© 2016, American Marketing Association

Journal of International Marketing

PrePrint, Unedited
All rights reserved. Cannot be reprinted without the express
permission of the American Marketing Association.

Time, Temporality, and Internationalization: The Relationship among

Point in Time, Time to, and Speed of International Expansion

Mikael Hilmersson, School of Business, Economics & Law, University of Gothenburg,

Gothenburg, Sweden, Mikael.hilmersson@handels.gu.se

Martin Johanson, Department of Social Sciences, Business Administration, Mid Sweden University,
Sundsvall, Sweden

Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Helene Lundberg, Department of Social Sciences, Business Administration, Mid Sweden

University, Sundsvall, Sweden

Stylianos Papaioannou, Department of Social Sciences, Business Administration, Mid Sweden

University, Sundsvall, Sweden

Acknowledgements:

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Jan Wallanders and Tom Hedelius
research funds for their financial support for the data collection. The authors would also
like to thank Susanne Sandberg for her support in the data collection process. The
anonymous reviewers in Journal of International Marketing together with the editorial
team have significantly improved the paper thanks to their insightful and constructive
comments.

1
Time, Temporality, and Internationalization: The Relationships among

Point in Time, Time to, and Speed of International Expansion

Abstract

Speed of internationalization is a multidimensional concept with performance consequences,

but little is known about the interrelatedness between different time-related concepts. The

authors address this deficiency by developing three hypotheses, which are confronted with a

dataset collected on-site at 203 SMEs. The analysis reveals that (i) the longer the time to

internationalization, the lower the speed of international expansion, (ii) the earlier the point in

time of start of internationalization, the lower the speed of international expansion, and (iii)

there is an antagonistic interaction effect revealing that the negative effect on the speed of

international expansion caused by a longer time to internationalization is moderated by the

point in time of internationalization start. The study contributes to theory by examining the

interrelatedness between temporal concepts in the internationalization literature and by

showing how the underlying mechanisms influencing internationalization speed changes over

time. For managers, insights into the importance of time and temporality for successful

international expansion are provided.

KEY WORDS: Speed of International Expansion, Time to Internationalization, Point in

Time of Start of Internationalization, Temporality, Internationalization, SME

2
INTRODUCTION

Early research on the internationalization of firms (e.g., Bilkey and Tesar 1977; Johanson and

Vahlne 1977) predicts a relatively long elapsed time between the inception of the firm and the

first foreign sales, and the continued internationalization is expected to be slow. In contrast,

research on Born Globals (BGs) and International New Ventures (INVs) (e.g., Freeman,

Edwards, and Schroder 2006; Moen and Servais 2002) has opened our eyes to the fact that

many firms internationalize at a high speed in their early years. As a consequence of these

divergent predictions, temporal concepts occupy a central position in the debate about the

relative strength of the emerging international entrepreneurship paradigm. As yet, however,

there has been little conceptual development – and no systematic evaluations – of temporal

concepts, which results in three shortcomings hampering theoretical advancement.

First, the literature suffers from a lack of conceptual clarity (Casillas and Acedo 2013).

Our examination of the literature on temporal internationalization concepts shows that

different measures are used to represent the same concepts, and in other cases the same

measures are used to represent different concepts. Consequently, there is a need to distinguish

concepts such as “pace” (Lin 2012), “rapid” (García-García, García-Canal and Guillén 2016;

Chandra, Styles, and Wilkinson 2012), “accelerated” (Pla-Barber and Escriba-Esteve 2006),

“speed” (Chetty, Johanson, and Martín Martín 2014), and “early” (Cavusgil and Knight 2015)

to enable synthesis across studies for future knowledge advancement.

Second, few studies acknowledge the difference between studies where temporal

concepts are used as an identification or selection criteria for the sample (e.g., Baum,

Schwens, and Kabst 2011; Khavul, Perez-Nordtvedt, and Wood 2010), and studies where the

temporal concepts are measured and used as variables in models tested (e.g., Mohr and

Batsakis 2016; Sui, Yu, and Baum 2012). Our literature review reveals that many studies

referring to temporal internationalization dimensions merely use temporality, e.g. the elapsed

3
time from inception to first international sales, to distinguish a specific type of firm, usually

labeled BG or INV. In these cases, temporal concepts are rarely measured and studied per se.

To evaluate the external validity of research results in this field, it is important to differentiate

between findings regarding a particular type of firm and findings based on more

heterogeneous samples with greater temporal variation.

Third, several studies (Casillas and Acedo 2013; Zucchella, Palamara, and Denicolai

2007) suggest that speed of internationalization is a multidimensional concept and that the

temporal concepts are interrelated. However, these suggestions remain at the hypothetical

level, since limited empirical evidence has been reported. As a consequence, we do not know

whether the time to internationalization start influences the continued speed of

internationalization. In addition, we lack systematic examinations of the relationship between

the point in time for internationalization start and other temporal internationalization

dimensions. Therefore, we only have limited insights into how internationalization speed and

temporality have changed over time.

To address these shortcomings in the literature, we advance three concepts. First, we

develop the concept speed of international expansion, which captures how fast a firm spreads

its sales activities to various country markets (Casillas and Acedo 2013; Hilmersson and

Johanson 2016). Second, we develop the concept time to internationalization to capture how

soon after firm inception the firm begins to internationalize. Third, we develop the concept

point in time of start of internationalization, which addresses how long ago (or how recently)

internationalization started. We theoretically anchor the analysis in theories on firms’

capabilities and routines to manage the differences between various country markets (e.g.,

Knight and Cavusgil 2004; Sapienza et al 2006) and to what extent newness makes learning

about markets less problematic. Against this background, we seek to answer the research

4
question: How do the point in time of start of internationalization and the time to

internationalization affect firms’ speed of international expansion?

By addressing the aforementioned shortcomings in extant research, we contribute to the

literature on speed of international expansion (e.g., Casillas and Acedo 2013) by developing

the conceptual clarity of the multidimensional speed concept and by examining the

interrelatedness between different temporal dimensions. As a consequence, we contribute

knowledge about the mechanisms underlying the temporal dimensions of internationalization.

First, extant research has shown that, as a result of learning advantages of newness

(LAN) (Autio, Sapienza, and Almeida 2000), the time to internationalization negatively

influences the speed at which international commercial intensity increases; we show that it

also negatively influences the speed at which sales are spread between countries.

Second, extant research (e.g., García-García, García-Canal and Guillén 2016; Yang, Lu

and Jiang 2016) has argued that changes in the global business environment have altered the

prerequisites for international expansion of firms. However, to date there is a dearth of

research that systematically examines the point in time for the start of internationalization and

its effect on the speed of international expansion. We show that the further in the past the start

of internationalization, the lower the speed of international expansion.

Third, we provide new insights to the literature on early internationalization (e.g.,

Sapienza et al 2006) by showing that LAN has gained in importance over time. We

demonstrate that the point in time for internationalization start moderates the negative

relationship between time to internationalization and speed of internationalization. Therefore

we suggest that the importance to develop competitiveness and efficiencies in the domestic

market before expanding internationally is diminishing.

For managers, our study shows that firms that are able to shorten their time to

internationalization will develop capabilities and routines enabling a faster and more efficient

5
continued international expansion. While early internationalization research suggested that

managers should develop capabilities, routines and efficiencies in the domestic market for

later exploitation abroad, our results point to the opposite. As a consequence of market

homogeneity and harmonization, a short time to internationalization and development of

international capabilities from inception will make the continued international expansion

process more efficient. Our results show that a late start of internationalization may result in

competitive disadvantages for the firm.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Time and temporality in internationalization research

Regarding the internationalization of firms, the two main streams of research, the

internationalization process theory (e.g., Johanson and Vahlne 2009) and the INV stream

(e.g., Knight and Cavsugil 2004), view internationalization as a process that takes place over

time. Both try to explain the dynamics of internationalization by developing temporal

concepts. An implicit assumption of traditional internationalization theory is that

internationalization is an incremental process through which the firm gradually expands its

international operations over time. Limitations in managers’ ability to process information

hampers decision making, which makes the generation of experiential knowledge the key in

reducing uncertainties regarding resource commitment to foreign markets (Hilmersson and

Jansson 2012).

Starting in the early 1990s, as a consequence of market homogenization (Oviatt and

McDougall 1994), the increasing role of global niche markets (Knight 1997), and advances in

technology and communication (Cavusgil 1994), a new type of international SME was

observed. INVs, starting up on an international basis from inception, called for alternative

explanations of internationalization (Oviatt and McDougall 1994). Some researchers

6
following these ideas (e.g., Bell 1995) argued that the incremental models have lost their

validity, whereas other researchers in this field (e.g., Bloodgood, Sapienza, and Almeida

1996; Madsen and Servais 1997) argued that the classical incremental models are valid for

INVs if the experience of their founders is taken into account. Although the two views have

partly different foci, they share the same key concepts, knowledge and learning, and stress

their importance in explaining internationalization. They recognize time as a concept that has

an impact on internationalization, but they put different emphasis on time-related aspects and

as a consequence, temporality occupies a central role in the literature.

We reviewed selected studies in the extant literature and present an overview of

temporal internationalization studies in Table 1. The review reveals a notable lack of

conceptual clarity. Extant literature not only uses different concepts for the same measure but

also uses different measures for the same concept. The most explicit inconsistency regards the

elapsed time between inception of the firm and first international sales. This temporal

dimension has been referred to as speed of internationalization, earliness of

internationalization, early foreign market entry, rapid internationalization, accelerated

internationalization, and internationalization speed, and it has also been used as a

classification dimension for identifying temporal typologies of internationalizing firms. In our

review, we put this temporal dimension under the label time to internationalization. We find

that this is the most representative term describing the elapsed time between firm inception

and first international sales. It should also be noted that studies of temporal aspects beyond

the entry into the international market suffer from varying conceptualizations and measures.

