Editorial

Citation

Cadogan, J.W. (2013), "Editorial", International Marketing Review, Vol. 30 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR.03630caa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: International Marketing Review, Volume 30, Issue 3.

In this issue of International Marketing Review, the first paper is an invited 30th Anniversary paper by Vahlne and Johanson. The authors build on and extend their seminal 1977 Journal of International Business Studies paper (the internationalization process of the firm: a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments), and their 1990 International Marketing Review paper (the mechanism of internationalization), arguing that the Uppsala model of internationalization is a theory that is relevant for individual firms, and is a coherent and viable alternative to the eclectic paradigm, which fails to adequately accommodate uncertainty and complexity at the individual firm level. The authors argue that the eclectic paradigm is less a theory of internationalization, but rather is a theory of foreign direct investment, whereas the Uppsala model focusses on the evolution of the multinational enterprise. The authors point out the consequences for theory, as well as for practice.

The second paper is a standard paper, by Lisboa, Skarmeas, and Lages, and deals with the issues of market exploitation and exploration in firms’ export operations. Intriguingly, the authors argue that exploitation and exploration affect export profit performance differently, depending on the export environment the firm faces. They also argue that exploitation and exploration may have non-linear relationships with export profit performance. Based on data gathered via a survey of Portuguese-manufacturing exporters, their findings provide partial support for their study hypotheses. For instance, an exploration strategy is most effective when supported by high levels of exploitation, while the impact of exploitation on export profits is invert U-shaped. The authors explore the practical implications for export managers.

Complementing Lisboa et al.'s study, Grinstein, Deshpandé, Kim, and Ofek's paper deals with the issue of the emergence of strategic orientations in entrepreneurial firms. Specifically, the authors study a core disposition of entrepreneurial firms’ founders – their achievement motivation – to see whether this motivation is a critical distinguishing characteristic of entrepreneurs. Using survey data from samples of Japanese and US businesses, the authors show that achievement motivation is positively related to both customer and competitor orientations, and that the relationship is robust across the western and non-western country samples used. The authors also find that these strategic orientations are consistent drivers of export success across the national samples.

The final paper in this issue is by de Mooij, and is very much a response to the paper published in International Marketing Review in 2012 by Brewer and Venaik (on the misuse of national cultural dimensions). De Mooij sets about trying to clarify when and how national culture variables can be interpreted, and why national culture is not necessarily a good predictor of individual behavior. Another objective of the study is to clarify the differences between Hofstede's and House et al.'s culture models. In this respect, de Mooij discusses the different ways that the two studies were conducted, both in terms of the philosophy underpinning the studies, and the sources of the data used to assemble the measures of culture. De Mooij also deals with issues regarding the construction of theory using culture models, and the errors that may occur from problems with interpretation of the content of the culture dimensions.

John W. Cadogan