The Impact of Competition among Small and Medium

Enterprises on Nigerian Trade Boosting

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School

of the Gyeongsang National University

By

Ganiyu Adewale BUSARI

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree

Master of Science (International Economics)

February, 2017
 Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I

List of Tables IV

List of Figures V

초록 VI

Abstract VII

Introduction 1
1. Background and Purpose of the study 1
2. Objective of the Research 2
3. Research Methodology 2

Ⅱ. Literature review 4
1. Theoretical Background 4
1) Definition and Importance of SMEs 4
2) Issues related to the Nigerian SMEs 5
3) Definition of Competitive Advantage 6
4) How Competitive Advantage is created and its relationship with Comparative advantage 6
2. Empirical Review 8
Table 2: Summary of Related Empirical Literature 11

Ⅲ. Research Model and Hypotheses 15

1. Research Model 15
Fig.2 Proposed Research Model 15
2. Research Hypotheses 16
Table 3: Research Hypotheses 16
3. Defining of Variables and Measurement 17
1) The Dependent variables 17
2) The independent variables 18
3) Measurement 18
Table 4: Measurement of variable 19

Ⅳ. Result and Data Analysis 20

1. Introduction 20
2. Characteristics of sample 20
Table 5: Natures of Participant SMEs 21
Table 6: Distribution of Kind of Participant SMEs 21
Table 7: Capacity Attainment 21
3. Reliability and Validity of Variables 21
Table 8: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the competitive advantage 22
Table 9: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the firms' performance 23
Table 10: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the export growth 23
Table 11: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the economies of scale 24
Table 12: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the comparative advantage 25
4. Regression Analysis and Hypotheses Testing 25
Table 13: The findings of the regression analysis 26
Table 14: Summary of Hypotheses Testing 28

Ⅴ. Conclusion and Limitation and future Research 30

1) Conclusion 30
2) Limitation and Future research 31

References 32

Appendix 36
Appendix 1 36

II
 List of Tables
Page

Table 1: SMEs Thresholds 4

Table 2: Summary of Related Empirical Literature 11
Table 3: Research Hypotheses 16
Table 4: Measurement of variable 19
Table 5: Natures of Participant SMEs 21
Table 6: Distribution of Kind of Participant SMEs 21
Table 7: Capacity Attainment 21
Table 8: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the competitive advantage 22
Table 9: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the firms' performance 23
Table 10: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the export growth 23
Table 11: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the economies of scale 24
Table 12: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the comparative advantage 25
Table 13: The findings of the regression analysis 26
Table 14: Summary of Hypotheses Testing 28

III
 List of Figures
Page
Fig. 1: Nigerian Merchandise Trade 1
Fig. 2: Proposed Research Model 15

IV
 Abstract

This study investigates the impact of competition among Small and medium enterprise

(SMEs) on Nigerian trade. The research intensively based on the collection and analysis

of primary data via questionnaire administered to 289 top managers of Small and

Medium Enterprises in Nigeria. The obtained data from the questionnaires were

analyzed using multiple regression analysis through the SPSS statistical package

program. The observations made at the end of the study were, first, competitive

advantages have a direct, positive impact on firms’ performance. Moreover, the results

of the analyses also show that firm’s performances are positively correlated with firms’

export growth. And finally, economies of scale and home market effect are important

determinant of comparative advantage. However, the result portray that the firms

operating in Nigeria should promote some particular activities such as market

accessibility, productivity of employees, employment satisfaction, and devise means to

increase their revenues as all these four items are not supported by hypotheses.

Consequently, it is suggested that SMEs operators should spend considerable amount of

time and money on research and development in order to help them compete in the

world market. Secondly, given the ultimate objective of innovation as to raise living

standards, government should develop programs that will be more focused on generic

knowledge and boosting productivity.

V
I. Introduction

1. Background and Purpose of the study

Nigeria's economy has been dominated by the export of oil since the late 1960s. Before

Nigeria attained independence in 1960, agriculture was the most important sector of the

economy and accounted for more than 50% of GDP and more than 75% of export

earnings (Are Gheorghe, 2009). But between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s,

Nigeria moved from a position of self-sufficiency in basic foodstuffs to one of heavy

dependence on imports (Are Gheorghe, 2009). As at 2014, Nigeria is the 39th largest

export economy in the world (WTO, 2015), in which the petroleum and petroleum

products accounted for 96% (TRADE, 2014) and it is the 125th most complex economy

according to the Economic Complexity Index (OEC, 2014).

Fig. 1: Nigerian Merchandise Trade

Source: Author (From data collected on UNCTAD)

Although, Nigeria is endowed with abundant natural resources which are an important

source of national wealth around the world, but, according to Gylfason and Zoega

(2006) experience has, shown that natural riches are neither necessary nor sufficient

condition for economic growth and development but from the value-added products and

services developed around natural resources. The recent oil prices capsized greatly
affect Nigeria because of her hitherto heavy reliance on oil for her source of revenue

while neglecting other promising sectors. For a country like Nigeria to fully integrate

with the global economy and/or gain from trade, its economy should be diversified away

from high reliance on the oil sector. Nigeria’s economy can be diversified away from

her heavy reliance on oil sector by focusing on how small and medium enterprises will

play the vibrant and vital roles in the Nigerian economy as they do in other economies

like India and China. This research is, therefore, intended to explore on how small and

medium scale enterprises’ performance through competitive priority can have positive

effect on Nigerian external trade.

2. Objective of the Research

The purpose of this study is to empirically test a framework identifying the

effectiveness of the competitive advantages among the firms on their performance and

how this can boost the Nigerian trade by creating comparative advantage so that the

economy will be less dependent on oil. The overall objectives of this research are to

determine:

(1) Whether firms with high levels of competitive advantage have a high level of

performance.

(2) Whether firms with a high level of performance have a higher share of exports of

products.

(3) Whether economies-of-scale and home-market effects are important determinants

of countries’ comparative advantage.

3. Research Method
The paper studies the impact of Competition among SMEs to boost Nigerian trade.

Research Model and hypotheses are established with the help of previous papers. In

2
order to examine the hypotheses, measuring variables were set and the data were

collected by survey of a sample. The obtained data from 289 top managers were

analyzed using multiple regression analysis through the SPSS statistical package

program.

The first part is introduction which includes background and purpose of the study,

objective of the research and research method and structure of the paper. The second

part is literature review which includes both theoretical and empirical review. In the

third part, research model and hypotheses are proposed. The forth part is about data

analysis which the concluded part, that is part five, embodies conclusion and

recommendation

3
Ⅱ. Literature review

1. Theoretical Background

1) Definition and Importance of SMEs

Small and medium scale enterprises are easier to describe than define because of the

dynamic nature of economic environment and its variation from one country to another.