Yet, these studies have in common that they divide different measures of degree of

internationalization by time. Thus, they are capturing evolvements as they unfold over time,

and these measures are therefore labeled speed of internationalization. The third temporal

dimension is the age of the firm, which is treated in a consistent way in the extant literature.

7
 TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

An important observation from our review is that there is a difference between studies that

use a temporal dimension as a sampling criterion and studies that include temporal variables

in the research model. In the first case, since the definitions of INVs build on temporal

dimensions, authors use temporal dimensions as a sampling criterion, or as a criterion for

identifying such cases (e.g., Baum, Schwens, and Kabst 2011;). Authors following this

approach have sought to examine relationships between other variables in an empirical

context of early or rapidly internationalizing firms. Most studies that treat temporality as a

sampling criterion are qualitative and seek to understand the nature and behavior of firms with

a short time to internationalization.

The second group consists of studies that treat temporality as a variable and include

different temporal variables in the models under investigation. In these studies, the temporal

dimension is defined, operationalized, and measured or observed, which is not always the

case when temporality is treated as a sampling criterion. Table 1 reveals that the majority of

these studies are quantitative.

Dimensions and relationships among temporal variables

As revealed in Table 1, different temporal variables can be identified in the literature. Even

though most of the existing studies pay attention to the time to internationalization, some

authors have looked at the importance of the age of the firm in predicting international

behavior (e.g., Love, Roper, and Zhuo 2016), and we have witnessed a growing interest in the

speed of internationalization beyond the point in time at which the internationalization starts.

In this stream of research we find authors paying attention to the factors influencing speed

8
(e.g., Casillas and Moreno-Menéndez 2014; Morgan-Thomas and Jones 2009) and authors

seeking to explain the performance outcomes of the speed (e.g., Chetty, Johanson, and Martín

Martín 2014; Jiang, Beamish, and Makino 2014).

Whereas firm age and time to internationalization are measured in the same way in most

studies, speed of internationalization has been measured in different ways by different

authors. Some of the studies (Schu, Morschett, and Swoboda 2016; Mohr and Batsakis 2016)

have used Casillas and Acedo’s (2013) conceptual idea and divided the number of the firm’s

export markets by the time taken to reach this level of internationalization. Other researchers

(Chetty, Johanson, and Martín Martín 2014) have suggested a way to operationalize and

measure the speed in light of the Uppsala model of internationalization. Researchers studying

larger firms (e.g., Chang and Rhee 2011; Nadolska and Barkema 2007) have developed the

speed measures based on the international spread of the firm by following the measure

developed by Barkema and Vermuelen (1998) and studying the elapsed time between the

establishments of foreign subsidiaries or the entry into new markets (Casillas and Moreno-

Menéndez 2014). Others have developed alternative models (Autio, Sapienza, and Almeida

2000; Morgan-Thomas and Jones 2009) and base their measure on the ratio of international

sales to total sales, which is then divided by time.

Notably, none of the reviewed studies measure and test the effect of the point in time at

which the internationalization process of the firm started. Considering the major changes that

have taken place in markets, technology and communication in recent decades (e.g., Oviatt

and McDougall 1994), we argue that this aspect should be included in studies dealing with

temporal aspects of firm internationalization.

Considering the rising interest in studying temporal aspects of internationalization, it is

surprising that very few studies have examined the interrelatedness among different temporal

dimensions. Conceptual studies (e.g., Casillas and Acedo 2013) as well as empirical studies

9
(e.g., Zucchella, Palamara, and Denicolai 2007) suggest that the temporal aspect of

internationalization is multidimensional, and it is reasonable to expect that the temporal

dimensions are interrelated. Interestingly, however, our review shows that, only few studies

develop models with temporal relations. Instead, most studies treat temporality in isolation.

Two exceptions should be mentioned here, Autio, Sapienza, and Almeida (2000), revealing

the relationship between time to internationalization and speed of increase in the ratio

between domestic and foreign sales, and Sui, Yu, and Baum (2012), showing how firm age

influences the temporal internationalization pattern. Yet, a consequence is that it seems that

the interrelatedness between temporal variables is an under-researched area.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Most studies on temporal aspects of internationalization build their reasoning on two

underlying assumptions. First, routines and capabilities are developed in interactive processes,

which are heterogeneously dispersed between firms (Penrose 1959). Second, there are

differences between country markets that influence firms’ possibilities to promote and sell

their products in foreign markets. Therefore, it follows that internationalization is contingent

on the firm’s routines and capabilities to manage the differences between countries (Zhou,

Wu, and Barnes 2012). The literature on capabilities and routines has its origins in

evolutionary economics (Nelson and Winter 1982) and is closely linked to the resource-based

view (Barney 1991; Dierickx and Cool 1989; Grant 1996). International business scholars

later applied the resource-based view (e.g., Knight and Cavusgil 2004; Weerawardena et al

2007) to explain internationalization, and this study builds on their reasoning.

As the focus of this study is on examining the interrelatedness between various temporal

concepts in the internationalization context, the capabilities the firm possesses at inception are

critical, as are the routines the firm develops in interactive processes with the domestic and

10
foreign markets. Routines and capabilities are developed in order to promote and sell products

in the markets, which implies that the point in time when they are developed as well as what

they are intended for are central aspects for understanding internationalization.

When firms are founded they may possess, through their founders and owners

(Hewerdine and Welch 2013), capabilities to manage the differences between markets;

however, as new firms they have not yet built up organizational routines to act in either the

domestic market or international markets. Consequently, these firms are flexible and lack a

rigid organizational structure, and, moreover, which is critical for internationalization, the

routines that develop thereafter emerge in an interaction with the markets where the firm is

active. As a result, firms that begin their internationalization soon after inception develop

internationally adapted routines almost from inception.

On the other hand, firms that start late with their internationalization are assumed to first

develop routines and capabilities aimed at acting and selling in the domestic market. Such a

development, however, has several consequences: as these routines develop and are validated

in interaction with the domestic market, they will, with age, become rigid and non-flexible,

and the focus on domestic operations may lead to a lack of capabilities to manage the

differences between country markets, especially when these differences are subjected to

changes (Autio, Sapienza, and Almeida 2000).

The dynamic of the differences between markets is likely to influence the temporal

internationalization dimensions. As the global environment over the last two decades has

gone through an extensive transformation, which is usually termed market homogenization or

market harmonization (Oviatt and McDougall 1994), the prerequisites for internationalization

seem to have altered. We have witnessed two developments (Zucchella, Palamara, and

Denicolai 2007) that have changed the name of the game for internationalizing firms:

institutional harmonization (Peng 2004) and technological and market homogenization

11
(Madsen and Servais 1997). Trade barriers have been dismantled, common free markets, such

as the European Union, have been enlarged, accompanied by a harmonization of legislations.

In addition, new information and communication technologies have made it easier to spread

information to customers and promote products and services in foreign markets, and specific

products and services can partly or completely be distributed on the internet. This has led to a

homogenization of buyer preferences (Knight and Cavusgil 2004). In parallel, development of

transportation and production technologies have led to decreased differences between

markets.

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Time to internationalization and speed of international expansion

Time to internationalization reflects the time that has elapsed from a firm’s inception to its

first sales abroad, and extant research shows that some firms’ time to internationalization is

short (Knight and Cavusgil 2004). Oviatt and McDougall (1994) argue that firms with unique

competences, such as entrepreneurial capabilities and an international outlook, may start their

internationalization soon after inception. This line of argument received support from later

researchers (e.g., Jones, Coviello, and Tang 2011; (Prashantam and Young 2011). High

technology (Preece, Miles, and Baetz 1999) and specific business models (e.g., Hennart 2014)

seem to promote a short time to internationalization. These ideas focus on technological and

business differences, rather than cultural differences, as the main barriers for international

expansion. Business partners, such as suppliers and customers, share a mutual goal of

overcoming these differences, and firms that have a short time to internationalization are more

likely to view internationalization as less risky or costly than firms that turn international later

(Eriksson et al. 1997). They are expected to be more aware, capable, and willing to pursue

international opportunities and thereby expand internationally with a higher speed.

12
 These arguments build on the underlying assumption that the development and

integration of capabilities is a critical mechanism in enabling firms with a shorter time to

internationalization to maintain a high speed of increase in their share of international sales

(Autio, Sapienza, and Almeida 2000). They act without having to deconstruct and replace

routines since they were adapted to foreign markets directly from inception and in interaction

with foreign customers. Against this background, we argue that there are two main reasons

why the time to internationalization influences speed of international expansion.

Firstly, if the firm enters the first foreign market soon after inception, it does not have to

unlearn and dismantle routines aimed at and designed for the domestic market, but can instead

develop capabilities and routines for internationalization. In contrast, a long time to

internationalization may lead to a need to unlearn what the firm knows from the domestic

market and require a break from, and modification of, existing routines (Barkema and

Vermeulen 1998). This takes time and results in additional costs.

Secondly, exposure to uncertain and dynamic environments at a young age provides

valuable experience, which can be integrated as routines and capabilities and reused in

markets entered subsequently (Blomstermo et al. 2004). Firms learn from experience of being

exposed to uncertain foreign markets, or more precisely, from interacting with customers in

these foreign markets. These interactions have a positive effect on sales, but the process also

generates costs, as the firm has to learn about the counterparts’ needs, strategies, and

behavior. Depending on the similarity between markets, existing experiences are also useful

in markets besides those in which they were developed (Hilmersson and Jansson 2012).

