بررسی دانش بازار خارجی مبتنی بر شرکت های صادر کننده در جمهوری خلق چین: عوامل و اثرات آن بر شدت صادرات
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|14398||2004||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7930 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Industrial Marketing Management, Volume 33, Issue 7, October 2004, Pages 561–572
Although the critical role of knowledge in generating organizational advantage has been increasingly recognized in the strategic management field, there is little research examining firm-specific foreign knowledge, the construct itself, its determinants, and impact on export performance. This study seeks to extend the foreign market knowledge literature in three ways. First, the current study develops a conceptual model of determinants of foreign market knowledge, based on the social capital theory. It explains how structural and relational social capital affects the creation of foreign market knowledge. Second, this study substantiates the theoretical link between foreign market knowledge and export intensity, which has been put forward by the internationalization process model with empirical evidence. Third, to expand the generalizability of the present foreign market knowledge model, this study tests the model using firms from different industrial types and product categories in a newly developing country, that is, the People's Republic of China.
Common wisdom say that export market knowledge and export sales intensity go hand in hand. But, how can a firm build up its foreign market knowledge? Here comes the social capital formula? Knowledge, and its acquisition and exploitation, has been upholded by organizational researchers as the key resource to create sustainable competitive advantages Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998, Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998 and Yli-Renko et al., 2001. In the new era of global competition, it is asserted that firms succeed not because they have superior control over scarce resources but because they are able to learn (Inkpen, 1998) and to use this learning more efficiently than others (Larsson, Bengtsson, Henriksson, & Sparks, 1998). Although the critical role of knowledge in generating organizational advantage has been increasingly recognized in the strategic management field, there is little research examining the effect of firm-specific foreign knowledge on its export performance (Morgan & Katsikeas, 1998). The few studies that did investigate the performance effect of foreign knowledge, however, reported significant positive effect of such knowledge on export satisfaction (Wang & Olsen, 2002), new export product advantage, and market performance in host countries (Li & Cavusgil, 2000). In addition, the lack of export marketing knowledge was specified as a major exporting problem and turned out to be an important impediment to export development (Morgan & Katsikeas, 1998). According to the internationalization process model, firms learn new foreign market knowledge incrementally through the commitment of resource to do business in specific markets (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977), and foreign market knowledge affects how current activities are conducted. While the extant literature suggests that export intensity correspondingly reflects differences in the export behavior of firms Czinkota & Johnson, 1983 and Diamantopoulos, 1988, empirical studies concerning a firm's foreign market knowledge and its export intensity are very limited. In the light of the importance of knowledge as a central value-adding resource of firms, there are repeated calls Li & Cavusgil, 2000 and Morgan & Katsikeas, 1998 for additional research to identify the antecedents on foreign knowledge. Yet, little or no research works on it. For the few studies Chetty & Eriksson, 2002, Wang & Olsen, 2002 and Yli-Renko et al., 2002 that identified the antecedents of foreign knowledge, certain conceptual limitations and methodological shortcoming exist that warrant further consideration. First, researchers have either explained the variations of foreign knowledge by differences in firm-specific resources, like managers' awareness of export environment (Wang & Olsen, 2002), or by differences in relational commitment within the business network (Chetty & Eriksson, 2002). The researchers have largely neglected that the variations of foreign knowledge need to be accounted for by a combination of both internal resources-based and external relationship-specific factors. Second, the three empirical studies conducted on the antecedents of foreign market knowledge were sourced from research environments in developed countries like the United States, Finland, and Western European countries. Consequently, attempts to draw generalization from such evidence and to infer the same to other research context, like newly industrial countries or recently liberalized economies, can be misleading and potentially ill founded. Third, the generalizability of the results of the study of Yli-Renko et al. (2002) is constrained by its focus on technology-based, new firms. While the influence on foreign market knowledge was shown as predicted among technology-based new firms, whether the same general influences apply to medium- and low-technology firms demand further examination. In the light of the above limitations, this study seeks to extend the foreign market knowledge literature in three ways. First, the current study develops a conceptual model of determinants of foreign market knowledge, based on the social capital theory (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). The model covers two types of social capital, namely, intrafirm structural social capital and interfirm relational social capital, in explaining and testing their roles in creating foreign market knowledge. Second, this study substantiates the theoretical link between foreign market knowledge and export intensity, which has been put forward by the internationalization-process model (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977), with empirical evidence. Third, to expand the generalizability of the present foreign market knowledge model, this study tests the model using firms from different industrial types and product categories in a newly developing country, that is, the People's Republic of China.