According to Stoke, Wilson and Wilson (2010), the European Commission (EC) initiated

an important set of definitions of the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) that

introduced a further category of the ‘micro’ enterprise to reflect the growing

importance of very small businesses. These definitions are based on headcount,

turnover and balance-sheet value, as shown in the table.

Table 1: SME thresholds

Categor Headcoun Turnove O Balance sheet

y t r R total
Medium 50–249 <€43m <€43m

Small 10-49 <€10m <€2m

Micro 0-9 <€10m <€2m

The Central Bank of Nigeria defined SMEs a 1s enterprises with asset base (excluding

land) of between NGN 5 million and NGN 500 million and labour force of between 11

and 300. The notion of small and medium enterprises (SME) that was introduced into

the development landscape as early as the late 1940s (OECD, 2004) make Nigeria to

introduced several programs which include the trade and financial liberalization policy

1
Source: The European Union. http://europa.eu.int

4
(1989) aiming at stimulate competition among domestic firms with the objective of

promoting efficiency (Chete et al, 2014).

The importance of SMEs as accelerators to economic growth and development has

been long acknowledged which is the reason for their promotion in developed economy

(Ayeni-Agbaje and Osho, 2015). According to central Bank of Nigeria, this importance

which relates the development of any economy is their potentialities in employment

generation, improvement of local technology, output diversification, development of

indigenous entrepreneurship and forward integration with large-scale industries. The

World Bank Review on Small Business Activities sees SMEs sector as a strategy to

foster economic growth, employment and poverty alleviation (Ayyagari, Beck, &

Demirguc-Kunt, 2007).

2) Issues related to the Nigerian SMEs

A study done by the Federal Office of Statistics shows that 97% of all businesses in

Nigeria are SMEs. According to Katua (2014), Ariyo(2011) shows in his finding that

the SME sector provides, on average, 50% of Nigeria’s employment, and 50% of its

industrial output. SMEs In Nigeria, however, have not performed up to the expectation

due to a combination of problems (Ogbo and Nwachukwu, 2012). Output of SMEs does

not make any significant contribution to Nigeria’s economic growth performance. Eze

and Okpala(2015) concluded that poor government policies on tariffs and incentives,

bribery and corruption, non-existent entrepreneurial development centers and poor

state of infrastructure act as impediments to the growth and development of SMEs in

Nigeria. However, small firms create the majority of net new jobs and are critical

innovators, and efforts to encourage the formation and growth of small enterprises are

5
probably sensible in most cases (Adebisi & Gbegi, 2013).

3) Definition of Competitive Advantage

According to Jones and Tilley(2003), Porter's work is the starting point for any

discussion of competitive advantage. Porter(1985) states that ‘Competitive advantage

stems from the many discrete activities a firm performs in designing, producing,

marketing, delivering, and supporting its product. Each of these activities can contribute

to a firm’s relative cost position and create a basis for differentiation.' Competitiveness

of a firm is its capacity to achieve its targets.' According to Gupta(2009), competitive

advantage is widely believed by non-economists to be a key determinant of the

economic fortunes not just of firms, but of nations as a whole. He explained that a firm

possesses a competitive advantage over its rivals if it earns a persistently higher rate

of profit when compete with other within the same market.

4) How Competitive Advantage is created and its relationship with Comparative

advantage

Firms create competitive advantage by an act of innovation. Innovations shift

competitive advantage when rivals either fail to perceive the new way of competing or

are unwilling or unable to respond. A country can also create what is called national

competitive advantage otherwise called comparative advantage. According to

Kimberly(2016), China, due to its lower standard of living and pay less to its workers,

uses cost leadership by exports low-cost products at a reasonable quality level. Japan

excelled at cheap electronics in the 1960s and shifted up to quality brands by the 1980s.

The comparative advantage of America is attributed to innovation by bringing

innovative products to market faster than other countries (the balance, 2016). New

6
technologies, new or shifting buyer needs the emergence of a new industry segment,

shifting input costs or availability and changes in government regulations are the most

typical causes of innovations that shift competitive advantage (Porter, 1990). Peer

Neary(2003) was cited by Gupta(2009) that interaction between competitive advantages

and comparative advantages has something to do with more competitive markets. He

further states that “competitive advantage is just a synonym for absolute advantages

which are both impact on resource allocation as well as trade patterns and trade

volumes. Gupta(2009) identified the major forces that influence both comparative and

competitive advantage in the form of two separate frameworks and linked both together.

He demonstrates that forces in the comparative advantage framework influence forces

in the competitive advantage framework and vice versa. He views that to pursue the

forces related to competitive advantage in those goods and services in which a nation

already has some comparative advantage offers a better promise for success in gaining

competitive advantage for the nation. He states further it is also possible for forces of

competitive advantage to further strengthen the operation of the forces of comparative

advantage in what he termed “double diamond” framework, or even help create

comparative advantage in goods and services, hitherto not available based solely on

classical theories of comparative advantage.

2. Empirical Review

The impacts of competitive strategies on firm performance; relationship between firm

performance and export growth; and importance of economies of scale and home-

market effect on the Comparative Advantage have been examined in various papers.

The connection between strong competition in markets for goods and services and

7
better productivity and employment outcomes has been empirically identified by OECD

work (OECD, 2002). Karnani (1984) concludes in his paper that market share leads to

higher profitability. White (1986) states that the firms which employ pure cost

strategies achieve higher return on investment (ROI) when they have low autonomy.

Yaşar(2010) employed return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), return on sales

(ROS) as the main indicators of firm performance in his research. After studying the

paper of Day (1998), Miller & Friesen (1986), Yamin, Gunasekaran,& Mavondo(1999),

he came out with the fact that many of the researches support the hypothesis that

competitive strategies have a positive impact on firm’s financial performance. Al-Rfou

(2012)’s finding shows that the intensity of market competition has a positive strong

effect on organizational performance. Uchegbulam, Akindele and lbidunni (2015)

revealed that there is a relationship between product features and customer base;

product customization and sales growth, value added products and revenue growth. It

also indicated that better product quality has an influence on returns on investment. Yan

(2015) stated that there is a general agreement that the purpose of strategic

competitive activity in the firm is to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, and

thereby enhance a business’ performance. Zhou and De Wit (2009) examined the

Determinants and dimensions of firm growth and shows that availability of financial

capital is important to firm growth and the firm’s scalability is found to have a positive

impact on firm growth. Ahn, Fukao and Kwon (2004) cited that competition enhances

productivity.

