International Journal of Commerce and Finance, Vol. 8, Issue 2, 2022, 99-129 * *Istanbul Commerce University, Business Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey, ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6414-8029, tkarabulut@ticaret.edu.tr. **Istanbul Commerce University, Business Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey ORCID ID:0000-0002-2847-5126, ecivelek@ticaret.edu.tr. ***Istanbul Commerce University, Business Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey ORCID ID: 0000-0003-1737-2559, mcelik@ticaret.edu.tr The Roles of Unique Product Development and Global Technological Competence in the Effect of International Entrepreneurial Orientation on Company Performance in International Markets: A Study on Born Global Companies Ahu Tuğba Karabulut* Mustafa Emre Civelek** Merve Çelik*** Submitted: 29.07.2022 Accepted: 06.10.2022 Published: 01.11.2022 Abstract The purpose of this study is to search the mediator roles of unique product development and global technological competence in the effect of international entrepreneurial orientation on company performance in international markets for born global companies. The study was conducted on born global companies which started its international activities in its first 7 years and operate in technoparks in Turkey. Data was collected by a questionnaire from 158 born global companies. According to the method proposed by Baron and Kenny, three models were created and compared with each other. The Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) method was applied because it is more appropriate for complex models. According to the findings of the study, unique product development and global technological competence do not have mediator roles in the effect of international entrepreneurial orientation on company performance in international markets. However, there is a direct effect of international entrepreneurial orientation on company performance in international markets. Global technological competence has a direct effect on performance in international markets. On the other hand, unique product development does not have a direct effect on performance in international markets but unique product development has a direct effect on global technological competence. Keywords: Unique Product Development, Global Technological Competence, International Entrepreneurial Orientation, Performance in International Markets. mailto:tkarabulut@ticaret.edu.tr mailto:ecivelek@ticaret.edu.tr International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 100 1. Introduction Companies can expand in international markets in the first couple years of their operations via traditional and digital international expansion methods. They can export by sending sales people to potential customers, attending to tradeshows, meeting with potential customers in B2B meetings organized by chambers, consulates, trade associations. Nowadays, there are more born global companies due to digital market expansion potentials such as making e-commerce via company e-commerce platform or global electronic market places such as Amazon, E-bay, Alibaba, etc. Logistic opportunities, government incentives, Eximbank opportunities, digital platforms accelerate international expansion and facilitate the birth of born global companies. The purpose of this study is to search the mediator roles of global technological competence and unique product development in the effect of international entrepreneurial orientation on company performance in international markets for born global companies. This study shades light to the foreign expansion process of born global companies with 4 major variables in Turkey. The scale of Knight and Çavuşgil (2004) was translated into Turkish with the feedback of Çavuşgil. The scale could be used in the further studies by other researchers. The research findings could be used by new born global companies and academicians. Unique Product Development and Global Technological Competence variables are expected to encourage entrepreneurs to make investment to R&D and be more innovative in international markets. Thus, technological changes could be accelerated in different industries. There isn’t any other empirical study which collected data for these variables and with these scales in Turkey in the existing literature. Therefore, the findings of this study are important as it aims to contribute to the existing literature. The first 4 sections will explain four variables in this study. Then, research section will explain the methodology of the research and present its findings. The last section will wrap up the paper with conclusion and recommendations. According to researchers, companies have internal capabilities to expand to and succeed in international markets (McDougall et al., 1994; Autio et al., 2000; Zahra et al., 2000). The evolutionary economics view explains that companies can have superior abilities to make innovation and create knowledge leads to develop organizational capabilities such as embedded routines and critical competences. These resources lead to superior performance especially in turbulent and competitive environments (Nelson and Winter, 1982). Companies can make International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 101 innovations by making investment to RandD to accumulate knowledge and expand in new markets (Schumpeter, 1934; Nelson and Winter, 1982; Lewin and Massini, 2003; Massini et al., 2003). Expansion in international markets is an innovative act (Schumpeter, 1939; Simmonds and Smith, 1968; Casson, 2000) for born global companies. The resource-based view (RBV) (Penrose, 1959; Rumelt, 1984; Wernerfelt, 1984; Teece and Pisano, 1994; Grant, 1996) highlights how companies develop and leverage knowledge and organizational capabilities. Companies neeed resources to develop appropriate strategies in turbulent environments (Grant, 1996; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). Since, knowledge is the most important resource, the integration of specialized knowledge of employees is the foundation of organizational capabilities (Solow, 1957; Nelson and Winter, 1982; Dierickx and Cool, 1989; Leonard-Barton, 1992; Conner and Prahalad, 1996; Grant, 1996). Knowledge creates advantages facilitating international market expansion (Kogut and Zander, 1993). Organizational performance and output increase organizational knowledge (Solow, 1957; Nelson and Winter, 1982). The integration of knowledge of employees converts tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966) into organizational activities to create customer value. The most important knowledge resources are inimitable, unique, and immobile and reflect organizational styles (Dierickx and Cool, 1989; Grant, 1991, 1996; Nonaka, 1994; Teece et al., 1997) which reflect organizational abilities to do tasks related to organizational capacities to create value of born global companies (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004, pp. 125-126) through influencing transformation of inputs into outputs (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Teece and Pisano, 1994). When employees combine their specialist