See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274512494

Government Policy and Performance of Small and Medium Business

Management

Article in International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · February 2015
DOI: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v5-i2/1481

CITATIONS READS
69 11,034

1 author:

Anthony A Eniola
University Malaysia Sarawak
57 PUBLICATIONS 1,251 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Anthony A Eniola on 16 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
February 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2
ISSN: 2222-6990

Government Policy and Performance of Small and

Medium Business Management

Anthony Abiodun Eniola

Department of Business Management, University of Malaysia
Email: [email protected]

Dr. Harry Entebang

Department of Business Management, University of Malaysia
Email: [email protected]
DOI: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v5-i2/1481 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v5-i2/1481

Abstract

It is recorded that 99 per cent of the business bodies in Nigeria are MSMEs which has been an
instrumental component in GDP and hub for work opportunities. Even so the identification of
the important roles SMEs play in Nigeria, their evolution is mostly bounded by a number of
elements, such as the existence of laws, ordinances, and rules that frustrate the growth of the
sector. The study reviews the relationship between government policies and small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) performance in Nigeria. The study offered some relevant recommendations
to policy makers, entrepreneurs, and SME managers to ensure the appropriate scheme to
improve the SME sector in Nigeria.

Keywords: SME; performance; government policy

1. Introduction

The point of convergence of this study is the small and medium enterprise performance as the
key economic sector in both developed and emerging economies (Altenburg & Eckhardt, 2006;
Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005). The vast majority of firms globally is SMEs,
and they play a significant role in the economy (Brush & Vanderwerf, 1992; Lumpkin & Dess,
1996; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005). This means SME serves as an initial source of motivation
for economic power. This assertion is further clearly demonstrated by the fact that the
backbone of the European economy is SMEs which is about 98 per cent of the enterprises in
the EU. In 2012, SMEs employ 67 per cent of the European workforce and generate 58 per cent
of the revenue. The formal SME sector contributes 33 per cent to gross domestic product
(GDP) and accounts for about 45 per cent of total employment in developing countries (IFC,
2010). SMIs in the quarrying and mining, manufacturing, energy, gas and water sectors are of

237
www.hrmars.com
 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
February 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2
ISSN: 2222-6990

particular importance in the SME sector (Wymenga, Spanikova, Barker, Konings, & Canton,
2012). SMEs contributes about 45 per cent of manufacturing employment and 29 per cent of
manufacturing GDP in developing countries, in contrast to 67 per cent and 49 per cent in
developed countries, respectively (IFC, 2010). This shows that the SMEs in developed countries
have a higher success rate than developing countries.

Small is profitable in Nigeria. The performance and importance of SMEs going forward are
bound to be even bigger and more immanent with a detectable impact on the rising world
commercialism order. SMEs have to recognize what their resources are and they need to know
how to utilize them, flex them into an advantage for their business. However, in the figure of
the general economy, SMEs cannot compete with merely view at the cost and by simply cutting
it; they need to compete on the basis of cognition and the value added (Sevrani & Bahiti, 2008).
Therefore, the development of sound good government policy for SMEs is an indispensable
component of the growth strategy of most economies and holds particular significance.

Beck, Demirgüç-Kunt, and Maksimovic (2005) provided evidence on the importance of the
financial system and legal enforcement on firm growth. From the point of persuasion of the
growth of local and state economic systems, SME holds an important position. However,
activity mix in the sector is also quite limited-dominated by import dependent processes and
factors. For the purpose to get enough financial gain to assist reduce the prevalence of high-
level economic condition in most developing economies, international funding bodies
and economic process analysts have prompt to policymakers in developing economies to
create larger efforts at promoting non-public sector development with SMEs being the
vanguard (Snodgrass & Winkler, 2004).

