Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Export promotion programmes as export performance catalysts for SMEs: insights from an emerging economy

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to analyse the joint impact of external factors of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), such as export promotion programmes (EPPs), which encompass trade mobility-, information-, education-, and training-related programmes, and internal factors of SMEs, which encompass export-related resources, preceding-year export performance, and its impact on current-period export performance. The study tests their relationship with structural equation modelling using a random sample of 95 exporting SMEs in an emerging economy, Peru. The results indicate that experiential knowledge provided by trade mobility-related programmes and export performance of the preceding year positively influence the resources of SMEs oriented towards export activity as well as current export performance. Moreover, the results highlight the need to review the efficacy and design of EPPs, acknowledging the available resources of SMEs as well as the internationalisation theories of the firm, in order to enhance their influence on the international development and export performance of SMEs. Finally, the study has extended the knowledge about emerging economies by showing the role EPPs play in SMEs’ export performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaby, N., & Slater, S. (1989). Management influences on export performance: a review of the empirical literature 1978-1988. International Marketing Review, 6(4), 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acedo, F., Barroso, C., & Galan, J. (2006). The resource-based theory: dissemination and main trends. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 621–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agencia de Promoción de la Inversión Privada - Perú - PROINVERSION. (2013). Ley N°30056 ley que modifica diversas leyes para facilitar la inversión, impulsar el desarrollo productivo y el crecimiento empresarial. https://www.proinversion.gob.pe/RepositorioAPS/1/0/arc/LAW_30056/Ley%20N%2030056.pdf Accessed 20 Jan 2016.

  • Andersen, O. (1993). On the internationalization process of firms: a critical analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(2), 209–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomberg. (2018). These are 2018’s most (and least) attractive emerging markets. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-21/emerging-market-scorecard-supports-mexico-and-turkey-over-india. Accessed 24 Aug 2018.

  • Broocks, A., & van Biesebroeck, J. (2017). The impact of export promotion on export market entry. Journal of International Economics, 107(July), 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., Pass, C. L., & Prescott, K. (1990). Measures of international competitiveness: empirical findings from British manufacturing companies. Journal of Marketing Management, 6(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderón, H., & Fayos, T. (2004). Análisis de la relación entre el compromiso exportador y las ayudas a la internacionalización de las empresas. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 10(2), 201–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castro-Gonzáles, S., Peña-Vinces, J. C., & Guillen, J. (2016). The competitiveness of Latin-American economies: consolidation of the double-diamond theory. Economic System, 4(10), 73–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavusgil, S. T., & Zou, S. (1994). Marketing strategy-performance relationship: an investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J., Sousa, C. M., & He, X. (2016). The determinants of export performance: a review of the literature 2006-2014. International Marketing Review, 33(5), 626–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based view of the firm: knowledge vs. opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coughlin, C., & Cartwright, P. (1987). An examination of state foreign export and manufacturing employment. Economic Development Quarterly, 1(3), 257–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R., & March, J. (1992). A behavioral theory of the firm. In Malden. Massachusetts: Blackwell Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanaraj, C., & Beamish, P. (2003). A resource-based approach to the study of export performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 41(3), 242–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 374–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2005). The new SME definition: user guide and model declaration. European Commission: Enterprise and Industry Publications.