knowledge, organizational capabilities emerge related to development of organizational routines and competences (Grant, 1991; Teece and Pisano, 1994). Competences are performance-enhancing, knowledge-intensive activities where the company is skilled (Teece et al., 1997). Routines are consistently practiced, regular patterns of behaviors of an organization and employees which institutionalize organizational and individual knowledge about profit creating activities (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Dosi, 1988; Teece and Pisano, 1994). Organizational activity routinization implants capabilities into organizational memory to form a distinctive configuration of organizational resources. Organizational capabilities are the source of performance advantages of companies (Grant, 1991). Capabilities have two features: (1) the shifting nature of the business environment; and (2) strategic management to adapt, integrate, and re-configure knowledgebased capabilities International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 102 toward the turbulent environment. Capabilities are ‘dynamic’, and reflect managerial abilities to renew organizational competences to be congruent with the turbulent environment (Teece et al., 1997). Replication of organizational capabilities transfer capabilities between organizational settings to improve organizational performance in new ways of doing business, product categories, and markets (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Teece et al., 1997) (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004, p. 127). There are two approaches called as stages models for internationalization: One of them is Uppsala Internationalization Model (Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975; Johanson and Vahlne, 1977) and the innovation model (Cavusgil, 1980). They view internationalization by incremental stages. On the other hand, born-global approach focuses on fast internationalization of companies (Jolly, Alahuhta, and Jeannet, 1992; McKinsey and Co., 1993; Oviatt and McDougall, 1994; Knight and Cavusgil, 1996). Oviatt and McDougall (1994, p. 49) define a born global company as “a business organization that, from inception, seeks to derive significant competitive advantage from the use of resources and the sale of outputs in multiple countries.” Knight and Cavusgil (1996, p. 11) define a born global company as “small, technologyoriented companies that operate in international markets from the earliest days of their establishment.” They view a born-global company as a small company with a leading- edge technology, less than 500 employees, and an annual turnover of US$100 million. It produces high-tech products for a niche market (Knight and Cavusgil, 1996). Born global companies are entrepreneurial, see the world as one market, do not restrict themselves to one country and consider international markets as opportunity provider (Madsen and Servais, 1997). They grow through international sales by producing highly specialized customized products for international niche markets, access to international financial markets and networks (McKinsey and Co., 1993; Knight and Cavusgil, 1996; Madsen and Servais, 1997) (Chetty and Campbell- Hunt, 2004, pp. 59-61). McKinsey and Company (1993) coined born global companies which participate in the high- technology knowledge-intensive sectors, focus lead markets, and operate through first-mover advantage (Bell, 1995). Born global companies target countries based on their specialized industries. According to Kuivalainen et al. (2012, p. 4) born global companies recieve 25% of their sales revenues from international markets but Knight and Cavusgil (1996) do not agree International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 103 with this measure (Freeman et al. 2013, p. 160). Born global companies can operate regionally by limiting their activities to few lead markets and relying on collaborative partnership. However, they can be global start-ups or focus on different regions (Oviatt and McDougall, 1994) (Freeman et al., 2013, p. 161). The Born Global is used as a name for newly established companies which engage in international markets by several researchers (Rennie, 1993; Knight and Cavusgil, 1996; Madsen and Servais, 1997). Knight and Cavusgil (1996) state trends which accelerate the birth of born global companies: Increasing importance of niche markets, global alliances and networks, development of process technology and advvanced communication technology, and faster technology diffusion (Moen, 2000, pp. 156-157). Born global companies offer value-added innovative, unique and differentiated products from technology, design and science advances. Born global companies have change agent entrepreneurs and employees who accelerate exports and internationalization, have entrepreneurial orientation and mental models to decrease an internationalization risk. Born global companies have larger innovation capacity and innovative customer service ability (Leonidou and Samiee, 2012; Eurofound, 2012) (Cavusgil and Knight, 2015, p. 10). 1.1. International Entrepreneurial Orientation Born global companies have a high degree of international entrepreneurial orientation. Their emergence and growth are supported by distinctive entrepreneurial prowess championed by entrepreneurs or managers. Born global companies are endowed with distinctive intangible resources and capabilities although they are small and have limited tangible resources. They allocate their resources under asset parsimony and prefer exporting as an international market entry mode. Early and fast internationalization is a novel form of international expansion. Born global companies have strong international orientation and view the world as their marketplace (Cavusgil and Knight, 2015, p. 4). Companies which have international entrepreneurial orientation can expand into international markets due to their unique entrepreneurial competences and perspectives (McDougall et al., 1994; Autio et al., 2000). International entrepreneurial orientation which is related to vision, innovativeness and competitive position shows overall innovativeness and proactiveness of International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 104 companies for expanding in international markets (Miller and Friesen, 1984; Covin and Slevin, 1989; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Dess et al., 1997). Thus, companies can be proactive to decrease uncertainity and risks which they will face in turbulent markets and get the advantage of opportunities. Entrepreneurial orientation improves practices, processes, and decisionmaking to enter into new markets successfully. International entrepreneurial orientation develops and enacts key organizational routines of born global companies (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004, p. 129). International entrepreneurial orientation is associated with managerial vision, innovativeness, and pro-active competitive position in international markets (Khandwalla, 1977; Miller and Friesen, 1984; Covin and Slevin, 1989; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). This position is important to