SME performance is constrained by internal factors and external factors, such as the carrying
capacity of the environment, government policy or competition. The chief importance is that
SMEs have the capability to produce sufficient levels of skilled and semi-skilled employment
(Bubou, Siyanbola, Ekperiware, & Gumus, 2014; J. O. Okpara & Kumbiadis, 2008). The resource-
based view of the firm proposes that competitive advantage issue from the assets and an array
of resources that are in how superior to those of its competitors. Surveys had shown that
Nigeria consists of a huge number of SMEs which are the chief provider of job opportunities for
the legal age of the population. However, SMEs face many challenges such as government
policy, which affect their performance in Nigeria (Bubou et al., 2014). Thus, SMEs which lacked
government support policies have restricted access to improving their performance. Studies
related to performance of SMEs do not provide all inclusive expression for the performance of
these firms. Specifically, studies have been centred on factors affecting the performance of
established SMEs (Harvie, C, Narjoko, & Oum, 2010). In Nigeria, a methodical and empirical
work regarding the cognition of how the government policies impact the functioning of the
SMEs sector is few and this is worthy of review.

238
www.hrmars.com
 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
February 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2
ISSN: 2222-6990

2. SME Firm Performance

Performance is the strategic outcomes that organizations use to realize its goals, success or not
(J B Barney, 1991; Davidsson, 2004; Gregory G. Dess & Robinson, 1984; McMahon, 2001;
Ostgaard & Birley, 1995; Sefiani & Bown, 2013). Firm performance activity springs from a
large spectrum of disciplines (Marr & Schiuma, 2003). Performance is the key interest of
each business manager or owner. The general performance of the organization depends on the
correct management at the three levels of management (Gibcus & Kemp, 2003). The
authors more in brief mentioned that Business performance measures market-related items
that indicate existing business such as sales growth and market share and future positioning of
the firm such as new product development and diversification. These are the two dimensions
here. Financial performance is at the centre of the organizational effectiveness domain. Such
performance standards are considered necessary, but not sufficient to determine the overall
effectiveness (Murphy, Trailer, & Hill, 1996). Accounting-based measures based on profitability
such as return on sales (ROS), return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) measure
financial performance (Parker, 2000). Organisational effectiveness measures are nearly related
to stakeholders other than shareholders. There are two dimensions with indicators related to
quality such as product quality, worker satisfaction, overall quality and those indicators
associated with social responsibility like environmental and community responsibility.

The term performance is ambiguous, lack agreement on basic terminology, and there is no
simple definition and measurement to evaluate the performance of a firm, which further
compound the topic area for management researchers (Jogaratnam, Tse, & Olsen, 1999; Otley,
1999). Firm performance is an important variable in business research (Rosenbusch, Rauch, &
Unger, 2007). As a multidimensional construct, performance has several names, including
growth (Dobbs & Hamilton, 2007; Wolff & Pett, 2006), survival, success and competitiveness.
Performance can be characterized as the firm’s ability to create acceptable outcomes and
actions. Penrose (1995) argued that a performance is associated analysis of the degree and a
firm has successfully accomplished its ends. Irrespective of the differences among researchers
on what the definition of performance is, they agree that it is mostly tied in with arithmetic
means for success. The SME firm performance is regulated along the lucky outcome of firms in
the market, each domestically, and globally. Facts on performance are beneficial in the
conjecture the capability of the enterprise thence analyzing how avail or abjectly an enterprise
is performing against its set targets. Performance is commonly employed as an index of a firm’s
health over a dedicated period of the fourth dimension. This puts the performance as one of
the central issues of SMEs. The ability to generate change in management Soriano (2010) by
perceiving market opportunities, adapting to the environment, and possessing certain
managerial factors, product innovations, creativity, proactiveness, technological change,
networking, are all vital factors in bringing about strategic improvements in firm performance.

A performance index system requires a relationship between inputs, process, outputs and
outcomes and should be conducted with the following objectives: are we managing the things
239
www.hrmars.com
 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
February 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2
ISSN: 2222-6990

right and are we doing the right things? If initially the performance measurement was based on
the results obtained, theories have introduced the need to introduce inputs, process indicators
used in obtaining the results and the outcome indicators, namely the effects generated by the
results, creating a comprehensive performance measurement system.

