Advertisement

Journal of International Entrepreneurship

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 65–79 | Cite as

Early and rapidly internationalizing ventures: Similarities and differences between classifications based on the original international new venture and born global literatures

  • Tage Koed Madsen
Article

Abstract

The novel contribution of this article is that it compares classifications of early and rapidly internationalizing firms based on the original literature on International New Ventures (classification method based on speed and scope of internationalization) as well as the original literature on Born Globals (classification method based on speed and extent of internationalization). Evidence from a survey of almost 900 Danish manufacturers demonstrates that the two methods provide similar results with regard to overall patterns of internationalization, but that they classify individual firms quite differently. From a theoretical stance it is therefore recommended to incorporate a richer selection of indicators (aspects of speed, scope as well as extent) in order to secure higher comparability between studies.

Keywords

International new ventures Born global firms Internationalization processes International entrepreneurship 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author wants to thank three anonymous reviewers as well as the editor for very helpful comments and suggestions

References

  1. Autio E, Sapienza HJ, Almeida JG (2000) Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal 43(5):909–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aspelund A, Madsen TK, Moen Ø (2007) A review of the foundation, international marketing strategies, and performance of international new ventures. European Journal of Marketing 41(11/12):1423–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum M, Schwens C, Kabst R (2011) A typology of international new ventures: empirical evidence form high-tech industries. Journal of Small Business Management 49(3):305–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgel O, Murray GC (2000) The international market entry choices of start-up companies in high-technology industries. Journal of International Marketing 8(2):33–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cesinger B, Fink M, Madsen TK, Kraus S (2012) Rapidly internationalizing ventures: how definitions can bridge the gap across contexts. Management Decision 50(10):1816–1842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coviello NE, Jones MV (2004) Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing 19:485–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crick D, Chaudhry S, Batstone S (2001) An investigation into the overseas expansion of small asian-owned UK firms. Small Business Economics 16:75–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gabrielsson M, Kirpalani VHM, Dimitratos P, Solberg CA, Zucchella A (2008) Conceptualizations to advance born global definition: a research note. Global Business Review 9(1):45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabrielsson P, Gabrielsson M (2004) Globalizing internationals: portfolio and marketing strategies in the ICT field. International Business Review 13:661–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harveston PD, Kedia BL, Davis PSA (2000) Internationalization of born global and gradual globalizing firms: the impact of the manager. Advances in Competitiveness Research 8:92–99Google Scholar
  11. Johanson J, Vahlne J-E (2009) The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: from liability of foreigness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies 40:1411–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johanson J, Vahlne JE (1977) The internationalization process of the firm—a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies 8:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jolly V, Alahuhta M, Jeanet J-P (1992) Challenging the incumbents: how high-technology start-ups compete globally. Journal of Strategic Change 1:71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keupp MM, Gassmann O (2009) The past and the future of international entrepreneurship: a review and suggestions for developing the field. Journal of Management 35:600–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knight, G. (1997) ‘Emerging paradigm for international marketing: the born global firm’, unpublished dissertation, Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. Knight G, Cavusgil ST (1996) The born global firm: a challenge to traditional internationalization theory. Advances in International Marketing 8:11–26Google Scholar
  17. Kuivalainen O, Saarenketo S, Puumalainen K (2012) Start-up patterns of internationalization: a framework and its application in the context of knowledge intensive SMEs. European Management Journal 30:372–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Madsen TK, Knudsen T (2003) International new ventures: a new organizational form?. In Jim Bell, Trevor Morrow and Denise Crossan (eds) “Conference Proceedings: The Sixth McGill Conference on International Entrepreneurship: Crossing Boundaries and Researching New Futures”, University of Ulster, Magee Campus, No. 111Google Scholar
  19. Madsen TK, Rasmussen E, Servais P (2000) Differences and similarities between born globals and other types of exporters. Advances in International Marketing 10:247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Madsen TK, Servais P (1997) The internationalization of born globals: an evolutionary process. International Business Review 6(2):561–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matthews JA, Zander I (2007) The international entrepreneurial dynamics of accelerated internationalisation. Journal of International Business Studies 38:187–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDougall PP, Oviatt BM, Shrader RC (2003) A comparison of international and domestic new ventures. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 1:59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDougall PP, Oviatt BM (2000) International entrepreneurship: the intersection of two research paths. Acad Manage J 43(5):902–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McNaughton R (2003) The number of export markets that a firm serves: process models versus the born-global phenomenon. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 1:297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Melén S, Nordman ER (2009) The internationalization modes of born globals: a longitudinal study. European Management Journal 27:243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moen Ø (2002) The born globals: a new generation of small European exporters. International Marketing Review 19(2):156–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oviatt BM, McDougall PP (2005) Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 29:537–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oviatt BM, McDougall PP (1997) Challenges for internationalization process theory: the case of international new ventures. Management International Review 37(2):85–99Google Scholar
  29. Oviatt BM, McDougall PP (1994) Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies 25:45–64, First QuarterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rennie MW (1993) Global competitiveness: born global. The McKinsey Quarterly 4(4):45–52Google Scholar
  31. Rialp A, Rialp J, Knight G (2005) The phenomenon of international new ventures, global start-ups, and born globals: what do we know after a decade (1993–2002) of exhaustive scientific inquiry. International Business Review 14:147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Romanelli E (1991) The evolution of new organizational forms. Annual Review of Sociology 17:79–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shrader RC (2001) Collaboration and performance in foreign markets: the case of young high-technology manufacturing firms. Acad Manage J 44:45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwens C, Kabst R (2009) How early opposed to late internationalizers learn: experience of others and paradigms of interpretation. International Business Review 18:509–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Svensson G (2006) A quest for a common terminology: the concept of born glocals. Management Decision 44:1311–1317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Svensson G, Payan JM (2009) Organizations that are international from inception. Terminology and research constellations—“academic protectionism” or “academic myopia. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 16(3):406–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Welbourne TM, De Ciceri H (2001) How new ventures’ initial public offerings benefit from international operations: a study of human resource value. International Journal of Human Resource Management 12:652–668Google Scholar
  38. Zahra SA (2005) A theory of international new ventures: a decade of research. Journal of International Business Studies 36(1):20–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zahra SA, George G (2002) International entrepreneurship: the current status of the field and future research agenda’, chapter 12, part V. In: Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Camp SM, Sexton DL (eds) Strategic entrepreneurship. Creating a new mindset. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 255–288Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing and ManagementUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark

Personalised recommendations