Brahim(2014) conducted a survey of 216 on Tunisian SMEs to study factors influencing

SMEs’ export performance and indicated in his result that technological benefits have a

positive effect on SMEs adaptation, which positively affects export performance and

8
also indicate that firm size positively relates to export growth. Atkin, Khandelwal and

Osman(2014) study the impact of exporting on profits and productivity and their result

show that exporting improves technical efficiency and profit. Munch and Schaur(2015)

demonstrate that value added, employment and value added per worker of Danish firms

were significantly increased by the export promotion provided by the Danish

government. Export growth increases firm productivity and other measures of firm

performance according to Park et al.(2010. Ural and Acaravci(2006) demonstrate that

market share, firm size, labour productivity and capital intensity affect significantly the

firm’s economic performance

Hatem (2014) stated that Gombola and Ketz (1983), Ho and Wu (2006) and Cinca

Molinero and Larraz (2005), Dursun, Cemil and Uyar (2013) used return on asset and

return on equity and measuring profitability, debt and growth opportunities to examine

the determinants of firm performance in their studies. Oladimeji and Akingbade (2012)

find a significant relationship between organizational performance and strong

relationship with employees’ motivation, organizational environment and organizational

competitiveness. Gunday et al. (2011) show that innovations have positive effect on

firm performance in manufacturing industries. Bahraini Zadeh, Esmaeilpour and Aram

(2015) show that export knowledge, information & communication technologies and

Learning orientation influence export performance directly. Braunerhjelm and Thulin

(2003) find no impact of country size on exports of high-technology products and

stated that the advantage of a large home country market does not seem to offset

exports of high technology products from smaller countries. On a contrary, Hanson and

Xiang (2004) find strong evidence of home-market effect. They further stated the

home-market effect is the tendency for large countries to be net exporters of goods

9
with high transport costs and strong scale economies. National exports are determined

by national market size when transport cost is very high while neighborhood market

sizes determine it when transport cost is moderate. In this case, national market size

plus market size in nearby countries determine national exports (Hanson and Xiang,

2004). Rukevwe(2015), demonstrates in his study that innovation was found to have

influence business performance. Eniola, and Ektebang(2014) theoretically looked into

the SMEs sustainable competitive advantage and emphasis on its growing importance.

Uchegbulam, P., Akindele, S. and lbidunni, A. (2015) investigate the impact of

competitive strategy on performance of Nigerian SMEs and find that there is a

relationship between product features and customer base; product customization and

sales growth, value added products and revenue growth. They also show that there is

an influence of better product quality on investment returns.

Despite the fact that there is a widespread academic interest in SME firms’ economic

performance, there is a little literature which focuses on the impact of competition

among SMEs on export performances in Nigeria.

These studies both on Nigeria and other nations have been generally concentrated on

one finding or the other. That is, either on impacts of competitive strategies on firm

performance or on the effect of firm performance on export growth or the importance

of economies of scale and home-market effect on the Comparative Advantage. This

study is, therefore, intended to mainly contribute to the existing literature by looking

into performances’ effect of firms on exportation by integrating the effects of

competitive strategies on firm performance; the effect of firm performance on export

growth; and the importance of economies of scale and home-market effect on the

Comparative Advantage. Therefore problems that impede the growth of the firm's,

10
impact of innovation, cost reduction, revenue growth, product image in the international

market and other relevant components based on the reviewed literature were examined

to successfully carry the study.

Table 2: Summary of Related Empirical Literature

Author Topic Sample and Findings

method
Karnani The value of The The finding concludes that market
market share and concept of a share leads to higher profitability
(1984)
the product life Nash
cycle-a game- equilibrium
theoretic model
White Generic Business Descriptive The result states that the firms
Strategies, statistics which employ pure cost strategies
(1986)
Organizational Method achieve higher return on investment
Context and (ROI) when they have low autonomy
Performance: An
Empirical
Investigation
Yaşar(201 Competitive descriptive The study make use of employed
strategies and firm statistics, return on assets (ROA), return on
0)
performance: case coefficient equity (ROE), return on sales (ROS) as
study on Gaziantep alpha the main indicators of firm
carpeting sector performance in his research.
Al-Rfou Competition and Multiple The finding shows that the intensity
(2012) Organizational regression of market competition has a positive
Performance: analysis strong effect on organizational
Empirical Evidence performance
from Jordanian
Firms
Eze and Quantitative Multiple The study shows that poor
Okpala analysis of the regression government policies, on tariffs and
(2015) impact of small and method based incentives, bribery and corruption,
medium scale on ordinary non-existent entrepreneurial
enterprises on the least squares development centers and poor state
growth of Nigerian technique of infrastructure act as impediments to
economy: (1993- the growth and development of SMEs in
2011) Nigeria
Katua The Role of secondary A small industry can be set up with
SMEs in research small capital, and can produce goods for
Employment based on a domestic consumption by using
Creation and review of labour intensive technology.
Economic Growth in literature
Selected Countries
Ogbo The Role of Descriptive The finding of paper in the case of
and Entrepreneurship in statistics Nigeria shows that SMEs have
Nwachukw Economic Method chi- performed below expectation due to a
u, (2012) Development: The square combination of problems.
Nigerian statistics,
Perspective ANOVA

11
Olughor Effect of Innovation Descriptive The study demonstrated that
(2015) on the statistics innovation was found to influence
Performance of Method business performance.
SMEs Organizations
in Nigeria
Uchegbula Competitive Regression The findings revealed that there is a
m, Strategy and analysis relationship between product
Akindele Performance of customization and sales growth, value
and Selected SMEs in added products and revenue growth
lbidunni Nigeria and better product quality has an
(2015) influence on returns on investment.
Yan A theoretical the industry The result stated that there is a
(2015) framework of organization general agreement that the purpose of
competitive approach and strategic competitive activity in the firm
advantage for SMEs resource- is to achieve a sustainable competitive
in china under new based view advantage, and thereby enhance a
normal economy business’ performance
Ahn, The Regression The study suggests that competition
Fukao and Internationalization analysis enhances productivity.
Kwon and Performance of methods
(2004), Korean and
Japanese Firms: An
Empirical Analysis
Based on Micro-
Data
Zhou and Determinants and Exploratory The result shows that availability of
De Wit dimensions of firm factor financial capital is important to firm
(2009) growth analysis growth and the firm’s scalability is
found to have a positive impact on
firm growth
Brahim Factors Exploratory The finding of the paper shows that
(2014) Influencing SMEs’ and technological benefits have a positive
Export Performance confirmatory effect on SMEs adaptation, which
and Marketing factor positively affects export performance
strategy analysis and also indicate that firm size
positively relates to export growth
Atkin, Exporting and Regression The finding of the paper shows that
Khandelw Firm Performance: analysis exporting improves technical
al and efficiency and profit.
Osman
Munch and The Effect of descriptive The result demonstrates that value
Schaur Export Promotion statistics added, employment and value added
(2015) on Firm-Level per worker of Danish firms were
Performance significantly increased by the export
promotion provided by the Danish
Park et al. Exporting and firm Regression The finding shows that export
(2010) performance: analysis OLS growth increases firm productivity
Chinese Exporters estimation and other measures of firm performance
and The Asian
Financial crisis
Ural and The Effects of panel data The study demonstrates that market
Acaravci Firm’s Strategic analysis
share, firm size, labour productivity and
(2006) Factors on Export
and Firm capital intensity affect significantly the
Performance: A
Comparison of firm’s economic performance
Permanent and