Figure 1.
Source: Mihaiu (2014)

By measuring firm performance, a company can identify its strengths and weaknesses. Accurate
performance measurement is vital to understanding firm success and failure (Murphy et al.,
1996). Firm performance measurement has been viewed from both objective and subjective
dimensions. Therefore, researchers are divided on which of these firm measurements best
measure performance. The reasons for firm performance measurement is to improve the
existing performance in concept of pursuing new opportunities internally or externally,
redesigning better strategies or action plans, obtaining overall business performance and
capability improvements, and acquiring sustainable growth in the long run.. Thus, in this study
Performance is from the aspect of financial and non-financial.

Some researcher’s project within the literature review in the area of management Jay B Barney
(2002) and Mackey, Mackey, and Barney (2007) exhibited much interest associated with
economic growth and SME firm and numerous difficulties experienced (Aremu & Adeyemi,

240
www.hrmars.com
 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
February 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2
ISSN: 2222-6990

2011; Kongolo, 2010). Amidst the issues linked to performance, an apt question is why only
solely bound SMEs might succeed performance. Compared there have been additionally SMEs
that had unsuccessful (J. Okpara & Wynn, 2007). The solution to such
a quandary is definitely required by all governments and stakeholders within the SMEs sector.
Literature tried to furnish the needed solution by informing that government policy as a
robust influence on performance (OECD, 2009). It absolutely reported that government policies
typically strengthen opportunities for SMEs to develop (OECD, 2009) however developing
countries and post-conflict countries rarely follow policies that square measure adjunct in the
event of SMEs. This could be as a result of referable to a lack of savvy and access to important
information by decision makers or policy planners in the government regarding SMEs. Also, the
precedence of the government of the day is common to adopt policies that might tone up their
political power resulting in less concentrate on economic growth. Subsequently, along the
government policies conjointly neglected or didn't address and visibly moved the difficulties
referring to the SMEs growth.

3. Government Policy and SME Firm

Entrepreneurship activity in developing countries such as Nigeria is primarily based on

necessity. The creations of Government policies for SMEs vary from advanced economies to
developing countries and from country to country attributed to variations in social and custom
values, the extent amount industry and business settings (Naudé, Szirmai, & Goedhuys, 2011).
Sathe (2006) in particular argues that Government regulations and their bureaucratic
procedures can hinder as well as facilitate entrepreneurship activity such as new business
origination. The Government can occur up with policies that can boost and support the growth
of novel technologies, products, and solutions. On the other hand, Government can likewise
seem to hinder SME firm performance when it introduces policy which can restrict the
autonomy, as well as the entrepreneurial freedom of some variety. In an effort to resolve the
failure rate of SMEs, the Government decided to create the former institution sector sound,
stable, honest, dependable, internationally competitive, and to strengthen its ability to provide
acknowledgment to the SMEs. Governments develop the patterns and frameworks during
which lines are able to contend against each other. Spasmodically the Government will shift
these designs and frameworks cause SMEs to improve the way they operate. Performance of
SMEs is thus vigorously laid low by Government policies. The Government of the daytime, often
amendment laws in line with its political policies. Therefore, SMEs regularly has to be
compelled to alterations in the legal framework. These policies will cause a substantial impact
on the competitiveness, ambitiousness and expediency of SMEs.

Radical industry changes, intense regulation, fierce competition among competitors (Werner
(Werner, Brouthers, & Brouthers, 1996); competitive market, and product-related
uncertainties (G. G. Dess & Beard, 1984); precarious industry settings, overwhelming business
climates and the lack of exploitable opportunities (Covin & Slevin, 1989); changing demand
conditions and radical innovations which in turn can cause the firms technological capability to
241
www.hrmars.com
 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
February 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2
ISSN: 2222-6990

become obsolete (Zahra & Garvis, 2000) seem to be the principal issues of environment
hostility. Nevertheless, the presentation of new products has been found to be negatively
associated with ROE (return on equity) in hostile environments (Zahra & Bogner, 2000). Covin
and Slevin (1989) argues that in highly competitive, hostile environments, entrepreneurial
orientation seems to promote/stimulate high levels of firm performance. Despite such
arguments, Zahra (1996) strongly claimed that firm operating in hostile environments may be
reluctant to invest heavily in developing new technologies because hostility erodes profit
margins and reduces the resources available for innovation. The point, therefore, is that the
environment in which the SMEs operate is as critical to a survival as funding. Business
management capacity is also an issue with many SMEs – quality of business judgment and cash
management discipline. The SME development strategy should, therefore, be holistic.

