El sujeto en la escuela concesionada

Regarding export performance measurement frameworks, in the current stage of the literature agreement has not been reached on how to assess export performance, which leads to inconsistences and sometimes conflicting findings for empirical results. There are two divergent perspectives for advancing the current theory of export performance measurements. The first school of thought claims that the fragmentation in empirical results is due to the lack of a consolidated measurement model, and hence, attention should be paid to developing such a model (see, for example, Cavusgil & Zou 1994; Sousa 2004; Sousa, Martínez-López & Coelho 2008). In contrast, the second school of thought advocates that a single model cannot help consolidate and compare empirical results or advance theory in the field. One of the main reasons given is that no single model could cover the variety of research contexts, and that “export performance is a multifaceted phenomenon and individual measures of performance exhibit unique conceptualization and operationalization characteristics” (Katsikeas, Leonidou & Morgan 2000, p. 505). A brief discussion of each perspective is presented below. 3.2.4.1 The consolidated measurement model

For the supporters of a consolidated measurement model, the existence of a valid and reliable measure of export performance is vital in analysing export determinants.

Page 41

However, it is claimed that, in the current stage of literature, consensus has not been reached on such a model, due to the insufficient efforts to develop a reliable framework of measurement (Carneiro, Rocha & Silva 2007; Sousa 2004). Without such a framework, different researchers tend to establish their own conceptual framework and their own operationalization of export performance, hindering comparability among studies.

At firm level, apart from the classes of measures, the literature on measurement of export performance includes four other aspects: (1) the frame of reference, i.e. how measurement is performed; (2) temporal orientation, i.e. whether static or dynamic measurement is used; (3) mode of assessment, i.e. whether objective or subjective data are used; and (4) indicator structure, i.e. whether independent indicators or aggregated scales (Carneiro, Rocha & Silva 2007). Carneiro, Rocha and Silva (2007) conducted a critical review of 37 empirical studies on export performance published between 1999 and 2004, and conclude that none of the studies in review appear to have covered all aspects of the analytical framework mentioned above. The majority (59%) of the empirical research in review used multiple classes of measures. Amongst those, economic measures (such as export sales, export sales growth, profits) were the most popular, being used by 33 out of 37 studies (89%), while thirteen studies (35%) used market measures (such as market share, market share growth). On the downside, nine studies (nearly 25%) used strategic measures (such as export expansion), and only one study reported using behavioural/situational measures.

Regarding the frame of reference, absolute reference denotes the report of value itself (for example, total export revenue, export percentage, number of markets), whilst relative reference denotes the comparison of the export performance indicators to a point of reference such as compared to the average market or to competitors. The absolute reference was most popular, which was used in twenty-two studies (59%). In contrast, relative reference was used in only seven studies (19%), whilst eight studies (22%) used both types of reference. Carneiro, Rocha and Silva (2007) argue that the wide use of the absolute reference may not be sufficient and reflective because absolute reference fails to incorporate the management’s perception of export performance. However, this preference in using absolute rather than relative frame of reference may reflect a limitation in data collection, where competitors’ performance data appear to be difficult to collect, especially for SMEs. It may also indicate the void in measurement theory, where a reliable benchmark has not yet been developed and used as a relative reference.

Page 42

Regarding the mode of export performance assessment, which refers to the use of objective or subjective measures, or both, Sousa (2004) reports that a majority of studies used both objective and subjective modes of assessment. On the other hand, Carneiro, Rocha and Silva (2007, p. 8) report “a fairly even distribution between only objective, only subjective (perceptual) and both modes of assessment”.

Regarding the temporal orientation, Carneiro, Rocha and Silva (2007, p. 8) report a dominance in the use of historical data (33 out of 37 studies), and that static analysis is more popular than dynamic analysis (54% and 11%, respectively). Efforts combining both static and dynamic methods are reported in only thirteen studies (35%) surveyed. Similarly, Sousa (2004, 2008) claims that, although dynamic measurement of export performance is ideal, the majority (43) of studies in his review used only static measurement, which includes mostly past and current export performance measurement. This highlights the necessity of including future orientation or expectations in export performance measurement. Essentially, empirical results should produce meaningful information for making managerial decisions (Sousa 2004). However, there appears to be a gap in conceptualization of the time span needed to assess export performance, and a framework that combines past, present and future performance indicators has not been successfully advanced.

