THE STRATEGY TRIPOD PERSPECTIVE IN EXPLAINING FIRMS’ EXPORT PERFORMANCE Текст научной статьи по специальности «Экономика и бизнес»

ю DOI: 10.29141/2218-5003-2021-12-5-4 ы JEL Classification: F23, L22, L25

■Н

g The strategy tripod perspective § in explaining firms' export performance

Hasan Boztoprak1, Mehmet Eryilmaz2

m

2 1 Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey 5 2 Bursa Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey

Abstract. Current institution-based view studies in the literature have focused on macro-level data, therefore, they provide limited implication on export performance and institutional profile relationship. This is a crucial problem and it is required to look at the relationship more closely by performing organization-level research. The article deals with the institution-based view by introducing a novel methodological perspective. The institution-based view and strategy tripod perspective constitute the methodological basis of the study. The authors reframed conceptual model of Su, Peng and Xie [2016] and viewed the mediating role of institutional and industrial variables instead of the moderating role. In line with this purpose, the authors gathered survey data consisting of a sample of 187 export firms operating in Turkey and used Baron and Kenny method to test the mediating role of variables by applying structural equation modelling. The research findings indicate that institutional profile in which the firms are embedded and the strategic position in the industry have a full mediation role in the relationship between the resources and capabilities of firms and export performance. Also, resource and capabilities might affect the strategic positioning and institution perception of managers. The theoretical and practical implication of the study revealed that institutions matter as emphasized in literature. That is the reason why academician and managers have to consider the function of institutional profile for better performance, as well as the function of resource acquisition and strategic positioning.

Keywords: strategy tripod perspective; resources; export performance; institution-based view; industry-based view; resource-

based view; Turkey.

Paper submitted: June 3, 2021

For citation: Boztoprak H., Eryilmaz M. (2021). The strategy tripod perspective in explaining firms' export performance. Upravlen-ets - The Manager, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 50-69. DOI: 10.29141/2218-5003-2021-12-5-4.

Результаты экспортной деятельности фирмы: взгляд с позиции модели триединства стратегической перспективы

Хасан Бозтопрак1, Мехмет Эрилмаз2

1 Университет Бейкент, г. Стамбул, Турция

2 Университет Бурса Улудаг, г. Бурса, Турция

Аннотация. Научная литература в области институциональной экономики фокусируется на макроэкономических измерениях и почти не затрагивает вопросов результативности деятельности компаний. Статья посвящена анализу роли институционального профиля (среды) и стратегического позиционирования фирмы как медиаторов зависимости «ресурсы -результаты экспортной деятельности». Методологическую основу исследования составили теоретические положения институциональной экономики и модель триединства стратегической перспективы. В работе использована адаптированная для исследовательских целей концептуальная модель Ж. Су, М. Пенга и Е. Кси (2016 г.), позволяющая проанализировать роль институциональных и отраслевых факторов как медиаторов зависимости между ресурсами и результатами экспортной деятельности фирмы. Для анализа эффекта медиации с помощью моделей структурных уравнений применялся метод Бэрона и Кенни. Информационной базой исследования послужили данные опросов 187 турецких компаний-экспортеров. Установлено, что институциональный профиль и стратегическая позиция фирмы в конкретной отрасли являются значимыми факторами - медиаторами взаимодействия между ресурсами (возможностями) фирмы и результатами ее экспортной деятельности. Доказана значимость институциональных факторов в данном взаимодействии и подтверждена гипотеза о возможности применения модели триединства стратегической перспективы при обосновании эффективности деятельности фирмы. При распределении ресурсов и формулировке стратегии компании менеджерам рекомендовано учитывать институциональный профиль страны-партнера, поскольку он оказывает значимое влияние на результаты хозяйственной деятельности фирмы.

Ключевые слова: триединство стратегической перспективы; ресурсы; результаты экспортной деятельности; институциональный подход; отраслевой подход; ресурсный подход; Турция. . Дата поступления статьи: 3 июня 2021 г.

Ссылка для цитирования: Boztoprak H., Eryilmaz M. (2021). The strategy tripod perspective in explaining firms' export performance // Управленец. Т. 12, № 5. С. 50-69. DOI: 10.29141/2218-5003-2021-12-5-4.

INTRODUCTION

Explaining the performance differences between firms and sources of competitive advantage is important theoretical and empirical subject in the field of strategic management (SM) [Hawawini, Subramanian, Verdin, 2003; Martin, Madhok, Sánche, 2014]. Since the late 1990s, scholars have initiated a discussion on problems associated with universalization of the competitive advantage arising from the institutional context in the SM field. So, strategy, organizational structure and managerial concept that yield good results in a given institutional context cannot provide the same results in others. To solve this problem, it is required to take institutional structures into consideration [Hoskisson et al., 1999]. In particular, institutional differences between developed and emerging economies have reduced the impact of traditional views [Peng, Wang, Jiang, 2008] and highlighted institutional theory in developing countries [Nguyen, Le, Bryant, 2013]. Martin, Madhok and Sánche [2014] stated that institutional theory has occupied a unique place in the literature on strategic management since 2000. Today, the SM literature recognizes the determining role of external actors, by laying aside the rational actor perspective. However, the context in which the institutional constituents will be positioned within the SM literature remains a central research problem.

As a result of the attempts to bridge this gap, the institution-based view (IBV) and the strategy tripod perspective (STP) occurred in the SM literature. The concepts were introduced by Peng [2002]. The IBV emerged as a complementary idea to the industry- and resource-based views, and originated from institutional theory and institutional economics [Peng et al., 2009; Peng et al., 2018]. In spite of being still substantial, former views are not sufficient to explain complex phenomena entirely [Su, Peng, Xie, 2016] and therefore the STP combined all the three views. Later on, the IBV became a fruitful research field for numerous scholars (see, for example, [Meyer, Peng, 2005; Yamakawa, Peng, Deeds, 2008; Peng, Wang, Jiang, 2008; Peng, 2009; Peng et al., 2009; Su, Peng, Xie, 2016; Peng et al., 2018]).

However, the STP literature is not completely monolithic and is characterized by a considerable diversity of theoretical and empirical studies. In some works (see, for example, [Ngo et al., 2016]), three factors were considered as independent variables, whilst other publications (see, for example, [Su, Peng, Xie, 2016; Ju, Zhao, Wang, 2014; Nguyen, Le, Bryant, 2013; Lu, Liu, Wang, 2010]) treated institutional and industrial variables as moderators. Nevertheless, the mediating roles of industrial positioning and institutional profile may yield promising results for the theoretical evolution of STP as the mediating analysis can explain the indirect relationship between determinants and export performance [Carlos, Sousa, He, 2014]. Therefore, the current research trend needs more elaborate analysis of the dynamic interaction be-

tween organizations and institutions highlighted by 3 Peng [2002]. Methodologically, some recent studies (see, I for example, [Garrido et al., 2014; Cruz, Boehe, Ogasavara, g 2015; Vecchi, Piana, Vivacqua, 2015; Lee et al., 2015]) de- 2 fined the institutional profile at country level through a < number of indices (e.g. Global Competitiveness Report, g Global Innovation Index, Ease of Doing Business Index ¡Si of World Bank, etc.). However, data based on this defi- £ nition may present some challenges in explaining how 5 institutions affect firm performance because of lacking H micro-level data [Ya§ar, Paul, Ward, 2011]. Moreover, the £ institutional factors were measured within a relatively constricted framework in numerous studies (e.g., with government support and dysfunctional competition by Su, Peng and Xie [2016]; with free market mechanism and intermediate institutions development by Gao et al. [2010], and with supportive government policies by Lu, Liu and Wang [2010]). Indeed, the difficulty in defining institutions was expressed by Garrido et al. [2014]. Making the institutional environment operational in a generic form will provide useful methodology for future studies.

Likewise, the industry-based view and resource-based view (RBV) were operationalized within a constricted framework in previous studies. For example, Su, Peng and Xie [2016] operationalized the IBV through competitive intensity and technological turbulence, and the RBV through knowledge creation capacity. In a similar vein, Lu, Liu and Wang [2010] operationalized the industry-based view through industry competition and industry R&D intensity, and the RBV through export experience and technology-based competitive advantage. To operationalize the IBV, focusing on the position of the firm against the five forces defined by Porter [1980], rather than focusing on the industry structure, will clarify the industry-related impacts on firm performance. On this subject, it was believed that the attractive relative position concept of Porter [1991] may be of use.

The present research was designed in the context of export activities in order to define the home country institutional profile clearly. Export activities are an important focus of interest for economic development in Turkey. Therefore, the country has features that can be examined within the framework of the IBV due to both institutional structure and the internationalization efforts of firms. Hence, Yaprak, Yosun and Cetindamar [2018] highlighted the importance of institutional arrangements for export in Turkey. The research in the country-specific context will also have a potential for contribution to the theoretical development of the IBV. So, Peng, Wang and Jiang [2008] stated that IBV research conducted in emerging economies were going to take an important theoretical path because institutions in emerging economies might affect the strategy and performance of firms [Gao et al., 2010].