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Based on the theory of social capital (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998), this study identified two sets of antecedents of foreign market knowledge: intrafirm structural social capital and interfirm relational social capital. The empirical evidence showed reasonable support for the proposed model. Four out of the five hypothesized relationships were statistically significant. The present results support the view of Yli-Renko and Autio (1998) that social interaction with a key customer enhances the firm's knowledge acquisition from that relationship. It is shown that relational social capital, emerging out of norms of partnership importance, and consensus of partnership dependency play an important role in providing foreign market knowledge, for example, commercial laws and technical standards, import and export regulations, general conditions in the market, its related problems and prospects. Nonetheless, relational social capital that arise out of norms of cooperation has a down-side risk in that cooperative relationships in strong, convergent groups tend to foster groupthink and that represents the way in which high level of social capital may be a real inhibitor for the development of intellectual capital (Inkpen, 1998). In the light of the dark side of cooperative norms, it is not surprising to find that relational social capital, in the form of cooperative norms, has a negative impact on the creation of foreign market knowledge in this study. The current findings are consistent with the results of Yli-Renko et al. (2002) in that relationship quality has a negative effect on knowledge acquisition. Perhaps, a spillover of knowledge to an alliance partner has occurred. As Inkpen (1998) explained, “substantial knowledge acquisition by one partner over time can erode the value of knowledge contributed by the other partner…It suggests a possible paradox in that the more a firm learns, the less it may need to remain in an alliance.” Putting this lesson in a positive light, the implication is that knowledge acquisition through alliance involvement requires both partners be ready for give-and-take exchanges to preserve this viable alliance strategy. Furthermore, the current findings give support to the view of Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) that the social interaction among business units foster resource exchange and combination, which give rise to new knowledge. As reported here, the structural social capital coming out of group-based interaction among members within a firm seems to lead to a higher accumulation of foreign market knowledge within the firm. Yet, surprisingly, no significant relationship was found between foreign market knowledge and structural integration mechanisms as a kind of intrafirm social capital. There are at least two explanations for this latter insignificant finding. First, in line with the theory of social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), structural social capital influences the development of knowledge only indirectly. Empirically, Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) demonstrated that structural social capital has systematic associations with the flow of several kinds of interunit resources, including information, product, personnel, and support, which, in turn, affect the creation of new knowledge. This partly accounts for the absence of a direct effect of structural integration on the creation of foreign market knowledge. The second explanation for the lack of effect of integration as a kind of structural social capital lies in the type of knowledge. Empirically, Yli-Renko et al. (2001) reported that internal social capital only has a significant effect on the firm's intensity of technological knowledge, but has no effect on its foreign market knowledge. It is implied here that while integration mechanism as a kind of structural social capital may serve well as an enabling factor for new-product development and product innovations Sullivan & Bauerschmidt, 1989 and Yli-Renko et al., 2002, the same mechanism may not be adequate in generating foreign market knowledge. Consistent with the model of internationalization process (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977), the multiple regression analysis results suggest that the export intensity of a firm is driven by its foreign market knowledge. However, different types of foreign market knowledge contribute differently to intensity of exporting activities. Reinforcing the findings of Wang and Olsen (2002), the present results suggest that knowledge of exporting procedures enhances export intensity in a positive way. The more procedural knowledge the exporter possesses about a particular market, the more likely the export marketing program will be efficient and, hence, the higher intensity of exporting activities of the firm. Contrary to prior expectation, however, knowledge of host governments' laws/regulations and that of foreign nationals' selection/training have a negative impact on export intensity. Perhaps, the present results can be explained in the light of the remark of Barker and Kaynak (1992) that as exporters gain experience, they develop more realistic perceptions of risks, costs, and returns from exporting activities. This implies that after a certain level of international experience and foreign market knowledge has been accumulated, experience may not increase the firm's export intensity indefinitely. Instead, the extent of export development would be determined by the costs and benefits associated for specific foreign markets under examination. For instance, when a high level of risks arise as a result of unpredictable changes in the host government's laws and regulations, or when high costs emerge as a result of excessive recruitment and training programs for foreign staff in some export markets, low levels of returns are then expected, such that foreign market knowledge might result in decisions of reduced exposure of exporting in those specific markets. Unexpectedly, knowledge of foreign business norms and keys to customer confidence were not related to export intensity. The present results may be interpreted in the light of the very broad nature of foreign market knowledge (Wang & Olsen, 2002). Given its broad nature, foreign market knowledge may not influence specific export decisions and behavior, as reflected by the export intensity of a firm. According to Wang and Olsen (2002), foreign market knowledge may influence export behavior and level of export intensity only when it is framed in terms of potential performance impact.