Relationship among government export support, perceived export stimuli, barriers and export performance

Xuan, Dao Mai; Tan, Buu Le Article Relationship among government export support, perceived export stimuli, barriers and export performance Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Xuan, Dao Mai; Tan, Buu Le (2024) : Relationship among government export support, perceived export stimuli, barriers and export performance, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2336646 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326215 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Relationship among government export support, perceived export stimuli, barriers and export performance Dao Mai Xuan & Buu Le Tan To cite this article: Dao Mai Xuan & Buu Le Tan (2024) Relationship among government export support, perceived export stimuli, barriers and export performance, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2336646, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2336646 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2336646 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 09 Apr 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1897 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 ManageMent | ReseaRch aRticle Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2336646 Relationship among government export support, perceived export stimuli, barriers and export performance Dao Mai Xuana and Buu le tanb aFaculty of Commerce at university of Finance – Marketing, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; bschool of international Business and Marketing at ueH university, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam ABSTRACT an increase in Vietnamese agricultural export performance can contribute to the decrease in trade deficit with asean + 3. in order to achieve it, some factors affecting export performance should be studied. the research model is proposed to indicate the direct relationship between government support and export performance and the indirect relationship between government support and export performance through perceived export stimuli and perceived export barriers. smart-Pls software was used to test the collected data from 257 sMes exporting agricultural products to asean + 3. Findings show that there is not only a direct effect of government export support on export performance but also an indirect effect through perceived internal export stimuli. Besides, there is an indirect relationship between government support and perceived internal export barriers through perceived internal and external export stimuli. Based on findings, the research draws key implications for managers and policymakers. however, because of difficulty to approach sMes’ managers, the research has some limitations including sample size and sample taking method (convenience and snowball). 1. Introduction since 2012, Vietnam has shifted from a trade deficit to a trade surplus. however, Vietnam has a negative trade balance with some markets, especially asean + 3 (asean, Japan, Korea, china) at about 65 billion UsD in the recent five years (authors calculated based on the customs statistics from 2017 to 2021). Besides, as an agricultural country, agricultural products are Vietnamese traditional exports. With an average export value share of more than 40% per year, asean + 3 are the main Vietnams’ export markets. the problem of trade deficit with asean + 3 can be solved by boosting agricultural exports to this market group. in addition, the increase in asean + 3 export also creates jobs for the majority of the population and is suitable for sMes with limited resources which have difficulties to export to far distance markets, such as eU or america. therefore, it is necessary to understand which perceived export stimuli encourage and which perceived export barriers hinder sMes’ export performance to asean + 3. in addition, Vietnamese sMes have internal and external difficulties, such as lacking of capital, outdated technology, low production capacity, big inventories, weak international competitiveness, so government export support programs are needed for them. Whether firms appreciate the benefits of government export support in export stimuli increase, export barriers decrease, affecting export performance or not, should also be studied. an extensive search of the literature reveals that there are three mainstreams studying on perceived export stimuli and perceived export barriers. the first stream is the studies on the effect of perceived export stimuli on export performance (Pett et al., 2004; Boubakri et al., 2013; hemmati et al., 2018). the second stream is the studies on the effect of perceived export barriers on export performance (al-hyari © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT Dao Mai Xuan [email protected] Faculty of Commerce at university of Finance – Marketing, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2336646 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 16 May 2023 Revised 19 February 2024 accepted 25 March 2024 JEL CODE P33 KEYWORDS asean + 3; export performance; government support programs; perceived export barriers; perceived export stimuli; sMes REVIEW EDITOR huifen (helen) cai, Middlesex University Business school, United Kingdom SUBJECTS asian studies; economics; Business, Management and accounting 2 D. X. Mai anD B. t. le etal., 2012; Jalali, 2012; ai etal., 2015). the third stream is the studies on the effect of perceived export stimuli and perceived export barriers on export performance (haghighi etal., 2008; stoian, 2010; gilaninia et al., 2013; anil et al., 2016). in term of the study on the government support, there have not been many studies on the direct and indirect relationship between government export support and export performance. Related to indirect relationship, perceived export barrier is the mediator variable just was studied by Karakaya and Yannopoulos (2012) and there have not been any studies of perceived export stimuli as mediator variable. While one of the mainstreams of perceived export stimuli and perceived export barriers is the study on joint effect of perceived export stimuli and perceived export barriers on export performance, the