Explaining the formation of international new ventures: The limits of theories from international business research

https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)90017-5Get rights and content

Abstract

International new ventures (INVs) represent a growing and important type of start-up. An INV is defined as a business organization that, from inception, seeks to derive significant competitive advantage from the use of resources and the sale of outputs in multiple countries (Oviatt and McDougall 1994). Their increasing prevalence and important role in international competition indicates a need for greater understanding of these new ventures (Oviatt and McDougall 1994).

Logitech, as described in a case study by Alahuhta (1990), is a vivid example of an INV. Its founders were from two different countries and had a global vision for the company from its inception. The venture, which produces peripheral devices for personal computers, established headquarters in both Switzerland and the U.S. Manufacturing and R&D were split between the U.S. and Switzerland, and then quickly spread to Taiwan and Ireland. The venture's first commercial contract was with a Japanese company.

Using 24 case studies of INVs, we found that their formation process is not explained by existing theories from the field of international business. Specifically, neither monopolistic advantage theory, product cycle theory, stage theory of internationalization, oligopolistic reaction theory, nor internalization theory can explain the formation process of INVs. These theories fail because they assume that firms become international long after they have been formed, and they therefore highlight large, mature firms. They also focus too much on the firm level and largely ignore the individual and small group level of analysis (i.e., the entrepreneur and his or her network of business alliances).

We propose that an explanation for the formation process of INVs must answer three questions: (1) who are the founders of INVs? (2) why do these entrepreneurs choose to compete internationally rather than just in their home countries? and (3) what form do their international business activities take?

Who are the founders of INVs? We argue that founders of INVs are individuals who see opportunities from establishing ventures that operate across national borders. They are “alert” to the possibilities of combining resources from different national markets because of the competencies (networks, knowledge, and background) that they have developed from their earlier activities. Following the logic of the resource-based view of the firm, we argue that the possession of these competencies is not matched by other entrepreneurs. Only the entrepreneur possessing these competencies is able to combine a particular set of resources across national borders and form a given INV.

Why do these entrepreneurs choose to compete internationally rather than just in their home countries? The founders of INVs recognize they must create international business competencies from the time of venture formation. Otherwise, the venture may become path-dependent on the development of domestic competencies and the entrepreneur will find it difficult to change strategic direction when international expansion eventually becomes necessary. As the founder of one INV explained, “The advantage of starting internationally is that you establish an international spirit from the very beginning” (Mamis 1989:38).

What form do their international business activities take? Founders of INVs prefer to use hybrid structures (i.e., strategic alliances and networks) for their international activities as a way to overcome the usual poverty of resources at the time of start-up.

This study has important implications for the practice of management. In financing decisions relating to INVs, venture capitalists and other venture financiers should look for entrepreneurs who have a global vision, international business competence, and an established international network. When entrepreneurs start INVs they should create hybrid structures to preserve scarce resources. Finally, given the path-dependence of competence development, founders of new ventures should consider whether establishing a domestic new venture with plans to later internationalize will be as successful a strategy as establishing a new venture that is international from inception.

References (76)

  • W.J. Bilkey et al.

    The export behavior of smaller sized Wisconsin manufacturing firms

    Journal of International Business Studies

    (1977)
  • J. Bower

    Managing the Resource Allocation Process

    (1970)
  • L. Brokaw

    Foreign affairs

    Inc.

    (1990)
  • C.G. Brush

    Factors motivating small companies to internationalize: the effect of firm age

    (1992)
  • P. Buckley

    The limits of explanation: testing the internalization theory of the multinational enterprise

    Journal of International Business Studies

    (1988)
  • P.J. Buckley et al.

    The Future of the Multinational Enterprise

    (1976)
  • M. Casson

    Transaction costs and the theory of the multinational enterprise

  • R.E. Caves

    International corporations: the industrial economics of foreign investment

    Economica

    (1971)
  • R.E. Caves

    Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis

    (1982)
  • D.J. Collis

    A resource-based analysis of global competition: the case of the bearings industry

    Strategic Management Journal

    (1991)
  • A.C. Cooper et al.

    Entrepreneurship and paths to business ownership

    Strategic Management Journal

    (1986)
  • N. Coviello

    MANA Systems Ltd.—Evolution of international operations

    (1991)
  • N. Coviello

    Fact International Ltd.: the evolution of a firm

    (1991)
  • N. Coviello et al.

    Internationalizing the entrepreneurial technology-intensive firm: growth through linkage development

    (1992)
  • P.J. DiMaggio et al.

    The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields

    American Sociological Review

    (1983)
  • G. Dosi et al.

    Toward a theory of corporate coherence

    (1990)
  • Go west, young firm

    The Economist

    (1992)
  • America's little fellows surge ahead

    The Economist

    (1993)
  • K.M. Eisenhardt

    Building theories from case study research

    Academy of Management Review

    (1989)
  • Elahin, K. May 17, 1991. Personal...
  • Fevrier, J.-F. July 6, 1992. Personal...
  • J. Ganitsky

    Strategies for innate and adoptive exporters: lessons from Israel's case

    International Marketing Review

    (1989)
  • J. Garland et al.

    International Dimensions of Business Policy and Strategy

    (1990)
  • S. Ghoshal

    Global strategy: an organizing framework

    Strategic Management Journal

    (1987)
  • U. Gupta

    Small firms aren't waiting to grow up to go global

    The Wall Street Journal

    (1989)
  • M.T. Hannan et al.

    Structural inertia and organizational change

    American Sociological Review

    (1984)
  • J.-F. Hennart

    A Theory of the Multinational Enterprise

    (1982)
  • Holzhauer, B. May 19, 1992. Personal...
  • Cited by (1064)

    • CEO wealth and cross-border acquisitions by SMEs

      2023, International Business Review
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1994 Babson Entrepreneurship Conference.

    The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support for this research from the Society of International Business Fellows (SIBF), based in Atlanta, Georgia, and from the Bernard B. & Eugenia Ramsey Chair of Private Enterprise at Georgia State University.

    View full text