2 Export activities have recently been subject to a large

3 number of studies within the framework of the IBV [Gao I et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2013; He, Brouthers, Filatotchev, S 2013; Ju, Zhao, Wang, 2014; Wu, Chen, 2014; Gaur, Ku-£ mar, Singh, 2014; Cruz, Boehe, Ogasavara, 2015; Ngo et ¡5 al., 2016; Ngo, Janssen, 2016; Boehe, Qian, Peng, 2016; < Monticelli et al., 2017]. This approach coincides with the S practical aims of the IBV. Therefore, one of its practical

implications is to enable firms operating in emerging countries to strengthen their competitiveness [Peng et al., 2008]. Indeed, the institutional quality in emerging markets has captured an increasing amount of attention in recent years [Eren, Jimenez, 2015]. With research in developing nations such as Turkey, Vietnam and China, many authors (see, for example, [Gao et al., 2010; Nguyen, Le, Bryant, 2013; Wu, Chen, 2014; Lee et al., 2015; Sun et al., 2015; Ngo et al., 2016; Monticelli et al., 2017; Han et al., 2018; Yaprak, Yosun, Cetindamar, 2018]) have highlighted the importance of the institutional structure of the home country for exporting firms.

Current institution-based view researches have focused on macro-level data, that is why they provide limited explanation on export performance and institutional profile relation. Here, we aim to address the relationship more closely by conducting an organization-level study. To do this, we propose survey-based research and a novel methodology. We regard the conceptual model of Su, Peng and Xie [2016] as significant. However, it is required to reframe the model to view the mediating role of institutional and industrial variables because the mediator effect of these factors might shed light on the theoretical orientation in the STP literature and this methodological manner might elicit institutions matter as institution-based view emphasized.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Strategy Tripod Perspective. In a pioneering study, Peng [2002] proposed the IBV integrated with the RBV as a result of examination of various company strategies to find the answer to the question "why do strategies of firms

from different countries differ?". In the paper, Peng [2002, p. 253] explained the IBV as follows: "...We are much more conscious of the importance of the relationships between organizations and institutions. Treating institutions as independent variables, an institution-based view on business strategy, therefore, focuses on the dynamic interaction between institutions and organizations, and considers strategic choices as the outcome of such an interaction. Specifically, strategic choices are not only driven by industry conditions and firm-specific resources that traditional strategy research emphasizes [Barney, 1991; Porter, 1980], but are also a reflection of the formal and informal constraints of a particular institutional framework that decision makers confront Meyer and Peng [2005] integrated the industry-based view (organizational economics) in addition to the RBV and introduced Strategy Tripod Perspective shown in Fig. 1. Peng, Wang and Jiang [2008] have shed light on how the STP can explain firm strategy and performance in the context of international business.

Institutions and Export Performance. The impact of the institutional environment on the strategic choice and performance emanates from the permitting/facilitative or inhibiting/restrictive roles of the regulatory, normative and cognitive institutional pillars [Ngo et al., 2016]. Therefore, the IBV suggests that firms have to consider influential factors, such as the state and society, while formulating strategies [Peng, 2009]. Firms also endeavor to optimize performance depending on the institutional context in which they are embedded [Monticelli et al., 2017]. Ahuja et al. [2018] conceptualized the institution-based strategy to portray the interplay between strategic choice, firm performance, industry structure and institutions. The authors also coined the notion of the institutional envelope to describe the institutions by highlighting their influence on organizational activities.

The institutions might have positive or negative effects on the export activities and performance [Gao et al., 2010]. Carlos, Sousa and He [2014] theoretically indicated the importance of country level institutional factors for export performance. Firms in emerging econo-

Fig. 1. The strategy tripod perspective1 Рис. 1. Модель триединства стратегической перспективы

1 Source: Peng [2009].

mies must operate under resource constraints and weak institutional structure [Gaur, Kumar, Singh, 2014]. Weak institutional structure in the home country might bring both advantages and disadvantages for export firms [Boehe, Qian, Peng, 2016]. Sun et al. [2015] argued that there are two views on the role of the home country in the internationalization of firms, known as escape and fostering. Nguyen, Le and Bryant [2013] assigned the role of institutions in categories that push and pull factors. LiPuma, Newbert and Doh [2013] empirically demonstrated that institutional quality factors in the home country affect export performance. However, Ngo et al. [2016] stated that the supportive and preventive role of the institutional profile on the export performance in the home country is ignored. Also, Lee et al. [2015] claimed that the institutional structure of the host country was emphasized much more than of the home country to analyze export activities.

Ju, Zhao and Wang [2014] tried to explain empirically the export performance through the STP within the framework of relational management (RBV), industry uncertainty (industry-based view) and institutional distance (IBV). The authors concluded that relational management is valuable for export performance in the environment where institutional distance is high and uncertainty in industry is low. Nguyen, Le and Bryant [2013] also demonstrated that local institutions have a moderating role in the relationship between firm strategy and performance. Su, Peng and Xie [2016] provided an important model for the operationalization of the STP in the context of performance. Inspired by the study of Lu, Liu and Wang [2010], Su and colleagues [2016] empirically examined the impact of knowledge creation capability on firm performance on the basis of the STP and concluded that the relationship varies depending on the situation in the industry and the institutional structure.

Hypothesis Development. We reframed the model of Su, Peng and Xie [2016] and designed the institutional and industrial variables as mediator variables. Exporting companies in developing countries must hold valuable, rare and inimitable resources to perform better [Boehe, Qian, Peng, 2016]. Indeed, various studies (see, for example, [Dhanaraj, Beamish, 2003; Leonidou, Palihawadana, Theodosiou, 2011; He, Brouthers, Filatotchev, 2013]) have examined how the firm-specific resources and capabilities affect export performance. Within the framework of the STP, Ju, Zhao and Wang [2014] found that resources (relational governance) affect firm performance. Thus, it is assumed that firms' export related resources and capabilities would have a positive effect on their export performances.

Hypothesis 1a. The resources and capabilities of a firm significantly increase the firm's export performance.

Some previous studies (see, for example, [Hooley et al., 2001; Kim, Song, Koo, 2008]) have drawn attention to the relationships between resource-capability endowment

and strategic positioning. Firms possessing resources and °

capabilities might have a unique strategic position in the ii

industry. By adopting the STP, Xie et al. [2011] demon- I

strated that the resources of a firm can affect its strategic g

positioning. Considering this finding, it is hypothesized 2

that: ¡

Hypothesis 1b. The resources and capabilities of a firm g

significantly increase the strategic position of the firm in ¡Si

the industry. £

u

In the institutional entrepreneurship literature, it is 5

stated that firms can utilize their resources for creation H

tt

or transformation of the institutions [Maguire, Hardy, S Lawrence, 2004]. In the context of institutional theory literature, some studies point out the interplay between resources and institutions [Oliver, 1997; Moser, Kuklinski, Weidmann, 2014]. In a similar vein, Peng [2002] also indicated the importance of the dynamic interaction between organizations and institutions. Based on this conception, we assumed that firms might leverage export-related resources and capabilities to shape the export-related institutional profile. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 1c. The resources and capabilities of a firm significantly increase the firm's institutional profile in which the they are embedded.

Organizations in emerging economies face various problems due to lack of sufficient resources in internationalization and try to overcome this shortage through opportunities provided by the industrial structure or the institutional profile [Elango, Pattnaik, 2007; Cuervo-Cazurra, Gen?, 2008; Gaur, Kumar, Singh, 2014]. Kim, Song and Koo [2008] demonstrated empirically the effect of strategic positioning on firm performance. A few studies (see, for example, [Hawawini, Subramanian, Verdin, 2003; Rivard, Raymond, Verreault, 2016]) have empirically analyzed the integrity of the RBV and the IBV. In contrast, £avu§gil and Zou [1994] empirically indicated that industrial structure effects export strategy and performance. By adopting the STP, Ju, Zhao and Wang [2014] found industry uncertainty as an industry-related factor that can affect firm performance. Therefore, it is suggested that:

Hypothesis 2a. The strategic position of the firm in the industry significantly increases the firm's export performance.

Ahuja et al. [2018] stated that institutions shape not only the firm's strategy, but also firm performance. Martin, Madhok and Sánche [2014] conceptualized the relationships between institutions and firm performance as an institutional advantage. Gaur, Kumar and Singh [2014] supported this approach and stated that the nature of emerging market institutions may lead to institution-based advantages that motivate exporting firms to utilize more resources for export activities. LiPuma, Newbert and Doh [2013] indicated the importance of institutional quality in emerging countries for export performance. According to the IBV, firms can perform

better by conforming to the institutional environment [Peng, 2003]. By adopting the IBV, Ngo et al. [2016] also demonstrated the importance of institutions for export performance. Similarly, Wang et al. [2013] confirmed empirically the relationship between institutions and export performance. By considering these views, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 2b. The institutional profile in which the firm is embedded significantly increases the firm's export performance.

Firms can overcome constraints of industrial and institutional factors by leveraging resource and capabilities. This idea reveals that effectiveness and efficiency of resources might be limited by these external constituents. It is assumed that analysis of the mediating role of external factors will exhibit the dynamic interaction among those factors. Indeed, Carlos, Sousa and He [2014, p. 630] underlined the interplay between external forces (institutional and industrial) and internal resources: "...Furthermore, the competitive advantage derived from a firm's resources, and influenced by institutions, is neither fixed nor infallible. It is, instead, conditioned by the co-alignment between internal resources and external forces".

Guo, Xu and Jacobs [2014] indicated that institutional support, legitimacy and entrepreneurship opportunity recognition have a mediating role between the political ties of managers and firm performance. Zhou, Wu and Luo [2007] depicted empirically the mediating role of Chinese social network forms, known as guanxi, on the relationships between inward/outward internationalization and export performance. In this context, the hypothesis was formed as:

Hypothesis 3. The relationship between the resources and capabilities of the firm and its export performance shall be mediated through the institutional profile in which the firm is embedded and the strategic position of the firm in the industry (Fig. 2).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Population and Sample. Gao et al. [2010] stated that industry meets the concept of organizational field in institutional theory due to the intensity of mimetic actions among firms in same industry. Indeed, a few studies (see, for example, [Wu, Ding, Chen, 2012]) in institutional theory focused on export firms in specific industries. Here we focused on the textile industry that has an important place in Turkey's exports. Turkey has been an important exporting country in the textile industry for many years [Yaprak, Yosun, Cetindamar, 2018].