  • Faroque, A. R., & Takahashi, Y. (2015). Export marketing assistance and early internationalizing firm performance: does export commitment matter? Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 27(3), 421–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, E., & Reuber, A. R. (2003). Targeting export support to SMEs: owners’ international experience as a segmentation basis. Small Business Economics, 20(1), 69–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J., & Collins-Dodd, C. (2004). Impact of export promotion programs on firm competencies, strategies and performance: the case of Canadian high-technology SMEs. International Marketing Review, 21(4/5), 474–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freixanet, J. (2010). La Evaluación del Impacto de los Programas de Promoción de la Internacionalización. Una Aplicación al Caso de las Empresas de Cataluña. Tribuna de Economía ICE, 854(May–June), 105–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freixanet, J. (2012). Export promotion programs: their impact on companies’ internationalization performance and competitiveness. International Business Review, 21(6), 1065–1086.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gençtürk, E., & Kotabe, M. (2001). The effect of export assistance program usage on export performance: a contingency explanation. Journal of International Marketing, 9(2), 51–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, K., & Riddle, L. (2004). Export promotion organization emergence and development: a call to research. International Marketing Review, 21(4/5), 462–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeve, H. R. (1998). Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 58–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddoud, M. Y., Jones, P., & Newbery, R. (2017). Export promotion programmes and SMEs’ performance. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(1), 68–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1/2), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Essex: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I - method. European Business Review, 28(1), 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. California: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W. (1997). Response rates in the international mail surveys: results of a 22-country study. International Business Review, 6(6), 641–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W., Reiche, S., & Pudelko, M. (2013). Challenges in international survey research: a review with illustrations and suggested solutions for best practice. European Journal of International Management, 7(1), 112–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. (1994). Firm-specificity in corporate applied R&D. Organization Science, 5(2), 173–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hessels, J., & van Stel, A. (2011). Entrepreneurship, export orientation, and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 37(2), 255–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hult G., Ketchen DJ Jr , & Slater S.F. (2005), Market orientation and performance: An integration of disparate approaches. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1173–1181.

