![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate how the home country radical change of institutional conditions influences the firm-level internationalisation process understood as exporting. In particular, we aim to broaden our understanding of how changing institutional conditions affect the internationalisation process of Polish firms founded in different institutional conditions; i.e. under the communist regime (before 1990), in the transition period (1990–2003), and in the post-transition period (2004 and later). We compare and contrast in each period three crucial aspects describing the internationalisation process: time to internationalisation, direction and degree of internationalisation. We find support for the assertion that the institutional conditions at a firm’s birth influence the internationalisation paths of emerging market firms in terms of speed, direction and degree of internationalisation. Firms founded either in the transition (1990–2003), or in the post-transition phase (2004 and later) are more likely to: (1) make the decision about internationalisation earlier in their life cycle, (2) enter developed markets, and (3) achieve a higher degree of internationalisation than firms founded under the communist regime (before 1990).
Notes
1. We will use emerging market, emerging economy and transition economy interchangeably.
2. e.g. Mathews, “Dragon Multinationals”; Luo and Tung, “International Expansion of Emerging Market Enterprises”; Lu et al., “Motives for Outward FDI of Chinese Private Firms”; Wu and Chen, “Home Country Institutional Environments”; Stoian, “Extending Dunning’s Investment Development Path”; Buckley, “Business History and International Business”; Buckley et al., “Japanese Direct Investments in India”; Clifton et al., “From National Monopoly to Multinational Corporation”.
3. Deng, “Why do Chinese Firms”.
4. Luo and Tung, “International Expansion of Emerging Market Enterprises”.
5. Guillén and García-Canal, “The American Model of the Multinational Firm”.
6. Hoskisson et al., “Emerging Multinationals from Mid-Range Economies”.
7. Yamakawa et al., “What Drives New Ventures”; Yamakawa et al., “Venturing from Emerging Economies”.
8. Meyer and Peng, “Probing Theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe”; Bruton et al., “Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies”.
9. Luo and Tung, “International Expansion of Emerging Market Enterprises”.
10. Wu and Chen, “Home Country Institutional Environments”; Stoian, “Extending Dunning’s Investment Development Path”; Cieslik and Kaciak, “The Speed of Internationalization of Entrepreneurial Start-ups”.
11. e.g. Wu and Chen, “Home Country Institutional Environments”; Stoian, “Extending Dunning’s Investment Development Path”; Kogut and Zander, “Did Socialism Fail to Innovate?”; Kriauciunas and Kale, “The Impact of Socialist Imprinting”; Shinkle and Kriauciunas, “The Impact of Current and Founding Institutions”.
12. Jormanainen and Koveshnikov, “International Activities of Emerging Market Firms”.
13. Bruton et al., “Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies”; Verbeke and Kano, “The New Internationalization Theory”.
14. Meyer and Peng, “Probing Theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe”.
15. Verbeke and Kano, “The New Internationalization Theory”.
16. Forsgren, Theories of the Multinational Firm.
17. Buckley and Casson, The Future of Multinational Enterprise.
18. Dunning, “Toward an Eclectic Theory of International Production”.
19. Hymer, The International Operations of National Firms.
20. Kogut and Zander, “Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory”.
21. Johanson and Vahlne, “The Internationalization Process of the Firm”; Johanson and Vahlne, “The Uppsala Internationalization Process Model Revisited”.
22. Peng et al., “An Institution-based View of International Business Strategy”; Makhmadshoev et.al., “Institutional Influences on SME Exporters”.
23. Mickiewicz, “Hierarchy of Governance Institutions and the Pecking Order of Privatisation”.
24. Meyer and Gelbuda, “Process Perspectives in International Business Research,” 152.
25. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, 3.
26. Williamson, “The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead”.
27. DiMaggio and Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited”.
28. Powell and DiMaggio, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
29. Scott, Institutions and Organizations, 48.
30. Ibid, 48.
31. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.