extant studies have not yet tested the indirect relationship between government export support and export performance with the mediator variable of the combination of perceived export stimuli and perceived export barriers. in addition, the previous studies showed the effect of perceived export stimuli on export performance (Pett et al., 2004; Boubakri et al., 2013; hemmati et al., 2018) but the effect of perceived export stimuli on perceived export barriers and the effect of perceived export stimuli on export performance through perceived export barriers have not been tested yes. Furthermore, there is a lack of research on sMes exporting agricultural products in a developing country, with a transitional economy as Vietnam. taking into account the above mentioned, there is a certain need to conduct this research to fill the research gap. this research objective is to investigate the relationship among government export support, perceived internal export stimuli, perceived external export stimuli, perceived internal export barriers, perceived external export barriers and export performance in order to suggest some managerial and policy implications to boost the agricultural exports to asean + 3. the data was collected from 257 directors/deputy directors, chief/deputy export sales managers or staff who have more than 5 years of working experience in sMes exporting agricultural products directly to asean + 3. in the next section, rationale for the constructs and their hypothesized interrelationships are presented. then a detailed description of the research method and measures are provided. after reporting the study results, the article will conclude with some managerial and policy implications, its limitations and future research needs. 2. Literature review and hypotheses 2.1. Theoretical background according to Barney’s RBV theory (1991), enterprises should assess whether their resources are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable or not. if resources are well exploited, enterprises will increase their competitive advantage and performance. enterprises perceive that their own resources can create internal stimuli or internal barriers to export. anil et al. (2016) believe that enterprise resources are factors affecting their export performance. therefore, RBV theory shows that good export performance is based only on valuable, rare, difficult internal resources to imitate and to non-substitute. if an enterprise possesses unique resources, it will perceive this as internal export stimuli to achieve better performance. On the contrary, if an enterprise does not possess unique resources, internal barriers can be perceived that adversely affect its export performance. in addition, because of limited resources, sMes need government support. government support does not only affect export performance directly, but also indirectly (Katsikeas et al., 1996; gençtürk & Kotabe, 2001) because it helps to supplement and increase enterprise’s limited resources. according to lawrence and lorsch’s contingency theory (1967), sMes internationalization behavior is dynamic and diverse because it mostly depends on the enterprise’s capabilities and on the external environment. sousa et al. (2008); nemkova et al. (2012) argued that external factors are mentioned by the approach of the contingency theory and according to which the external environmental factors influence the strategy and enterprise performance. external factors in export activities are specific external environmental factors that are beyond enterprise’s control such as characteristics of the export markets, political factors, legal factors, cultural factors, supports from the host government (Katsikeas, 2014). the favorable external environmental factors will be perceived as external export stimuli and the adverse external environmental factors will be perceived as external export cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 3 barriers. the perception of these external export stimuli and barriers affects enterprise’s export performance. institutional theory (scott, 1995) shows that government support is considered as formal institutions or regulations to guide enterprises, provide knowledge and experience, reduce uncertainties to achieve good performance. Bruton et al. (2010) also argued that government support helps to remove export barriers. Boehe et al. (2016) indicated that institutions play an important role in reducing uncertainties and providing supports and guidance to enterprises. these supports and guidance encourage businesses to learn, improve and adapt to challenges. cardoza et al. (2016), narooz and child (2017) also showed that the lack of government support increases uncertainty and transaction costs for sMes in developing countries. therefore, the government export support has a direct effect on enterprise’s export performance as well as the indirect effect on the increase in perceived export stimuli and the decrease in perceived export barriers. 2.2. Perceived export stimuli Perceived export stimuli are the enterprise perception of the factors that influence an enterprise’s decision to initiate, continue, or develop exports (leonidou, 1995a & Morgan, 1997). there is a wide array of export stimuli which can be classified as perceived internal and external export stimuli (leonidou, 1995a; navarro-garcía, 2016); proactive and reactive export stimuli (leonidou et al., 1998; Katsikeas et al., 1996; Pett et al., 2004); export stimuli based on export period (Revindo & gan 2017). this research approaches the classification of internal stimuli and external stimuli (leonidou, 1995a). internal stimuli are associated with influences endogenous to firms (e.g. accumulation of unsold inventory, desire for extra corporate growth, possession of a unique product), while external stimuli are derived from the environment in which firms operate or intend to operate (e.g. unsolicited orders from abroad, favourable exchange rates, encouragement by government agencies) (leonidou, 1995a; leonidou et al., 2007). 