3.2.4.2 The contingency approach

As discussed in Section 3.2.4.1, although the export performance measurement topic has been examined and discussed extensively in the literature (Katsikeas, Leonidou & Morgan 2000; Shoham 1998), the effectiveness and adequacy of those measures remains controversial (Sousa 2004). In that context, several studies have attempted to examine and establish multi-item measures of export performance (Lages, Lages & Lages 2004; Sousa 2004; Zou & Stan 1998). These studies report that export performance is a multidimensional concept and, hence, the use of a single measurement model is inadequate for a reliable assessment (Katsikeas, Leonidou & Morgan 2000; Shoham 1998).

Katsikeas, Leonidou and Morgan (2000) extend the argument further by emphasizing the unique conceptualization and operationalization characteristics of each individual study. Katsikeas, Leonidou and Morgan (2000) propose the use of a contingent approach, in which researchers can focus on measuring relevant aspects of export

Page 43

performance depending on the research context. For example, studies on small firms are more likely to be concerned about economic indicators and strategic indicators rather than market indicators (Carneiro, Rocha & Silva 2007; Roxas & Chadee 2011), since market indicators are neither available nor meaningful for small firms.

In terms of the modes of performance assessment, Sousa (2004) reports that subjective indicators are preferred over objective by some scholars (see, for example, Katsikeas, Piercy & Ioannidis 1996). There are various reasons to support this view, one of which is the unavailability of reliable and objective data. Some scholars claim that exporting firms are extremely unwilling to disclose their objective data. Others claim that, even when objective data are collected, they are more often in the form of self-reported data rather than publicly available secondary data. Therefore, the accuracy of any objective data collected from firms is subject to validation (Carneiro, Rocha & Silva 2007).

However, when considering characteristics of firms in empirical studies, the adoption of objective or subjective mode of measurement needs to be reconsidered. For example, a focus on short-term export performance measurement is found to be relevant to small export firms, since the managers of these might reckon their financial shortage in pursuing a low margin strategy in the foreign market (Sousa 2004). Thus, the use of objective measures would be more suitable than subjective ones, because objective measures are more reliable in determining short-term performance (Sousa 2004).

The selection of measurement class also depends upon characteristics of firms being studied, because firms of different sizes and different levels of export experience have different focuses. For example, market share-related measures may only be relevant to large and experienced firms, while economic measures (such as export sales, export sales growth, and profits) are more relevant for new firms and/or small firms.

In summary, the relevant export performance literature is fragmented, both conceptually and methodologically. As proposed by Katsikeas, Leonidou and Morgan (2000), a contingency approach should be considered when selecting measures of export performance. Despite increasing interest in empirical studies and the advancement in statistical methodologies, the current stage of literature on export performance of SMEs has exposed critical gaps, as listed following, suggesting that further research would be needed to advance understandings in the relevant fields:

Page 44

- The limited number of studies of export performance in emerging markets / economies (Singh 2009) hinders thorough understanding of the export performance phenomenon and the comparison between different regions in the world.

- The lack of combination between survey and secondary data.

- In collecting data for subjective mode of measurement, research generally only uses surveys of one informant rather than triangulating between different informants in a firm. However, the tendency to view firms as having only one decision maker is misleading, since decisions are often made by more than one person, especially in larger firms (Katsikeas, Piercy & Ioannidis 1996; Sousa 2004).

- There is an absence of panel data for export performance analysis at firm level. Limited studies use longitudinal data in order to objectively measure export performance by economic measures (such as export sales, export sales growth, export percentage over sales, export percentage growth, export market diversity) over time (Carneiro et al. 2016). This absence of longitudinal studies impedes dynamic model building and limits effective measurement of performance. Therefore, a well-designed longitudinal research would contribute greatly to the literature by testing the long-term stability of export performance and its determinants