Thereby costs can be reduced, shortcuts made, and mistakes avoided, accelerating the

internationalization speed.

As the main learning has already taken place when the first market was entered, only

marginal additional knowledge has to be added. Instead, existing routines and capabilities can

13
be employed, and flexible organizational routines can shorten decision-making processes and

reduce the risk of being caught in competence traps (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). Thereby, the

newness of the firm gives advantages not only in the first foreign market, but also as the firm

enters other markets. It is therefore likely that a short time to internationalization will

positively influence the continued speed of international expansion.

In contrast, firms that start to internationalize a long time after inception may be

required not only to deconstruct the routines developed for the domestic market but also to

develop separate routines for each foreign market. Such a process of recurrent learning and

unlearning will induce costs and result in a lower speed of international expansion.

Consequently, firms starting to sell internationally early are better equipped than firms with a

longer time to internationalization to nurture the capabilities to manage the differences across

foreign markets. This leads to our first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: The longer the time to internationalization of the firm, the lower the speed of

international expansion.

Point in time of start of internationalization and speed of international expansion

Many reports (e.g., Zucchella, Palamara, and Denicolai 2007; Shrader, Oviatt, and McDougall

2000) have pointed out that the prerequisites for international expansion have changed lately.

The world is nowadays more institutionally and technologically homogeneous than before,

thus, differences between the domestic market and foreign markets have decreased. As a

consequence, the point in time of start of the firm’s internationalization is likely to influence

the subsequent process, which also concerns the speed of international expansion. Barriers to

trade have been reduced and national legislations harmonized. In addition, there are now both

cheaper and faster means of physical transportation, and dramatic IT development has made

14
communication, even virtual face-to-face interaction, available almost instantly and at low

cost. Today, more people than ever have both private and business experience of travel and

interaction across national borders, resulting in an increased awareness, knowledge, and

harmonization of institutions. The impact is increased market homogenization and conditions

that make it easier and less resource demanding to discover and take advantage of business

opportunities internationally today than was the case in previous decades (Oviatt and

McDougall 1994). It has been argued that this is a major reason why internationalization has

accelerated also among SMEs (Shrader, Oviatt, and McDougall 2000).

This reasoning implies that the further one goes back in time, the greater the difference

there was between markets and the more likely it is that the firm suffered from liabilities of

foreignness and high levels of uncertainty. Under such circumstances, firms, and in particular

the more vulnerable SMEs, were more reluctant to embark on the internationalization journey.

They postponed the start of internationalization, instead concentrating on their domestic

market and on developing a strong position there, and consequently they developed routines

and capabilities to act solely in domestic markets. It therefore seems reasonable to argue that

the more heterogeneous the markets, the lower the speed at which the firm expands its

business to new foreign markets. This argument is amplified by the generally limited

internationalization capabilities among managers in the past. As markets were more

heterogeneous, the value and usefulness of the capabilities developed in a specific market

were perceived as less useful in other markets the longer back in time the firm started to

internationalize. Thus, each foreign market meant a new separate learning process, which,

because of the differences that existed between markets, made the development of capabilities

more difficult and time consuming and resulted in limited transferability of gained capabilities

between markets.

15
 On the other hand, the more recent an internationalization venture has been, the lower

the costs of information gathering, communication, and coordination and the greater the

harmonization of institutions and cultures, which has led to lower perceived uncertainties and

risks of foreign operations. Lower transportation, administration, and communication costs in

addition to reduced market differences and uncertainties are therefore likely to result in a

higher speed of international expansion once the internationalization has started, in

comparison with the past (Shrader, Oviatt, and McDougall 2000). Managers perceive less

difference between markets, and therefore less uncertainty, which makes them less reluctant

to begin to export to foreign markets than before. In the light of the greater heterogeneity

among markets in the past, which, in turn, made gained capabilities less useful and valid in

markets other than where they were acquired, we posit that:

Hypothesis 2: The further in the past the internationalization of the firm started, the lower the

speed of international expansion.

Time to internationalization, point in time of start of internationalization, and speed of

international expansion

A key assumption in traditional internationalization research is that firms begin to enter

foreign markets only after a period of domestic maturation and home market saturation

(Caves 1982; Vernon 1966). In other words, firms have been expected to dedicate a long

period of time to developing a competitive advantage compared to other firms and to gain a

significant market share in the domestic market. This means that firms develop an

organizational structure and routines geared to managing the domestic market before their

first foreign venture. A consequence thereof is that once they internationalize, a new learning

process is started, which entails both integration of new experiences and unlearning of what is

16
known from the domestic market as well as adaption of routines to the foreign market entered.

Under such circumstances, being new and young is a disadvantage, as the learning process,

involving unlearning and redesign of routines, is a costly and time-consuming process that is

hard for an SME with limited resources to carry out. This is also how the Uppsala model has

implicitly been interpreted; firms start internationalization a long time after inception, and

they do this in a slow and gradual way and only after holding a strong position in the home

market. However, as Johanson and Vahlne (1977) build on the idea of adaptive rationality,

they argue that the speed of the internationalization is dependent on the firm’s capability to

learn and on the routines it has developed to integrate the experiential knowledge.

Increased market homogenization has changed the conditions for internationalization,

and firms founded a long time ago took off from the home market using different strategies

than firms use today; for them, the further in the past the start of internationalization, the

greater the market heterogeneity. As a consequence of the market homogenization, we can

observe that something that could be called a learning disadvantage of newness has eroded

and been replaced with LAN. The role of routines for integration of knowledge and for

transformation of knowledge into capabilities has taken a new form. We identified two main

reasons why time to internationalization negatively influences speed of internationalization.

First, firms with a short time to internationalization do not have to dismantle routines aimed at

and designed for the domestic market. Second, routines and capabilities developed from early

international exposure can be reused and exploited in the continued internationalization

process. We argue that these mechanisms are likely change in strength and nature with the

point of time of internationalization start.

Under circumstances of market heterogeneity, the liability of foreignness was a greater

obstacle to be overcome and firms were required to develop efficiencies and capabilities in

the home base before aiming for international growth. Under circumstances of more

17
homogenous markets, on the other hand, the liability of foreignness is a less prominent

obstacle to be overcome. As a consequence, we suggest that the negative effect of a longer

time to internationalization is stronger the more recent the point of time of internationalization

start. Thus, instead of newness being a disadvantage we have witnessed a LAN developing.

This means that the routines developed to fit the conditions in the first foreign market

nowadays are more valid in other markets than before, as growing global homogeneity

increases the similarities across markets. Improved and less costly transportation and

communication between markets has increased general knowledge about other markets, and

this, together with a harmonization of both formal and informal institutions, has contributed to

market homogenization.

When foreign markets were more heterogeneous than they are today, it took longer time

to develop and test adaptations and routines. A consequence thereof was that routines and

capabilities were hard to exploit in markets where they were not developed. Time was needed

to consolidate business and develop routines and competitiveness before starting

internationalization or before moving between heterogeneous markets. Under the influence of

increased market homogenization, this need for time and resources for adapting to varying

market conditions has decreased. We therefore expect an antagonistic interaction where the

point in time of start of internationalization moderates the relationship between the time to

internationalization and the speed of international expansion. This leads to our third

hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The point in time of start of internationalization moderates the negative

relationship between the time to internationalization and the speed of international expansion

of the firm.

18
METHOD

Sample and data collection

We tested the three hypotheses on data collected on-site from 203 SMEs in Sweden. The

sample firms have a total export turnover exceeding €1 million. To identify the sample we

ordered data from Statistics Sweden covering all exporting SMEs in southern Sweden falling

under the EU definition of SMEs (headcount <250), which gave a sampling source of 692

firms. Thereafter, two steps were followed to exclude firms that did not belong to the

population. First, we screened the lists from Statistics Sweden and personal phone calls were

made, leaving 277 firms as a representative sample. Once the sample had been identified, our

data collection followed an on-site design. This strategy was chosen to ensure acceptable data

quality, and it came with three generic advantages. First, we could reduce the number of

missing values in the dataset. Second, we could ensure that experienced and well-informed

respondents answered our questionnaire under full attention. Third, and perhaps of greatest

importance, we could ensure a high response rate. In this study, we reached a rate of response

of 73%. Thus, 203 of the 277 firms in the sample were visited and interviews were held on-

site. The remaining 74 firms did not participate as they referred to policies of not participating

in research projects, were unable to invite us for a visit, or were unreachable after four

attempts. Even though we had a high response rate, we tested for non-response biases by

comparing the size, turnover, industry and export share between the interviewed firms and the

74 firms that did not participate in the study. These tests did not return any significant results.

We identified the respondent during our phone contacts. We asked for the person with

greatest insight into the international activities of the firm. For our interviews, 55% of the

respondents were CEOs, 17% marketing/sales managers, 8% area sales/marketing managers,

and the remaining 20% held positions such as business development, key account, and

product managers. Each meeting with the respondents took around 1.5 hours and included a

19
semi-structured interview regarding the international operations of the firm as well as our

structured questionnaire.

Even though our measures are not perceptual we made sure to reduce potential method

biases related to a common rater of both dependent and independent variables along the lines

suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003). We sought to prevent the respondents from searching

for implicit theories by separating the variables tested. The questions were answered in

different sequences, and we did not ask directly for the dependent variable. Instead, the

variables have been calculated from separate measures, and the respondents could not

possibly identify the relationships being tested. Before each section of the questionnaire was

handed over, the interviewer was available for clarifications and comments. Once the

questionnaire was completed, we held a general discussion with the respondents to make sure

that none of the questions had been problematic and that no parts of the questionnaire were

unanswered.

