Search

International entrepreneurship—the field dedicated to the discovery, enactment, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities across national borders to create future goods and services—is as inextricably linked to firm activity as entrepreneurship, strategy, or international business. However, for much of the past 30 years the field has been hampered by confusion and inconsistency over definitions and existential questions such as, "What is a born global?"; "what is an international new venture?"; and "how does one distinguish emerging firm types?" While many of these questions have been previously answered in isolation, confusion remains, as the field lacks a coherent unified perspective of firm activity. In this introduction to our thematic issue on international entrepreneurship, we address this need, present a unified model of international new ventures drawn from the latest definitions and distinctions, and call for future research that fully integrates form into the conversations of opportunity, technology, liability, and the unique network and value-chain alignments that exist across borders. We also discuss how we can better integrate and add value to nascent trends more broadly from neuroscience, deglobalization, intercultural arbitrage, and other areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is an important construct in the fields of management and entrepreneurship research. Interest in EO knowledge continues to thrive with a burgeoning research agenda in multiple contexts and with diverse implications. However, a subset of this research, which endeavors to apply the EO construct to explain or predict individuals' entrepreneurial beliefs and behaviors, has met with resistance. This paper examines the case for EO at the individual level (Ind.EO). We consider the EO legacy concerns, and the various theoretical implications and benefits of doing so. Drawing upon an "EO as a family of constructs" framework, we propose paths forward for studying Ind.EO credibly, consistent with, but distinct from, traditional firm-level EO. Finally, we outline a research agenda and discuss the contributions and potential implications for Ind.EO research across the wider entrepreneurship discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on entrepreneurial mindset (EM) has proliferated in recent years. Its importance rests on a key assumption: EM matters for entrepreneurial behavior. However, to date, EM conceptualizations remain fragmented, and theories delineating the relationship between EM and the behaviors underpinning entrepreneurship are limited. In this article, we conceptualize EM as a goal orientation formed through dispositional beliefs about entrepreneurship and opportunity beliefs, which results in entrepreneurial behaviors. We draw upon recent advances in entrepreneurial orientation (EO) research at the individual level as a model for dispositional beliefs. Further, we theorize the origins, mechanisms, manifestations, and effect of EM. Finally, we discuss important implications for stakeholders interested in leveraging EM to stimulate entrepreneurial activity and lay out a research agenda for future development of our disposition-based framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New ventures that internationalize aggressively from or near founding have been of continued interest in international entrepreneurship. A rich literature now exists in which researchers make numerous distinctions between types or subcategories of rapidly internationalizing firms and how these relate to nuances in performance outcomes. Conversely, little progress has been made toward a theoretical understanding of why these seemingly unique firms emerge in the first place. We contend that a key question remains unanswered: Why do some entrepreneurs from the outset compound the liability of newness, inherent in entrepreneurship, with the liability of foreignness, inherent in internationalization? Drawing from social cognitive careers theory, we developed a model explaining the emergence of entrepreneurial intentions to found explicitly global ventures. We tested our model across two distinct studies, using a multiwave multicountry approach, and found consistent support for an interest pathway to these entrepreneurial intentions. The simple, yet novel, implication is that noneconomic logic shaping entrepreneurs' vocational choices can help explain why some founders take additional risks by overtly focusing on aggressive global growth from inception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]