Numerous propositions have come out of the literature and conscious attempts are still needed
on the role of Governments, through its series of economic policies poignant competition
within the market to sustain a climate that is conducive to successful and profitable operations
of SMEs (Dandago & Usman, 2011). These propositions embody the Government decision to
consider concrete actions to bridle predatory pricing, bootlegging and importation of low-
cost foreign products; corruption reduction practices; providing social justice; providing market
information; infrastructure enhancements; providing training for SMEs and
inspiring personal investment. Government can behave an entrepreneurial role to have an
effect on the cosmos of a maintainable market component. On that point are several factors
determining the performance of SMEs, and most of them are complex and fickle.

The sequel to previous studies Eniola (2014) and OECD (2004b, 2009, 2013) shows that market-
based economy like Nigeria got to understand some specific steps to prove the conditions to
advance SME to create chances to arise in different sectors of the economic system and
entrepreneure ventures. The outcomes of studies Adejugbe (2013); Nguyen, Alam, Perry, and
Prajogo (2009); Sobri Minai and Lucky (2011) conjointly indicated that within the absence of
durable, economic process in these countries transmutation economies, the Government
should wrestle a vital part to creating those conditions. In summation, the previous studies
emphasize that government policies cause an impression on SMEs exploit, linkages and
networking so as to hitch forces and resources utilization (Harvie et al., 2010; J. O. Okpara,
2011).

Theoretical and empirical studies Eniola and Ektebang (2014) and J. O. Okpara (2011) have
established Government policy that appears to be more consistent in determining the public
presentation of the SMEs. Onwukwe and Ifeanacho (2011) assert that the red-tape or costs for
complying with government regulations are extremely high in Nigeria. Oji (2006) observed that
Nigeria has no explicit policy for the SMEs sector, the closest been the Small and medium
Enterprises development Agency (SMEDAN), established in 2003 to facilitate the growth of the
small and medium enterprises sector in the country. Also, it was argue that the poor
implementation of government policies concerning SMEs had resulted in confusion and
242
www.hrmars.com
 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
February 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2
ISSN: 2222-6990

quandary in business decisions as well as enervates the credence in the government’s capacity
to execute conscientiously its programmes (Omoruyi & Okonofua, 2005). The inability of
government to execute favourable fiscal policies and policy inconsistencies has undermined the
development of SMEs in Nigeria. Akinbogun (2008) in his study examine the impact of
infrastructure and Government policies on survival of small-scale ceramic industries in South-
West of Nigeria, and found that infrastructural facilities and Government policies have not
encouraged viable small-scale ceramic industries in Nigeria. He noted that while Nigerian
physical environment and people’s culture have been favourable towards the business
enterprises, infrastructural facilities and Government policies have not. This has serious
implication for the business performance and survival in Nigeria.

In developed and producing states, Government policies that impact support are a decisive
factor for SMEs growth (Nguyen et al., 2009). The character and span of Government policies
have a right away impingement on an organization's performance. The last point is of special
importance and highly relevant to this subject. SME development does not take place in a void.
According to OECD (2004a) if the culture of Government, education, regulatory authorities,
banks, the professions and the large corporate sector lacks empathy with SMEs, then it will be
unmanageable for the sector to survive and develop. The stakeholder environment must,
therefore, be as entrepreneurial as the SME sector itself. Stakeholder organizations facilitating
and supporting entrepreneurship are key components in the world of a level playing field and
of a solid base for an enterprise culture.