Measures and control variables

The dependent variable—speed of international expansion—was measured based on the

conceptual suggestions of Casillas and Acedo (2013), a measure that was validated

empirically by Hilmersson and Johanson (2016). Thus, dividing the number of export markets

of the firm by the time it took to reach this level captures speed of increase in breadth of

international activities. This measure captures the average speed at which the firm has spread

its sales internationally, or more specifically, the average number of new markets entered per

year since inception.

The independent variables were measured as follows. The time to internationalization

aims at capturing the elapsed time between inception of the firm and first foreign sales (e.g.,

Autio, Sapienza, and Almeida 2000; Khavul, Pérez-Nordtvedt, and Wood 2010; Ramos,

20
Acedo, and Gonzalez 2011) and was measured as the number of years between foundation of

the firm and first foreign sales. The point in time of start of internationalization aims at

capturing when in time the first foreign sales of the firm took place. To capture how far in the

past the first foreign sales took place, we subtracted the year of first foreign sales from the

year of the study.

In the hypotheses tests, we controlled for seven variables. We controlled for firm size

by including two variables; first, the number of employees, and second, the turnover of the

firm. Third, we included a dummy variable controlling for potential industry effects. Even

though our sample consists of manufacturing firms, we created a dummy variable controlling

for multiple activities. This variable separates the firms into two groups: firms listed as

manufacturing firms and firms listed as having multiple activities (e.g., manufacturing, trade,

and wholesale). Fourth, we created a dummy variable separating family-owned firms from

firms with alternative ownership. Fifth, inspired by Rugman and Verbeke (2004), we

controlled for regionalizing firms. A dummy variable in which we divided the sample into

two groups was created: the first group consists of firms with sales in 15 or fewer markets, the

second consists of firms with wider international exposure. The limit of 15 markets was based

on the regional EU-15 countries to which most Swedish firms start their exporting. Sixth, we

controlled for the share of firm assets located abroad as we can assume a difference between

firms expanding internationally with FDI as compared to export-driven expansion. Seventh,

we included a control variable accounting for the number of patents held by the firm in the

home market. Our logic with this variable was to control for differences between technology-

oriented firms as compared to more market-oriented firms. The descriptive statistics and the

correlation matrix between the control variables, the independent variables, and the dependent

variable, is provided in Table 2.

21
TABLE 2 GOES ABOUT HERE

Hypotheses tests

To test the three hypotheses, OLS regression was performed in SPSS. To provide explicit

results of the effects of all variables modeled, we present a stepwise regression in Table 3.

The final results reported are taken from the full model (Model 4), which includes all controls

and independent variables. The coefficients show the effects of the independent variables and

the moderation on the speed of international expansion. In the reported model, we use

standardized variables since there is a risk of multicollinearity when running interaction

effects, particularly when there is a noteworthy correlation between the independent variables.

With the original measures, we found the same support as in the reported model, but the VIF

values were close to 10. With the standardized variables, in the model reported, all VIF values

were reduced to a level below 3, which indicates that multicollinearity should not distort the

results.

First, hypothesis 1 posits that the time to internationalization start lowers the speed of

international expansion. In Table 3 we can see that the test of hypothesis 1 returned with

significant support. We observe a negative and significant (β = -0.373, t = -3.189, p =

0.002) effect of the time to internationalization on the speed of international expansion. Thus

we find support for hypothesis 1.

Second, hypothesis 2 posits that the further in the past the internationalization started,

the lower the speed of international expansion. In Table 3 we can see that hypothesis 2 also

returns with empirical support. We observe a negative and significant (β= -0.401, t = -3.846,

p = 0.000) effect of the time since internationalization start on the speed of international

expansion. Thus, we find support for hypothesis 2.

22
 Third, hypothesis 3 posits an antagonistic interaction where the negative relationship

between time to internationalization and speed of internationalization is moderated by the

point in time of start of internationalization. In the test of hypothesis 3, we find support for the

antagonistic interaction. The predictor and moderator had the same effect on the dependent

variable, but the interaction is in the opposite direction. For hypothesis 3, we observe a

positive and significant (β= 0.336, t = 2.445, p = 0.016) effect of the interaction on the speed

of international expansion. Thus hypothesis 3 is supported.

TABLE 3 GOES ABOUT HERE

To aid interpretation of the moderation results we followed established practice (e.g

Nemkova et al 2015; Sousa and Tan 2015). A simple slope analysis was conducted to track

changes in the nature and strength of the relationship between time to internationalization and

speed of internationalization across varying points in time of internationalization start. The

sample was split into two groups based on the moderator variable. The slopes presented in

Figure 1, were calculated at a late (one standard deviation below mean) and an early (one

standard deviation above mean) point in time for the start of internationalization. As

visualized in Figure 1, the relationship between time to internationalization and speed of

internationalization changes in nature and strength across different points of the moderating

variable.

The results show that the effect of time to internationalization on the speed of

internationalization is significant and negative when the internationalization started recently

(β = -0.951, t = -3.206, p = 0.002). When internationalization started in the more distant past,

however, our results reveal that the time to internationalization has no significant effect on the

speed of internationalization (β = -0.151, t = -1.688, p = 0.094). We can therefore establish

23
that in recent years, the time to internationalization is a more important predictor of

internationalization speed than it was in the past.

FIGURE 1 GOES ABOUT HERE

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The premise of this study is that there are shortcomings to be addressed concerning the

temporal concepts of internationalization (Eden 2009). Our research contributes a more

nuanced picture to the temporal concepts in internationalization research for three main

reasons: (1) speed is important for managers, as previous research shows that speed of

internationalization influences performance; (2) it is vital that the research community reaches

a point where there is a consensus on definitions and measurements of the speed and other

temporal concepts; (3) speed of internationalization is at the core of the debate on the validity

of established internationalization models, and we maintain that even if the conditions have

changed, most concepts are still valid.

The first contribution has been to separate the time it takes to start internationalizing

from the continued speed of international expansion, two different concepts that have not

been properly distinguished, either empirically or theoretically, to this point. Prior to this

study these measures have been used interchangeably (Chetty, Johanson, and Martín Martín

2014) and most research on speed of internationalization focuses on the time elapsed before

the entry into the first international market and less on the continued international expansion

(Coviello 2015). This study develops the concept of time to internationalization in order to

examine the impact of an early internationalization start as compared to a later

internationalization start.

24
 The second contribution comes from hypothesizing that the longer the time to

internationalization, the lower the speed of international expansion. This hypothesis was

supported, which indicates that the younger the firm is when it starts to internationalize, the

higher the internationalization speed. This result supports the LAN arguments, but while

Autio, Sapienza, and Almeida (2000) showed that an early internationalization start leads to a

high speed of increase in international sales share, our research shows that it also increases the

speed at which the firm’s sales are spread between foreign markets. The results indicate that

firms that begin to internationalize late risk developing structures and routines that primarily

fit the domestic market (Schu, Morschett and Swoboda 2016). Costs and inefficiencies occur

when such firms start expanding internationally, as they need to deconstruct and replace

routines developed for the domestic market (Mohr and Batsakis 2016). In contrast, new and

young firms may develop internationalization capabilities and routines that are valid in

several markets. Thus, the firm can transfer the capabilities developed for a specific foreign

market to other foreign markets and use them there.

The third contribution is to explicitly address the point in time when the

internationalization started and its effects on the subsequent speed of international expansion,

which has been overlooked in the extant literature. Related research has shown that the age of

the firm predicts the degree of internationalization (Love, Roper, and Zhou 2016;

McNaughton 2003) and can be used to classify the internationalization pattern of SMEs (Sui,

Yu, and Baum 2012). Our findings, which show a speed-reducing effect with an

internationalization start in the more distant past, support the suggestions by Zucchela,

Palamara and Denicolai (2007) that the prerequisites for internationalization have changed as

a consequence of market homogenization.

The fourth contribution is to establish the moderating effect of the time passed since the

start of internationalization on the relationship between time to internationalization and speed

25
of international expansion. Some decades ago, a long time to internationalization was needed,

as the firm had to develop its capability and resource base before seeking international

growth, as suggested by Johanson and Vahlne (1977) and Vernon (1966). In today’s

environment, on the other hand, firms may enjoy an advantage in expanding internationally at

a high speed soon after inception. As a consequence, we argue that LAN has gained in

importance over time, which was supported in our simple slope analysis revealing that the

effect is strongest for firms with a recent point of time for internationalization start.

Theoretical implications

To this point, research on temporal aspects of firm internationalization has fallen short in

developing a common terminology (Casillas and Acedo 2013). Our review of the literature

revealed a remarkable heterogeneity in concepts and measures addressing similar empirical

phenomena. The current study contributes to the literature by disclosing this shortcoming in

the literature and by suggesting a more nuanced and clear terminology. By distinguishing

different dimensions of the temporal concepts, we also established the interrelatedness

between time to, point in time of and speed of international expansion of the firm. It is

apparent that further theoretical advancement in the field should build on more well-defined

temporal concepts and more representative measures than we have witnessed to this point.

Apart from the contributions to the internationalization literature on temporal concepts,

we contend that our study contributes three theoretical implications for one of the more

important underlying mechanisms of the temporal concepts—LAN (Autio, Sapienza, and

Almeida 2000; Sapienza et al 2006).

