About two decades ago researchers turned to the empirical phenomenon of firms starting internationalization right from or close to inception. These international new ventures (INVs) could only hardly be explained by conventional internationalization theories, such as process theories (Johanson &
Vahlne, 1977), as INVs often start international encounters without a profound resource base and without having experiential knowledge about international markets. Yet, INVs were found to play an increasingly important role in today s global economy (Shrader, Oviatt &
McDougall, 2000; Zahra, 2005), which is why research on this topic remains of high relevance. Whilst numerous studies about INVs have been conducted so far, there are still some blank spots which require further investigation. This work tries to resolve some of the remaining questions about INVs and is divided into four parts besides the introduction and conclusion section.The first part emphasizes on the question of why some young firms venture into foreign markets early in their lifecycle while others decide to capitalize on the domestic market. A contingency perspective on INV emergence is introduced in order to shed light on inconsistencies among prior studies concerning determinants of INVs. Thereby it is shown that barriers to internationalization moderate the impact of INV determinants.The second part tests for differences between INV strategies which were identified by Oviatt and McDougall (1994). The aim is to show that types of INVs adapted from Oviatt and McDougall s framework (1994) indeed vary from each other in terms of firm and founder related characteristics. Knowing which resources propel specific internationalization strategies allows for fostering these resources and, thus, to more efficiently pursue a targeted INV strategy (Westhead, Wright &
Ucbasaran 2001; Tuppura, Saarenketo, Puumalainen, Jantunen &
Kylaheiko, 2008). Depending on the scale and scope of international activities, INVs face different barriers to internationalization with a diverging resource base and differentiated managerial cognitions (Pulkkinen &
Larimo, 2007). Thus, unraveling the determinants of different INV types is an important contribution to IE literature.Part three further emphasizes the differences in internationalization patterns. Therefore, a link between two internationalization theories formerly seen as opposing is forged: The process theories (e.g. Johanson &
Vahlne, 1977) and the international new venture framework by Oviatt and McDougall (1994). Combining these frameworks allows for a more fine-grained perspective on differences among INV internationalization patterns. Rather than proposing arbitrary thresholds, the most frequently applied strategy indicators in the INV literature (time to internationalization, international scale, international scope, entry mode behavior, institutional and cultural distance (between home and host country market)) are used to identify strategy groups by means of latent class analysis (LCA). The work then categorizes four different INV strategies: 1) born-again globals, 2) born globals, 3) geographically focused exporters, and 4) gradually internationalizing INVs. Second, antecedents of these four INV strategies are studied to provide a more detailed understanding on frequently studied strategy predictors.Part four caters with the interplay of knowledge intensity and international network structures and how it influences the international expansion of INVs. Networks are dominatingly described as panacea for new ventures internationalization, since allowing for higher control over resources and security without stressing the own limited resource base (Weerawardena, Mort, Liesch &
Knight, 2007; Young, Dimitratos &
Dana, 2003; Zahra, Matherne &
Carleton, 2003). Nevertheless, recent studies argue that networks may have a liability side as well (Chetty &
Agndal, 2007). The empirical findings suggest that the impact of knowledge intensity on international expansion increases with international network strength and decreases with international network size. Thus, international networks also have a liability side. A loosely connected big network may lead to counterproductive results and may negatively influence the internationalization activities of the firm. This is of particular importance for technology firms, since they might lose their unique assets if they operate in international networks which are difficult to monitor.
Verknüpfung zu Publikationen oder weiteren Datensätzen