We used a list published by Istanbul Textile and Apparel Exporters' Association to designate the population. The list included 11,439 firms but we detected that only 10,860 firms had contact information and 1,258 firms were accessible by telephone.

Data Collection. By adopting a simple random sampling method, we attempted to contact managers by telephone, but we were able to get in touch with 205 respondents. At this stage, the return rate was 16.3 %. We excluded 18 questionnaires because of incomplete data, and the final sample included 187 firms. Baruch and Holtom [2008] stated that the survey response rate in firm level studies is very low compared to individual level research. In addition, it is known to be low in studies where respondents are senior managers [Boyd, Reuning-Elliott, 1998].

We designed a questionnaire consisting of five parts: demographic data; scales of resources and capabilities; strategic positioning; institutional profile; and export performance (see Appendix).

The RBV is often subjected to criticism when it comes to the resources and capabilities definition related issues [Collis, 1994; Teece, Pisano, Shuen, 1997; Eisenhardt, Martin, 2000]. Regarding this criticism, we adopted the scales developed by Leonidou, Palihawadana and Theodosiou [2011], which allow measuring resources and capabilities in the context of export activities. The authors designed

Fig. 2. Research model Рис. 2. Модель исследования

two separate scales. The one for resources consists of three factors embracing 15 items. The other for capabilities consists of three factors including 12 items. The responses for both scales range from "not existing at all" to "very high existence" but unlike the original study, we preferred 5-point Likert scale.

In empirical studies on ind ustrial structure, Porter's five forces model is often used (see, for example, [Powel, 1996; Weerawardena, O'Cass, Julian, 2006; Dobbs, 2014]). In this study, we adopted the scale redesigned by Weerawardena, O'Cass and Julian [2006]. The original scale consisting of 54 items was developed by Pecotich [1999], which was later refined and reduced to 25 items by Weerawardena, O'Cass and Julian [2006]. Responses are given on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree".

Survey-based empirical studies were conducted within the framework of institutional environment, institutional pressures, institutional factors, and the country's institutional profile [Kostova, 1997; Busenitz, Gómez, Spencer, 2000; Teo, Wei, Benbasat, 2003; Descotes, Walliser, Guo, 2007; Descotes et al., 2011; Wu, Ding, Chen, 2012; Stenholm, Acs, Wuebker, 2013; Wu, Chen, 2014; Ngo et al., 2016; Su, Peng, Xie, 2016]. The regulatory, normative and cultural-cognitive institutional pillars defined by Scott [2005] have also been used in some studies (see, for example, [Kostova, 1997; Busenitz, Gómez, Spencer, 2000; Descotes, Walliser, Guo, 2007; Torre-Castro, Lindstrom, 2012; Stenholm, Acs, Wuebker, 2013; Lamb, Roundy, 2018]). In a conceptual discussion, Yamakawa, Peng and Deeds [2008] indicated the institutional pillars to operationalize the IBV. Kostova and Hult [2016] pointed out institutional pillars in their recent critical study on the IBV. Similarly, Meyer and Peng [2016] acknowledged that institutional pillars might define institutional pressures in the IBV. Taking the insights into consideration, we adopted the scale developed by Descotes, Walliser and Guo [2007], since the scale provides comprehensive measurement opportunities and addresses export activities. Such that, Peng et al. [2009] emphasized the need for stronger measurement for institutions. We believe the scale developed by Descotes and colleagues will help to solve this problem. The scale consists of 19

items with 3 factors (regulatory, normative and cogni- ° tive), and reflects institutional influences on internation- ii al firms such as regulatory structures, government agen- I cies, laws, judicial authorities, professional associations, g public opinion and culture [Scott, 2003; Ferreira, Li, Suk, £ 2009]. The authors tested the scale in a survey of compa- < nies in Romania and France in 2011. Responses are given g using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" ¡Si to "strongly disagree". £

Sousa [2004] discussed objective and subjective meas- 5 ures of export performance. According to Sousa, the sub- H dimensions can be estimated with the subjective form £ of measurement designed as a questionnaire and this is used more widely. However, it is an important problem that the Likert scale affects the reliability of the measurement. In this regard, Filatotchev et al. [2009] suggested that it is more appropriate to measure the satisfaction level about export performance. Taking into consideration these evaluations, we adopted the scale developed by La-ges and Montgomery [2004]. The measurement consisted of a single factor and 5 items. We utilized a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "not satisfied at all" to "extremely satisfied".

Method of Data Analysis. At first descriptive, reliability, validity and correlation analyses were performed in the SPSS software. SmartPLS was used to obtain other reliability and validity values of the variables (C.R. and AVE). We used the AMOS software for confirmatory factor analysis and hypothesis testing through structural equation modeling (SEM). Most SM studies testing the mediation role of variables are based on the causal-steps procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny [Baron, Kenny, 1986; Agu-inis, Edwards, Bradley, 2017].

RESEARCH RESULTS

Demographics, Reliability, Validity and Descriptive Statistics. The profiles of the respondent firms are given in Table 1. It can be seen that more than half of the companies were established after 2001 and 93.6 % are SMEs. In addition, more than half of the firms have been exporting for less than 5 years.

We removed some items from the scales because of validity and reliability results, and the final values are

Table 1 - Profile of respondent firms Таблица 1 - Характеристики фирм-респондентов

Feature Date n % Feature Year n %

19SG and before 1G 5.3 G-5 97 51.9

19S1-199G 2S 15.G 6-10 27 14.4

Date 1991-2GGG 2S 15.G Export 11-15 25 13.4

of establishment 2GG1-2G1G 6G 32.1 experience 16-20 14 7.5

2G11-2G1S б1 32.6 Over 21 24 12.S

Total 187 100.0 Total 187 100.0

Table 1 (concluded) Окончание таблицы 1

Feature Employee n % Feature Year n %

1-9 64 34.2 0-20 75 40.1

10-49 73 39.0 Export revenue rate 21-40 14 7.5

Number 50-249 38 20.3 41-60 17 9.1

of employees Over 250 12 6.4 in total 61-80 19 10.2

Total 187 100.0 revenues 81-100 62 33.2

Total 187 100.0

presented in Table 2. The minimum Cronbach's alpha coefficient of variables was .86 (for "New entrants"), which was above the recommended limit (.70) for reliability. The minimum composite reliability coefficient was .90 (for "New entrants"), which was above the recommended limit (.70) for reliability. We computed the convergent validity through average variance extracted (AVE), using the SmartPLS software and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) using the SPSS software. The KMO values are higher than .50 and satisfactory. Similarly, the AVE values are above .50.

Discriminant validity is the extent to which measurement A discriminates from other measurements, and if the AVE for each construct is greater than its shared variance with any other construct, discriminant validity is supported [Farrell, Rudd, 2009]. AVE values were greater than their shared variance, and discrimination for measurement validity was fulfilled. We performed Confirmative Factor Analysis (CFA) for all measurements. The goodness of fit values of variables indicates good fit in general (Table 3). Only some values of strategic positioning have problem, although those indicate acceptable fit according to

Table 2 - Reliability and convergent validity of variables Таблица 2 - Надежность и конвергентная валидность переменных

Factor Items Alpha C.R. AVE KMO Total Var. Var. Ex.

Managerial resources 3 .975 .984 .953 30.273

Production and (R&D) resources 4 .865 .911 .720 .873 85.649 29.853

Intellectual resources 3 .932 .958 .884 25.523

Business identification capabilities 3 .970 .980 .943 .897 93.584 47.056

Innovation capabilities 3 .957 .972 .921 46.528

Industry structure competition 3 .877 .924 .802 19.624

New entrants 5 .864 .905 .661 .816 78.380 19.960

Substitutes 4 .925 .947 .817 21.864

Buyers 3 .899 .939 .838 16.932

Regulative institutions 6 .969 .974 .861 37.126

Normative institutions 4 .977 .983 .936 .853 88.169 27.059

Cognitive institutions 4 .932 .951 .828 23.984

Export performance 4 .967 - - .846 91.061 91.061

Table 3 - The goodness of fit values of the scales Таблица 3 - Оценка адекватности значений используемых шкал

Scale X2/df GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA RMR

Export-related organizational resources 2.816 .915 .915 .972 .099 .074

Export-related organizational capabilities 1.656 .986 .939 .998 .059 .004

Strategic positioning 2.673 .869 .806 .937 .095 .050

Institutional profile 2.119 .979 .851 .979 .078 .027

Export performance .597 .997 .984 1.00 .000 .003

Good fit < 3 > .90 > .90 > .97 < .05 < .05

Acceptable fit < 5 > .85 > .85 > .95 < .08 < .08

Note: GFI denotes goodness of fit index; AGFI is adjusted goodness of fit index; CFI denotes comparative fit index; RMSEA is root mean square error of approximation; RMR stands for root mean square residual. Source: Meydan, §e?en [2015].

some suggestions in the literature. For example, adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) > .80 and comparative fit index (CFI) > .90 are acceptable values [Reis, Hino, Anez, 2010]. MacCallum, Browne and Sugawara [1996] also suggested that RMSEA values in the range of .08 to .10 indicate mediocre fit.