First, our results indicate that the role of LAN has changed over time. The further in the

past a firm started to internationalize, the more it seems that it developed capabilities and

routines geared to primarily gaining a strong position in the domestic market, and only after

26
achieving that did it start to enter its first foreign market. This could be a result of the fact that

the uncertainty related to internationalization used to be perceived as higher than today so it

was thought that firms needed to develop a strong position in the domestic market before

attempting to internationalize—or it may be that the capabilities and routines needed for

successful internationalization are actually different from those needed in the past. The

capabilities that are a result of experience (Casillas and Moreno-Menéndez 2013) may have

become easier to develop, but more important, with the help of new technology, the routines

may be less costly to spread throughout the firm.

The second implication is that it seems like the capabilities and routines developed by

the firm at a young age geared to selling to the first specific foreign market are valid and

useful across foreign markets generally. This helps firms that start internationalization a short

time after inception to sustain a high speed in expanding their marketing and sales activities

across foreign markets. These firms do not have to go through the whole learning process,

from experience to routines, for each separate market, and do not have to unlearn what they

know. Right from the beginning of each foreign market entry they can turn to routines they

have already established in order to solve problems, find customers, develop distribution

channels, etc. in the new market.

Third, LAN predicts that new and young firms have an advantage over older firms, but

that as newness gradually fades away, this advantage is likely to erode. Our finding implies

that these advantages are viable and can be maintained over a long period or even throughout

the internationalization process. If the firm starts internationalization at a young age, it looks

like it can transform the advantages of newness into some types of advantages of “oldness” to

the extent that a high speed of international expansion can be maintained. Thus, the initial

learning advantages can be replaced or complemented by other types of advantages, when the

newness and youth of the firm are no longer there.

27
Managerial implications

Apart from the theoretical contributions of this study, we argue that it is of interest to

managers of firms aspiring to international growth. Recently, research has shown that speed of

internationalization influences performance over time (Hilmersson and Johanson 2016;

García-García, García-Canal and Guillén 2016). Our study contributes by highlighting three

important managerial implications based on the study.

First, the speed of SME internationalization has accelerated over time. To not lose

potential first-mover advantages, business managers should therefore be aware that firms

nowadays spread their activities internationally faster than before. As we observe that firms

begin to internationalize earlier and with a higher speed nowadays than before, managers have

to expect that their competitors will have a high-speed strategy. This implies that in order to

stay competitive, or even gain a competitive advantage, they need to treat the firm’s time to

and speed of internationalization as key strategic issues. Starting late and with a low speed

may bring significant competitive disadvantages.

Second, we find that business managers can affect their organizational capabilities to

expand internationally with a high speed by shortening the time to internationalization. If the

internationalization is started soon after firm inception, the firm can enjoy a learning

advantage of newness that facilitates further international expansion and makes it more cost

efficient in terms of learning, as it reduces the need for unlearning. Thus, young and new

firms should not develop capabilities and routines in order to exclusively focus on the

domestic markets, but right from the inception have a global mindset and deliberately try to

develop routines and capabilities for international markets.

Our third managerial implication is that a high speed of internationalization is not only

possible for young start-ups. Older firms, which have been able to develop their capabilities

28
over a longer period of time, seem to be able to exploit these capabilities internationally if

their time to internationalization is longer. For business managers acting in such firms, it is

therefore of importance not to become too comfortable with the present state of affairs, that is,

what the firm has already achieved, but to look for further internationalization opportunities.

LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

The present study has a number of limitations that offer interesting avenues for future

research. First, we have only studied SMEs starting their internationalization from the

Swedish home market. There is reason to believe that firms originating from a small and open

economy start internationalizing at a younger age and are more prepared to continue this

process compared to firms operating in other types of home markets. These firms can also be

better equipped to exploit the consequences of market homogenization. We believe that future

research should seek to validate or confront our findings by studying alternative samples.

Second, we measure speed as the number of foreign markets in relation to time elapsed

since inception. We chose number of export markets as the numerator since we tested our

hypotheses as a consequence of market homogenization. One limitation of this decision is that

all markets are treated as similar in terms of culture, institutions, size, etc. This approach

excludes other potential numerators used in the literature on speed of internationalization,

such as share of export in relation to turnover, assets abroad, or resources committed in

foreign markets.

Third, with our measure, we have examined the average speed of internationalization.

As demonstrated by Tan and Mathews (2014) and Johanson and Kalinic (2016), speed

changes during the internationalization process. Acceleration and deceleration can happen for

several reasons. For instance, as a consequence of development of new products and

technologies, because of institutional changes or as a result of identification of new

29
opportunities in the market. Such events may stimulate the firm to accelerate

internationalization. However, resources and knowledge may then be stretched to a point

where the firm has to reduce the speed to absorb new knowledge and consolidate existing

resources. Future research examining the temporality of internationalization would therefore

benefit from developing measures capturing changes in speed. Such measures would require

observations at multiple points in time, which we hope can address the potential survivor

biases of our study (for a discussion see Bello et al 2010).

Fourth, this study examines drivers of speed of international expansion, but it does not

analyze the performance consequences of the point in time when internationalization starts,

the time to internationalization, or the speed of international expansion. This is still an under-

researched area where recent advancement has been made (e.g., Hilmersson and Johanson

2016; Schu, Morshett, and Swoboda 2016). We believe that our results highlight some of the

reasons why the literature has reported conflicting results on the relationship between speed

of internationalization and performance (e.g., García-García, García-Canal and Guillén 2016)

Yet, many questions remain to be answered in relation to performance. We suggest that future

research follow the suggestions forwarded by Katsikeas et al (2016) and focus on the trade-

offs between distinct performance indicators rather than using overall latent performance

measures to further advance international marketing theory.

30
REFERENCES

Acedo, Francisco J. and Marian V. Jones (2007), “Speed of Internationalization and

Entrepreneurial Cognition: Insights and a Comparison between International New Ventures,

Exporters and Domestic Firms,” Journal of World Business, 42(3), 236–252.

Autio, Erkko, Harry J. Sapienza, and James G. Almeida (2000), “Effects of Age at Entry,

Knowledge Intensity, and Imitability on International Growth,” Academy of Management

Journal, 43(5), 909–924.

Barkema, Harry G. and Freek Vermeulen (1998), “International Expansion through Start-up

or Acquisition: A Learning Perspective,” Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 7–26.

Barney, Jay (1991), “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of

Management, 17(1), 99–120.

Baum, Matthias, Christian Schwens, and Rüdiger Kabst (2011), “A Typology of International

New Ventures: Empirical Evidence from High‐Technology Industries,” Journal of Small

Business Management, 49(3), 305–330.

Bell, Jim (1995), “The Internationalization of Small Computer Software Firms: A Further

Challenge to “Stage” Theories,” European Journal of Marketing, 29(8), 60–75.

Bello, Daniel, C., Constantine S. Katsikeas, and Matthew J. Robson (2010) “Does

Accommodating a Self-Serving Partner in an International Marketing Alliance Pay Off?”,

Journal of Marketing, 74 (November), 77-93.

Bilkey, Warren J. and George Tesar (1977), “The Export Behavior of Smaller-Sized

Wisconsin Manufacturing Firms,” Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 93–98.

Blomstermo, Anders, Kent Eriksson, Angelika Lindstrand, and Deo D. Sharma (2004), “The

Perceived Usefulness of Network Experiential Knowledge in the Internationalizing Firm,”

Journal of international Management, 10, 355-373.

31
Bloodgood, James M., Harry J. Sapienza, and James G. Almeida (1996), “The

Internationalization of New High-Potential US Ventures: Antecedents and

Outcomes,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 20(4), 61-77.

Casillas, José C. and Francisco J. Acedo (2013), “Speed in the Internationalization Process of

the Firm,” International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 15–29.

Casillas, José C. and Ana M. Moreno-Menéndez (2014), “Speed of the Internationalization

Process: The Role of Diversity and Depth in Experiential Learning,” Journal of International

Business Studies, 45, 85-101

Caves, Richard E. (1982), Multinational Firms and Economic Analysis, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Cavusgil, Tamer S. (1994), “A Quiet Revolution in Australian Exporters,” Marketing News,

28(11), 18–21.

——— and Gary Knight (2015), “The Born Global Firm: An Entrepreneurial and Capabilities

Perspective on Early and Rapid Internationalization,” Journal of International Business

Studies, 46(1), 3–16.

Chandra, Yanto, Chris Styles, and Ian F. Wilkinson (2012), “An Opportunity-Based View of

Rapid Internationalization,” Journal of International Marketing 20(1), 74–102.

Chang, Sea-Jin and Jay Hyuk Rhee (2011), “Rapid FDI expansion and firm

performance,” Journal of International Business Studies, 42(8), 979-994.

Chetty, Sylvie and Colin Campbell-Hunt (2004), “A Strategic Approach to

Internationalization: A Traditional versus a “Born-Global” Approach,” Journal of

International Marketing, 12(1), 57–81.

———, Martin Johanson, and Oscar Martín Martín (2014), “Speed of Internationalization:

Conceptualization, Measurement and Validation,” Journal of World Business, 49(4), 633–

650.

32
Coeurderoy, Régis and Gordon Murray (2008), “Regulatory Environments and the Location

Decision: Evidence from the Early Foreign Market Entries of New-Technology-Based

Firms,” Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 670–687.

Cohen, Wesley M. and Daniel A. Levinthal (1990), “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective

on Learning and Innovation,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

Dierickx, Ingemar and Karel Cool (1989), “Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of

Competitive Advantage,” Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.

Eden, Lorraine (2009). “Letter from the Editor-in-Chief: Time in International Business,

“ Journal of International Business Studies, 40(4), 535–538.