  • Hult, G., Ketchen, D., Griffith, D., Chabowski, B. R., Hamman, M. K., Dykes, B. J., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2008). An assessment of the measurement of performance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6), 1064–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hultman, M., Katsikeas, C. S., & Robson, M. J. (2011). Export promotion strategy and performance: the role of international experience. Journal of International Marketing, 19(4), 17–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITC. (2014). From export promotion to internationalization: the role of trade promotion organizations in the evolving global economy. Dubai: TPO Network World Conference & Awards Accessed 20 Jan 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K., & Wold, H. (1982). Systems under indirect observation: causality, structure, prediction (Vol. 139). New York: North-Holland Publ. Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaleka, A. (2002). Resources and capabilities driving competitive advantage in export markets: guidelines for industrial exporters. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(3), 273–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsikeas, C. S., Piercy, N. F., & Ioannidis, C. (1996). Determinants of export performance in an European context. European Journal of Marketing, 30(6), 6–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M., & Czinkota, M. (1992). State government promotion of manufacturing exports: a gap analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4), 637–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lages, L. F., & Montgomery, D. (2005). The relationship between export assistance and performance improvement in Portuguese export ventures: an empirical test of the mediating role of pricing strategy adaptation. European Journal of Marketing, 39(7–8), 755–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lages, L. F., Jap, S., & Griffith, D. (2008). The role of past performance in export ventures: a short-term reactive approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2), 304–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lant, T. K. (1992). Aspiration level adaptation: an empirical exploration. Management Science, 38(5), 623–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lant, T. K., & Mezias, S. J. (1992). An organizational learning model of convergence and reorientation. Organization Science, 3(1), 47–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lant, T. K., Milliken, F. J., & Batra, B. (1992). The role of managerial learning and interpretation in strategic persistence and reorientation: an empirical exploration. Strategic Management Journal, 15(6), 503–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, D., Olarreaga, M., & Payton, L. (2010). Export promotion agencies: do they work? Journal of Development Economics, 91(2), 257–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonidou, L., Katsikeas, C., & Piercy, N. (1998). Identifying managerial influences on exporting: past research and future directions. Journal of International Marketing, 6(2), 74–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonidou, L., Katsikeas, C., & Samiee, S. (2002). Marketing strategy determinants of export performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 55(1), 51–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonidou, L., Katsikeas, C., & Coudounaris, D. (2010). Five decades of business research into exporting: a bibliographic analysis. Journal of International Management, 16(1), 78–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonidou, L., Palihawadana, D., & Theodosiou, M. (2011). National export-promotion programs as drivers of organizational resources and capabilities: effects on strategy, competitive advantage, and performance. Journal of International Marketing, 19(2), 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D., & March, J. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. American Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Vertinsky, I., & Zhang, H. (2013). The quality of domestic legal institutions and export performance. Management International Review, 53(3), 361–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, J.-S., Sharkey, T. W., & Kim, K. I. (1996). Competitive environmental scanning and export involvement: an initial inquiry. International Marketing Review, 13(1), 65–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Losada-Pérez, F., Ruzo-Sanmartín, E., Barreiro-Fernández, J. M., & Navarro-García, A. (2007). Influencia de la estrategia de expansión internacional y de las características empresariales sobre el resultado exportador de la empresa. Revista ICE-Información Comercial Española, 837(July–August), 255–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. (2001). The internationalization and performance of SMEs. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), 565–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., & Peng, M. (1999). Learning to compete in a transition economy: experience, environment, and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2), 269–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, T. K. (1987). Empirical export performance studies: a review of conceptualizations and findings. In S. T. Cavusgil (Ed.), Advances in international marketing (Vol. 2, pp. 177–198). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, T. K. (1989). Successful export marketing management: some empirical evidence. International Marketing Review, 6(4), 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malca, O. (2016). La internacionalización de las empresas desde el enfoque gradualista de Uppsala y de la integración económica: el caso de las exportaciones de confecciones peruanas en los mercados de la Alianza del Pacífico y del Mercosur. In M. de Miranda Parrondo & J. T. P. Soto (Eds.), Las relaciones económicas entre América Latina y Asia. Hacia la construcción de una nueva inserción internacional (pp. 239–290). Santiago de Cali: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J., & Sutton, R. (1997). Crossroads-organizational performance as dependent variable. Organization Science, 8(6), 698–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melitz, M. J., & Redding, S. J. (2014). Heterogeneous firms and trade. In G. Gopinath, E. Helpman, & K. Rogoff (Eds.), Handbook of international economics (pp. 1–54). Oxford: North-Holland Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Beugelsdijk, S. (2017). What's in a p? Reassessing best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(5), 535–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N., Vorhies, D., & Schlegelmilch, B. (2006). Resource-performance relationships in industrial export ventures: the role of resource inimitability and substitutability. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(5), 621–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nalcacia, G., & Yagcib, M. (2014). The effects of marketing capabilities on export performance using resource-based view: assessment on manufacturing companies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 671–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, A., Acedo, F., Losada, F., & Ruzo, E. (2011). Integrated model of export activity: analysis of heterogeneity in managers’ orientations and perceptions on strategic management in foreign markets. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 187–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1997). Challenges for internationalization process theory: the case of international new ventures. Management International Review, 37(2), 85–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 29(5), 537–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, J., & Dikova, D. (2016). The internationalization of Asian firms: an overview and research agenda. Journal of East-West Business, 22(4), 237–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, J., & Gupta, P. (2014). Process and intensity of internationalization of IT firms: evidence from India. International Business Review, 23(3), 594–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, J., Parthasarathy, S., & Gupta, P. (2017). Exporting challenges of SMEs: a review and future research agenda. Journal of World Business, 52(3), 327–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peña-Vinces, J. C., Casanova, L., Guillen, J., & Urbano, D. (2017). International competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises: Peru, a Latin-American emerging market. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 53(1), 150–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. (1959). The growth of the firm (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piercy, N., Kaleka, A., & Katsikeas, C. (1998). Sources of competitive advantage in high performing exporting companies. Journal of World Business, 33(4), 378–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppenthal, T., & Bausch, A. (2009). Research on export performance over the past 10 years: a narrative review. European Journal of International Management, 3(3), 328–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. (2010). Treating unobserved heterogeneity in PLS path modeling: a comparison of FIMIX-PLS with different data analysis strategies. Journal of Applied Statistics, 37(8), 1299–1318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Thiele, K. O., & Gudergan, S. P. (2016). Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: where the bias lies! Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 3998–4010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seringhaus, F. H., & Botschen, G. (1991). Cross-national comparison of export promotion services: the views of Canadian and Austrian. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(1), 115–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seringhaus, F. H., & Rosson, P. J. (1991). Export promotion and public organizations: state-of-the-art. In F. H. R. Seringhaus & P. J. Rosson (Eds.), Export development and promotion: the role of public organizations. Boston: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seringhaus, F. H., & Rosson, P. J. (1998). Management and performance of international trade fair exhibitors: government stands vs independent stands. International Marketing Review, 15(5), 398–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamsuddoha, A. K., Yunus Ali, M., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2009). Impact of government export assistance on internationalization of SMEs from developing nations. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22(4), 408–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirokova, G. & Tsukanova, T. (2013). Internationalization of SMEs from transition economies: institutional perspectives. In H. Etemad, T. K. Madsen, E. S. Rasmussen, P. Servais, Current issues in international entrepreneurship (pp. 174–198). Cheltenham, UK.