12
 Sporadic Exporters

Hatem Determinants of The The results show that all variables-

(2014) Firm Performance: descriptive
A Comparison of statistics return on assets ratio, return on
European Countries equity ratio and returns on sales ratio

affect firm performance.

Oladimeji DETERMINANTS The analysis The result shows significant relationship

and OF of variance between organizational performance and
Akingbade ORGANIZATIONAL (ANOVA) and
(2012) EFFECTIVENESS correlation strong relationship with employees’
IN THE NIGERIAN coefficient motivation, organizational environment and
COMMUNICATION
organizational competitiveness
SECTOR
Gunday et EFFECTS OF Multivariate The results reveal the positive
al. (2011) INNOVATION data analysis
effects of innovations on firm
TYPES ON FIRM (PCA; SEM)
PERFORMANCE performance in manufacturing industries

Bahraini Influence of Partial least Export knowledge, information &

Zadeh, Intra-Organizational squares communication technologies and Learning
Esmaeilpo Factors on Export method and
ur and Performance of Smart PLS orientation influence export
Aram Exporting software
performance directly
(2015) Companies
Braunerhj Can Countries Regression No impact of country size on exports
elm and Create Comparative analysis
of high-technology(XHT) products and
Thulin Advantages? R&D-
(2003) expenditures, that the advantage of a large home
market size and
institutions in 19 country market does not off-set XHT
OECD-countries,
products from smaller countries.
1981–1999
Hanson The Home-Market A difference- Theoretical results of the analysis find
and Xiang Effect and Bilateral in- difference
strong evidence of home-market effect and
(2004) Trade Patterns gravity
specification it is the tendency for large countries to be

net exporters of goods with high transport

costs and strong scale economies.

13
Ⅲ. Research Model and Hypotheses

1. Research Model

Based on the literature review and the framework for comparative advantage and

competitive advantages developed by Gupta(2009), research model has been developed

as show in the Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 Proposed Research Model

The research model explains the link between competitive advantage, firm

performance and export growth on the one hand and Economies of Scale and Home-

market effect and comparative advantage on the other hand as supplements rather than

substitutes in determining their impacts on a nation’s economy. According to

Gupta(2009), the models of comparative advantage used together with that of

competitive advantage have potentially of analyzing of international trade or/and

international business which either or both would be unable to explain alone.

2. Research Hypotheses

Based on the literature review and the proposed research model, the main hypotheses

are generated as follows:

• Hypothesis 1(H1): Competitive Advantage has a positive impact on firm

14
performance.

• Hypothesis 2(H2): Firm Performance will be positively associated with the firm’s

export growth

• Hypothesis 3(H3): Economies of Scale & Home-market effect will have a positive

direct effect on the Comparative Advantage

Table 3: Research Hypotheses

H1 Competitive Advantage has a positive impact on firm performance

H1-1 The positive relationship between Competitive Advantage and firm performance is
mediated with the level of importance given to accessing capital
H1-2 The positive relationship between Competitive Advantage and firm performance is
mediated with the level of importance given to market accessibility
H1-3 The positive relationship between Competitive Advantage and firm performance is
mediated with the level of attention given to intensity of rival
H1-4 The positive relationship between Competitive Advantage and firm performance is
mediated with the level of attention given to threat of entry
H2 Firm Performance will be positively associated with the firm’s export growth
H2-1 The positive relationship between Firm Performance and export growth is mediated
with the level of importance given to customer satisfaction
H2-2 The positive relationship between Firm Performance and export growth is mediated
with the level of importance given to productivity of employees
H2-3 The positive relationship between Firm Performance and export growth is mediated
with the level of attention given market share
H2-4 The positive relationship between Firm Performance and export growth is mediated
with the level of importance given to revenue growth
H2-5 The positive relationship between Firm Performance and export growth is mediated
with the level of importance given to cost reduction
H3 Economies of Scale & Home-market effect (ES&HME) will have a positive direct effect
on the Comparative Advantage
H3-1 The positive relationship between (ES&HME) and Comparative Advantage is mediated
with the level of importance given to employee satisfaction
H3-2 The positive relationship between (ES&HME) and Comparative Advantage is mediated
with the level of attention given to consumer awareness
H3-3 The positive relationship between (ES&HME) and Comparative Advantage is mediated
with the level of importance given to cost reduction
H3-4 The positive relationship between (ES&HME) and Comparative Advantage is mediated
with the level of importance given to market accessibility
H3-5 The positive relationship between (ES&HME) and Comparative Advantage is mediated
with the level of importance given to productivity of employees

15
The idea of using mediating variable to break done main hypotheses or formulate sub-

hypotheses was imported from the various previous works including that of Yasar(2010)

who, in his paper titled: Competitive strategies and firm performance: case study on

Gaziantep carpeting sector, used Porter’s value chain activities as the standing

mediating variables to check the impact of independent variables, (that is, competitive

strategies-cost leadership, differentiation and focus) on the dependent variable (that is,

firm performance- return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), return on sales

(ROS). Having reviewed relevant literature, this paper used access finance (López-

Gamero, Molina-Azorín and Claver-Cortes, 2009; Zhou and De Wit, 2009; Ural and

Acaravci, 2006), market accessibility (Al-Rfou, 2012), intensity of rivalry and threat of

entry (Porter, 2008) to find the impact of competitive advantage on firm performance.

Also, customer satisfaction (Reimann, Schilke and Thomas, 2010), productivity of

employees (Ural and Acaravci, 2006), market share (Karnani, 1984; Ural and Acaravci,

2006), revenue growth (White, 1986; Yaşar, 2010; Uchegbulam, Akindele and lbidunni,

2015; Hatem, 2014) and cost reduction strategies are used to find the impact of firm

performance on export growth. And, lastly, the study used employee satisfaction

(Munch and Schaur, 2015; Oladimeji and Akingbade, 2012), consumer awareness, cost

reduction, market accessibility and productivity of employees (Al-Rfou, 2012; Karnani,

1984; Ural and Acaravci, 2006; Ural and Acaravci, 2006).