Eriksson, Kent, Jan Johanson, Anders Majkgård, and Deo D. Sharma (1997), “Experiential

Knowledge and Cost in the Internationalization Process,” Journal of International Business

Studies, 28(2), 337–360.

Freeman, Susan, Ron Edwards, and Bill Schroder (2006), “How Smaller Born-Global Firms

Use Networks and Alliances to Overcome Constraints to Rapid Internationalization,” Journal

of International Marketing, 14(3), 33–63.

Gabrielsson, Mika, Manek Kirpalani, Pavlos Dimitratos, Carl Arthur Solberg, and Antonella

Zucchella (2008), “Born Globals: Propositions to Help Advance the Theory,” International

Business Review, 17(4), 385–401.

García-García, Raquel, Esteban García-Canal, and Mauro, F., Guillén, (2016) “Rapid

Internationalization and Long-term Performance: The Knowledge Link”, Journal of World

Business, DOI.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.09.005.

Grant, Robert M. (1996), “Toward a Knowledge‐Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic

Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.

Hennart, Jean ‐ François (2014), “The Accidental Internationalists: A Theory of Born

Globals,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 117–135.

33
Hewerdine, Lisa and Catherine Welch (2013), “Are International New Ventures Really New?

A Process Study of Organizational Emergence and Internationalization,” Journal of World

Business, 48(4), 466–477.

Hilmersson, Mikael (2014), “Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Internationalisation

Strategy and Performance in Times of Market Turbulence,” International Small Business

Journal, 32(4), 386–400.

——— and Hans Jansson (2012), “Reducing Uncertainty in the Emerging Market Entry

Process: On the Relationship among International Experiential Knowledge, Institutional

Distance, and Uncertainty,” Journal of International Marketing, 20(4), 96–110.

——— and Martin Johanson (2016), “Speed of SME Internationalization and Performance,”

Management International Review, 56(1), 67–94.

Jiang, Ruihua J., Paul W. Beamish, and Shige Makino (2014), “Time Compression

Diseconomies in Foreign Expansion,” Journal of World Business, 49 (1), 114–121.

Johanson, Jan and Jan-Erik Vahlne (1977), “The Internationalization Process of the Firm: A

Model of Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments,” Journal

of International Business Studies, 8(Spring/Summer), 23–32.

Johanson, Jan and Jan-Erik Vahlne (2009), “The Uppsala Internationalization Model

Revisited: From Liability of Foreignness to Liability of Outsidership “,Journal of

International Business Studies, 4 (9), 1-21.

Johanson, Martin and Igor Kalinic (2016), “Acceleration and Deceleration in the

Internationalization Process of the Firm,” Management International Review, DOI

10.1007/s11575-016-0304-9.

Jones, Marian V., Nicole Coviello, and Yee K. Tang (2011), “International Entrepreneurship

Research (1989–2009): A Domain Ontology and Thematic Analysis,” Journal of Business

Venturing, 26(6), 632–659.

34
Jørgensen, Eva JB. (2014), “Internationalisation Patterns of Border Firms: Speed and

Embeddedness Perspectives,” International Marketing Review, 31(4), 438–458.

Katsikeas, Constantine S., Neil A. Morgan, Leonidas C. Leonidou, and G. Tomas M. Hult

(2016) “Assessing Performance Outcomes in Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, 80 (March)

1-20.

Khavul, Susanna, Liliana Pérez-Nordtvedt, and Eric Wood (2010), “Organizational

Entrainment and International New Ventures from Emerging Markets,” Journal of Business

Venturing, 25(1), 104–119.

Knight, Gary A. (1997), “Emerging Paradigm for International Marketing: The Born Global

Firm,” Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

——— and S. Tamer Cavusgil (2004), “Innovation, Organizational Capabilities, and the

Born-Global Firm,” Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 124–141.

Kuivalainen, Olli, Sanna Sundqvist, and Per Servais (2007), “Firms’ Degree of Born-

Globalness, International Entrepreneurial Orientation and Export Performance,” Journal of

World Business, 42(3), 253–267.

Lin, Wen-Ting (2012), “Family Ownership and Internationalization Processes:

Internationalization Pace, Internationalization Scope, and Internationalization Rhythm,”

European Management Journal, 30(1), 47–56.

Loane, Sharon and Jim Bell (2006), “Rapid Internationalisation among Entrepreneurial Firms

in Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand: An Extension to the Network

Approach,” International Marketing Review, 23(5), 467–485.

Love, James H., Stephen Roper, and Ying Zhou (2016), “Experience, Age and Exporting

Performance in UK SMEs,” International Business Review, 25(4), 806–819.

35
Luo, Yadong, Hongxin Zhao J., and Jianjun Du (2005), “The Internationalization Speed of e-

Commerce Companies: An Empirical Analysis,” International Marketing Review, 22(6), 693–

709.

Madsen, Tage K. and Per Servais (1997), “The Internationalization of Born Globals: An

Evolutionary Process?,” International Business Review, 6(6), 561–583.

Moen, Øystein and Per Servais (2002), “Born Global or Gradual Global? Examining the

Export Behavior of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises,” Journal of International

Marketing, 10(3), 49–72.

Mohr, Alexander and Georgios Batsakis (2014), “Intangible Assets, International Experience

and the Internationalisation Speed of Retailers,” International Marketing Review, 31.6 (2014):

601–620.

——— and Georgios Batsakis (2016), “Internationalisation Speed and MNE Performance: A

Study of the Market-Seeking Expansion of Retail MNEs,” Management International Review,

forthcoming, 1–22.

Morgan-Thomas, Anna and Marian V. Jones (2009), “Post-Entry Internationalization

Dynamics: Differences between SMEs in the Development Speed of Their International

Sales,” International Small Business Journal, 27(1), 71–97.

Musteen, Martina, John Francis, and Deepak K. Datta (2010), “The Influence of International

Networks on Internationalization Speed and Performance: A Study of Czech SMEs,” Journal

of World Business, 45(3), 197–205.

Nadolska, Anna and Harry G. Barkema (2007), “Learning to internationalise: the pace and

success of foreign acquisitions,” Journal of International Business Studies, 38(7), 1170-1186.

Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter (1982), “The Schumpeterian Tradeoff

Revisited,” The American Economic Review, 72(1), 114–132.

36
Nemkova, Ekaterina, Anne L. Souchon, Paul Hughes, and Milena Micevski (2015) “Does

Improvisation Help or Hinder Planning in Determining Export Success? Decision Theory

Applied to Exporting”, Journal of International Marketing, 23 (3), 41-65

Oviatt, Benjamin M. and Patricia P. McDougall (1994), “Toward a Theory of International

New Ventures,” Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.

Peng, Mike W. (2004), “Identifying the Big Question in International Business Research,”

Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 99–108.

Penrose, Edith T. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Great Britain: Basil

Blackwell and Mott Ltd.

Pla-Barber, José and Alejandro Escribá-Esteve (2006), “Accelerated Internationalisation:

Evidence from a Late Investor Country,” International Marketing Review, 23(3), 255–278.

Podsakoff, Phillip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff

(2003), “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature

and Recommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.

Prashantham, Shameen and Stephen Young (2011), “Post‐Entry Speed of International New

Ventures,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(2), 275–292.

Powell, K. Skylar (2014), “Profitability and Speed of Foreign Market Entry,” Management

International Review, 54(1), 31–45.

Preece, Stephen B., Grant Miles, and Mark C. Baetz (1999), “Explaining the International

Intensity and Global Diversity of Early-Stage Technology-Based Firms,” Journal of Business

Venturing, 14(3), 259–281.

Ramos, Encarnación, Francisco J. Acedo, and Ma Rosario Gonzalez (2011),

“Internationalisation Speed and Technological Patterns: A Panel Data Study on Spanish

SMEs,” Technovation, 31(10), 560–572.

37
Rugman, Alan M. and Alain Verbeke (2004), “A Perspective on Regional and Global

Strategies of Multinational Enterprises,” Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1), 3–

18.

Sapienza, Harry J., Erkko Autio, Gerard George, and Shaker S. Zahra (2006), “A Capabilities

Perspective on the Effects of Early Internationalization on Firm Survival and

Growth,” Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 914–933.

Schu, Matthias, Dirk Morschett, and Bernhard Swoboda (2016), “Internationalization Speed

of Online Retailers: A Resource-Based Perspective on the Influence Factors,” Management

International Review, forthcoming, 1–25.

Shrader, Rodney C., Benjamin M. Oviatt, and Patricia Phillips McDougall (2000), “How New

Ventures Exploit Trade-offs among International Risk Factors: Lessons for the Accelerated

Internationalization of the 21st Century,” Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1227–

1247.

Sousa, M.P. Carlos and Qun Tan (2015) “Exit from a Foreign Market: Do Por Performance,

Strategic Fit, Cultural Distance and International Experience Matter?”, Journal of

International Marketing, 23 (4), 84-104.

Spence, Martine and Dave Crick (2006), “A Comparative Investigation into the

Internationalisation of Canadian and UK High-Tech SMEs,” International Marketing Review,

23(5), 524–548.

Sui, Sui, Zhihao Yu, and Matthias Baum (2012), “Prevalence and Longitudinal Trends of

Early Internationalisation Patterns among Canadian SMEs,” International Marketing Review,

29(5), 519–535.

Tan, Hao and John A. Mathews (2014), “Accelerated Internationalization and Resource

Leverage Strategizing: The Case of Chinese Wind Turbine Manufacturers,” Journal of World

Business, 50(3), 417–427.

