A wide body of knowledge exists on the perceptions and activities of managers of both exporting and non-exporting firms. Furthermore, models have been proposed to categorize firms in various stages of internationalization exhibiting different export behavior and assistance requirements. Issues discussed in the literature have involved factors associated with managers' motives for undertaking overseas activities, perceived and actual problems, firms' competitiveness, and information and assistance requirements (Bilkey 1978; Miesenbock 1988; Aaby and Slater 1989; Andersen 1993; Leonidou and Katsikeas 1996). This study focuses on managers' perceptions within one group of small firms that has arguably received very little attention, namely, firms that have discontinued exporting (Pauwels and Matthyssens 1999). It appears that to date, studies have been largely restricted to classifying non-exporters as a homogeneous group. This observation is important since no account is taken of potential differences among firms exhibiting varying levels of previous export experience. Of those that do have previous experience, some managers may not want to reconsider exporting since their domestic market is perceived as a preferable alternative, whereas others may wish to recommence exporting at some stage. Seringhaus (1987) points out that export withdrawal has largely been viewed as a failure. In contrast, and from a strategy perspective, Welch and Wiedersheim-Paul (1980) highlight the scenario of some firms that have a low level of commitment towards new export activities and are poorly prepared to undertake such initiatives. It follows logically that the lack of strategic planning, including the mobilization of internal resources, may have a direct influence on firms' performance overseas and consequently on the decision to withdraw from export markets. This can be contrasted with a broader external perspective from which it might be suggested that a whole host of environmental issues--ranging from the economic strength of a currency to the imposition of tariffs--may affect a manager's decision to discontinue exporting. As such, the decision to discontinue exporting should not always be viewed as a failure. Indeed, such a decision could be seen as a move to gain a strategic advantage, for example, to concen trate on the domestic market if this was perceived as having an advantageous result for the firm. This strategy may have been brought about by a change in a firm's key decision-maker and thus be unrelated to a firm's environmental influences. A number of studies have examined barriers that are both internal and external to firms. Moreover, studies have described barriers faced by both exporting and non-exporting firms, and recommendations have been proposed to policy makers for helping managers overcome the obstacles (for example, Katsikeas and Morgan 1994; Leonidou 1995; and Bell 1997). In short, however, the decision to discontinue exporting as a result of these barriers should not necessarily be viewed as a marketing failure under all circumstances. In some cases, managers may have circumvented the problems by having undertaken the appropriate planning and information-gathering activities. In other cases, the decision may have been a result of environmental circumstances that were difficult to forecast. This consideration becomes important when determining the support needed by managers of firms with different levels of export experience to help them avoid discontinuing their export activities. While a wide body of knowledge exists on export assistance needs, policy-makers are hampered by both regulatory issues and budgetary constraints. Furthermore, managers have perceived some trade bodies as more effective than others in implementing support programs to help overcome obstacles to exporting (Seringhaus and Rosson 1990; Nothdurft 1992; Kotabe and Czinkota 1993; Naidu and Rao 1993). A specific study relevant to this investigation was undertaken by Crick (1995), which found that the U. …
Read full abstract