32. Scott, Institutions and Organizations.
33. Kostova and Roth, “Adoption of an Organizational Practice by Subsidiaries”.
34. Peng et al., “An Institution-based View of International Business Strategy”.
35. Piątek et al., “Economic Freedom, Democracy and Economic Growth”.
36. Bruton et al., “Institutional Theory and Entrepreneurship”.
37. Meyer, “Institutions, Transaction Costs, and Entry Mode Choice in Eastern Europe”.
38. Makino et al., “Does Country Matter?”.
39. Buckley et al., “Japanese Direct Investment in India”.
40. Makhmadshoev et.al., “Institutional Influences on SME Exporters”.
41. Wu and Chen, “Home Country Institutional Environments”.
42. Stoian, “Extending Dunning’s Investment Development Path”.
43. Cuervo-Cazurra and Stal, “The Investment Development Path”; Stoian and Mohr, “Outward Foreign Direct Investment”.
44. Cieslik and Kaciak, “The Speed of Internationalization of Entrepreneurial Start-ups”.
45. Shapero and Sokol, “The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship”.
46. Marquis and Tilcsik, “Imprinting: Toward a Multi-level Theory”.
47. Stinchcombe, Social Structure and Organizations; Kriauciunas and Kale, “The Impact of Socialist Imprinting”.
48. Trispas and Gavetti, “Capabilities, Cognition, and Inertia”.
49. Siggelkow, “Evolution Toward Fit”. Siggelkow also distinguished two less important processes of trimming (getting rid of building bloc) and coasting (if the building bloc is not reinforced over a given period of time).
50. Marquis and Tilcsik, “Imprinting: Toward a Multi-Level Theory”.
51. Kriauciunas and Kale, “The Impact of Socialist Imprinting”; Shinkle and Kriauciunas, “The Impact of Current and Founding Institutions”.
52. Davies, God’s Playground, 365.
53. Hunter and Ryan, “A Transitional Analysis of the Polish Economy”.
54. Obloj and Thomas, “Breaking Away from the Past”.
55. Cieslik and Kaciak, “The Speed of Internationalization of Entrepreneurial Start-ups,” 377.
56. Encyklopedia PWN, “Polska. Gospodarka. Handel zagraniczny”.
57. Kozminski, Catching Up?
58. Central Statistical Office, Yearbook of Foreign Trade Statistics of Poland, 44.
59. Simatupang, The Polish Economic Crisis.
60. Rychard, “Reform, Adaptation and Breakthrough”.
61. Belka, “How Poland’s EU Membership Helped Transform its Economy”.
62. Central Statistical Office, Yearbook of Foreign Trade Statistics of Poland, 45.
63. Ibid.
64. Act on Economic Activity, 23 December 1988, Dz. U. No. 41.
65. Balcerowicz, “Barriers to Entry and Their Impact on Private Sector Growth in Poland”.
66. Gorynia et al., “Poland’s Investment Development Path”.
67. Slay, “The Polish Economy”.
68. Encyklopedia PWN, “Polska. Gospodarka. Handel zagraniczny”.
69. Kornai, “The Road to a Free Economy”.
70. Slay, “The Polish Economy”.
71. Kostera and Wichta, “The ‘divided self’ of Polish state-owned enterprises”.
72. Morawski, Modernizacja Polski.
73. Kołodko, From Shock to Therapy; Kowalik, “Systemy gospodarcze”.
74. Cieslik and Kaciak, “The Speed of Internationalization of Entrepreneurial Start-ups”.
75. Gorynia and Otta, “A Strategic Shift in Export Trade”.
76. Gorynia and Otta, “Zasięg przedsiębiorstw eksportujących”.
77. Bruton et al., “Institutions, Resources, and Firm Strategies”.
78. Kim et al., “Does Market-Oriented Institutional Change”.
79. Leven, “Poland’s Transition in Business Education”.
80. Dixon and Laidler, “Accounting Developments in Poland”.
81. Kostera, “The Modern Crusade”.
82. Central Statistical Office, Higher Education Institutions.
83. Bukowski et al., “Formal and Informal Rules of Doing Business in Poland”; Manolova et al., “Institutional Environments for Entrepreneurship”.
84. Ministerstwo Rozwoju, Bilans wykorzystania funduszy unijnych.
85. EBRD, Transition Indicators.
86. The Heritage Foundation, Index of Economic Freedom.
87. Jones and Khanna, “Bringing History (Back) into International Business”; Casson, “Institutional Economies and Business History”.
88. Verbeke and Kano, “The New Internationalization Theory”.
89. Binda and Colli, “Changing Big Business”.
90. Ibid, 30.
91. Nuria and Perez, “A Silent Revolution”.
92. Kogut and Zander, “Did Socialism Fail to Innovate?”.
93. Tilcsik, “Remembrance of Things Past”.
94. Stinchombe, Social Structure and Organizations.
95. Obloj and Thomas, “Transforming Former State-Owned Companies”; Lane et al., “Absorptive Capacity Learning and Performance”.