3. Defining of Variables and Measurement

1) The Dependant variables

The dependent variables are firm performance, firm’s export performance, and

Comparative Advantage in hypothesis one, hypothesis two and hypothesis three

16
respectively.

2) The independent variables

The independent variables are competitive advantage, firm performance and Economies

of Scale & Home-market in hypothesis one, hypothesis two and hypothesis three

respectively.

3) Measurement

Based on the above literature review, the components such as intensity of rivalry,

threat of entry (Porter, 2008), accessing capital to finance and the market accessibility

are used to measure competitive advantage. To measure firm performance, the items

such as customer satisfaction, productivity of your employees, market share, revenue

growth and cost reduction were used. Also, the items such as market accessibility,

exportation, access to modern technology, product image in the international market,

market share and purchasing power of buyers are used to measure export growth.

Employees satisfaction, customer awareness, cost reduction, market accessibility and

productivity of your employees are the items used to measure Economies of Scale &

Home-market Effects while innovation, experience/learning, relation with research

centers and universities, international demand and exportation are used to measure

comparative advantage. These items which are included in the part two of the

questionnaires were asked by employing a 5-point Likert scale and the respondents

indicated their assessment with these items ranging from 1which indicates very

negative to 5 indicates very positive. The part one of the questionnaires was about the

firm’s profile. The questionnaire was initially developed to include part three which are

open questions but it was later removed because the majority of managers were not

willing to disclose performance records, hence, a subjective scale is employed. The

17
table 3 below summarized the measurement of variable

Table 4: Measurement of variable

Factors Substitute Variables Measurement

Method
Competitive II. Accessing Capital to Finance 5 point scale
Advantage III. Market Accessibility 5 point scale
IV. Intensity of Rival 5 point scale
V. Threat of Entry 5 point scale
Firm VI. Customer Satisfaction 5 point scale
Performance VII. Productivity of Employees 5 point scale
VIII. Market Share 5 point scale
IX. Revenue Growth 5 point scale
X. Cost reduction 5 point scale
Export XI. Market Accessibility 5 point scale
Growth XII. Exportation 5 point scale
XIII. Access to Modern Technology 5 point scale
XIV. Product Image in International Market 5 point scale
XV. Market Share 5 point scale
XVI. Purchasing Power of buyer 5 point scale
Economies XVII. Employee satisfaction 5 point scale
of scale & XVIII. Customer Awareness 5 point scale
Home-Market XIX. Cost reduction 5 point scale
Effect XX. Market Accessibility 5 point scale
XXI. Productivity of Employees 5 point scale
Comparative XXII. Innovation 5 point scale
Advantage XXIII. Experience/Learning 5 point scale
XXIV. Relation with research centers and 5 point scale
universities 5 point scale
XXV. International demand of Product 5 point scale
XXVI. Exportation

18
Ⅳ. Result and Data Analysis
1. Introduction
The analysis of the instruments used for the measurement of the constructs in the

model, and the assessment of the model are presented in this chapter. The study begins

by briefly explaining characteristics of sample followed by statistical analysis of the

result for testing the validity and reliability of variables and finally, results of

hypotheses tests were presented.

2. Characteristics of sample

Data was obtained from the top managers of 289 small and medium enterprises (SMEs)

operating in Lagos Nigeria. Out of 37million SMEs exist in Nigeria (Favour, N., 2015)

Lagos state also has 3,224,324 as highest number (SMEDAN and NBS, 2013). Initially,

the questionnaire was designed through google online form and was sent through email

to the secretarial of each association of Nigerian-American Chamber of Commerce

(NACC), the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) and Nigerian Association

of Small and Medium Enterprises (NASME) all based in Lagos but only 16 were

collected online. A total copy of 289 representing approximate 70% of 415 copies that

were later distributed were returned and usable. This formed the sample size of the

study. The study design is appropriate because survey is the best way to find out

respondents’ perception of issues without necessarily influencing the study. The table 4,

table 5, and table 6 below represent summary of natures of participant SMEs,

distribution of kind of participant SMEs, capacity attainment respectively

19
Table 5: Natures of Participant SMEs

Nature Frequency Percent

Private Limited Liability company 92 31.8%
Public Limited Liability Company 5 1.7%
Partnership 104 36%
Sole Proprietorship 56 19.4%
Family Owned 32 11.1%
Others 0 0%
Total 289 100%

Table 6: Distribution of Kind of Participant SMEs

Kind Frequency Percent

Manufacturing 58 20.1%
Construction 24 8.3%
Services 39 13.5%
Agro Allied 61 21.1%
Trading 51 17.6%
Educational 43 14.9%
Mining 13 4.5%
Total 289 100%

Table 7: Capacity Attainment

Frequency Percent (%) Cumulative Percent

26-40% 26 9 9
41-50% 74 25.6 34.6
51-69% 152 52.6 87.2
70-80% 37 12.8 100
80 and above 0 0 100
Total 289 100

Source of table 4,5,6: Field Survey, September, 2016

3. Reliability and Validity of Variables

Data obtained through questionnaires was analyzed through the SPSS statistical

package program and the three proposed hypotheses were tested through regression

analysis. The test for the reliability of the data was deemed necessary since the data

for this research was generated using scaled responses. In this case, the widely used

Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was employed to assess internal consistency. Also,

Bartlett test of sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin were conducted. KMO & Bartlett’s

20
Test of Sphericity is a measure of sampling adequacy that is recommended to check the

case to variable ratio for the analysis being conducted (Business Analytics, 2012).

Table 8: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the competitive advantage

The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the competitive advantage

Division Value
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy(KMO) 0.634
Chi-squared 1161.46
Degree of freedom 6
Probability of significance 0.00
Variable Questions(Qs) No of Qs Cronbach'Alpha
Accessing capital to
finance 0.875
Market accessibility

Intensity of rival

Threat of entry

In the table 8 above, the factor analysis was conducted on the 4 items and the

Cronbach Alpha value of the factors is 0.875 suggesting satisfactory levels of construct

reliability for the assessment of competitive advantage. In other words, reliability of the

questionnaire was verified. The coefficient of KMO is 0.634 meaning that the degree of

common variance among the explanatory variables is mediocre and the value of Bartlett

test of sphericity which indicates sufficient correlation between the variables is

1161.46 and it is significant (p=0.000). Consequently all the mentioned results of factor

analysis are in acceptable range.