38
Trudgen, Ryan and Susan Freeman (2014), “Measuring the Performance of Born-Global

Firms throughout Their Development Process: The Roles of Initial Market Selection and

Internationalisation Speed,” Management International Review, 54(4), 551–579.

Vermeulen, Freek and Harry Barkema (2002), “Pace, Rhythm, and Scope: Process

Dependence in Building a Profitable Multinational Corporation,” Strategic Management

Journal, 23(7), 637–653.

Vernon, Raymond (1966) “International Investment and International Trade in the Product

Cycle,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190–207.

Wagner, Hardy (2004), “Internationalization speed and cost efficiency: Evidence from

Germany,” International Business Review, 13(4), 447-463.

Weerawardena, Jay, Gillian Sullivan Mort, Peter W. Liesch, and Gary Knight (2007),

“Conceptualizing Accelerated Internationalization in the Born Global Firm: A Dynamic

Capabilities Perspective,” Journal of World Business, 42(3), 294–306.

Yang, Yu Jing, Jane Lu, and Ruihua Jiang (2016), “Too Slow or Too Fast? Speed of FDI

Expansions, Industry Globalization, and Firm Performance,” Long Range Planning, doi:

10.1016/j.lrp.2016.06.001

Weerawardena Zhou, Lianxi (2007), “The Effects of Entrepreneurial Proclivity and Foreign

Market Knowledge on Early Internationalization,” Journal of World Business, 42(3), 281–

293.

Zhou, Lianxi, Aiqi Wu, and Bradley R. Barnes (2012), "The Effects of Early

Internationalization on Performance Outcomes in Young International Ventures: The

Mediating Role of Marketing Capabilities," Journal of International Marketing, 20(4), 25-45.

Zucchella, Antonella, Giada Palamara, and Stefano Denicolai (2007), “The Drivers of the

Early Internationalization of the Firm,” Journal of World Business, 42(3), 268–280.

39
TABLE 1. –Selected literature on intl. temporality

Time
Singl
Temporal to
Dependent multi
Authors Method Sample Independent variables Measure of temporality variable/ /Speed
variable(s) tempo
sampling of
constr
/Age
Speed of increase in number
of international markets, speed
Hilmersson & Quantitative, of increase in % of Number of export markets, % of international sales, Speed
183 Swedish SMEs Firm performance Variable Multip
Johanson (2016) survey international sales, and speed and % of assets abroad divided by firm age of
of increase in international
commitment

Export scope, export

Love, Roper & Quantitative, International experience, age,
1900 U.K. SMEs regions and export Firm age Variable Age Sing
Zhuo (2016) public survey and innovations
intensity

Speed of internationalization,
Mohr & Batsakis Quantitative, Speed is the number of foreign markets divided by Speed
110 retailers international experience, Firm performance Variable Sing
(2016) register data the number of years since first international sales. of
geographic scope
Quantitative, Foreign market distance,
Schu, Morscett & Speed of Speed is the number of days between the launch of Speed
secondary 150 online retailers geographic scope, imitability, Variable Sing
Swoboda (2016) internationalization new country-specific websites of
data venture capital, diversity
Diversity of countries, country
Casillas &
Quantitative, experience, diversity of Speed of The time between the entry into a new market and Speed
Moreno-Menéndez 889 Spanish firms Variable Sing
register data operations, operation internationalization the prior foreign entry of
(2014)
experience
Speed of internationalization
Chetty, Johanson Speed of intl. is measured as the speed of learning
Quantitative, measured as perceived International Speed
& Martin Martin 178 Spanish SMEs (repetition and diversity) and speed of commitment Variable Sing
survey success, intl. sales volume and performance of
(2014) (people, language, and investment)
perceived profitability
Scale of internationalization,
Quantitative, scope of internationalization, Speed
Hilmersson (2014) 203 Swedish SMEs Firm performance Number of export markets divided by age Variable Sing
survey and speed of of
internationalization
Speed of establishing a Speed is the time between subsidiary establishment Time to
Jiang, Beamish & Quantitative, 1578 Japanese firms Subsidiary
subsequent subsidiary, timing and previous establishment. Timing is the year of Variable Speed Multip
Makino (2014) register data entering China performance
of entry entry subtracted from 1979. of
Qualitative, 7 Norwegian border Speed is the number of years elapsed from inception
Jörgensen (2014) n.a. n.a. Variable Time to Sing
interviews firms of the firm to first foreign sales.

40
 Speed is the number of foreign outlets divided by
the number of years since the firm's first
144 international Intangible assets, international
Mohr & Batsakis Quantitative, Speed of international expansion. Age is year of observation Speed
retailers from 29 experience, and home-region Variable Sing
(2014) register data internationalization minus year of inception. Rhythm is the kurtosis of of
different countries concentration
the count of new international expansion made by
the firm each year.
Quantitative, 114 US law firms Speed of entry in Speed is a binary variable (entry in China or not)
Powell (2014) Firm profitability Variable Time to Sing
register data entering China China and the year of entry
Born globals development
Trudgen & Qualitative, phases; pre-start, early Born global
7 Australian cases No measure, temporality is the context Sampling n.a. n.a
Freeman (2014) case study internationalization, and performance
international growth
Casillas & Acedo Conceptual
n.a n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a n.a
(2013) paper
Chandra, Styles & Qualitative, Accumulation of knowledge, International market
15 Australian SMEs n.a. Sampling n.a. n.a
Wilkinson (2012) case study resources, and networks opportunities
Kalinic & Forza Qualitative,
5 Italian SMEs n.a. n.a. n.a. Variable n.a. n.a
(2012) case study
Kuivalainen, Quantitative,
Saarenketo, & survey, Categorizes firms based on their international
78 Finnish SMEs n.a. n.a. Variable Time to Sing
Puumalainen descriptive spread, rapidity, and international intensity.
(2012) analysis
Pace is the average number of subsidiaries
Pace, scope, and
Quantitative, established abroad per year, and Rhythm is the Speed
Lin (2012) 656 Taiwanese firms Family ownership rhythm of Variable Multip
register data kurtosis of the derivate of the number of foreign of
internationalization
ventures over time.
Firm internationalization pattern is measured with
6079 Firm
Sui, Yu & Baum Quantitative, three variables: elapsed time between inception and Age
internationalizing Firm age internationalization Variable Multip
(2012) register data first export, foreign sales to total sales, and global Time to
Canadian SMEs pattern
sales to foreign sales.
Timing, international
Zhou, Wu & Quantitative, International
159 Chinese firms commitment, marketing Years elapsed from inception to first export Variable Time to Sing
Barnes (2012) survey performance
capabilities
Growth orientation, TMT
international experience, Percentage of international sales in relation to total
Baum, Schwens & Quantitative, 195 German high- Type of international
knowledge intensity, product sales and the number of foreign markets served are Sampling n.a. n.a
Kabst (2011) survey tech firms new venture
differentiation, learning used to identify INV type
orientation

41
 Speed of FDI is the average number of foreign
Chang & Rhee Quantitative, 276 listed Korean Speed of FDI, firm resources, Speed
Firm performance manufacturing subsidiaries in new countries divided Variable Sing
(2011) register data firms industry globalization of
by years since first foreign expansion.
Middleton, Liesch Qualitative, Clock time, organic time, strategic time, and
16 Australian firms n.a. n.a. Variable n.a. Multip
& Steen (2011) case study spasmodic time
Product innovations, process
innovations, home market
Ramos, Acedo, & Quantitative, patents, foreign patents, utility Speed of entry into Speed is the elapsed time from firm inception to first
945 Spanish firms Variable Time to Sing
Gonzalez (2011) register data model, internal R&D, external international market international sales.
R&D, total employees, R&D
employees
Khavul, Pérez- 92 Chinese, 140
Quantitative, Degree, scope, and speed of Firm performance Speed is the number of years elapsed from inception
Nordtvedt, & Indian, and 76 South Variable Time to Sing
survey internationalization (perceived) of the firm to first foreign sales.
Wood (2010) African INVs
Speed of
Personal ties, common
Musteen, Francis, Quantitative, internationalization, Speed is the number of years elapsed from inception
155 Czech SMEs language, geographical Variable Time to Sing
& Datta (2010) survey performance of first of the firm to first foreign sales.
diversity of ties
foreign venture
Knowledge intensity, reliance
Speed of
Morgan-Thomas & Quantitative, on ICTs, international Speed is a categorical variable based on the ratio of Speed
705 British firms international sales Variable Sing
Jones (2009) survey diversification strategy, and international sales to total turnover divided by time. of
development
international channel strategy
Social capital, absorptive No measure, but proposes that post-entry speed has
Prashantham & Conceptual Speed
n.a. capacity, and knowledge Post-entry speed two elements: Country scope and international n.a. Sing
Young (2009) paper of
accumulation commitment.
241 U.K. and 132
Legal system, political risk, Foreign entry, Entry
Coeurderoy & Quantitative, German new- International entry timing measured as the years
IPR protection, and previous ranking and Entry Variable Time to Sing
Murray (2008) panel survey technology-based elapsed between inception and first foreign sales.
international experience timing
firms
Gabrielsson,
8 born global firms Integrated operation strategy
Kirpalani, Time to
Qualitative, from Greece (2), and market strategy (first Rapid international
Dimitratos, No measures Variable Speed Multip
case study Finland (2), Norway phase) and global vision (third expansion
Solberg & of
(2), and Italy (2) phase)
Zucchella (2008)

42
 Tuppura,
Knowledge characteristics Internationalization
Saarenketo, 299 Finnish firms First-mover orientation indicates the timing of
Quantitative, (accumulated expertise, strategy (path type,
Puumalainen, with at least 50 market entry and is measured based on six items not Variable n.a. Sing
survey versatility, and network operation mode, and
Jantunen & employees revealed
dependence) number of countries)
Kyläheiko (2008)