The descriptive statistics and the correlation coefficients are shown in Table 4. We found means of variables between 2.39 and 3.58 and the standard deviations were between .52 and .86 which meant that the averages of variables were close to the central value. We found significant correlations (p < .001) between dependent and independent variables except strategic positioning and export performance. In addition, we explored skewness and kurtosis values and they are in between acceptable level which Brown stated to implement SEM [Brown, 2006; Griffin, Steinbrecher, 2013].

Then we analyzed skewness and kurtosis to determine how the measurements met the normality assumption.

Hypothesis Testing. The method developed by Baron and Kenny [1986] is widely used in mediation tests using SEM. The authors presented an analysis technique that proceeds in three-steps.

In this context, in order to find the effect of resources and capabilities on export performance, the SEM (Model I) was established as shown in Fig. 3. The goodness of fit index given in Table 5 indicates that the model fits well. Only the RMSEA value is .054, but it displays acceptable fit. The model explains 23.3 % of the variance of export performance (R2 = .233). The results indicate that coefficient is positive and significant, consistent with the hypothesis (P = .483, p < .001), and H1a is accepted.

At the second stage, we added mediator variables and established the path analysis (Model II) given in Fig. 4. The values presented in Table 6 show path analysis model has acceptable goodness of fit values. The model including mediating variables represents 57.7 % of variance of the export performance (R2 = .577) which is satisfactory.

As seen from Table 6, in the second model, standardized regression coefficients for all paths are significant and only H1b is rejected. The impact of the firm's resources and capabilities on the firm's strategic position in the sector is significant, but contrary to expectations, it is negative (P = -.171; p < .05). The effect of resources and capabilities on the institutional profile in which firm was embedded

Table 4 - Descriptive statistics and the correlation coefficients Таблица 4 - Описательная статистика и коэффициенты корреляции

Variable 1 2 3 4 M. SD.

Resources and capabilities 1 3.4S .82

Strategic positioning -.119 1 2.39 .52

Institutional profile 235»» -.269*** 1 3.58 .53

Export performance .469»» .GS6 .417*** .2SS*** 3.32 .86

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. M denotes mean; SD denotes standard deviation.

(sb Managerial ,56

(5b R&D ,80 <-

Intellectual ,86

("> Identification ¿4

Ob Innovation ,95

Fig. 3. Initial model (Model I) Рис. 3. Исходная модель (модель I)

H«"©

Table 5 - Goodness of fit statistics of mediation test Таблица 5 - Оценка адекватности статистических показателей теста на медиацию

Scale X2/df GFI AGFI CFI RMSEA RMR

Model I 1.548 .958 .920 .992 .054 .030

Model II 1.877 .899 .856 .959 .069 .042

сч о сч

1 r,35

Normative

Cognitive

Fig. 4. Path analysis for mediation test (Model II) Рис. 4. Анализ связей для теста на медиацию (модель II)

Table 6 - Hypotheses testing Таблица 6 - Результаты тестирования гипотез

Model Path specified H Coefficient Result

Independent variable Path Dependent variable Std. Est. Std. Ind. Effect

Model I (without mediator) R2 = .233 Resources and capabilities - Export performance H 1a .483*** - Accepted

Model II (with mediator) R2 = .577 Resources and capabilities - Strategic positioning H 1b -.171* - Rejected

Resources and capabilities - Institutional profile H 1c 535*** - Accepted

Strategic positioning - Export performance H2a .206** - Accepted

Institutional profile - Export performance H2b .678** - Accepted

Resources and capabilities - Export performance H3 .129(ns) .328** Accepted

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

is significant and positive (P = .535; p < .001) and thereby, H1c is accepted. The effect of strategic positioning on export performance is significant and positive (P = .206; p < .01) and thus H2a is accepted. Again, the effect of the institutional profile on export performance is significant and positive, consistent with the hypothesis (P = .678; p < .01), and thereby, H2b is accepted.

Finally, the effect of resources and capabilities on export performance is not significant (P = .129; p > .05) and

the conditions propounded by Baron and Kenny [1986] were met and consequently H3 is accepted. According to this result, the impact of resources and capabilities on export performance is fully mediated by the firm's strategic positioning and institutional profile. In other words, the impact of the firm's resources and capabilities on export performance depends on its position in the industry and the institutional profile in which it is embedded.

DISCUSSION

The main finding of the study was that the STP can explain firm performance. Indeed, the STP theoretically asserts that institutional environment plays an important role [Krull, Smith, Ge, 2012]. Reinforcing this theoretical idea, the research findings indicate that institutional profile has an enhancing effect on firm performance, as well as the resources and capabilities of the firms and their position in the industry. Overall, the findings support the view that institutional theory is an important theoretical instrument for understanding competitive structure in emerging economies [Peng, Wang, Jiang, 2008; Gao et al., 2010]. In addition, the findings provide an empirical cornerstone to answer the question "how organizations affect firm strategy and performance" pondered by Peng, Wang and Jiang [2008].

The research findings support the core claim of the RBV [Barney, 1991]. We found that export-related resources and capabilities increase export performance positively. In the context of the STP, the findings also support the research result of Ju, Zhao and Wang [2014]. However, the findings of this study do not provide supportive results for studies of Hooley et al. [2001] and Kim, Song and Koo [2008] which highlight the relationships between resources and strategic positioning. This result might stem from the characteristics of resources and capabilities that are related to export activities. So, firms holding export-related resources and capabilities perceive favorable the export-related institutional profile. This finding encourages the idea that the institutional entrepreneurship concept might occupy an important position in the STP for analyzing the firm-level responses to institutions. The findings are consistent results of some previous studies (see, for example, [Kim, Song, Koo, 2008; Ju, Zhao, Wang, 2014]) which claim that strategic positioning in the industry affects export performance. The research findings also support the studies (see, for example, [Wang et al., 2013; Ju, Zhao, Wang, 2014; Ngo et al., 2016]) asserting that institutional environment affects export performance and demonstrate that further studies in this field would be viable, when evaluated in terms of the IBV and export performance.

These findings support the arguments in some studies (see, for example, [Lu, Liu, Wang, 2010; Nguyen, 2013; Ju, Zhao, Wang, 2014; Su, Peng, Xie, 2016]) that emphasize the interaction between resource, industry and IBVs. The findings indicated that IBV, which has been examined in the moderating role in previous studies, has a mediating role together with the industry-based view. This result reveals the facilitative and restrictive role of institutions and strategic positioning for the utilization of resources.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we aimed to make a humble contribution to the IBV (and also strategy tripod perspective) literature. In previous studies the moderator role of the IBV

and industry-based view was considered, but analyzing ° the moderator role of the views has the capacity to pro- ii duce original implications to draw interaction between I the three pillars of the strategy. Thus, the present study g also moderately contributes to the literature by incorpo- £ rating SEM, which is a method used in SM literature since < the 1990s [Shook et al., 2004], into the IBV and strategy | tripod studies. ¡SI

Overall, the research results support the view that £ institutions matter. Another important theoretical impli- 5 cation is that terminology and arguments in the IBV dif- « fer from the institutional theory literature. Indeed, the £ IBV reflects the effort to incorporate institutional theory into the SM field. However, the IBV builds its theoretical background not only on institutional theory but also on institutional economics [Peng et al., 2009]. We deduced that the specific IBV methodology, jargon and arguments gradually emerge and shall be enriched.

In addition to theoretical implications, the study indicated that institutional theory and IBV studies can be methodologically conducted at the firm level. It was proved that institutional theory and IBV studies can be carried out through survey research instead of using macro-level data. It was also demonstrated that the institutional pillars (regulatory, normative and cognitive) proposed by Scott [2005] can be used in IBV research.

Another methodological and theoretical contribution of the study is on international business. The results showed that the IBV is an important theoretical instrument for firms' export performance. The study also contributes theoretically and empirically to studies analyzing the effect of institutional environment on export performance in the context of Turkey. The findings of the study indicated that institutional profile is a matter for firms' export performance and deeper studies in this direction are required. Again, the findings demonstrated that institutional profile contributes to explaining the performance of the firms in textile sector.

The study offers essential practical implications. For example, managers have to regard not only the resources and capabilities or the industry structure but also the institutional profile affecting firm performance and they have to consider the institutional profile as a factor in the strategy formulation stage. In particular, managers should understand the regulatory, normative and cognitive elements in the institutional profile and they should cultivate relationships with institutional constituents. In addition, the use of PEST analysis is important for identifying and understanding the institutional profile and the content of this analysis needs to be redesigned to cover the institutional profile.

Despite the theoretical and practical implications, the present study has significant limitations. First, the empirical research targeted export activities. An IBV research analyzing different activities such as entrepreneurship and innovation can provide different implications for the STP

6 • Стратегический менеджмент и корпоративное управление

2 and firm performance. However, we addressed the firms in

3 the textile industry in Turkey. Studies surveying the firms £ in different countries or industries may also produce differ-g ent implications regarding the STP and the IBV. Again, we £ regarded only the institutional context of the home coun-£ try. In order to understand the impact of institutions and I global competition on export performance, IBV research Ü regarding host countries may produce different results.

Due to the time constraint, we preferred questionnaire. However, the survey method does not show the dynamic relationship between institutions and organizations, but only depicts the situation in a certain period of time [He, Brouthers, Filatotchev, 2013]. The data obtained by the survey method provide limited information about the real situations in the field of management and organization [Erdemir, 2008] and remain in the perceptual dimension. In particular, the subjective export performance measurement limits the results of the study. In order to overcome these disadvantages, studies adopting longitudinal and objective measurements may produce different results. Moreover, sample size and content are important limiting factors. Different results can be obtained by forming

a larger and multi-industry sample. Moreover, an important part of the sample is composed of SME enterprises, and empirical research on a sample of large enterprises may also produce different results.