21
Table 9: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the firms' performance

The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the firms' performance

Division Value
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy(KMO) 0.613
Chi-squared 279.406
Degree of freedom 10
Probability of significance 0.00
Variable Questions(Qs) No of Qs Cronbach's Alpha
Customer satisfaction
productivity of employees

market share 0.629

Revenue growth

Cost Reduction

As seen from table 9 above, the factor analysis was conducted on the 5 items and the

Cronbach's alpha coefficients is 0.629 for all latent variables and reliability of the

questionnaire was verified meaning that items used to assess firms’ performance are

reliable. The coefficient of KMO is 0.613 and the value of Bartlett test of sphericity

which indicates sufficient correlation between the variables is 279.406 and it is

significant (p=0.000). Consequently all the mentioned results of factor analysis are in

acceptable range.

Table 10: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the export growth

The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the export growth

Division Value
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy(KMO) 0.738
Chi-squared 1361.997
Degree of freedom 15
Probability of significance 0.00
Variable Questions(Qs) No of Qs Cronbach's Alpha
Market accessibility

Exportation

Access to Modern Technology

Product Image in International market 0.851

market share

purchasing power of buyers

22
The table 10 above shows the validity and reliability of the export growth assessment.

The result of factor analysis conducted on the 6 items shows the Cronbach Alpha value

of the factors to be 0.851, the coefficient of KMO to be 0.738 which mean that degree

of common variance among the six variables is middling while the value of Bartlett test

of sphericity is 1361.997 and it is significant (p=0.000). Consequently all the mentioned

results of factor analysis are in acceptable range.

Table 11: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the economies of scale

The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the economies of scale & Home Market Effect
Division Value
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy(KMO) 0.691
Chi-squared 477.844
Degree of freedom 10
Probability of significance 0.00
Variable Questions(Qs) No of Qs Cronbach's Alpha
employee satisfaction 0.741
consumer awareness

cost reduction

Market accessibility

productivity of employees

In the table 11 above, the factor analysis was conducted on the 5 items and the

Cronbach Alpha value of the factors is 0.741 suggesting satisfactory levels of construct

reliability for the assessment of the economies of scale & Home Market Effect. In other

words, reliability of the questionnaire was verified. The coefficient of KMO is 0.691

meaning that the degree of common variance among the five variables is "mediocre"

bordering on "middling" and the value of Bartlett test of sphericity which indicates

sufficient correlation between the variables is 477.844 and it is significant (p=0.000).

Consequently all the mentioned results of factor analysis are in acceptable range.

23
As seen from table 12 below, the factor analysis was conducted on the 5 items and the

Cronbach's alpha coefficients is 0.815 for all latent variables and reliability of the

questionnaire was verified meaning that items used to assess comparative advantage

are reliable. The coefficient of KMO is 0.639 and the value of Bartlett test of sphericity

which indicates sufficient correlation between the variables is 1239.978 and it is

significant (p=0.000). Consequently all the mentioned results of factor analysis are in

acceptable range.

Table 12: The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the comparative advantage

The Validity and Reliability Assessment of the comparative advantage

Division Value
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy(KMO) 0.639
Chi-squared 1239.978
Degree of freedom 10
Probability of significance 0.00
Cronbach's
Variable Questions(Qs) No of Qs
Alpha
Innovation 0.815
Experience/Learning
Relation with Research centers and
University
International demand

Exportation

In conclusion, all alpha coefficients ranged from 0.629, 0.741, 0.815, 0.851 to 0.875.

These results indicate that the data has a high level of internal consistency within the

multi-item scales.

4. Regression Analysis and Hypotheses Testing

The regression analysis was used in this study to find out the effect of independent

variables (that is, competitive advantage, firm performance and Economies of Scale &

Home-market) on the dependent variable (firm performance, firm’s export performance,

24
and Comparative Advantage). Regarding the test of the hypotheses, the independent

variables in the hypotheses and their respect dependent variable were entered into the

regression equations in which Beta Coefficients, t-test, p-value, R Square, F-Value and

Durbin Watson (D-W) were measured as shown in the table 12 below

Table 13: The findings of the regression analysis

Dependent t- P- 2 F-
Independent variable B R D-W
variable test valve valve
Accessing capital to
0.36 4.43 0.00
finance
Market accessibility 0.03 0.31 0.76

Intensity of rival 0.28 5.74 0.00 1.91

Threat of entry 0.39 8.53 0.00

Customer satisfaction 0.27 6.27 0.00
productivity of
0.05 1.17 0.25
employees
market share 0.37 6.75 0.00 1.57

Revenue growth 0.06 1.58 0.12

Cost Reduction 0.27 4.88 0.00

employees satisfactions 0.03 0.69 0.49
consumer awareness 0.48 7.21 0.00

cost reduction 0.17 2.92 0.00 1.57

Market accessibility 0.16 3.24 0.00

productivity of
0.10 2.54 0.01
employees

From the table 13 above, each individual variable of accessing capital to finance,

market accessibility, intensity of rival and threat of entry as items used to measure

competitive advantage is multiple regressed against on firms’ performance as it is

argued on the research model. The result of the coefficients shows that they are

positively significant to firms’ performance. Likewise, customer satisfaction,

productivity of your employees, market share, revenue growth and cost reduction as

25
items used to measure firms’ performance are multiple regressed against on export

growth. The result of the coefficients also shows that they are positively significant to

export growth. Lastly, employees’ satisfaction, customer awareness, cost reduction,

market accessibility, and productivity of your employees as the items used to measure

Economies of Scale & Home-market Effects are multiple regressed against on

comparative advantages. The result of the coefficient shows that they are positively

significant to comparative advantage. More so, most of the variables were stationary at

1 percent and 5 percent respectively

In the first hypothesis, accessing capital to finance, market accessibility, intensity of

rival, and threat of entry as items used to measure competitive advantage were

included to the analysis as an independent variables. The adjusted R squared used in

measuring the goodness of fit of the model is satisfactory, pegged at 83%. All variation

in the dependent variable (Firm’s performance) is explained by the joint effect of all the

repressors in the model and is a good fit. The F statistics of 356.072 used in measuring

the joint significant of all the independent variables in the model is statistically

significant and is a good fit as well. The Durbin Watson value of 1.91 for the model falls

within the determinate region no serial correlation region.