2.3. Perceived export barriers Perceived export barriers are the enterprise perception of constraints that may hinder or prevent exporting, or block and discourage firm from initiating, increasing or maintaining export (arteaga-Ortiz & Fernández-Ortiz, 2010; leonidou, 1995b). there is also a wide array of export barriers which can be classified as initial and ongoing barriers (Bilkey & tesar, 1977); perceived internal and external export barriers (cavusgil, 1984; leonidou, 1995b); barriers from regular and sporadic exporters (Kaleka & Katsikeas, 1995). this research approaches the classification of internal barriers and external barriers (leonidou, 1995b). internal barriers are defined as firm’s endogenous problems associated with a lack of organisational resources, while external barriers are more diverse and relate to issues in firms’ external environment including problems in both home and host markets (tesfom & lutz, 2006). internal barriers include informational, functional, financial and marketing barriers while external barriers include procedural, governmental, task and environmental barriers (narayanan, 2015). 2.4. Government export support government export support is programs with the purpose of creating export understanding, encouraging and reducing export barriers for enterprises (seringhaus & Rosson, 1990). there are many kinds of export support programs. according to gençtürk and Kotabe (2001), ali and shamsuddoha (2007), Durmuşoğlu et al. (2012); Faroque and takahashi (2015), government support programs are listed as specific programs, such as technical assistance for developing new products, participation in international trade fairs and specialised export fairs, export workshops and seminars, assistance for establishing sales and display centres abroad. ali and shamsuddoha (2007) categorised export government support as market support and financial support. leonidou (1998) studied higher-order construct of government support with lower constructs of information-related programs, education-and training-related programs, trade mobility-related programs and financial aid-related programs. government support also is divided 4 D. X. Mai anD B. t. le into financial support and non-financial support (ayob & Freixanet, 2014). this research’s approach is based on leonidou (1998) because the classification is quite clear, fully showing the kinds of government support programs. 2.5. Export performance and hypotheses according to Papadopoulos and Martín (2010), chen et al. (2016), export performance is the enterprise results in international market. export performance can be measured in three methods, including financial (objective) scale (Jalali, 2012; Katsikeas etal., 2000; Zou & stan, 1998), non-financial (subjective) scale (Jalali, 2012; sousa, 2004; Zou & stan, 1998), the combination of financial and non-financial scales or the combination of objective and subjective scales (Katsikeas etal., 2000). While financial scale measures the revenue, profit, market share, nonfinancial scale indicates products, markets, satisfaction (Zou & stan, 1998; Katsikeas et al., 2000). the combination scale is assessed through the perception or satisfaction of export activities (Katsikeas et al., 2000; lages & lages, 2003). Because enterprises do not like to disclose information with specific data on their business performance, this research approaches non-financial or subjective scale based on enterprise satisfaction on export performance. While some studies show a positive effect of perceived export stimuli on export performance and a negative effect of perceived export barriers on export performance (Boubakri etal., 2013; hemmati etal., 2018; gerschewski et al., 2020), others demonstrate opposite results (Pett et al., 2004) or non-significant impact (Boubakri et al., 2013). several studies related to the direct effect of government export support on export performance have showed mixed results of either positive or non-significance impact. in the indirect relationship between export support and export performance, studies show a variety of mediator variables, in which, the perceived export stimuli have not been studied, the perceived export barriers just were studied by Karakaya and Yannopoulos (2012). leonidou (1998) also believe that participating in government export support programs helps enterprises to increase their perception of profits obtained from their exports. the purpose of government support programs is to create a more positive business owners attitude about profit opportunities, growth in foreign markets (leonidou et al., 1998), accumulation of positive attitudes towards the export (ali & shamsuddoha, 2007). several studies proved that the government export support helps to increase enterprise resources then leads to the increase in their perception of export stimuli (czinkota, 1994; leonidou 1998; njinyah, 2017). according to czinkota (1994), market information support helps to increase the enterprise perception of internal stimuli for revenue and profit, helping enterprises to make adjustments to products which are more suitable for their export markets. Positive information on export markets, favorable policies in export markets also help increase the impact of enterprise’s perceived external export stimuli. supporting enterprises to participate in exhibitions and trade fairs also helps to provide knowledge and information for businesses, increasing perception of internal export stimuli and also external export stimuli for market opportunities, export products (seringhaus & Rosson, 1990). Financial support increases the perception of profit stimuli (czinkota, 1994) as well as the perception of external export stimuli in foreign markets. Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses should be tested: h1a: there is a positive relationship between government export support and perceived internal export stimuli h1b: there is a positive relationship between government export support and perceived external export stimuli according to singer and czinkota (1994), leonidou (1998), government support programs directly reduce the impact of export barriers, helping enterprises boost their operations to achieve superior export performance. lederman et al. (2016); Kanda et al. (2016) argued that sMes may appreciate the risks associated with their performance in export markets which can hinder their market penetration. therefore, government support help to minimize the adverse effects from the external environment and reduce failures in the export markets (Kanda et al., 2016). according to shamsuddoha etal. (2009), government support programs provide information and knowledge through fairs, seminars, etc. to help reduce perceived internal barriers related to information and limited knowledge. this kind of support programs also help reduce the perception of export procedures and regulations which are external cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 5 barriers (leonidou 1998). Köhr etal. (2018)’s research also showed that a high perception of barriers can hinder enterprises from expanding their operations abroad, but if they are provided with knowledge, information and advice, enterprises can overcome export barriers. therefore, the following hypotheses should be tested: h2a: there is a negative relationship between government export support and perceived internal export barriers h2b: there is a negative relationship between government export support and perceived external export barriers the instrumental role of government export support in helping firms boost their exports has been proved in several studies (Durmuşoğlu etal., 2012; leonidou 1998; singer & czinkota, 1994). singer and czinkota (1994) showed that information and knowledge about export markets supplied by support programs can promote managers to have a positive attitude towards export performance. Wilkinson and Brouthers (2006) also believed that attending exhibitions, trade fairs and seminars helps enterprises increase their activities in less experienced markets. Durmuşoğlu et al. (2012) mentioned that export support is the main factor that positively affects export performance and helps to encourage enterprises to promote their performance to new markets. Recently, Myint (2019) also showed that there is a positive relationship between financial and technical support and export performance when making the research on garment enterprises in Myanmar. therefore, the following hypothesis was tested in this study: h3: there is a positive relationship between government export support and export performance exporters do business because of export motives related to revenue, profit and growth which also contribute positively to firm performance (gray, 1997; stoian et al., 2011). however, the extent to which firms are motivated to export to achieve revenue and profit goals is related to managers’ perception of export markets (leonidou etal., 2007). Perception of the similarity between home and host markets can determine enterprise export behavior and as a result, it affects firm export performance (stoian et al., 2011). according to sousa et al. (2008), the market similarities are an important determinant of export performance. the similarities between home and host markets are easier for enterprises to control than the differences of those. therefore, there is a success increase in close distance markets. in addition, the perception of the positive information about the market, the demand and the attractiveness of the export markets play an important role in expanding the export markets, leading to firm successful performance (Diamantopoulos & souchon, 1999; souchon & Diamantopoulos, 1996). environmental factors are those from home environment, including export stimuli such as favorable export exchange rates, the supports from the government, banks and industry which also affect export performance (leonidou etal., 2007). several empirical studies have showed that both perceived internal export stimuli and external export stimuli have positive effects on export performance (anil et al., 2016; haghighi et al., 2008). this leads to the following hypotheses to be tested: h4a: there is a positive relationship between perceived internal export stimuli and export performance h4b: there is a positive relationship between perceived external export stimuli and export performance adverse environmental factors are perceived by enterprises as export barriers, affecting the export performance. the more barriers are perceived, the more enterprises realize that export barriers have negative effects on export performance. this is because perceived export barriers lead to a negative attitude towards export performance (Dean et al., 2000). Perceived barriers limit the enterprises’ ability to seek, identify and exploit export opportunities effectively. therefore, it leads to dissatisfaction with export performance (Katsikeas et al., 1996). Most studies confirm that management perceptions of export barriers negatively affect export performance (Zou & stan, 1998) and this has been proved in many studies such as Da silva and Da Rocha (2001); Wilkinson and Brouthers (2006); al-hyari et al. (2012); Boermans and Roelfsema (2013); sinkovics et al. (2018); Yong et al. (2018). therefore, the following hypotheses will be tested: h5a: there is a negative relationship between perceived internal export barriers and export performance h5b: there is a negative relationship between perceived external export barriers and export performance 6 D. X. Mai anD B. t. le Kahiya (2016) suggested that some extant studies on export barriers focus on external stimuli (such as export support programs) as a method to deal with export barriers. Because external stimuli can lead to the increase in internal resources that firms can break down barriers. With internal resource increase, sMes will perceive it as internal stimuli. gerschewski et al. (2020) indicated the effect of internal export stimuli on export readiness which includes the readiness to face export barriers. carrillo-labella et al. (2020) also mentioned that motivational factors (such as some norms, standards) help to overcome barriers. in addition, in interviews with some directors, they agreed that perceived internal, external export stimuli have the effects on perceived internal, external export barriers. the reason is that when enterprises have their positive perception of internal resources, enterprises can overcome internal barriers as well as external barriers. similarly, when enterprises have a positive perception of their stimuli to domestic environment and export markets, they are motivated to overcome internal and external difficulties and barriers. therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed: h6a: there is a negative relationship between perceived internal export stimuli and internal export barriers h6b: there is a negative relationship between perceived internal export stimuli and external export barriers h6c: there is a negative relationship between perceived external export stimuli and internal export barriers h6d: there is a negative relationship between perceived external export stimuli and external export barriers the proposed research model with hypotheses is showed in Figure 1. 