  • Singer, T., & Czinkota, M. (1994). Factors associated with effective use of export assistance. Journal of International Marketing, 22(4), 53–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa, C. M., Martínez-López, F. J., & Coelho, F. (2008). The determinants of export performance: a review of the research in the literature between 1998 and 2005. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 343–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, M. M. (2003). Evaluating export promotion programmes: U.K. overseas trade missions and export performance. Small Business Economics, 20(1), 83–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stöttinger, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (1998). Explaining export development through psychic distance: enlightening or elusive? International Marketing Review, 15(5), 357–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • The World Bank. (2018). The World Bank, indicators: data bank microdata data catalog. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator. Accessed 24 Aug 2018.

  • Van Biesebroeck, J., Yu, E., & Chen, S. (2015). The impact of trade promotion services on Canadian exporter performance. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’economique, 48(4), 1481–1512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Chen, A., Wang, H., & Li, S. (2017). Effect of export promotion programs on export performance: evidence from manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(1), 131–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, K., Berkowitz, D., & Davies, L. (1998). Increasing the efficiency of national export promotion programs: the case of Norwegian exporters. Journal of Small Business Management, 36(4), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, C., Ibeh, K., & Dimitratos, P. (2008). UK export performance research: review and implications. International Small Business Journal, 26(2), 207–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilden, R., Gudergan, S., Nielsen, B., & Lings, I. (2013). Dynamic capabilities and performance: strategy, structure and environment. Long Range Planning, 46(1), 72–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, T., & Brouthers, L. (2000). An evaluation of the state sponsored promotion programs. Journal of Business Research, 47(3), 229–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zou, S., & Stan, S. (1998). The determinants of export performance: a review of the empirical literature between 1987 and 1997. International Marketing Review, 15(5), 333–356.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Carlos Carrillo C. and Jean Pierre Bolaños for their support in the development of this study. Also, special thanks to the guest editors of this special issue, Alain Fayolle, Francisco Liñán, and Justin Paul and the two anonymous reviewers who made helpful and valuable comments to greatly improve the quality this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oscar Malca.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Scales, item loading (l), composite reliability (ρ), average variance extracted (ρve(n)), and sources

Scales, item loading (l), composite reliability (ρ), average variance extracted (ρve(n)), and sources

1.1 Type of export promotion programme (Leonidou et al. 2011)

Question regarding the use of EPPs—how much do you approve/disapprove of the utility of the programmes that the firm has adopted? Scale: 1 = totally disapprove; 7 = totally approve.

Information-, Education-, and Training-Related Programmes (second-order composite variable; ρ = 0.96; ρve(n)=0.68)

Information-Related Programmes (first-order composite variable; ρ = 0.95; ρve(n) = 0.76)

  1. a.

    Information about foreign market opportunities (l = 0.90)

  2. b.

    Specific information about doing business with a particular firm (l = 0.83)

  3. c.

    General information about doing business in a specific country (l = 0.90)

  4. d.

    Provision of marketing information/advice (l = 0.89)

  5. e.

    General literature on how to export (l = 0.89)

  6. f.

    Export publications (l = 0.83)

Education- and Training-Related Programmes (first-order composite variable; ρ = 0.93; ρve(n) = 0.72)

  1. a.

    Organisation of export seminars/conferences (l = 0.83)

  2. b.

    Training programmes specialising in exporting (l = 0.78)

  3. c.

    Training on export documentation (l = 0.84)

  4. d.

    Provision of counselling advice on export business (l = 0.92)

  5. e.

    Foreign language support (l = 0.87)

Trade Mobility-Related Programmes (first-order composite variable; ρ = 0.93; ρve(n) = 0.82)

  1. a.

    Assistance in participating in trade shows/exhibitions (l = 0.90)

  2. b.

    Participation in trade missions in foreign markets (l = 0.94)

  3. c.