96. Kriauciunas and Kale, “The Impact of Socialist Imprinting”; Shinkle and Kriauciunas, “The Impact of Current and Founding Institutions”.
97. Obloj and Thomas, “Transforming Former State-Owned Companies”.
98. Peng, “Institutional Transitions and Strategic Choices”.
99. Murtha and Lenway, “Country Capabilities and the Strategic State”.
100. Cieslik and Kaciak, “The Speed of Internationalization of Entrepreneurial Start-ups”.
101. CitationHeckman 1976 “The Common Structure of Statistical Models”, Certo et al., “Sample Selection Bias and Heckman”.
102. Certo et al. “Sample Selection Bias and Heckman,” 2644.
103. Correlation between: (1) ownership and likelihood of exporting / speed is respectively 0.178***/ 0.021; (2) domestic performance and likelihood of exporting / speed is respectively 0.128*** / -0.065; (3) competition and likelihood of exporting / degree is respectively 0.261*** / 0.168*.
104. Podsakoff et al., “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research”; Chang et al., “From the Editors”.
105. Cieslik and Kaciak, “The Speed of Internationalization of Entrepreneurial Start-ups”.
106. Javalgi and Grossman, “Firm Resources and Host-Country Factors”; Gashi, Hashi and Pugh, “Export Behaviour of SMEs”; Reuber and Fischer, “The Influence of the Management Team’s International”.
107. Katsikeas, Leonidou and Morgan, “Firm-level Export Performance Assessment: Review”.
108. Hall and Tu, “Internationalization and Size, Age and Profitability”.
109. Williams, “Impact of Firm Size and Age”.
110. Fernandez and Nieto, “Impact of Ownership on the International Involvement of SMEs”.
111. Zahra, Ireland, and Hitt, “International Expansion by New Venture Firms”.
112. Cieślik, Internacjonalizacja polskich przedsiębiorstw; Kolasa, Rubaszek and Taglioni, “Firms in the Great Global Recession: The Role of Foreign Ownership”.
113. DiMaggio and Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited”.
114. Miller, “Miller (1983) Revisited,” 881.
115. Stoian, “Extending Dunning”s Investment Development Path’; Buckley, “Business History and International Business”; Buckley et al., “Japanese Direct Investments in India”; Clifton et al., “From National Monopoly to Multinational Corporation”; Shinkle and Kriauciunas “The Impact of Current and Founding Institutions”.
116. Cieslik and Kaciak, “The Speed of Internationalization of Entrepreneurial Start-ups”.
117. Weinstein and Obloj, “Strategic and Environmental Determinants of HRM Innovations”.
118. Obloj and Davis, “Innovation Without Change”.
119. Kriauciunas and Kale, “The Impact of Socialist Imprinting”; Shinkle and Krauciunas, “The Impact of Current and Founding Institutions”.
120. Johanson and Vahlne, “The Uppsala Internationalization Process Model Revisited”.
121. Schweizer et al., “Internationalization as an Entrepreneurial Process”.
122. Ibid, 366.
123. Autio et al., “Effects of Age at Entry”.
124. Ibid.
125. Sapienza et al., “Antecedents of International and Domestic Learning Effort,” 452.
126. Clerides et al., “Is Learning by Exporting Important”.
127. Dunning and Lundan, Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy; Johanson and Vahlne, “The Internationalization Process of the Firm”.
128. Dunning and Lundan, Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy.
129. Hymer, The International Operations of National Firms.
130. Gorynia et al., “The Internationalization of Polish Firms”.
131. Cuervo-Cazurra and Genc, “Transforming Disadvantages into Advantages”.
132. Gorynia et al., “The Internationalization of Polish Firms”.
133. Johanson and Vahlne, “The Uppsala Internationalization Process Model Revisited”; Schweizer et al., “Internationalization as an Entrepreneurial Process”.
134. Gorynia et al., “The Internationalization of Polish Firms”.
135. Yamakawa et al., “Venturing From Emerging Economies”.
136. Ibid.
137. Roth and Kostova, “Organizational Coping with Institutional Upheaval”.
138. Stoian, “Extending Dunning’s Investment Development Path”; Makhmadshoev et al., “Institutional Influences on SME Exporters”.
139. Gafney et al., “Institutional Transition, Global Mindset, and EMNE Internationalization”.