strategic innovation (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Matsuno, Mentzer and Özsomer, 2002). Entrepreneurial orientation triggers "processes, practices, and decision-making activities" to enter into new markets successfuly (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Born globals companies are younger and smaller companies which are lack of substantial resources of MNEs but they implement strategies with a vision to improve international performance (Knight and Cavusgil, 2005, p. 19). International entrepreneurial orientation is the behavioral elements of a global orientation and captures managerial propensity for innovativeness, risk taking, and proactiveness. International orientation has several psychological and demographic characteristics; managers with an international orientation are well educated, internationally experienced, less risk averse and resistant to change. They have high tolerance for psychic distance, a positive attitude toward internationalization and speak foreign languages (Nummela, Saarenketo, and Puumalainen, 2004) (Freeman and Cavusgil, 2007, p. 3). International entrepreneurial orientation facilitates a proactive approach to deal with risky environments (Knight and Cavusgil, 2005, p. 32). International entrepreneurial orientation reveals an innovation focused managerial mindset of born global companies to implement strategies to maximize international performance. International entrepreneurial orientation is important for born global companies to develop technologically advanced, distinctive, high quality products to succeed internationally (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004, p. 136). International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 105 1.2. Unique Product Development Born global companies have unique products and target market segments which MNCs can’t serve due to emerging nature of these segments and not having flexibility to gain market share quickly within these segments (McDougall and Oviatt, 2000; Autio et al., 2000). Born global companies are smaller companies which offer innovative products due to their flexibility to serve emerging market segments (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004) (Kim et al., 2011, p. 879). Born global companies can develop unique products by the help of their innovative and knowledge-intensive capabilities. Creating distinctive products and implementing a differentiation strategy requires customer loyalty by meeting certain needs uniquely. Marketing scholars recognized the value in providing unique offerings to differentiate the company from its competitors (Smith, 1956; Cavusgil et al., 1993). Born global companies which have specialized resources and valuable unique products can enter niche foreign markets easier. This approach is related to factors such as patented know-how, innovative product features, excellent customer service which distinguish companies from their rivals (Miles and Snow, 1978; Porter, 1980; Miller and Friesen, 1984). Knowledge developed within innovative processes provides capabilities for developing new technologies and is the key resource used by born global companies to overcome advantages of local companies and develop unique products (Oviatt and McDougall, 1994). If the knowledge to develop a unique product is imperfectly imitable or tacit (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1996; Autio et al., 2000), a company can keep it proprietary. The knowledge intensity of young, entrepreneurial companies is positively related to their international sales growth (Autio et al., 2000; Zahra et al., 2000). Companies with technological competence and knowledge can develop unique products easier. Born global companies which have knowledge fostering to develop unique products can serve specific markets, increase their market shares and sales. When companies offer unique products to satisfy special needs of customers, they can decrease the competition and increase their performances in international markets. Internationally entrepreneurial companies proactively try to be successful in international markets whereas young and small born global companies minimize direct competition with more established or larger competitors. Born global companies develop differentiated products and sell them in niche international markets to succeed. Thus, they can maximize their market shares and other performances in international markets dominated by resource-endowed, larger companies. Unique product development creates benefits of International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 106 differentiation strategy (Smith, 1956; Porter, 1980) which allow born global companies to serve niche markets more effectively, defeat competitors, and increase their sales and profits (Rosson and Ford, 1982; Bowersox and Cooper, 1992) (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004, pp. 131-132). Differentiation strategy brings uniqueness through developing new products and using marketing communication to create awareness (Menguc, Auh, and Shih, 2007) (Martin et al., 2016, p. 3). 1.3. Global Technological Competence Innovation is decisive when markets are more globally integrated and new competition and technology types emerge. Managers should adapt to and exploit environmental changes while they are searching opportunities to create change through strategic innovation. Companies can expand into international markets with lower costs due to globalization and contemporary technology advances. The rise of born global companies is a trend in the World (Martin et al., 2016, p. 1). Global technological competence is the technological ability of a company It improves effectiveness and efficiency in production processes, and existing products, and to create superior products. Advances in production technologies facilitate low-cost, small scale production enabling smaller-scale companies to serve special needs of market niches efficiently in the World. Global technological leaders leverage ICT to interact with stakeholders more efficiently and have benefits (Clark, 1987; Zahra et al., 2000). According to researchers, innovative entrepreneurial companies focus on developing new technologies (Schumpeter, 1934; Nelson and Winter, 1982). Small companies leverage their resources and transform their markets through innovation (Steensma et al., 2000, p. 951). Innovativeness increases new ideas and creative processes for departing from current technologies (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Entrepreneurial companies create products and operating methods to improve their organizational performances (Mintzberg, 1973; Miller and Friesen, 1984; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Zahra et al., 2000). Innovation is an essential entrepreneurial process for organizational performance in competitive international markets (Miller and Friesen, 1984; Kotabe, 1990; Zahra et al., 2000; Steensma et al., 2000) (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004, p. 130). Global technological competence of born global companies is an essential source of new business methods and products to improve e-commerce and information technology proficiency to affect international performance (Kotabe, 1990; Zahra et al., 2000) (Rosson and Ford, 1982; International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 107 Bowersox and Cooper, 1992) (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004, p. 132). Companies which do innovation strongly internationalize earlier than other companies. Innovation facilitates knowledge acquisition leading to capabilities increasing international performance. Companies which internationalize earlier have deeper innovation capacity (Knight, 2015) (Martin et al., 2016, p. 4). Technological capabilities of born global companies are positively related to organizational innovativeness (Kim et al., 2011, p. 882). 