Bauerschmidt, A. (1988), "Common factors underlying incentives to export: studies in the European forest products
industry",European Journal of MarketingVol. 22 No. 10, pp. 41-55.
Talman, S.B. (1991). Strategic management models and resource- based strategies among MNEs in a host market. Starategic Management Journal ,
12 (Special Issue) :69-82
Terpstra, V. and Sarathy, R. (1997), International Marketing, Seventh Edition, Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.
Thirkell ,P.C. and Dau, R. 81998) , "Export performance success:determinants for New Zealand manufacturing exporters", European Journal of
Marketing , Vol.32 Nos 9/10, pp.813-29
Wernerfelt, B. (1989)."Form critical resources to corporate strategy." Journal of General Management. 14 (Spring) :4-12
Williams, J.R. (1992). "How sustainable is your competitive advantage." California Management Review. 34 (Spring) :29-51
Wolff, J.A., Pett, T.L., (2000), "Internationalization of small firms: an examination of export competitive patterns, firm size, and export
performance", Journal of Small Business Management. Milwaukee: Vol. 38, Iss. 2; pg. 34, 14 pgs
Yang C.-H., Huang Y.-J (Oct 2009) ,"Do Intellectual Property Rigts Matter To Taiwan's Exports? A Dynamic Panel Approach", Pacific Economic
Yang, L. and Maskus K.E.(Nov 2009) ,"Intellectual property rigts, technology transfer and exports in developing countries ", Journal of development
Economics,Amsterdam, Vol.90,Iss.2,pg.231
Young,B.R. (2005), "Factors influency export market orientation and export performance:An emprical investigation", PHD Theisis in Cleveland
state Univercity,Retrieved from Proquest