Briefly, present study revealed that institutional profile leads to differences in performance among firms. In this respect, the results slightly expand the view that the institutional profile has a differentiating effect on firms. In other words, the study demonstrated that institutions matter [Meyer, Peng, 2005; Peng et al., 2009] but did not explain how they have become so. The research findings provided important implications for future studies. In order to receive the answer to the question of how the institutions matter, future studies should utilize the variables in the STP as independent variables to test the direct effects of variables on firm performance and strategy. In particular, the identification of institutional impacts on firm performance will reveal the differentiating effect of the institutional profile on firm performance. This will then open the door to an approach which produces an answer to the question of how institutions matter.

Appendix. Questionnaires Приложение. Используемые опросники

Part I: Company profile

General information about your company is asked in the questions listed below

Your business?

Your job in company?

Company establishment date

Before 1980 1981-199G 1991-2GGG 2001-2010 2G11-2G2G

Company type

Corporation Limited company Unlimited company Other

Total number of employees in company

1-Ю 11-SG S1-2SG 251 and more

How many of your sales revenues in the last year are obtained from overseas sales?

1-2G % 21-4G% 41-6G % 61-8G% 81-^ %

How many years are you exporting?

G-S 6-Ю 11-1S 16-2G 21 and more

Part II: Scale of resources and capabilities for export (adopted from [Leonidou, Palihawadana, Theodosiou, 2011])

Please specify the availability of the following resources and capabilities in your company

5-point Likert scale ranging from "not existing at all" to "very high existence" 1 2 3 4 S

Special managerial interest/commitment in exporting

Specialized managerial skills/competence in exporting

Management experience/exposure in foreign markets

Favorable managerial attitude towards exports

Allocation of sufficient number of personnel to exporting

Personnel specially trained in export activities

Ю

Appendix (continued) ° Продолжение приложения g

15

tt ш

(9

Ш

EE

SÍ

Ш

z

Ш

u

ä et

Part III: Strategic positioning scale (adopted from [Weerawardena, O'Cass, Julian, 2006])

The questions listed below are related to your company's position in the industry, and please indicate your opinion by evaluating it according to the statement in the question

5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" 1 2 3 4 5

Firms compete intensely

Competitive moves have noticeable effects

Price competition

Price cutting

Competition is intense, fierce

Suppliers are important in industry

Suppliers can raise prices or reduce quality

Suppliers are powerful

Suppliers can gain concessions

Small number of suppliers contribute a large proportion of inputs

New entrants risk strong reaction

Industry can prevent new entrants

Retaliation by established firms on new entrants

New entrants spend heavily to overcome existing brand loyalties

Small scale entrants face considerable cost disadvantages

New entrants risk strong reaction

Strong competition from substitutes

Substitute products limit profitability

Products serve function easily serve by others

Large numbers of substitutes

Buyers are highly concentrated

Buyers are mainly wholesalers or retailers

Buyers are powerful

Buyers demand concessions

5-point Likert scale ranging from "not existing at all" to "very high existence" 1 2 3 4 5

Modern production technology and equipment for exporting

Availability of production capacity for exports

Possession of unique/patented products for foreign markets

Possession of proprietary technical knowledge for exports

Amount of money spent on R&D for exports

Knowledge about foreign market demand

Knowledge about foreign business practices

Knowledge about export regulations and paperwork

Knowledge about export logistical requirements

Locating/analyzing potential foreign markets

Identifying attractive foreign business opportunities

Contacting prospective foreign customers

Acquiring specialized information in foreign markets

Understanding overseas customer requirements

Obtaining reliable representation in foreign markets

Establishing business ties with other organizations in foreign markets

Establishing and maintaining close supplier relationships

Adopting new methods and ideas in the production process

Developing new/innovative products for foreign markets

Adopting innovative export marketing techniques and methods

Sensing trends and competitors' movements in overseas markets

Appendix (concluded) Окончание приложения

Part IV: Institutional profile scale (adopted from [Descotes et al., 2007])

The following questions are aimed at understanding the impact of various institutions on your company's export activities

5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" 1 2 3 4 5

Governmental organizations in this country assist SMEs in exporting

The government sets support programs for SMEs willing to export

At both local and national levels, governmental bodies provide special support available for SMEs willing to internationalize

There are governmental financial aids targeted to help small business to export

Even after failing in an earlier try, the government assists small business in starting exporting again

Our government sets clear rules relative to the development of international activities of exporting SMEs

Rules for the development of international activities are very well communicated towards exporting SMEs

The governmental bodies pay much attention to the respect of the procedural exporting rules

The governmental bodies sanction on a regular basis SMEs not respecting the rules for the development of international activities

Firms to export are not financially supported by the government3

Doing exporting is admired in this country

In this country, exporting is viewed as the route to success

People in this country tend to greatly admire exporting enterprises

Doing exporting in this country is seen as a proof of performance

Exporting is a synonym to success in this country

Exporting is synonymous with the concept of "failure" in our country8

Most exporters know where to find information about foreign markets for their productsb

Generally speaking, enterprises are aware of how to procedurally develop their exporting activities before actually starting exporting activitiesb

Most of exporting enterprises know how to find out whether their products respond to the needs and expectations of a given foreign marketb

Exporters are able to deal with high levels of uncertainty related to foreign marketsb

Exporters know where to search for foreign customersb

Our managers do not know where to find the necessary information about the overseas markets that are suitable for our productsa,b

a These items are not included in the original questionnaire but only are included in this study. b We adjusted these items and we preferred "our managers" instead of exporters, and enterprises concepts.

Part V: Export performance scale (adopted from [Lages, Montgomery, 2004])

Please indicate your satisfaction level regarding your company's performance. Note: Please regard the last 1 (one) year

5-point Likert scale ranging from "we are not satisfied at all" to "we are extremely satisfied" 1 2 3 4 5

Export sales volume

Export sales revenue

Export profitability

Market share in the main importing market

Overall export performance

References

Aguinis H.J., Edwards R., Bradley K.J. (2017). Improving our understanding of moderation and mediation in strategic manage- d ment research. Organizational Research Methods, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 665-685. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115627498. ^ Ahuja G., Capron L., Lenox M., Yao D.A. (2018). Strategy and the institutional envelope. Strategy Science, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1, II-V. ^ https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2018.0062. ®

Barney J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 998-120. ¡5 Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, stra- < tegic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1173-1182. |

Baruch Y., Holtom B.C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, vol. 61, no. 8, ¡e pp. 1139-1160. £

Boehe D.M., Qian G., Peng M.W. (2016). Export intensity, scope, and destinations: Evidence from Brazil. Industrial Marketing z Management, vol. 57, pp. 127-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.01.006. |

Boyd B.K., Reuning-Elliot E. (1998). A measurement model of strategic planning. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 19, issue 2, £ pp. 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199802)19:2<181::AID-SMJ945>3.0.C0;2-Z. =

Brown T.A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.

Busenitz L.W., Gomez C., Spencer J.W. (2000). Country institutional profiles: Unlocking entrepreneurial phenomena. The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 994-1003. Carlos J.C., Sousa M.P., He X. (2014). The determinants of export performance: A review of the literature 2006-2014. International

Marketing Review, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 626-670. DOI: 10.1108/IMR-10-2015-0212. £avu§gil S.T., Zou S. (1994). Marketing strategy-performance relationship: An investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. Journal of Marketing, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 1-21. Collis D.J. (1994). Research note: How valuable are organizational capabilities? Strategic Management Journal, Special issue: Competitive organizational behavior: Toward an organizationally-based theory of competitive advantage, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 143-152.

Cruz L.B., Boehe D.M., Ogasavara M.H. (2015). CSR-based differentiation strategy of export firms from developing countries: An exploratory study of the strategy tripod. Business & Society, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 723-762. https://doi. org/10.1177/0007650312473728. Cuervo-Cazurra A., Gen? M. (2008). Transforming disadvantages into advantages: Developing-country MNEs in the least developed countries. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 957-979. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400390. Descotes R.M., Walliser B., Guo X. (2007). Capturing the relevant institutional profile for exporting SMEs: Empirical evidence

from France and Romania. International Management Review, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 16-26. Descotes R.M., Walliser B., Holzmuller H., Guo X. (2011). Capturing institutional home country conditions for exporting SMEs.

Journal of Business Research, vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 1303-1310. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.12.023. Dhanaraj C., Beamish P.W. (2003). A resource-based approach to the study of export performance. Journal of Small Business

Management, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 242-261. DOI: 10.1111/1540-627X.00080. Dobbs M.E. (2014). Guidelines for applying Porter's five forces framework: A set of industry analysis templates. Competitiveness

Review, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 32-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-06-2013-0059. Eisenhardt K.M., Martin J.A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 10/11,

pp. 1105-1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1105::AID-SMJ133>3.0.CO;2-E. Elango B., Pattnaik C. (2007). Building capabilities for international operations through networks: A study of Indian firms. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 38, pp. 541-555. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400280. Erdemir E. (2008). Yonetim ve orgut ara§tirmalarinda ol?ek kullanimi: Yonetim organizasyon kongre bildirileri ornegi. Ulusal

Yonetim ve Organizasyon KongresiBildiriler Kitabi, May 16-18, pp. 397-403, Antalya. Eren T.M., Jimenez A. (2015). Institutional quality similarity, corruption distance and inward FDI in Turkey. Journal of East European Management Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 88-101. DOI: 10.5771/0949-6181-2015-1-88. Farrell A.M., Rudd J.M. (2009). Factor analysis and discriminant validity: A brief review of some practical issues. http://publica-

tions.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/7644/1/factor_analysis_ANZMAC_2009.pdf. Ferreira M.P., Li D., Suk J.Y. (2009). Foreign entry strategies: Strategic adaptation to various facets of the institutional environments. Development and Society, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 27-55. Filatotchev I., Liu X., Buck T., Wright M. (2009). The export orientation and export performance of high-technology SMEs in emerging markets: The effects of knowledge transfer by returnee entrepreneurs. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 40, pp. 1005-1021. DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2008.105. Gao G.Y., Murray J.Y., Kotabe M., Lu J. (2010). A "strategy tripod" perspective on export behaviors: Evidence from domestic and foreign firms based in an emerging economy. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 377-396. DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2009.27.