In the second hypothesis, customer satisfaction, productivity of your employees,

market share, revenue growth and cost reduction as items used to measure firms’

performance were included to the analysis as an independent variables. The R-squared

value of 0.58 means the model explains about 58% of the variability in the response. It

implies that customer satisfaction, productivity of your employees, market share,

revenue growth and cost reduction explained about 58 percent systematic variations in

the level of export growth. The F statistics of 77.239 used in measuring the joint

26
significant of all the independent variables in the model is statistically significant and is

a good fit as well. The value of Durbin Watson is 1.57 for the model. This falls within

the determinate region and implies that there is a negative first order serial

autocorrelation among the explanatory variables in the model.

In the third hypothesis, employees’ satisfaction, customer awareness, cost reduction,

market accessibility, and productivity of your employees as the items used to measure

Economies of Scale & Home-market Effects were included to the analysis as an

independent variables. The value of the adjusted R-squared (R2) for the model is high,

pegged at 60 percent. It implies that, employees’ satisfaction, customer awareness, cost

reduction, market accessibility, and productivity of your employees explained about 60

percent systematic variations in the level of export growth. The F statistics of 83.764

used in measuring the joint significant of all the independent variables in the model is

statistically significant and is a good fit as well. The value of Durbin Watson is 1.57 for

the model. This falls within the determinate region and implies that there is a negative

first order serial autocorrelation among the explanatory variables in the model.

27
Table 14: Summary of Hypotheses Testing

Verification
Hypothesis Sub-Hypothesis
Result
The positive relationship between Competitive Advantage and firm performance is Supported

mediated with the level of importance given to accessing capital

The positive relationship between Competitive Advantage and firm performance is Not

mediated with the level of importance given to market accessibility Supported

H1 The positive relationship between Competitive Advantage and firm performance is Supported

mediated with the level of attention given to intensity of rival

The positive relationship between Competitive Advantage and firm performance is Supported

mediated with the level of attention given to threat of entry

The positive relationship between Firm Performance and export growth is mediated Supported

with the level of importance given to customer satisfaction

H2 The positive relationship between Firm Performance and export growth is mediated Not

with the level of importance given to productivity of employees Supported

The positive relationship between Firm Performance and export growth is mediated Supported

with the level of attention given market share

The positive relationship between Firm Performance and export growth is mediated Not

with the level of importance given to revenue growth Supported

The positive relationship between Firm Performance and export growth is mediated Supported

with the level of importance given to cost reduction

The positive relationship between (ES&HME) and Comparative Advantage is mediated Not

with the level of importance given to employee satisfaction Supported

The positive relationship between (ES&HME) and Comparative Advantage is mediated Supported

with the level of attention given to consumer awareness

The positive relationship between (ES&HME) and Comparative Advantage is mediated Supported

with the level of importance given to cost reduction

H3 The positive relationship between (ES&HME) and Comparative Advantage is mediated Supported

with the level of importance given to market accessibility

The positive relationship between (ES&HME) and Comparative Advantage is mediated Supported

with the level of importance given to productivity of employees

As it can be seen from table 14, all hypotheses EXCEPT four sub-hypotheses (such as,

H1-2, H2-2, H2-4, and H3-1) are validated and significant at p<0.05 and p<0.01.

Consequently, the analyses of the research hypotheses reveal that our hypotheses

proposing the existence of a significant relationship between competitive advantage and

28
firms’ performance are supported. Moreover, a significant relationship between firms’

performance and export growth as well as a significant relationship between economies

of scale and home-market effect and comparative advantage are supported.

29
Ⅴ. Conclusion
1) Conclusion
This study empirically investigated the impact of competition among Small and medium scale

enterprise (SMEs) on Nigerian trade. The findings support the claim that competitive advantages

of firms are positively correlated with firms’ performances. Moreover, the results of the

analyses also reveal that firm’s performances are positively correlated with firms’ export growth.

And finally, economies of scale and home market effect are important determinant of

comparative advantage. However, according to results of explanatory variables, it can be

inferred that some elements have different effects on dependent variables. For instance, market

accessibility has stronger effect on comparative advantage than on firm performance. Also,

result shows that cost reduction has more strong effect on export growth. Nevertheless, the

result portray that the firms operating in Nigeria should promote some particular activities,

namely market accessibility, productivity of employees, employment satisfaction, and devise

means to increase their revenues as all these four items are not supported by hypotheses.

Based on these four obstacles, it is recommended accordingly that the SME operators should

spend considerable amount of time and money on research and development in order to help

them compete in the world market. Secondly, given the ultimate objective of innovation as to

raise living standards, government should develop programs that will be more focused on

generic knowledge and boosting productivity. It is also suggested that government should create

an enabling environment full of opportunities and incentives which would sufficiently attract

investors and in which SMEs can thrive and blossom.

To support intensive R&D activities inside Nigeria, it would be ideal for Nigeria to have more

high-quality scientists and engineers. However, developing highly qualified scientists and

engineers is not a short-term project. Therefore, government should not neglect opportunities

to build networks with others in the global brain pool. The government should make loan

available for SMEs in order to expand their business and purchase sophisticated plant necessary
30
to develop their products to meet the international standard.

2) Limitation and future research

One of the greatest challenges the researcher encountered in this study relates to

access and collection of data due to the reluctance from majority of the respondents to

complete the questionnaires promptly and those who even failed to complete them at all.

This limited the number of respondents involved in the study despite the researcher’s

efforts and approaches to them explaining the potential benefits of the study to them.

The results have to be interpreted taking this limitation into account. Time, inadequate

funds and logistic constraint are other limitation of this study which limited the intensity

of the spread or area of coverage of the study. Future research should seek to utilize

multiple respondents from many states to enhance the research findings. Finally, it is

suggested to the future research to elaborate the research model of the study by

adding more factors as control variables. Results of this research are restricted with

the sample. More different findings could be obtained from broader samples.

31
References

Adebisi, J. F., & Gbegi, D. O. 2013. Effect of multiple taxation on the performance of small and

medium scale business enterprises.(A study of West African Ceramics Ajaokuta, Kogi

State). Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(6), 323.

Ahn, S., Fukao, K., & Kwon, H. 2004. The internationalization and performance of Korean and

Japanese firms: An empirical analysis based on micro-data.

Al-Rfou, A. N. 2012. Competition and Organizational Performance: Empirical Evidence from

Jordanian Firms. Electrical appliances, 3, 9-1.

Anigbogu, T. U., Onwuteaka, C. I., Edoko, T. D., & Okoli, M. I. 2014. Roles of Small and Medium

Scale Enterprises in Community Development: Evidence from Anambra South Senatorial

Zone, Anambra State. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social

Sciences, 4(8): 302.

Aregheore, E. M. 2009. Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles: Nigeria, Food and

Agriculture Organization, United Nations. Accessed December, 11, 2012.

