4.7 Article

Barriers and public policies affecting the international expansion of Latin American SMEs: Evidence from Brazil, Colombia, and Peru

期刊

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH
卷 69, 期 6, 页码 2030-2039

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.148

关键词

Emerging markets; Government intervention; International expansion; Public policy; Latin American SMEs

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper aims to improve the understanding of the determinants of the international expansion of Latin American SMEs. To do this, it adopts an institution theory perspective to study the interaction between public policies and other drivers of SMEs' expansion in four main areas: access to public financial resources; access to public procurement contracts; adverse regulatory and inconsistent legal frameworks; and public assistance on information and knowledge about markets. We collected the data from 465 SMEs in Brazil, Colombia, and Peru and analysed it using multivariate regressions; the findings have implications for theory, practice, and policy making. The results suggest that Latin American SMEs belonging to larger institutions (like business groups) seem to be in a stronger position to expand internationally. In addition, they show that SMEs perceive difficulties/barriers for their international expansion, mainly in dealing with domestic regulations in the domestic economic environment, and in poor information about external markets. Also, the findings indicate that having the government as a customer has proved to be a facilitator for the firms to expand internationally. All in all, the findings of the paper enrich the debate on the impact of institutions, and in particular of public policies, on the international expansion of SMEs from emerging and transition economies by analysing the role of governments' policies and strategies intended to support the international expansion of firms and questioning their mid- to long-term impact. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据