3. Research methodology this study combines qualitative and quantitative research methods. Qualitative research was conducted through face-to-face interviews and a focus group to adjust the observational variables to be suitable for the research context in Vietnam. First, drawing on literature review, a preliminary version of the questionnaire was developed. government support programs are second order construct comprising four first-order factors: information-related programs, education and training-related programs, trade mobility-related programs and Financial aid-related programs (leonidou 1998). Perceived internal export stimuli, perceived external export stimuli, perceived internal export barriers, perceived external export barriers are first-order constructs. they are synthesized from previous studies (Da silva & Da Rocha, 2001; el Makrini, 2015; Kahiya, 2016; Katsikeas et al., 1996; leonidou, 1995a, 1995b, 2000, 2004). export performance is dependable variable which is first-order construct drawing from Katsikeas etal. (1996)’s research. the subjective scale of export performance is used in this study. second, face-to-face interviews were implemented with 5 enterprise representatives who are senior executives in agricultural export sMes, 4 scientists who are lecturers teaching the courses of international trade and 4 state management agency representatives whose duties relate to government support programs. third, the focus group was set up with 5 enterprise representatives. after the step of face-to-face interviews and focus group, some observational items of research constructs were suggested to add or remove to be suitable for the research context. there are 16 items in total for the construct of government support programs. there are 6 items for the construct of perceived internal export stimuli; 7 items for the construct of perceived external export stimuli; 7 items for the construct of perceived internal export barriers; 11 items for the construct of perceived external export barriers and 3 items for the construct of export performance. Quantitative research was conducted through smart-Pls software with 257 sMes surveyed for the evaluation of measurement model and structural model. sample taking methods of convenience and snowball were applied because it was not easy to approach the board of management in sMes. all respondents are in senior positions or have more than 5 years working in their businesses. Because these respondents are involved in important export decision-making or have a lot of working experience, the reliability of the provided information is ensured. Respondents were asked to indicate the benefit level of the government support programs, the level of consensus on perceived internal export stimuli, perceived external export stimuli, perceived internal export barriers, perceived external export stimuli and the satisfaction level of export performance when enterprises export agricultural products to one of their selected markets in asean + 3. a five-point scale was used to evaluate each item level of all constructs (1 = completely disagree; 5 = completely agree). cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 7 4. Results the characteristics of research samples is showed in table 1. Most sMes respondents are in the south of Vietnam, with 61%. the highest percentage of firm size is sMes with below 50 employees, taking account of 69%. china is the market to which most of sMes export their agricultural products, occupying 43%. it shows that the survey sample’s characteristics are consistent with the reality in Vietnam when the south is the area in where the most agricultural exporting enterprises are, small enterprises account for the majority among all sizes enterprises and the Vietnam’s biggest agricultural export market is china. 4.1. Evaluation of the measurement model according to hair (2017), there are three criteria to evaluate the reflective measurement model, including internal consistency (cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability), convergent validity (outer loading, average variance extracted) and discriminant validity. higher-order component (gs) includes lower-order component: iP, eP, tP, FP which satisfy the reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. higher-order component (gs) with the remaining constructs in the model is, eXP satisfy the reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. es, iB, eB have not yet met convergent validity. in order to meet the Figure 1. Proposed research model. 14 D. X. Mai anD B. t. le programs; (2) information-related programs; (3) education-and training-related programs; (4) Financial aid-related programs. 7. Limitations and future research this study has some limitations. First, the sample size of this study is only 257 samples. second, the sampling method is convenience and snowball sampling which are not good to have a completely exact result. these restrictions are due to limitation to approach the board of management members in sMes. in the future, it is necessary to increase the sample size and select the sample quota evenly across areas and use better sampling methods. in addition, research on knowing and using government support programs, the moderator role of government export support, other enterprise internal and external factors that affect export performance should be conducted in the future. Disclosure statement no potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Impact statement as an agricultural country with a rural population of nearly 70%, agriculture plays an important role in Vietnam. the average annual export value of