Atkin, D., Khandelwal, A. K., & Osman, A. 2014. Exporting and firm performance: Evidence from

a randomized trial (No. w20690). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Ayeni-Agbaje, A. R., & Osho, A. E. 2015. COMMERCIAL BANKS ROLE IN FINANCING SMALL

SCALE INDUSTRIES IN NIGERIA (A STUDY OF FIRST BANK PLC. ADO-EKITI, EKITI

STATE). European Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance Research, 3(8), pp. 51-76.

Ayyagari, M., Beck, T., & Demirguc-Kunt, A. 2007. Small and medium enterprises across the

globe. Small Business Economics, 29(4), pp. 415-434.

Bahraini Zadeh, M., Esmaeilpour, M., & Aram, F. 2015. Influence of Intra-Organizational Factors

on Export Performance of Exporting Companies. Management and Administrative Sciences

Review, 4(3), pp. 578-592.

Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management,

17(1), pp. 99-120.

Brahim, S. B. 2014. Factors Influencing SMEs’ Export Performance and Marketing strategy.

Braunerhjelm, P. and Thulin, P., 2003. Can Countries Create Comparative Advantages?. mimeo,

SNS.

Business Analytist 2012. Factor Analysis- KMO- Bartlett’s Test & Rotated component Matrix.
Available at http://badmforum.blogspot.kr/2012/08/factor-analysis-kmo-bartletts-test.html
32
Chete, L. N., Adeoti, J. O., Adeyinka, F. M., & Ogundele, O. 2014. Industrial development and

growth in Nigeria: Lessons and challenges (No. UNU-WIDER Research Paper WP2014/019).

Eniola, A., & Ektebang, H. 2014. SME firms performance in Nigeria: Competitive advantage and

its impact. International Journal of Research Studies in Management, 3(2).

Entrepreneurship, P. 2004. Innovative SMEs in a Global Economy. Towards a More Responsible

and Inclusive Globalisation. In 2nd OECD Conference of Ministers Responsible for small and

medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), Istanbul, Turkey pp. 1-152.

Eze, T. C. & Okpala, C. S. 2015. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF SMALL AND

MEDIUM SCALE ENTERPRISES ON THE GROWTH OF NIGERIAN ECONOMY: (1993-

2011). International Journal of Development and Emerging Economics Vol.3, No.1, pp. 26-

38

Favour, N. 2015. MSMEs employ 60m Nigerians, account for 48% of GDP. Vanguard Newspaper.

Available at http://www.vanguardngr.com

Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. 2011. Effects of innovation types on firm

performance. International Journal of production economics, 133(2), pp. 662-676.

Gupta, S. D. 2009. Comparative advantage and competitive advantage: an economics perspective

and a synthesis. In 43rd Annu Conf CEA. Toronto pp. 29-31.

Gylfason, T., & Zoega, G. 2006. Natural resources and economic growth: The role of investment.

The World Economy, 29(8), pp. 1091-1115.

Hanson, G.H. and Xiang, C., 2004. The home-market effect and bilateral trade patterns. The

American Economic Review, 94(4), pp.1108-1129.

Hatem, B. S. 2014. Determinants of Firm Performance: A Comparison of European Countries.

International Journal of Economics and Finance, 6(10), pp. 243.

Jones, O., & Tilley, F. 2003. Competitive advantage in SMEs: Organising for innovation and

entrepreneurship.

Karnani, A., 1984. The Value of Market Share and the Product Life Cycle—A

Game-Theoretic Model. Management Science, 30(6), pp.696-712.

Kimberly, A. 2016. What Is Competitive Advantage? 3 Strategies That Work.

https://www.thebalance.com

López-Gamero, M.D., Molina-Azorín, J.F. and Claver-Cortes, E., 2009. The whole

relationship between environmental variables and firm performance: Competitive

advantage and firm resources as mediator variables. Journal of environmental

management, 90(10), pp.3110-3121.

33
Munch, J. R., & Schaur, G. 2015. The effect of export promotion on firm-level performance.

mimeo.

OEC. 2014. Economic Complexity of Nigeria. http://atlas.media.mit.edu/profile/country/nga

OECD 2001, OECD Economic Studies: Special Issue on Regulatory Reform, No. 32, Paris.

Oladimeji, M. S., & Akingbade, W. A. 2012. DETERMINANTS OF ORGANIZATIONAL

EFFECTIVENESS IN THE NIGERIAN COMMUNICATION SECTOR.

Olughor, R. J. 2015. Effect of Innovation on the Performance of SMEs Organizations in Nigeria.

Management, 5(3), pp. 90-95.

Park, A., Yang, D., Shi, X., & Jiang, Y. 2010. Exporting and firm performance: Chinese exporters

and the Asian financial crisis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(4), pp. 822-842.

Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. 1985.

New York: Free Press.

Porter, M. E. 1990. The Competitive Advantages of Nations. New York: Free Press.

Porter, M.E., 2008. The five competitive forces that shape strategy
Reimann, M., Schilke, O. and Thomas, J.S., 2010. Customer relationship management and

firm performance: the mediating role of business strategy. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 38(3), pp.326-346

SMEDAN and NBS 2013. SMEDAN AND NATIONAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS

COLLABORATIVE SURVEY: SELECTED FINDINGS (2013)

Stokes, D., Wilson, N., & Wilson, N. 2010. Small business management and entrepreneurship.

Cengage Learning EMEA.

Terungwa, A. 2012. Risk management and insurance of small and medium scale enterprises

(Smes) in Nigeria. International Journal of finance and Accounting, 1(1), pp. 8-17.

TRADE, S. 2014. DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL. REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT,

2.

Ural, T., & Acaravci, S. K. 2006. The effects of firm’s strategic factors on export and firm

performance: A comparison of permanent and sporadic exporters. Problems and

perspectives in Management, 4(4), pp. 42-62.

Uchegbulam, P., & Akinyele, S. T. 2015. Competitive Strategy and Performance of Selected

SMEs in Nigeria.

White, R.E., 1986. Generic business strategies, organizational context and

performance: An empirical investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 7(3),

pp.217-231.

34
WTO 2015, International Trade Statistics 2015.

www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2015_e/its2015

Yaşar, F., 2010. Competitive Strategies And Firm Performance: Case Study On

Gaziantep Carpeting Sector/Rekabet Stratejileri Ve Firma Performansi: Gaziantep

Hali Sektörü Üzerinde Bir Durum Çalışması. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal

Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(14).

Yan, S. 2015. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE FOR SMES IN

CHINA UNDER NEW NORMAL ECONOMY. European Scientific Journal, 11(34).

Zhou, H., & De Wit, G. 2009. Determinants and dimensions of firm growth. SCALES EIM

Research Reports (H200903).

35