Garrido E., Gomez J., Maicas J.P., Orcos R. (2014). The institution-based view of strategy: How to measure it. BRQ Business

Research Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 82-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.brq.2013.11.001. Gaur A.S., Kumar V., Singh D. (2014). Institutions, resources, and internationalization of emerging economy firms. Journal

of World Business, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 12-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2013.04.002. Griffin M.M., Steinbrecher T.D. (2013). Chapter four - Large-scale datasets in special education research. International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities, vol. 45, pp. 155-183. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407760-7.00004-9.

« Guo H., Xu E., Jacobs M. (2014). Managerial political ties and firm performance during institutional transitions: An analysis ^ of mediating mechanisms. Journal of Business Research, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 116-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.11.009. § Han X., Liu X., Xia T., Gao L. (2018). Home-country government support, interstate relations and the subsidiary performance ^ of emerging market multinational enterprises. Journal of Business Research, vol. 93(C), pp. 160-172. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbus-S res.2018.04.021.

=r Hawawini G., Subramanian V., Verdin P. (2003). Is performance driven by industry-or firm-specific factors? A new look at £ the evidence. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1-16.

< He X., Brouthers K.D., Filatotchev I. (2013). Resource-based and institutional perspectives on export channel selection and ex-| port performance. Journal of Management, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 27-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312445926.

Hooley G., Greenley G., Fahy J., Cadogan J. (2001). Market-focused resources, competitive positioning and firm performance. Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 17, no. 5-6, pp. 503-520. DOI: 10.1362/026725701323366908.

Hoskisson R.E., Hitt M.A., Wan W.P., Yiu D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 417-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500307.

Ju M., Zhao H., Wang T. (2014). The boundary conditions of export relational governance: A "strategy tripod" perspective. Journal of International Marketing, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 89-106. https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.13.0114.

Kim Y., Song J.J., Koo C. (2008). Exploring the effect of strategic positioning on firm performance in the e-business context. International Journal of Information Management, vol. 28, pp. 203-214. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.02.004.

Kostova T. (1997). Country institutional profile: Concept and measurement. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, vol. 1997, no. 1, pp. 180-184.

Kostova T., Hult T.M. (2016). Meyer and Peng's 2005 article as a foundation for an expanded and refined international business research agenda: Context, organizations, and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 47, issue 1, pp. 23-32.

Krull E., Smith P., Ge G.L. (2012). The internationalization of engineering consulting from a strategy tripod perspective. The Service Industries Journal, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 1097-1119. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2012.662758.

Lages L.F., Montgomery D.B. (2004). Export performance as an antecedent of export commitment and marketing strategy adaptation. European Journal of Marketing, vol. 38, no. 9/10, pp. 1186-1214.

Lamb N.H., Roundy P.T. (2018). Institutional, stakeholder, and cultural influences on corporate social performance: an institution-based view. International Journal of Comparative Management, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 4-18. DOI: 10.1504/IJCM.2018.10012494.

Lee M., Yin X., Lee S. Weng D.H., Peng M. (2015). The impact of home country institutions on new venture export: examining new ventures in transition economies. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 823-848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0316-5.

Leonidou L.C., Palihawadana D., Theodosiou M. (2011). National export-promotion programs as drivers of organizational resources and capabilities: Effects on strategy, competitive advantage, and performance. Journal of International Marketing, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.19.2.1.

Lipuma J.A., Newbert S.L., Doh J.P. (2013). The effect of institutional quality on firm export performance in emerging economies: A contingency model of firm age and size. Small Business Economics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 817-841. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-011-9395-7.

Lu J., Liu X.,Wang H. (2010). Motives for outward FDI of Chinese private firms: Firm resources, industry dynamics, and government policies. Management and Organization Review, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 223-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2010.00184.x.

MacCallum R.C., Browne M.W., Sugawara H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.130.

Maguire S., Hardy C., Lawrence T.B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 657-679. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159610.

Martin L.Á.G., Madhok A., Sánche Á.M. (2014). The evolution of strategic management research: Recent trends and current directions. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 69-76. https://doi.org/10.10167j.brq.2014.03.001.

Meydan C.H., §ejen H. (2015). YapisalE^itlikModellemesi:AMOS Uygulamalari, Detay Yayinlari, ANKARA.

Meyer K.E., Peng M.W. (2005). Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources, and institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 36, issue 6, pp. 600-621. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400167.

Meyer K.E., Peng M.W. (2016). Theoretical foundations of emerging economy business research. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 47, pp. 3-22. DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2015.34.

Monticelli J.M., Calixto C.V. Vasconcellos S.L., Garrido I.L. (2017). The influence of formal institutions on the internationalization of companies in an emerging country. Review of Business Management, vol. 19, no. 65, pp. 358-374. DOI: 10.7819/rbgn. v0i0.3040.

Moser R., Kuklinski C.P.J.W., Weidmann M. (2014). The impact of institutions on the resources of foreign companies: The case of third-party logistics service providers in Russia. Journal of East European Management Studies, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 305-326. https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2014-3.

Ngo V.D., Janssen F. (2016). Resources investment and export competitive advantage of firms in a transition economy: The moderating role of domestic institutional environment and competitive pressures. International Journal of Export Marketing, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 166-192.

Ngo V.D., Janssen F., Leonidou L.C., Christodoulides P. (2016). Domestic institutional attributes as drivers of export performance in an emerging and transition economy. Journal of Business Research, vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 2911-2922. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbus-res.2015.12.060.

Nguyen T.V., Le N.T.B., Bryant S.E. (2013). Sub-national institutions, firm strategies, and firm performance: A multilevel study of ¿ private manufacturing firms in Vietnam. Journal of World Business, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 68-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.06.008. ^ Oliver C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management ^ Journal, vol. 18, issue 9, pp. 697-713. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199710)18:9<697::AID-SMJ909>3.0.C0;2-C. > Pecotich A., Hattie J., Low L.P. (1999). Development of industruct: A scale for the measurement of perceptions of industry struc- o ture. Marketing Letters, vol. 10, issue 4, pp. 409-422. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008174623201. g

Peng M.W. (2002). Towards an institution-based view of business strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, vol. 19, < pp. 251-267. https://doi.org/10.1023/A1016291702714. ¡

Peng M.W. (2003). Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 275-296. S https://doi.org/10.2307/30040713. £

Peng M.W. (2009). Global Strategy. (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. z

Peng M.W., Sun S.L., Pinkham B., Chen H. (2009). The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Man- s;

agement Perspectives, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 63-81. «

Peng M.W., Sun W., Vlas C., Minichilli A., Corbetta G. (2018). An institution-based view of large family firms: A recap and overview. =

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 187-205. DOI: 10.1177/1042258717749234. Peng M.W., Wang D.Y.L., Jiang Y. (2008). An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging

economies. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 39, pp. 920-936. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400377. Porter M. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press. Porter M. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue: Fundamental Research

Issues in Strategy and Economics, vol. 12, pp. 95-117. Powel T.C. (1996). How much does industry matter? An alternative empirical test. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 323-334.

Reis R.S., Hino A.A.F., Añez C.R.R. (2010). Perceived stress scale: Reliability and validity study in Brazil. Journal of Health Psychology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 107-114. DOI: 10.1177/1359105309346343. Rivard S., Raymond L., Verreault D. (2006). Resource-based view and competitive strategy: An integrated model of the contribution of information technology to firm performance. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. 15, pp. 29-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsis.2005.06.003.

Scott W.R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In: K.G. Smith, M.A. Hitt (Eds.). Great minds

in management: The process of theory development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shook C.L., Ketchen D.J., Hult G.T.M., Kacmar K.M. (2004). An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic

management research. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 25, issue 4, pp. 397-404. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.385. Sousa C.M.P. (2004). Export performance measurement: An evaluation of the empirical research in the literature. Academy of

Marketing Science Review, 4. http://www.amsreview.org/articles/ sousa09-2004.pdf. Stenholm P., Acs Z.J., Wuebker R. (2013). Exploring country-level institutional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 176-193. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.11.002. Su Z., Peng M.W., Xie E. (2016). A strategy tripod perspective on knowledge creation capability. British Journal of Management,

vol. 27, issue 1, pp. 58-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12097. Sun S.L., Peng M.W., Lee R.P., Tan W. (2015). Institutional open access at home and outward internationalization. Journal of World

Business, vol. 50, no. 1, 234-246. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2014.04.003. Teece D.J., Pisano G., Shuen A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18,

issue 7, pp. 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z. Teo H.H., Wei K.K., Benbasat I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective.

MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 19-49. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036518. Torre-Castro M., Lindström L. (2012). Fishing institutions: Addressing regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive elements to

enhance fisheries management. Marine Policy, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 77-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2009.04.012. Vecchi A., Piana B.D., Vivacqua E. (2015). An institutional-based view of innovation - an explorative comparison of business groups in China and India. International Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1142/ S1363919615500516.

Wang Y., Cao W., Zhou Z., Ning L. (2013). Does external technology acquisition determine export performance? Evidence from Chinese

manufacturing firms. International Business Review, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1079-1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjbusrev.2013.02.009. Weerawardena J., O'Cass A., Julian C. (2006). Does industry matter? Examining the role of industry structure and organizational learning in innovation and brand performance. Journal of Business Research, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjbus-res.2005.02.004.

Wu G.C., Ding J.H., Chen P.S. (2012). The effects of GSCM drivers and institutional pressures on GSCM practices in Taiwan's textile and

apparel industry. International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 135, no. 2, pp. 618-636. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.023. Wu J., Chen X. (2014). Home country institutional environments and foreign expansion of emerging market firms. International Business Review, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 862-872. https://doi.org/10.1016/jJbusrev.2014.01.004. Xie Y.H., Zhao H.J., Xie Q.J., Arnold M. (2011). On the determinants of post-entry strategic positioning of foreign firms in a host market:

A ''strategy tripod'' perspective. International Business Review, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 477-490. Yamakawa Y., Peng M.W., Deeds D.L. (2008). What drives new ventures to internationalize from emerging to developed economies? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/jM540-6520.2007.00216x

^ Yaprak A., Yosun T., Cetindamar D. (2G18). The influence of firm-specific and country-specific advantages in the internationalization ^ of emerging market firms: Evidence from Turkey. International Business Review, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 198-2G7. DOI: Ю.Шб/рь^-s rev.2017.07.001.

^ Ya§ar M., Paul C.J.M., Ward M.R. (2G11). Property rights institutions and firm performance: A cross-country analysis. World Development, S vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 648-661.

=r Zhou L., Wu W., Luo X. (2GG7). Internationalization and the performance of born-global SMEs: the mediating role of social networks.

S Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 38, pp. 673-69G. DOI: 10.10S7/palgrave.jiЬs.8400282.

S «

a.

* Источники

Aguinis H.J., Edwards R., Bradley K.J. (2G17). Improving our understanding of moderation and mediation in strategic management research. Organizational Research Methods, vol. 2G, no. 4, pp. бб5-б85. https://doi.org/1G.1177/1G9442S11562749S.

Ahuja G., Capron L., Lenox M., Yao D.A. (2G1S). Strategy and the institutional envelope. Strategy Science, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1, II-V. https://doi.org/1G.12S7/stsc.2G1S.GG62.

Barney J.B. (1991 ). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 99S-12G.

Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, no. б, pp. 1173-11S2.

Baruch Y., Holtom B.C. (2GGS). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, vol. 61, no. S, pp. 1139-116G.

Boehe D.M., Qian G., Peng M.W. (2G16). Export intensity, scope, and destinations: Evidence from Brazil. Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 57, pp. 127-13S. http://dx.doi.org/1G.1G16/j.indmarman.2G16.G1.GG6.

Boyd B.K., Reuning-Elliot E. (199S). A measurement model of strategic planning. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 19, issue 2, pp. 1S1-192. https://doi.org/1G.1GG2/(SICI)1G97-G266(199SG2)19:2<1S1::AID-SMJ945>3.G.CO;2-Z.

Brown T.A. (2GG6). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.

Busenitz L.W., Gómez C., Spencer J.W. (2GGG). Country institutional profiles: Unlocking entrepreneurial phenomena. The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 994-1GG3.

Carlos J.C., Sousa M.P., He X. (2G14). The determinants of export performance: A review of the literature 2GG6-2G14. International Marketing Review, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 626-67G. DOI: 1G.11GS/IMR-1G-2G15-G212.

Çavujgil S.T., Zou S. (1994). Marketing strategy-performance relationship: An investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures. Journal of Marketing, vol. 5S, no. 1, pp. 1-21.

Collis D.J. (1994). Research note: How valuable are organizational capabilities? Strategic Management Journal, Special issue: Competitive organizational behavior: Toward an organizationally-based theory of competitive advantage, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 143-152.

Cruz L.B., Boehe D.M., Ogasavara M.H. (2G15). CSR-based differentiation strategy of export firms from developing countries: An exploratory study of the strategy tripod. Business & Society, vol. 54, no. б, pp. 723-762. https://doi. org/1G.1177/GGG765G31247372S.

Cuervo-Cazurra A., Genç M. (2GGS). Transforming disadvantages into advantages: Developing-country MNEs in the least developed countries. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 39, no. б, pp. 957-979. DOI: 1G.1G57/palgrave.jibs.S4GG39G.

Descotes R.M., Walliser B., Guo X. (2GG7). Capturing the relevant institutional profile for exporting SMEs: Empirical evidence from France and Romania. International Management Review, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1б-2б.

Descotes R.M., Walliser B., Holzmüller H., Guo X. (2G11). Capturing institutional home country conditions for exporting SMEs. Journal of Business Research, vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 13G3-131G. DOI: 1G.1G16/j.jbusres.2G1G.12.G23.

Dhanaraj C., Beamish P.W. (2GG3). A resource-based approach to the study of export performance. Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 242-261. DOI: 1G.1111/154G-627X.GGGSG.

Dobbs M.E. (2G14). Guidelines for applying Porter's five forces framework: A set of industry analysis templates. Competitiveness Review, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 32-45. https://doi.org/1G.11GS/CR-G6-2G13-GG59.

Eisenhardt K.M., Martin J.A. (2GGG). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 1G/11, pp. 11G5-1121. https://doi.org/1G.1GG2/1G97-G266(2GGG1G/11)21:1G/11<11G5::AID-SMJ133>3.G.CO;2-E.

Elango B., Pattnaik C. (2GG7). Building capabilities for international operations through networks: A study of Indian firms. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 3S, pp. 541-555. DOI: 1G.1G57/palgrave.jibs.S4GG2SG.

Erdemir E. (2GGS). Yönetim ve örgüt arajtirmalarmda ö^ek kullanimi: Yönetim organizasyon kongre bildirileri örnegi. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabi, May 16-18, pp. 397-4G3, Antalya.

Eren T.M., Jimenez A. (2G15). Institutional quality similarity, corruption distance and inward FDI in Turkey. Journal of East European Management Studies, vol. 2G, no. 1, pp. SS-1G1. DOI: 1G.5771/G949-61S1-2G15-1-SS.

Farrell A.M., Rudd J.M. (2GG9). Factor analysis and discriminant validity: A brief review of some practical issues. http://publica-tions.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/7644/1/factor_analysis_ANZMAC_2GG9.pdf.

Ferreira M.P., Li D., Suk J.Y. (2GG9). Foreign entry strategies: Strategic adaptation to various facets of the institutional environments. Development and Society, vol. 3S, no. 1, pp. 27-55.

Filatotchev I., Liu X., Buck T., Wright M. (2GG9). The export orientation and export performance of high-technology SMEs in emerging markets: The effects of knowledge transfer by returnee entrepreneurs. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 4G, pp. 1GG5-1G21. DOI: 1G.1G57/jibs.2GGS.1G5.

Gao G.Y., Murray J.Y., Kotabe M., Lu J. (2010). A "strategy tripod" perspective on export behaviors: Evidence from domestic and ^ foreign firms based in an emerging economy. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 377-396. DOI: ^ 10.1057/jibs.2009.27. Il

Garrido E., Gomez J., Maicas J.P., Orcos R. (2014). The institution-based view of strategy: How to measure it. BRQ Business ^ Research Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 82-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.brq.2013.11.001. S

Gaur A.S., Kumar V., Singh D. (2014). Institutions, resources, and internationalization of emerging economy firms. Journal g of World Business, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 12-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2013.04.002. |

Griffin M.M., Steinbrecher T.D. (2013). Chapter four - Large-scale datasets in special education research. International Review | of Research in Developmental Disabilities, vol. 45, pp. 155-183. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407760-7.00004-9. jjj

Guo H., Xu E., Jacobs M. (2014). Managerial political ties and firm performance during institutional transitions: An analysis ir of mediating mechanisms. Journal of Business Research, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 116-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.11.009. z

Han X., Liu X., Xia T., Gao L. (2018). Home-country government support, interstate relations and the subsidiary performance s; of emerging market multinational enterprises. Journal of Business Research, vol. 93(C), pp. 160-172. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbus- « res.2018.04.021. =

Hawawini G., Subramanian V., Verdin P. (2003). Is performance driven by industry-or firm-specific factors? A new look at the evidence. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1-16.

He X., Brouthers K.D., Filatotchev I. (2013). Resource-based and institutional perspectives on export channel selection and export performance. Journal of Management, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 27-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312445926.

Hooley G., Greenley G., Fahy J., Cadogan J. (2001). Market-focused resources, competitive positioning and firm performance. Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 17, no. 5-6, pp. 503-520. DOI: 10.1362/026725701323366908.

Hoskisson R.E., Hitt M.A., Wan W.P., Yiu D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 417-456. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500307.

Ju M., Zhao H., Wang T. (2014). The boundary conditions of export relational governance: A "strategy tripod" perspective. Journal of International Marketing, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 89-106. https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.13.0114.

Kim Y., Song J.J., Koo C. (2008). Exploring the effect of strategic positioning on firm performance in the e-business context. International Journal of Information Management, vol. 28, pp. 203-214. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.02.004.