    Support by trade offices abroad (l = 0.87)

1.2 Export-related organisational resources (Kaleka 2002; Leonidou et al. 2011)

Question based on the export-related organisational resources of the firm—how would you rate the change in the following resources between the current and the previous year? Scale: 1 = decreased significantly; 7 = increased significantly.

Export-related organisational resources (second-order composite variable; ρ = 0.91; ρve(n) = 0.46)

Managerial resources (first-order composite variable; ρ = 0.88; ρve(n) = 0.60)

  1. a.

    Specialised managerial skills/competence in exporting (l = 0.80)

  2. b.

    Management experience/exposure in foreign markets (l = 0.79)

  3. c.

    Favourable managerial attitude towards exports (l = 0.72)

  4. d.

    Allocation of sufficient number of personnel to exporting (l = 0.81)

  5. e.

    Personnel specially trained in export activities (l = 0.77)

Production and research-and-development (R&D) resources (first-order composite variable; ρ = 0.84; ρve(n) = 0.64)

  1. a.

    Modern production technology and equipment for exporting (l = 0.80)

  2. b.

    Availability of production capacity for exports (l = 0.81)

  3. c.

    Possession of proprietary technical knowledge for exports (l = 0.80)

Intellectual resources (first-order composite variable; ρ = 0.88; ρve(n) = 0.65)

  1. a.

    Knowledge about foreign market demand (l = 0.81)

  2. b.

    Knowledge about foreign business practices (l = 0.73)

  3. c.

    Knowledge about export regulations and paperwork (l = 0.83)

  4. d.

    Knowledge about export logistical requirements (l = 0.85)

1.3 Preceding Year’s Export Performance (Lages et al. 2008)

Preceding year’s export performance (second-order composite variable; ρ = 0.96; ρve(n) = 0.73)

Performance achievement in preceding year (first-order composite variable; ρ = 0.95; ρve(n) = 0.80)

Question: How well did your company achieve the following objectives for the main export venture in the preceding year? Scale 1 = very badly; 7 = very well.

  1. a.

    Export sales volume (l = 0.91)

  2. b.

    Export sales revenue (l = 0.90)

  3. c.

    Export profitability (l = 0.93)

  4. d.

    Market share in the main importing market (l = 0.85)

  5. e.

    Overall export performance (l = 0.89)

Satisfaction with preceding year’s performance (first-order composite variable; ρ = 0.96; ρve(n) = 0.82)

Question: How satisfied are you with the current year’s results of your main export venture? Scale: 1 = not satisfied at all; 7 = extremely satisfied.

  1. a.

    Export sales volume (l = 0.90)

  2. b.

    Export sales revenue (l = 0.93)

  3. c.

    Export profitability (l = 0.92)

  4. d.

    Market share in the main importing market (l = 0.86)

  5. e.

    Overall export performance (l = 0.90)

1.4 Current Export Performance Improvement (Lages et al. 2008)

Current Export Performance Improvement (second-order composite variable; ρ = 0.95; ρve(n) = 0.66)

Export Performance Achievement Improvement in Current Period (first-order composite variable; ρ = 0.92; ρve(n) = 0.70)

Question How well did your company achieve the following objectives for the main export venture in the current period? Scale 1 = very badly; 7 = very well.

  1. a.

    Export sales volume (l = 0.80)

  2. b.

    Export sales revenue (l = 0.91)

  3. c.

    Export profitability (l = 0.87)

  4. d.

    Market share in the main importing market (l = 0.71)

  5. e.

    Overall export performance (l = 0.89)

Satisfaction with Export Performance Improvement in Current Period (first-order composite variable; ρ: 0.94; ρve(n): 0.75).

Question How satisfied are you with the current period’s results of your main export venture? Scale: 1 = not satisfied at all; 7 = extremely satisfied.

  1. a.

    Export sales volume (l = 0.81)

  2. b.

    Export sales revenue (l = 0.93)

  3. c.

    Export profitability (l = 0.89)

  4. d.

    Market share in the main importing market (l = 0.76)

  5. e.

    Overall export performance (l = 0.93)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Malca, O., Peña-Vinces, J. & Acedo, F. Export promotion programmes as export performance catalysts for SMEs: insights from an emerging economy. Small Bus Econ 55, 831–851 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00185-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00185-2

Keywords

JEL classifications

Navigation