1.4. Company Performance in International Markets Performance is a unidimensional measure related to the economic value of companies captured from commercialization of their capabilities in international business (Hult et al., 2008). Companies gain positional advantages to reach superior performance (Day and Wensley, 1988; Hunt and Morgan, 1995) (Martin et al., 2016, p. 2). Born global companies can overcome their asset-constrained conditions to improve their performances (Martin et al., 2016, s. 1). They leverage innovation to enhance performance (Oviatt and McDougall, 1995; Dimitratos, Johnson, Slow, and Young, 2003) (Martin et al., 2016, p. 2). Born global companies have international entrepreneurial orientation and technological orientation which lead them to their superior international performance (Knight and Cavusgil, 2005, p. 32). The global reach of emerging-market global challengers and other competitors pressure young companies to reach superior performances faster (Cavusgil and Knight, 2015, p. 12). The knowledge acquisition process increases organizational capabilities (Dierickx and Cool, 1989; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen, 1997) causing superior organizational performance (Grant, 1996) (Cavusgil and Knight, 2015, p. 7). Superior performance is an outcome of managerial and entrepreneurial knowledge (Penrose, 1959; Autio et al., 2000). Knowledge about international operations and markets is a determinant of superior international performance of companies (Autio et al., 2000). Lewin and Massini (2003) state that companies with superior innovation and knowledge-creation processes have highly developed, more elaborated and sophisticated knowledge-creation processes (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004, p. 127). Calantone et al. (2002) revealed that innovativeness is positively related to organizational performance. Making innovation ability help companies to meet customer needs to improve performance (Soni et al., 1993; Matsuo, 2006; Avlonitis and Salavou, 2007). Innovativeness of born global companies has a positive effect on their financial performances (Kim et al., 2011, p. 882). International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 108 Superior international performance of born global companies are gained by entrepreneurial orientation, technological leadership and differentiation and focus strategies (Knight and Cavusgil, 2005, p. 15). International performance and survival of born global companies are considered as strategic variables. International entrepreneurial orientation is important to born global companies. Since they have limited resources, they can not make mistakes in their international expansion process. Global technological competence and unique products development are significant drivers of international superior performance. Technological excellence helps born global companies to succeed in niche markets in the World. Rennie (1993) found out that born global companies grow by leveraging proprietary technologies (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004, p. 136). Global technological competence and unique products development show that RandD, innovation, knowledge management play crucial roles for positioning born global companies to succeed in international markets. Born global companies can gain monopolistic advantage (Hymer, 1976) by producing unique products to support their further international success (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004, p. 137). 2. Research 2.1. The Purpose of This Study The purpose of this study is to search the mediator roles of unique product development and global technological competence in the effect of international entrepreneurial orientation on company performance in international markets for born global companies. 2.2. The Importance of This Study This study shades light to the foreign expansion process of born global companies with 4 major variables in Turkey. The scale of Knight and Çavuşgil (2004) was translated into Turkish with the feedback of Çavuşgil. The scale could be used in the further studies by other researchers. The research findings could be used by new born global companies and academicians. Unique Product Development and Global Technological Competence variables are expected to encourage entrepreneurs to make investment to RandD and be more innovative in international markets. Thus, technological changes could be accelerated in different industries. International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 109 2.3.The Research Model In light of existing literature the theoretical model is as follows in Figure 1. Figure 1. Theoretical Model 2.4.Hypotheses of This Study H1: Unique Product Development and Global Technological Competence have mediator roles in the effect of International Entrepreneurial Orientation on Performance in International Markets H2: International Entrepreneurial Orientation has a direct effect on Unique Product Development H3: International Entrepreneurial Orientation has a direct effect on Global Technological Competence H4: Global Technological Competence has a direct effect on Performance in International Markets H5: Unique Product Development has a direct effect on Performance in International Markets H6: Unique Product Development has a direct effect on Global Technological Competence 2.5.Sampling and Data Collection Method International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 110 The study was conducted on born global companies which started its international activities in its first 7 years and operate in 72 technoparks in Turkey namely Teknopark İstanbul, İstanbul Technical University Arıkent, Yıldız Technical University Technopark, Boğaziçi University Technopark etc. Data was collected by a questionnaire. The questionnaires were given and e- mailed to the respondents who are middle level managers, top level managers, owners or partners of these born global companies. 1000 questionnaires were given and e-mailed and 158 valid questionnaires were collected back. 2.6.Scales of This Study The scales of this study was developed by Knight and Çavuşgil (2004). There were seven variables in their study, four of them was used considering the purpose of this paper namely International Entrepreneurial Orientation, Unique Products Development, Global Technological Competence, and Performance in International Markets. 