Kostova T. (1997). Country institutional profile: Concept and measurement. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, vol. 1997, no. 1, pp. 180-184.

Kostova T., Hult T.M. (2016). Meyer and Peng's 2005 article as a foundation for an expanded and refined international business research agenda: Context, organizations, and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 47, issue 1, pp. 23-32.

Krull E., Smith P., Ge G.L. (2012). The internationalization of engineering consulting from a strategy tripod perspective. The Service Industries Journal, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 1097-1119. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2012.662758.

Lages L.F., Montgomery D.B. (2004). Export performance as an antecedent of export commitment and marketing strategy adaptation. European Journal of Marketing, vol. 38, no. 9/10, pp. 1186-1214.

Lamb N.H., Roundy P.T. (2018). Institutional, stakeholder, and cultural influences on corporate social performance: an institution-based view. International Journal of Comparative Management, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 4-18. DOI: 10.1504/IJCM.2018.10012494.

Lee M., Yin X., Lee S. Weng D.H., Peng M. (2015). The impact of home country institutions on new venture export: examining new ventures in transition economies. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 823-848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0316-5.

Leonidou L.C., Palihawadana D., Theodosiou M. (2011). National export-promotion programs as drivers of organizational resources and capabilities: Effects on strategy, competitive advantage, and performance. Journal of International Marketing, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.19.2.1.

Lipuma J.A., Newbert S.L., Doh J.P. (2013). The effect of institutional quality on firm export performance in emerging economies: A contingency model of firm age and size. Small Business Economics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 817-841. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-011-9395-7.

Lu J., Liu X.,Wang H. (2010). Motives for outward FDI of Chinese private firms: Firm resources, industry dynamics, and government policies. Management and Organization Review, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 223-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2010.00184.x.

MacCallum R.C., Browne M.W., Sugawara H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.130.

Maguire S., Hardy C., Lawrence T.B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 657-679. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159610.

Martin L.Ä.G., Madhok A., Sanche Ä.M. (2014). The evolution of strategic management research: Recent trends and current directions. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 69-76. https://doi.org/10.10167j.brq.2014.03.001.

Meydan C.H., §ejen H. (2015). YapisalE^itlikModellemesi:AMOS Uygulamalari, Detay Yayinlari, ANKARA.

Meyer K.E., Peng M.W. (2005). Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources, and institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 36, issue 6, pp. 600-621. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400167.

Meyer K.E., Peng M.W. (2016). Theoretical foundations of emerging economy business research. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 47, pp. 3-22. DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2015.34.

Monticelli J.M., Calixto C.V. Vasconcellos S.L., Garrido I.L. (2017). The influence of formal institutions on the internationalization of companies in an emerging country. Review of Business Management, vol. 19, no. 65, pp. 358-374. DOI: 10.7819/rbgn. v0i0.3040.

« Moser R., Kuklinski C.P.J.W., Weidmann M. (2014). The impact of institutions on the resources of foreign companies: The case ^ of third-party logistics service providers in Russia. Journal of East European Management Studies, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 305-326. s https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2014-3.

^ Ngo V.D., Janssen F. (2016). Resources investment and export competitive advantage of firms in a transition economy:

0 The moderating role of domestic institutional environment and competitive pressures. International Journal of Export Mar-=r keting, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 166-192.

£ Ngo V.D., Janssen F., Leonidou L.C., Christodoulides P. (2016). Domestic institutional attributes as drivers of export performance < in an emerging and transition economy. Journal of Business Research, vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 2911-2922. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbus-

1 res.2015.12.060.

Nguyen T.V., Le N.T.B., Bryant S.E. (2013). Sub-national institutions, firm strategies, and firm performance: A multilevel study of private manufacturing firms in Vietnam. Journal of World Business, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 68-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.06.008.

Oliver C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, issue 9, pp. 697-713. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199710)18:9<697::AID-SMJ909>3.0.CO;2-C.

Pecotich A., Hattie J., Low L.P. (1999). Development of industruct: A scale for the measurement of perceptions of industry structure. Marketing Letters, vol. 10, issue 4, pp. 409-422. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008174623201.

Peng M.W. (2002). Towards an institution-based view of business strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, vol. 19, pp. 251-267. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016291702714.

Peng M.W. (2003). Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 275-296. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040713.

Peng M.W. (2009). Global Strategy. (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Peng M.W., Sun S.L., Pinkham B., Chen H. (2009). The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 63-81.

Peng M.W., Sun W., Vlas C., Minichilli A., Corbetta G. (2018). An institution-based view of large family firms: A recap and overview. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 187-205. DOI: 10.1177/1042258717749234.

Peng M.W., Wang D.Y.L., Jiang Y. (2008). An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 39, pp. 920-936. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400377.

Porter M. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.

Porter M. (1991 ). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue: Fundamental Research Issues in Strategy and Economics, vol. 12, pp. 95-117.

Powel T.C. (1996). How much does industry matter? An alternative empirical test. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 323-334.

Reis R.S., Hino A.A.F., Añez C.R.R. (2010). Perceived stress scale: Reliability and validity study in Brazil. Journal of Health Psychology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 107-114. DOI: 10.1177/1359105309346343.

Rivard S., Raymond L., Verreault D. (2006). Resource-based view and competitive strategy: An integrated model of the contribution of information technology to firm performance. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. 15, pp. 29-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsis.2005.06.003.

Scott W.R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In: K.G. Smith, M.A. Hitt (Eds.). Great minds in management: The process of theory development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shook C.L., Ketchen D.J., Hult G.T.M., Kacmar K.M. (2004). An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 25, issue 4, pp. 397-404. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.385.

Sousa C.M.P. (2004). Export performance measurement: An evaluation of the empirical research in the literature. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 4. http://www.amsreview.org/articles/ sousa09-2004.pdf.

Stenholm P., Acs Z.J., Wuebker R. (2013). Exploring country-level institutional arrangements on the rate and type of entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 176-193. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.11.002.

Su Z., Peng M.W., Xie E. (2016). A strategy tripod perspective on knowledge creation capability. British Journal of Management, vol. 27, issue 1, pp. 58-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12097.

Sun S.L., Peng M.W., Lee R.P., Tan W. (2015). Institutional open access at home and outward internationalization. Journal of World Business, vol. 50, no. 1, 234-246. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2014.04.003.

Teece D.J., Pisano G., Shuen A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, issue 7, pp. 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z.

Teo H.H., Wei K.K., Benbasat I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 19-49. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036518.

Torre-Castro M., Lindström L. (2012). Fishing institutions: Addressing regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive elements to enhance fisheries management. Marine Policy, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 77-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2009.04.012.

Vecchi A., Piana B.D., Vivacqua E. (2015). An institutional-based view of innovation - an explorative comparison of business groups in China and India. International Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1142/ S1363919615500516.

Wang Y., Cao W., Zhou Z., Ning L. (2013). Does external technology acquisition determine export performance? Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. International Business Review, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1079-1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/jJbusrev.2013.02.009.

Weerawardena J., O'Cass A., Julian C. (2006). Does industry matter? Examining the role of industry structure and organizational learning in innovation and brand performance. Journal of Business Research, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjbus-res.2005.02.004.

Wu G.C., Ding J.H., Chen P.S. (2012). The effects of GSCM drivers and institutional pressures on GSCM practices in Taiwan's textile and ^

apparel industry. International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 135, no. 2, pp. 618-636. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.05.023. ^

Wu J., Chen X. (2014). Home country institutional environments and foreign expansion of emerging market firms. International Busi- ^

ness Review, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 862-872. https://doi.org/10.1016/jJbusrev.2014.01.004. >

Xie Y.H., Zhao H.J., Xie Q.J., Arnold M. (2011). On the determinants of post-entry strategic positioning of foreign firms in a host market: o

A ''strategy tripod'' perspective. International Business Review, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 477-490. ¡g

Yamakawa Y., Peng M.W., Deeds D.L. (2008). What drives new ventures to internationalize from emerging to developed economies? <

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00216.x. |

Yaprak A., Yosun T., Cetindamar D. (2018). The influence of firm-specific and country-specific advantages in the internationalization jjj

of emerging market firms: Evidence from Turkey. International Business Review, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 198-207. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibus- ¡¡j

rev.2017.07.001. £

Ya§ar M., Paul C.J.M., Ward M.R. (2011). Property rights institutions and firm performance: A cross-country analysis. World Development, s;

vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 648-661. |

Zhou L., Wu W., Luo X. (2007). Internationalization and the performance of born-global SMEs: the mediating role of social networks. = Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 38, pp. 673-690. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400282.

Information about the authors Информация об авторах

Hasan Boztoprak

PhD, Assistant Professor of Business Administration Dept. Beykent University (Ayazaga Campus, 34396, Sariyer, Istanbul, Turkey). E-mail: hasanboztoprak@beykent.edu.tr.

Mehmet Eryilmaz

PhD, Professor of Business Administration Dept. Bursa Uludag University (Görükle Campus, 16240, Nilüfer, Bursa, Turkey). E-mail: mehmetery@uludag.edu.tr.

Хасан Бозтопрак

PhD, доцент кафедры бизнес-администрирования. Университет Бейкент (34396, Турция, г. Стамбул, р-н Сарыер, Кампус Айазага). E-mail: hasanboztoprak@beykent.edu.tr.

Мехмет Эрилмаз

PhD, профессор кафедры бизнес-администрирования. Университет Бурса Улудаг (16240, Турция, г. Бурса, р-н Нилюфер, Кампус Гёрюкле). E-mail: mehmetery@uludag.edu.tr.