بین المللی سازی مجدد: اکتشاف و مفهوم
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|20113||2009||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||8102 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Business Review, Volume 18, Issue 6, December 2009, Pages 567–577
Re-internationalisation represents a research challenge for the internationalisation process and international entrepreneurship fields. Many companies withdraw from international operations, go through an international time-out period and later re-enter the international arena. Little is known about this process, and whether re-internationalisers behave differently from those starting out for the first time. The limited, sketchy evidence is considered and it is argued that some re-internationalisers will go into the re-entry process with a significant international heritage from previous activities, including relevant knowledge and networks, enabling faster re-entry and take-off. However, other firms will have exited in such negative circumstances that international re-entry initially is rejected as an option, and may be slow to respond to new international opportunities. Much depends on what happens during the international time-out period, particularly in terms of changes in management and/or ownership; the nature and strength of new re-entry influences; and how the re-entry process unfolds.
Over the past four decades, internationalisation has grown as a distinct area in international business research—often associated with what has been described as the internationalisation process school and, more recently, the emerging field of international entrepreneurship (Bell et al., 2003, Johanson and Vahlne, 1990, Johanson and Vahlne, 2006, Jones and Coviello, 2005 and Westhead et al., 2001). The overwhelming focus of research – and likewise of policymakers and government trade facilitation agencies (e.g., Korhonen, Luostarinen, & Welch, 1996) – has been on internationalisation as an outward process from countries (Crick, 2002, Fletcher, 2001 and Welch and Luostarinen, 1988). Key drivers and patterns of this outward movement – such as psychic distance (e.g., Brewer, 2007 and Ellis, 2007) and experiential knowledge (Blomstermo and Sharma, 2003 and Lindstrand et al., 2009) – continue to dominate the research agenda. In contrast, there has been only limited research on inward processes and their connection to outward operations, and on de-internationalisation activity (Benito and Welch, 1997, Holmlund et al., 2007, Korhonen et al., 1996 and Pauwels and Matthyssens, 1999). In the latter case, this is despite widespread research showing a high drop-out rate from international operations, particularly by those companies in the early stages of internationalisation and among small firms (Bonaccorsi, 1992). Recent evidence indicates that international new ventures (or so-called born globals) may have a higher failure rate than companies pursuing more conservative international development paths (Mudambi & Zahra, 2007). Even less is known about the process surrounding the re-engagement in international operations by firms which have previously exited—what has been termed re-internationalisation (Luostarinen, 1979 and Luostarinen and Welch, 1990). A search on the term ‘re-internationalisation’ in key international business journals uncovered no article devoted to the topic. Yet given the extent of de-internationalisation shown in various studies, and of some firms displaying serial international exit and re-entry behaviour, it cannot be discounted that there are many in the category of former international operators within general studies of “newly internationalising” companies (Bonaccorsi, 1992). Unless researchers have sought out this sub-category in their questionnaires, there is no way of knowing whether re-internationalisers were involved, and, if so, how many, and whether they behaved differently from other companies. In some studies, re-internationalisers have been recognised as part of the sample of exporting or non-exporting firms examined, but they were not treated as a specific category for research purposes (Burton & Schlegelmilch, 1987). This neglect stands in contrast to general entrepreneurship research, where there has been recognition of the need for the separate study of serial or habitual entrepreneurs who move in and out of business undertakings (Westhead et al., 2005 and Wright et al., 1997). In Dutch research, so-called ‘renascent entrepreneurs’ – entrepreneurs that have restarted operations subsequent to termination – were found to be a ‘pervasive phenomenon’ (Stam et al., 2006). Because of the paucity of research on re-internationalisation, despite indications that it may not be an uncommon occurrence, it would seem to be appropriate to consider the nature of the process and whether differences might be expected in the way companies deal with internationalisation as a result of their former experience. In this article, we therefore explore the nature of re-internationalisation, arguing that the term covers a range of different pathways for firms. We proceed by offering a definition of re-internationalisation. We then conceptualise re-internationalisation as a process comprising initial international experience, exit, time-out without any international involvement and eventual re-entry. We examine each stage in turn, considering the range of possible experiences at each stage which we argue influences whether, in what form and how successfully a firm then re-enters international markets. We conclude that re-internationalisation is a multi-faceted process, with a high degree of diversity in the way companies withdraw from international activity and approach re-entry. Key drivers of international re-entry are found to be the assets and liabilities that are generated by international activity prior to exit, the outcome of the processes of exit, time-out and attempted re-entry, and the array of new, internationally relevant influences that come to bear on a company's situation during the period beyond exit. We argue that ‘history matters’ (Jones & Khanna, 2006, p. 453), and that re-internationalisers should be treated as a distinct group, whose experiences distinguish them from first time international entrants.