2.7.Research Method Quantitative data has been provided by a questionnaire designed in a five-point Likert scale. Structural Equation Modeling method was applied due to the fact that it is a useful method to analyze highly complex multiple variable models and indicate direct and indirect relationships among variables. Initially, confirmatory factor analyses were applied to verify the convergent validity. Composite reliability and AVE values are obtained to verify reliability and discriminant validity of each construct. The hypotheses were tested by using Structural Equation Modeling method in AMOS statistics program. Structural Equation Modeling which is a multi variable statistical technique has been used to test the hypotheses of the theoretical model (Meydan and Şeşen, 2011). This technique is used in order to decrease measurement errors (Byrne, 2010). The main purpose of this method to reveal the indirect and direct effects in a structural model (Civelek, 2018). The analyses have been conducted in SPSS and AMOS statistics programs. 2.8.Limitations of This Study Most of the questionnaires were sent and collected back by e-mail due to Covid-19. The study is limited with respondent companies. The data can be collected by personal visits from all International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 111 Technoparks in the following studies. In-depth interviews can be conducted to support the findings of questionnaires. 2.9. Frequency Distributions of The Data Table 1. Sectoral Distribution of Companies Sectors Number of Companies Agriculture 3 Logistics 3 Game 5 Finance 3 Environment-Energy 5 Information Technologies 65 Advanced Material Technologies 8 E-Commerce 5 Engineering-Architecture 7 Chemical 4 Industrial Automation 24 Health 14 Food 3 Automotive 3 Defense Industry 6 Total 158 Table 2. Foundation Year of Companies Foundation Year Number of Companies International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 112 Before 2000 3 Between 2000 and 2009 32 Between 2010 and 2019 115 2020 and onwards 8 Total 158 Table 3. Internationalization Period from Establishment of Companies Internationalization Period from Establishment Number of Companies Within the first year of establishment 66 From 2 year to 4 years 71 From 5 years to 7 years 21 Total 158 Table 4. Operating Period of Companies in International Markets Operating Period in International Markets Number of Companies Up to 1 year 24 Between 1 and 9 years 104 10 years and more 30 Total 158 Table 5. Type of Activity in International Markets Type of Activity in International Markets Number of Companies Export Only 106 International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 113 Co-investment Only 5 Direct Investment Only 1 Merger Only 1 Export and Co-investment 28 Export and Direct Investment 2 Export and Merger 1 Co-investment and Acquisition 1 Direct Investment and Co-investment 1 Export, Co-investment and Direct Investment 5 Others 7 Total 158 Table 6. Specific Information about Companies Number of companies older than 7 years old 70 Profit percentage of companies from international markets Number of Companies 25%-50% 46 51%-100% 24 Number of companies younger than 7 years old 88 Profit percentage of companies from international markets Number of Companies 25%-50% 44 50%-100% 44 Number of companies which planned to operate in international markets at the time of their establishments. 140 International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 114 Number of companies which did not plan to operate in international markets at the time of their establishments. 18 Number of expanded countries of companies which were established at least 7 years ago Number of Companies 1-10 countries 59 11-50 countries 7 More than 50 countries 4 Number of expanded countries of companies which were established less than 7 years ago Number of Companies 1-10 countries 74 11-50 countries 12 More than 50 countries 2 Company Ranking in International Markets Number of Companies Market leader 3 2nd or 3rd company 40 Others 115 Percentage of sales growth in the 8th year compared to the previous year (For companies older than 7 years old) Number of Companies 0%-10% 31 11%-50% 22 More than 50% 16 Downsize 1 Percentage of sales growth compared to previous year (For companies younger than 7 years old) Number of Companies 0%-10% 25 International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 115 11%-50% 31 More than 50% 30 Downsizing 2 Number of employees now Number of Companies 1 to 9 47 10 to 49 79 50 to 249 29 250 and more 3 Number of employees in the 7th year (For companies which were establihed at least 7 years ago) Number of Companies 1 to 9 17 10 to 49 43 50 to 249 10 Availability of separate departments for activities in international markets (eg. export department) Number of Companies Yes 56 No 102 Position of the person participating to this research Number of Person Junior Administrative Officer 1 Mid-level Manager 14 Senior Manager 63 Owner/Partner 77 Others 3 2.9.Construct Validity and Reliability International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 116 First, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was applied to purify the data and make the data ready for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). 24 items remained after principle component analysis. Then convergent validity was determined by applying CFA. Fit indices values of the CFA was found satisfactory (i.e. χ2/DF = 1.663, CFI=0.935, IFI=0.936, RMSEA= 0.065) (Civelek, 2018). Table 7 shows the factor loads in CFA Results. As shown in Table 8, average variance extracted values were close to or above than the recommended limit point of 0.5 (Byrne, 2010). The results showed that validity of the constructs were convergent. The square roots of average values of each variable were obtained to find out the discriminant validity. The square root of AVE values is indicated by the diagonals in Table 8. All square roots of AVE values are greater than correlation values. This indicates determination of the discriminant validity (Civelek, 2018). Reliabilities of structures were found out independently. Cronbach α and composite reliability values are close to or above the recommended limit point of 0.7 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 7. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results Variables Items Standardized Factor Loads Unstandardized Factor Loads International Entrepreneurial Orientation (IEO) IEO0101 0.606 1 IEO0909 0.641 1.261 IEO1111 0.659 1.138 IEO0202 0.692 1.333 IEO0404 0.641 1.222 IEO1212 0.770 1.118 IEO0303 0.797 1.367 Unique Product Development (UPD) UPD0119 0.738 1 UPD0220 0.759 0.963 UPD0321 0.852 1.177 UPD0523 0.864 1.199 UPD0422 0.831 1.089 Global Technological Competence GTC0214 0.487 1 GTC0315 0.487 0.734 International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 117 (GTC) GTC0416 0.814 1.439 GTC0618 0.656 0.964 GTC0517 0.893 1.281 Performance in International Markets (PIM) PIM0531 0.600 1 PIM0430 0.681 0.993 PIM0329 0.814 1.306 PIM0127 0.910 1.340 PIM0228 0.928 1.475 p<0.01 for all items Descriptive statistics, Cronbach α, composite reliabilities, average variance extracted values and Pearson correlations among dimensions are indicated in Table 8. Before testing roles of mediator variables, correlations among variables is checked. The prerequisite for this analysis is having significant relationships among all variables (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Table 8 shows that there is a significant relationship among all variables in the conceptual model. Table 8. Construct Descriptives, Reliability and Correlation Variables 1 2 3 4 1. International Entrepreneurial Orientation (0.690) 2. Unique Product Development 0.506* (0.810) 3 Global Technological Competence 0.402* 0.675* (0.687) 4. Performance in International Markets 0.398* 0.373* 0.544* (0.797) Composite reliability 0.863 0.905 0.809 0.895 Average variance ext. 0.476 0.657 0.473 0.635 Cronbach α 0.860 0.905 0.802 0.898 *p < 0.05 Note: Values in diagonals are the square root of AVEs International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 118 2.10. Test of the Hypotheses In the Structural Equation Modeling method, three different models are developed simultaneously to reveal roles of mediating variables in the the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. They are developed to decompose expected effects among independent, dependent, and mediator variables. In the first model, the direct effect between the independent and dependent variables is measured. In the second model, effects between the independent variable and mediator variables are measured. In the third model, effects among all variables are measured simultaneously. In all models, good fit values are taken into account. The standardized values of the available path analysis coefficients in three different models derived from the conceptual model are compared with each other. While making the comparison, it is checked whether the significant relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable turns into insignificant when mediator variables are included in the model (Civelek, 2018). According to this method, the analyses were carried out as follows: Three models used to test mediator roles can be seen in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively. Figure 2 shows the path analysis results of Model 1. In Model 1, the direct relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable was tested. The relationship is significant and positive. The fit indices of the model are within the limits accepted in the literature. Values of fit indices of the model were found as χ2/DF = 2.171, CFI = 0.943, IFI = 0.944, RMSEA = 0.087 respectively. Note: χ2/DF = 2.171, CFI = 0.943, IFI = 0.944, RMSEA= 0.087 Figure 2. Results of the Model 1 International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 119 Note: χ2/DF = 1.749, CFI = 0.939, IFI = 0.940, RMSEA= 0.070 Figure 3. Results of the Model 2 Figure 3 shows the path analysis results of Model 2. In Model 2, direct relationships between independent variable and mediator variables were tested. The relationship between International Entrepreneurial Orientation and Global Technological Competence is not significant. Other relations are found significant. The fit indices of the model are within the limits accepted in the literature. Values of fit indices were found as χ2/DF = 1.749, CFI = 0.939, IFI = 0.940, RMSEA = 0.070 respectively. International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 120 Note: χ2/DF = 1.663, CFI = 0.935, IFI = 0.936, RMSEA= 0.065 Figure 4. Results of the Model 3 Figure 4 shows the path analysis results of Model 3. The conceptual model was tested in Model 3. The fit indices are within limits recommended in the literature. Values of fit indices were found as χ2/DF = 1.663, CFI = 0.935, IFI = 0.936, RMSEA = 0.065 respectively. Test results of hypotheses in the conceptual model in three models are summarized in Table 9. Table 9. Hypotheses Test Results Relationships Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 IEO → PIM (H1) 0.399* 0.240* International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 121 IEO → UPD (H2) 0.503* 0.506* IEO → GTC (H3) 0.084 0.402* GTC → PIM (H4) 0.510* UPD → PIM (H5) -0.093 UPD → GTC (H6) 0.633* Model Fit Indices χ2/df=2.171, CFI=0.943, IFI=0.944, RMSEA=0.087 χ2/df=1.749, CFI=0.939, IFI=0.940, RMSEA=0.070 χ2/df=1.663, CFI=0.935, IFI=0.936, RMSEA=0.065 Note: Path analysis coefficients are standardized. *p<0.01 H1 hypothesis is not supported because the relationship did not become insignificant after involving mediators. As a result of the analyses, there was not any finding that Unique Product Development and Global Technological Competence play mediator roles in the effect of International Entrepreneurial Orientation on Performance in International Markets. Therefore, H1 hypothesis is not supported. According to the results of Model 1 and Model 3, the direct effect of International Entrepreneurial Orientation on Company Performance in International Markets continues. H2 hypothesis is supported. This means International Entrepreneurial Orientation has a direct effect on Unique Product Development. H3 hypothesis is not supported in Model 2 but supported in Model 3. This indicates that Unique Product Development can play a mediator role in the effect of International Entrepreneurial Orientation on Global Technological Competence. This effect should be investigated in a future research. H4 hypothesis is supported. This indicates that Global Technological Competence has a direct effect on Performance in International Markets. H5 hypothesis is not supported. This indicates that Unique Product Development does not a direct effect on Performance in International Markets. H6 hypothesis is supported. This indicates that Unique Product Development has a direct effect on Global Technological Competence. International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 122 3. Discussion and Conclusion Born global companies gain international experience and knowledge faster than traditional MNEs. Thus, they create an important challenge to traditional views on internationalization. The volume of global business activity has increased drastically since the millenium and is related to the emergence of infrastructures and mechanisms facilitating the internationalization of born global companies. This trend is accelerated by developing technologies allowing companies to internationalize and do global business more efficiently. Digitilization is driving a borderless global economy. Internet and information technology are liberating factors altering the international trade’s landscape (Knight and Cavusgil, 2004, p. 137). One of the remarkable result of this study is that unique product development and global technological competence did not play mediator roles in the effect of international entrepreneurial orientation on company performance in international markets. Some studies in the existing literature have concluded that network relationships affect unique product development ability of born global companies in international markets (e.g. Coviello and Munro, 1995, 1997). In our study, network relationships of the companies were not taken into account. Therefore, respondent companies can have different levels of networking relationships