agricultural products accounts for about 10% of Vietnam’s total export value and asean + 3 are the major export markets of Vietnam’s agricultural products. although since 2012, Vietnam has shifted from a trade deficit to a trade surplus, there is a trade deficit with asean + 3 market. Based on the data collected from samples of 257 sMes in the north, central, highland and the south in Vietnam, exporting agricultural products to asean + 3, the result shows some relationships among factors of government export support, perceived export stimuli, perceived export barriers and export performance. From the result, some managerial and policy implications are suggested to increase the export performance which helps to reduce the trade deficit with asean + 3 market and brings benefits to sMes exporting agricultural products to asean + 3. About the authors Dao Mai Xuan is a lecturer of Faculty of commerce at University of Finance – Marketing in ho chi Minh city, Vietnam. her research interests include international business and management. Buu Le Tan is a lecturer of school of international Business and Marketing at Ueh University, Vietnam. his research interests include international business, marketing and management. References ai, t. h., tuu, h. h., & hau, t. V. (2015). export barriers and export performance of Vietnamese seafood firms. Journal of Economics Development, 22(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.24311/jed/2015.22.4.06 al-hyari, K., al-Weshah, g., & alnsour, M. (2012). Barriers to internationalization in sMes: evidence from Jordan. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(2), 188–211. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501211211975 ali, M. Y., & shamsuddoha, a. K. (2007). export promotion programs as antecedents of internationalization of developing country firms: a theoretical model and empirical assessment. Journal for Global Business Advancement, 1(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1504/JgBa.2007.012547 anil, n. K., shoham, a., & Pfajfar, g. (2016). how export barriers, motives, and advantages impact export performance in developing countries. International Journal of Export Marketing, 1(2), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1504/ iJeXPORtM.2016.081554 arteaga-Ortiz, J., & Fernández-Ortiz, R. (2010). Why don’t we use the same export barrier measurement scale? an empirical analysis in small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(3), 395–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00300.x cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 15 ayob, a. h., & Freixanet, J. (2014). insights into public export promotion programs in an emerging economy: the case of Malaysian sMes. Evaluation and Program Planning, 46(4), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.05.005 Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https:// doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 Bilkey, W. J., & tesar, g. (1977). the export behavior of smaller-sized Wisconsin manufacturing firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490783 Boehe, D. M., Qian, g., & Peng, M. W. (2016). export intensity, scope, and destinations: evidence from Brazil. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.01.006 Boermans, M. a., & Roelfsema, h. (2013). the effects of managerial capabilities on export, FDi and innovation: evidence from indian firms. Asian Business & Management, 12(4), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1057/abm.2013.7 Boubakri, W. F., Zghidi, a. B. Y., & Zaiem, i. (2013). the effect of export stimuli on export performance: the case of the tunisian industrial firms. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(1), 155–167. Bruton, g. D., ahlstrom, D., & li, h. l. (2010). institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 421–440. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00390.x cardoza, g., Fornes, g., Farber, V., Duarte, R. g., & gutierrez, J. R. (2016). Barriers and public policies affecting the international expansion of latin american sMes: evidence from Brazil, colombia, and Peru. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2030–2039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.148 carrillo-labella, R., Fort, F., & Parras-Rosa, M. (2020). Motives, barriers, and expected benefits of isO 14001 in the agri-food sector. Sustainability, 12(5), 1724–1731. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051724 cavusgil, s. t. (1984). Organizational characteristics associated with export activity. Journal of Management Studies, 21(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00222.x chen, J., sousa, c. M., & he, X. (2016). the determinants of export performance: a review of the literature 2006- 2014. International Marketing Review, 33(5), 626–670. https://doi.org/10.1108/iMR-10-2015-0212 cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Psychology Press. crick, D., & Jones, M. V. (2000). small high-technology firms and international high-technology markets. Journal of International Marketing, 8(2), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.8.2.63.19623 czinkota, M. R. (1994). a national export assistance policy for new and growing businesses. Journal of International Marketing, 2(1), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031X9400200106 Da silva, P., & Da Rocha, a. (2001). Perception of export barriers to Mercosur by Brazilian firms. International Marketing Review, 18(6), 589–611. https://doi.org/10.1108/eUM0000000006296 Dean, D. l., Mengüç, B., & Myers, c. P. (2000). Revisiting firm characteristics, strategy, and export performance relationship. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-8501(99)00085-1 Diamantopoulos, a., & souchon, a. l. (1999). Measuring export information use: scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(98)00099-X Durmuşoğlu, s. s., apfelthaler, g., nayir, D. Z., alvarez, R., & Mughan, t. (2012). the effect of government-designed export promotion service use on small- and mediumsized enterprise goal achievement: a multidimensional view of export performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4), 680–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.09.016 el Makrini, h. (2015). how does management perceive export success? an empirical study of Moroccan sMes. Business Process Management Journal, 21(1), 126–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-04-2013-0053 Faroque, a. R., & takahashi, Y. (2015). export marketing assistance and early internationalizing firm performance: Does export commitment matter? Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 27(3), 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1108/ aPJMl-03-2014-0045 geisser, s. (1974). a predictive approach to the random effects model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101–107. https://doi. org/10.1093/biomet/61.1.101 gençtürk, e. F., & Kotabe, M. (2001). the effect of export assistance program usage on export performance: a contingency explanation. Journal of International Marketing, 9(2), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.9.2.51.19886 gerschewski, s., scott‐Kennel, J., & Rose, e. l. (2020). Ready to export? the role of export readiness for superior export performance of small and medium‐sized enterprises. The World Economy, 43(5), 1253–1276. https://doi. org/10.1111/twec.12928 gilaninia, s., taleghani, M., Damirchi, D., & Fatemeh, g. (2013). impact of managerial factors on export performance of export firms. Singaporean Journal of Business, Economics and Management Studies, 1(8), 27–33. https://doi. org/10.12816/0003787 gray, B. J. (1997). Profiling managers to improve export promotion targeting. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490106 haddoud, M. Y., Jones, P., & newbery, R. (2017). export promotion programmes and sMes’ performance: exploring the network promotion role. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(1), 68–87. https://doi. org/10.1108/JsBeD-07-2016-0116 16 D. X. Mai anD B. t. le haddoud, M. Y., Jones, P., & newbery, R. (2018). export promotion programmes and sMes’ performance: exploring the network promotion role. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(1), 68–87. https://doi. org/10.1108/JsBeD-07-2016-0116 haghighi, M., Firozian, M., & najafi, M. s. (2008). identify the determining factors of export performance in the food industry. Journal of Business Management, 1(1), 3–20. hair, J. F., hult, g. t. M., Ringle, c., & sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). sage Publications. hemmati, M., Feiz, D., azar, a., & Zarei, a. (2018). identifying managers’ mental models of export development stimuli in the market of developing countries. Herald NAMSCA, 4, 1272–1286. Jalali, s. h. (2012). export barriers and export performance: empirical evidence from the commercial relationship between greece and iran. South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics, 1(33), 53–66. Kahiya, et. (2016). export barriers as liabilities: near perfect substitutes. European Business Review, 29(1), 61–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/eBR-12-2015-0160 Kaleka, a., & Katsikeas, c. s. (1995). exporting problems: the relevance of export development. Journal of Marketing Management, 11(5), 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.1995.9964361 Kanda, W., hjelm, O., & Mejía-Dugand, s. (2016). Promoting the export of environmental technologies: an analysis of governmental initiatives from eight countries. Environmental Development, 17, 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.09.009 Karakaya, F., & Yannopoulos, P. (2012). Relationship between export support, export barriers and performance for canadian sMes. Journal of Euromarketing, 21(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.9768/0021.1.01 Katsikeas, c. (2014). Objectives, challenges, and the way forward. Journal of International Marketing, 22(1), 1–4. https:// doi.org/10.1509/jim.22.1.editorial Katsikeas, c. s., Piercy, n. F., & ioannidis, c. (1996). Determinants of export performance in a european context. European Journal of Marketing, 30(6), 6–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569610121656 Katsikeas, c., leonidou, l., & Morgan, n. (2000). Firm-level export performance assessment: Review, evaluation, and development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(4), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300284003 Köhr, c. K., camanzi, l., & Malorgio, g. (2018). exploring structural and strategic correlates of difficulties in the internationalization process of italian wine sMes. Wine Economics and Policy, 7(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. wep.2018.01.004 lages, c. R., & lages, l. F. (2003). Marketing strategy and export performance: empirical evidence from the UK [Paper presentation]. cD-ROM Proceedings of 32nd eMac conference, glasgow. lawrence, P. R., & lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation & integration. harvard graduate school of Business. lederman, D., Olarreaga, M., & Zavala, l. (2016). export promotion and firm entry into and survival in export markets. Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue Canadienne D’études du Développement, 37(2), 142–158. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2016.1131671 leonidou, l. c. (1995a). export stimulation: a non‐exporter’s perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 29(8), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569510097538 leonidou, l. c. (1995b). export barriers: non-exporters’ perceptions. International Marketing Review, 12(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651339510080070 leonidou, l. c. (2004). an analysis of the barriers hindering small business export development. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(3), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2004.00112.x leonidou, l. c. (1998). Factors stimulating export business: an empirical investigation. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 14(2), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v14i2.5714 leonidou, l. c. (2000). Barriers to export management: an Organizational and internationalization analysis. Journal of International Management, 6(2), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1075-4253(00)00022-3 leonidou, l. c., Katsikeas, c. s., Palihawadana, D., & spyropoulou, s. (2007). an analytical review of the factors stimulating smaller firms to export: implications for policy-makers. International Marketing Review, 24(6), 735–770. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330710832685 leonidou, l., Katsikeas, c., & Piercy, n. (1998). identifying managerial influences on exporting: past research and future directions. Journal of International Marketing, 6(2), 74–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031X9800600209 Mencinger, J. (2003). Does foreign direct investment always enhance economic growth? Kyklos, 56(4), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0023-5962.2003.00235.x Morgan, R. e. (1997). export stimuli and export barriers: evidence from empirical research studies. European Business Review, 97(2), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555349710162571 Myint, Y. M. (2019). the export performance of Myanmar garment industry. Journal of the Myanmar Academy of Arts and Science, 17(8), 75–99. narayanan, V. (2015). export Barriers for small and Medium-sized enterprises: a literature Review based on leonidou’s Model. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 3(2), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.15678/eBeR.2015.030208 narooz, R., & child, J. (2017). networking responses to different levels of institutional void: a comparison of internationalizing sMes in egypt and the UK. International Business Review, 26(4), 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.12.008 cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 17 navarro-garcía, a. (2016). Drivers of export entrepreneurship. International Business Review, 25(1), 244–254. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.05.007 nemkova, e., souchon, a. l., & hughes, P. (2012). export decision-making orientation: an exploratory study. International Marketing Review, 29(4), 349–378. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651331211242610 njinyah, s. (2017). the effectiveness of government policies for export promotion on the export performance of sMes cocoa exporters in cameroon. International Marketing Review, 35(1), 164–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/ iMR-05-2016-0103 Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1994). toward a theory of international new Ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490193 Papadopoulos, n., & Martín, O. M. (2010). international market selection and segmentation: Perspectives and challenges. International Marketing Review, 28(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651331111122632 Peteraf, M. a. (1993). the cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303 Pett, t. l., Francis, J. D., & Wolff, J. a. (2004). examining sMe internationalization motives as an extension of competitive strategy. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, Mar 2004, 1–13. Revindo, M. D., & gan, c. (2017). export stimuli, export stages and internationalization pathways: the case of indonesian sMes. Economics and Finance in Indonesia, 62(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.7454/efi.v62i3.557 scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. sage Publications. seringhaus, R. & P. Rosson (eds.) (1990). Government export promotion: A global perspective. Routledge. shamsuddoha, a., Yunus, a. M., & Oly, n. n. (2009). impact of government export assistance on internationalization of sMes from developing nations. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22(4), 408–422. https://doi. org/10.1108/17410390910975022 singer, t. O., & czinkota, M. R. (1994). Factors associated with effective use of export assistance. Journal of International Marketing, 2(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031X9400200104 sinkovics, R. R., Kurt, Y., & sinkovics, n. (2018). the effect of matching on perceived export barriers and performance in an era of globalization discontents: empirical evidence from UK sMes. International Business Review. 27(5), 1065– 1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.03.007 souchon, a. l., & Diamantopoulos, a. (1996). a conceptual framework of export marketing information use: Key issues and research propositions. Journal of International Marketing, 4(3), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/106903 1X9600400305 sousa, c. M. P. (2004). export performance measurement: an evaluation of the empirical research in the literature. Academy of Marketing Science Review, http://www.amsreview.org/articles/sousa09-2004.pdf sousa, c. M. P., Martínez‐lópez, F. J., & coelho, F. (2008). the determinants of export performance: a review of the research in the literature between 1998 and 2005. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(4), 343–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00232.x stoian, M. c., Rialp, a., & Rialp, J. (2011). export performance under the microscope: a glance through spanish lenses. International Business Review, 20(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.07.002 stoian, M. c. (2010). Export behavior, international marketing strategy and export performance in Spanish small and mediumsized enterprises. [Doctoral thesis]. autonomous University of Barcelona. tesfom, g., & lutz, c. (2006). a classification of export marketing problems of small and medium sized manufacturing firms in developing countries. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 1(3), 262–281. https://doi. org/10.1108/17468800610674480 Wang, X., chen, a., Wang, h., & li, s. (2017). effect of export promotion programs on export performance: evidence from manufacturing sMes. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(1), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.3846 /16111699.2016.1278031 Wilkinson, t. J., & Brouthers, l. e. (2006). trade promotion and sMe export performance. International Business Review, 15(3), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2006.03.001 Yong, a., nee, h., & Moorthy, K. (2018). Drivers to go global: evidence from Malaysian small and medium enterprises. Global Management Review, 12(2), 29–34. Zou, s., & stan, s. (1998). the determinants of export performance: a review of the empirical literature between 1987 and 1997. International Marketing Review, 15(5), 333–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651339810236290