International orientation,
Acedo & Jones Quantitative, Speed of Speed is a categorical variable: no export, >5 years
216 Spanish SMEs tolerance ambiguity, Variable Time to Sing
(2007) survey internationalization to first intl. and < 5 years to intl.
proactivity risk perception
Internal and external
29 senior managers
Freeman & environment, network
Qualitative from 12 Australian Commitment states No measure, temporality is the context n.a. n.a. n.a
Cavusgil (2007) evolution, foreign market
firms
selection, and entry modes
Kuivalainen, Entrepreneurial Time to internationalization (time lag of three years
Quantitative, 185 SMEs from
Sundqvist & Degree of born globalness orientation and or less between foundation and internationalization Variable Time to Sing
survey Finland
Servais (2007) export performance start)

Combining
qualitative
143 INVs from
Loane, Bell & interviews
Canada, Ireland,
McNaughton with n.a. n.a. n.a. Sampling n.a n.a
Australia, and New
(2007) descriptive
Zealand
survey
statistics
Domestic acquisitions,
Nadolska & Quantitative international joint venture Speed of FDI is measured as the number of Speed
25 Dutch firms Speed of FDI Variable Sing
Barkema (2007) register data experience, international acquisitions per year. of
acquisitions
Owner/manager profile,
market-focused learning
Weerawardena,
capability, internally focused Speed is proposed to be measured as the time to the
Sullivan Mort, Conceptual Speed of Speed
n.a. learning capability, first international activity (e.g. exporting or Variable
Liesch & Knight paper internationalization of
networking capability, sourcing).
(2007)
marketing capability, and
knowledge-intensive products
775 new and
Entrepreneurial proclivity Based on when the firm has achieved 20% of total
Quantitative, privately owned Growth in Speed
Zhou (2007) positively influences foreign sales in foreign markets. This time period is Variable Sing
survey exporting Chinese international sales of
market knowledge subtracted from the firms’ founding year.
SMEs

43
 Quantitative,
Zucchella,
survey, Explores factors related to the speed to
Palamara & 144 Italian SMEs n.a. Precocity Variable Time to Sing
explorative internationalization.
Denicolai (2007)
analysis

Freeman, Edwards, Qualitative, Networking, technology, and

3 Australian cases n.a. No measure, temporality is the context Sampling n.a. n.a
& Schroder (2006) interviews aversion to risk taking

Case studies
based on both 218 born globals Use of network, network Improving firms'
Background data on speed to first export market
Loane & Bell qualitative from Australia, building, and international
number (earliness), but they are not included in the Sampling Time to Sing
(2006) and Canada, Ireland, and resource/knowledge capabilities and
analysis.
quantitative New Zealand. acquisition competitiveness
data
Proactive attitude, reactive
Accelerated internationalization is a dummy variable
attitude, marketing
Pla-Barber & based on the elapsed time between firm inception
Quantitative, 271 Spanish differentiation, global strategic Accelerated
Escribá-Esteve and first export and the ratio of total international Variable Time to Sing
survey exporters vision, technological internationalization
(2006) sales to total turnover and (c') the number of
differentiation, intensity of
countries exported to.
network relationships

24 high-technology Pace of No explicit measure, but empirically observes an

Spence & Crick Qualitative,
SMEs from Canada Planned strategic decision internationalization early internationalization, starting within three years Variable Time to Sing
(2006) case study
and U.K. and markets served from inception.

Behavioural characteristics,
Sullivan, Mort &
Qualitative, 6 Australian born networking capabilities, International market
Weerawardena No measure of rapid internationalization Variable Time to n.a
case study global firms knowledge, and rapid performance
(2006)
internationalization

Jones & Coviello Conceptual

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a n.a
(2005) paper

TMT international experience,

marketing capability,
93 American e- innovation capability, location
Luo, Zhao, & Du Quantitative, Speed of Speed is the elapsed time between inception of the
commerce agglomeration, internetability, Variable Time to Sing
(2005) register data internationalization firm and first foreign sales.
companies technology supportiveness,
regulatory transparency, and
legal protection

44
 Speed proposed to be measured in three ways: Time
Technology, opportunity, from the discovery of an opportunity and the first
Oviatt & Conceptual competition, actor perception, Speed of market entry, how rapidly entries into foreign Speed
n.a. Variable Sing
McDougall (2005) paper knowledge, and network internationalization markets continue, how rapidly psychically distant of
relationships markets are entered, and how fast commitments are
made.
Importance of home market,
Chetty & Time to
Qualitative, 16 firms from New prior internationalization Pace and time to International sales in relation to total sales (pace)
Campbell-Hunt Variable Speed Multip
case study Zealand experience, psychic distance, internationalization and time from inception to first export
(2004) of
learning, strategy
International entrepreneurial
Two-step design:
orientation, international
Qualitative interviews with 33
marketing orientation, global
case studies representatives of 24
Knight & Cavusgil technological competence, Performance in
and firms and a sample No measure, temporality is the context Sampling n.a. n.a
(2004) unique product development, international markets
quantitative of 203 exporting
quality focus, and leveraging
survey firms from United
foreign distributor
States
competencies
Speed of internationalization is measured as the
Quantitative, 83 stock-listed Speed
Wagner (2004) Speed of internationalization Cost efficiency change in degree of internationalization over 5 Variable Sing
register data German firms of
years.
Hurmerinta- Conceptual
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a
Peltomäki (2003) paper
Age, size, speed to
internationalization, domestic
Firm age and speed to internationalization, the latter
McNaughton Quantitative, 75 Canadian micro- market size, industry Age
International spread measured as the number of years elapsed from Variables Multip
(2003) survey firms internationalization, Time to
foundation of the firm and the first export.
proprietary products,
knowledge intensity
Type of distribution,
Export start, year of firm distance to markets
677 firms from First year of exporting, year of establishment of the
Moen & Servais Quantitative, foundation, and elapsed time served, number of
Denmark, France, firm, and time period between establishment of the Variable Time to Multip
(2002) survey between establishment of the markets served,
and Norway firm and export activity commencement
firm and first export global orientation
and export intensity

Quantitative, Speed is the number of foreign subsidiaries divided

Speed
Vermuelen & panel data 22 Dutch firms’ Contribution of foreign by the number of years since the firm’s first foreign
Performance Variable of Sing
Barkema (2002) from annual subsidiaries subsidiaries expansion. Rhythm is the kurtosis of first derivate of
Rhythm
reports the number of foreign ventures of the firm over time.

45
 50 cases from U.K.,
Bell, McNaughton Qualitative,
Australia, and New n.a. Born again globality n.a. Sampling n.a n.a
& Young (2001) case study
Zealand
Speed is the difference (in %) of international sales
Age at entry into international Time to
Autio, Sapienza & Quantitative, Speed of growth in between 1992 and 1997. Age at entry is the time
59 Finnish firms market, imitability, and Variable Speed Multip
Almeida (2000) register data international sales between foundation of the firm and first
knowledge intensity of
international sales.
87 U.S. firms, which
Foreign market revenue
Shrader, Oviatt, & Quantitative, had made 212 Number of countries
exposure, host country risk, No measure, temporality is the context Sampling n.a. n.a
McDougall (2000) register data foreign market entered
and entry mode commitment
entries

46
TABLE 2 – Correlations and descriptive statistics

Min Max Mean Std. dev. 1 2 3 4 5

1. Turnover (ln) 0 21.26 18.4991 2.96691 -

2. Employees 9 380 101.8769 79.65118 .320** -

3. Industry (dum.) 0 1 0.11 0.31 0.072 0.02 -

4. Ownership (dum.) 1 2 1.581 0.4952 0.029 0.141 -0.051 -

5. Regionalization (dum.) 0 1 0.72 0.449 0.148 0.155 -0.056 .236** -

6. Intl. Assets (%) 0 0.9 0.0976 0.20203 0.012 .364** .273** 0.072 -0.0

7. Patents 0 67 5.0074 9.73995 .171* .284** 0.057 .180* 0.07

8. Time to intl. 1 108 16.2652 21.22431 0.053 0.091 -0.084 0.024 -0.0

9. Point of time intl. 2 112 38.0227 17.70646 0.045 0.166 0.066 0.089 0.09

10. Speed of intl. 0.04 3.75 0.6962 0.69214 0.112 .178* -0.045 .209* .326

47
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

48
TABLE 3 – Hypotheses tests

Model 1 Model 2
β s.e. p-value t β s.e. p-value t β
Control variables
Turnover -.010 .111 .912 -.111 .003 .099 .972 .035 -.004
Employees .186 .092 .067 1.849 .109 .087 .279 1.088 .128
Industry .053 .093 .559 .586 .025 .085 .775 .286 .047
Ownership .170 .083 .062 1.883 .168 .076 .062 1.883 .180
Regionalization .253** .082 .005 2.839 .267** .075 .003 3.020 .288**
Intl. assets -.169 .082 .089 -1.713 -.128 .077 .186 -1.331 -.107
Patents -.044 .102 .629 -.484 -.037 .094 .686 -.405 -.004
Independent variables
Time to intl. -.296** .071 .001 -3.485 -.186*
Point of time for intl. -.273**
Interaction
Interaction
Diagnostics
R2 .165 .221
Adj. R2 .114 .165
F-statistics 3.245 3.912
Standadized estimate parameters reported. *. ** show significance at five and one percent respectively

49
FIGURE 1 – Interactive effects of Time to, Point in time for and Speed of international expansion

50