which can lead them to have different levels of product development capabilities. Therefore, network relationship of companies could be investigated in future research. According to Knight and Cavusgil (2004) unique products development and global technological competence have mediator roles in the effect of international entrepreneurial orientation on company performance in international markets of born globals. Innovation orientations of born globals facilitate their activities in international markets (Shane, 2003; Meliá et al., 2010). The ability to innovate supports discovery of new markets and improvement of the company's operations. High level of innovation orientation leads to high unique product development capabilities. Therefore, companies can not be sufficiently innovative in technoparks in Turkey. Also, research and development infrastructure can not be developed enough to innovate in Technoparks in Turkey. The mediator role of unique product development in the effect of international entrepreneurial orientation and global technological competence could be searched in future researh as well. If this mediator role is found, it will be one of the major contribution of this research as well. International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 123 There isn’t any other empirical study which collected data for these variables and with these scales in Turkey in the existing literature. Therefore, the findings of this study are important as it aims to contribute to the existing literature. The research findings could be used by new born global companies and academicians. They will encourage entrepreneurs to establish born global companies, expand in international markets, make investment to R&D and become more innovative. Academicians can conduct future researches to explore the current positions, international expansion and innovation potentials of born global companies both in Turkey and in the World. References Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411- 423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 Autio, E., Sapienza, H.J. and Almeida J.G. (2000) Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and ımitability on ınternational growth. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 909-924. Avlonitis, G.J. and Salavou, H.E. (2007) Entrepreneurial orientation of SMEs, product innovativeness, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 566-575. Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. Barney, J. (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. Bell, J.H.J. (1995) The internationalisation of small computer software firms. European Journal of Marketing, 29(8), 60-75. Bowersox, D. and Cooper, M.B. (1992) Strategic Marketing Channel Management. McGraw- Hill: New York. Byrne, B.M. (2010) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Second Edition. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Calantone R.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Zhao Y. (2002) Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515-524. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 124 Casson, M. (2000) Economics of International Business. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham. Cavusgil, S. T. (1980) On the internationalization process of firms. European Research, 8(6), November, 273-281. Cavusgil, S.T., Zou, S. and Naidu, G.M. (1993) Product and promotion adaptation in export ventures: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(3), 479-506. Cavusgil, S.T. and Knight, G. (2015) The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 3-16. Chetty, S. and Campbell-Hunt, C. (2004) A strategic approach to internationalization: A traditional versus a “born-global” approach. Journal of International Marketing, 12(1), 57-81. ISSN 1069-031X. Civelek, M.E. (2018). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi Metodolojisi. İstanbul: Beta. Clark, K. (1987) “Investment in New Technology and Competitive Advantage”, in D. Teece (ed.) The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal, Ballinger: Cambridge, MA., 59-81. Conner, K. and Prahalad, C.K. (1996) A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477-501. Coviello, N.E. and Munro, H.J. (1995) Growing the entrepreneurial firm: networking for international market development. European Journal of Marketing, 29(7), 49-61. Coviello, N. and Munro, H. (1997) Network relationships and the internationalisation process of small software firms. International Business Review, 6(4), 361-386. Covin, J. and Slevin, D. (1989) Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87. Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(April), 1-20. Dess, G., Lumpkin, G. and Covin, J. (1997) Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 2-23. Dierickx, I. and Cool, K. (1989) Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504-1510. International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 125 Dimitratos, P., Johnson, J., Slow, J. and Young, S. (2003). Micromultinationals: New types of firms for the global competitive landscape. European Management Journal, 21(2), 164-174. Dosi, G. (1988) Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120-1171 Eurofound (2012) Born global: The potential of job creation in new international businesses. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Freeman, S. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2007) Toward a typology of commitment states among managers of born-global firms: A study of accelerated internationalization. Journal of International Marketing, 15(4), 1-40. Freeman, S., Deligonul, S. and Cavusgil, T. (2013) Strategic re-structuring by born-globals using outward and inward-oriented activity. International Marketing Review, 30(2), 156-182. Grant, R.M. (1991) The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135. Grant, R.M. (1996) Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375-387. Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J., Griffith, D.A., Chabowski, B.R., Hamman, M.K. and Johnson- Dykes, B. (2008). An assessment of the measurement of performance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 1064-1080. Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1-15. Hymer, S. (1976) The International Operations of National Firms. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.E. (1977) The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23-32. Johanson, J. and Wiedersheim-Paul, F. (1975) The internationalization of the firm-four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305-322. Jolly, V.K., Alahuhta, M. and Jeannet, J.P. (1992) Challenging the incumbents: How high technology start-ups compete globally. Journal of Strategic Change, 1, 71-82. Khandwalla, P. (1997) The Design of Organizations, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 126 Kim, D., Basu, C., Naidu, G.M. and Cavusgil, E. (2011) The innovativeness of born-globals and customer orientation: Learning from Indian born-globals. Journal of Business Research, 64, 879-886. Knight, G.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (1996) The born global firm: A challenge to traditional internationalization theory. Advances in International Marketing, 8, 11-26. Knight, G.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2004) Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born- global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 124-141. Knight, G.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2005) A taxonomy of born-global firms. Aspects of the internationalization process in smaller firms. Management International Review, 45(3), 15-35. Knight, G. (2015) “Born global firms: Evolution of a contemporary phenomenon”, in S. Zou, H. Xu and L. Shi (eds.), Entrepreneurship in International Marketing, 25, 3-19. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993) Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 625-645. Kotabe, M. (1990) Corporate product policy and innovative behavior of European and Japanese multinationals: An empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 19-33. Kuivalainen, O., Saarenketo, S. and Puumalainen, K. (2012) Start-up patterns of internationalization: A framework and its application in the context of knowledge intensive SMEs. European Management Journal, 30(4), 372-385. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111-126. Leonidou, A. and Samiee, S. (2012) “Born global or simply rapidly internationalising? Review, critique, and future prospects”, in M. Gabrielsson and V.H.M. Kirpalani (eds), Handbook of Research on Born Globals. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lewin, A.Y. and Massini, S. (2003) “Knowledge Creation and Organizational Capabilities of Innovating and Imitating Firms”, in H. Tsoukas and N. Mylonopoulos (eds.) Organizations as Knowledge Systems. Palgrave: Basingstoke. Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, D. (1996) Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 21(1), 135-172. Madsen, T.K. and Servais, P. (1997) The Internationalization of born globals: An evolutionary process? International Business Review, 6(6), 561-583. International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 127 Martin, S.L., Javalgi, R.G. and Cavusgil, E. (2016) Marketing capabilities, positional advantage, and performance of born global firms: Contingent effect of ambidextrous innovation. International Business Review, xxx, xxx-xxx. Massini, S., Lewin, A.Y. and Greve, H.E. (2003) Innovators and Imitators: Organizational Reference Groups and Adoption of Organizational Routines, (unpublished manuscript). Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T. and Özsomer, A. (2002) The effects or entrepreneurial proclivity and market orientation on business performance. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 18-32. Matsuo, M. (2006) Customer orientation, conflict, and innovativeness in Japanese sales departments. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 242-250. McDougall, P. and Oviatt, B. (2000) International entrepreneurship: The intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 902-906. McDougall, P.P., Shane, S. and Oviatt, B.M. (1994) Explaining the formation of international new ventures: The limits of theories from international business research. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(6), 469-487. McKinsey and Co. (1993) Emerging Exporters: Australia’s High Value-Added Manufacturing Exporters. Melbourne: McKinsey and Co., Australian Manufacturing Council. Meliá, M.R., Perez, A.B. and Dobon, S.R. (2010). The influence of innovation orientation on the internationalisation of SMEs in the service sector. The Service Industries Journal, 30(5), 777-791. Menguc, B., Auh, S. and Shih, E. (2007) Transformational leadership and market orientation: Implications for the implementation of competitive strategies and business unit performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(4), 314-321. Meydan, C.H. and Şeşen, H. (2011) Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık. Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978) Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw- Hill: New York. Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1984) Organizations: A Quantum View, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mintzberg, H. (1973) The Nature of Managerial Work, Harper & Row: New York. Moen, O. (2000) The born globals: A new generation of small European exporters. International Marketing Review, 19(2), 156-175. International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 128 Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press: Cambridge, MA. Nonaka, I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. Nummela, N., Saarenketo, S. and Puumalainen K. (2004) A global mindset: A prerequisite for successful internationalization? Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 21(1), 51-64. Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P.P. (1994) Toward a Theory of International New Ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45-64. Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P.P. (1995). Global start-ups: Entrepreneurs on a worldwide stage. Academy of Management Executive, 9(2), 30-44. Penrose, E. (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Basil Blackwell: London. Polanyi, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension, Routledge & Kegan Paul: London. Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy, The Free Press: New York. Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91. Rennie, M.W. (1993) Global competitiveness: Born global. The McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 45-52. Rosson, P. and Ford, I.D. (1982) Manufacturer–overseas distributor relations and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 13(2), 57-72. Rumelt, R.P. (1984) Towards a Strategic Theory of the Firm, in R.B. Lamb (ed.) Competitive Strategic Management. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 131-145. Schumpeter, J. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Schumpeter, J. (1939) Business Cycles. Vol. 1. McGraw-Hill: New York. Shane, S.A. (2003) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing. Simmonds, K. and Smith, H. (1968) The first export order: A marketing innovation. British Journal of Marketing, 2(Summer), 93-100. Smith, W. (1956) Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing, 21(July), 3-8. Solow, R.M. (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(February), 312-320. International Journal of Commerce and Finance Ahu Tuğba Karabulut & Mustafa Emre Civelek & Merve Çelik 129 Soni, P.K., Lilien, G.L. and Wilson, D.T. (1993) Industrial innovation and firm performance: A reconceptualization and exploratory structural equation analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(4), 365-380. Steensma, H.K., Marino, L., Weaver, K.M. and Dickson, P. (2000) The influence of national culture on the formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 951-973. Teece, D. and Pisano, G. (1994) The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537-556. Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. Wernerfelt, B. (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180. Zahra, S.A., Ireland, R.D. and Hitt, M.A. (2000) International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 925-950.