4. Contingency Theory

Resource-based theorists have developed certain characteristics of assets that generate

sustained competitive advantage, naming them as strategic assets. Also, The RBV of the firm
predicts that certain types of resources, SMEs firm owns and controls have the potential and
promise to generate competitive advantage, which eventually leads to superior firm
performance. Resource-based view viewpoint, different cases of companies functioning in
different situations require different government policy. SMEs need to research and use their
knowledge resources in society to enhance their organizational performance in a competitive
environment. The performance of SMEs can vary with the selection of state policy adopted. The
Government policy is usually effective for companies involved in high volume products. This
study tries to examine the influence of government policy variable on the performances of
SMEs. More specifically, the primary purpose of the survey is to critique the influence of
government policy on the SME firm performance in Nigeria. In order to exam the proposed
relationships between Government policy and SME firm performance, the current study
developed the following proposition.

243
www.hrmars.com
 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
February 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2
ISSN: 2222-6990

SME Firm Performance

Government Policy

Figure 2: Research Framework

5. Conclusions

SME firm was selected because they hold an important position in the economy, especially
from the point of persuasion of the growth of local and regional economic systems. This is
important for at least three parties, clients, companies, and the relevant authorities’ bodies, to
strategize on continuing the existence of the effect in SMEs by accordingly controlling the
selected elements. This study found the relationship between government policy and SME firm
performance. Likewise, government policy has a major impact on the competitiveness of SMEs.
Conceptually, the study indicates that SME firm performance varies with the choice of the
government policy they adopted. Conceptually, the survey shows that the performance of SME
varies with the choice of the government policy, spatial relations and guidelines of government,
schemes and incentives and support arrangements for the individual sector.

References

Adejugbe, A. (2013). Foreign Direct Invesstment in Nigeria; Overcoming Legal and Regulatory
Challenges to Foreign Direct Investments in Nigeria: Is the Nigerian Government Doing
Enough? SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2354319
Akinbogun, T. L. (2008). The Impact of Nigerian Business Environment on the Survival of Small-
Scale Ceramic Industries: Case Study, South-Western Nigeria. Journal of Asian and
African Studies, 43(6), 663–679. doi: 10.1177/0021909608096659
Altenburg, T., & Eckhardt, U. (2006). Productivity enhancement and equitable development:
Challenges for SME development. German Development Institute, Germany: United
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).
Aremu, A., Mukaila, & Adeyemi, L., Sidikat. (2011). Small and Medium Scale Enterprises as A
Survival Strategy for Employment Generation in Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable
Development, 4(1). doi: 10.5539/jsd.v4n1p200
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
Management, 17, 99–120.
Barney, J. B. (2002). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage (2. ed ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

244
www.hrmars.com
 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
February 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2
ISSN: 2222-6990

Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (2005). Financial and Legal Constraints to
Growth: Does Firm Size Matter? The Journal of Finance, 60(1), 137–177. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00727.x
Brush, C. G., & Vanderwerf, P. A. (1992). A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining
estimates of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(2), 157–170.
doi: 10.1016/0883-9026(92)90010-o
Bubou, G. M., Siyanbola, W. O., Ekperiware, M. C., & Gumus, S. (2014). Science and Technology
Entrepreneurship for Economic Development in Africa (SEEDA). International Journal of
Scientific and Engineering Research, 5(3), 921–927.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87. doi:
10.1002/smj.4250100107
Dandago, I., K., & Usman, Y., A. (2011). Assessment of Government Industrialisation Policies on
Promoting the Growth of Small Scale Industries in Nigeria. Paper presented at the Ben-
Africa Conference Zanzibar, Tanzania.
Davidsson, P. (2004). Researching Entrepreneurship. Boston, MA: Springer Science + Business
Media Inc.
Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 52–73.
Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of
objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business
unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265–273. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250050306
Dobbs, M., & Hamilton, R. T. (2007). Small business growth: recent evidence and new
directions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 13(5), 296–
322. doi: 10.1108/13552550710780885
Eniola, A. A. (2014). The Role of SME Firm Performance In Nigeria. Arabian Journal of Business
and Management Review, Vol 3(12), 33-47.
Eniola, A. A., & Ektebang, H. (2014). SME firms performance in Nigeria: Competitive advantage
and its impact. International Journal of Research Studies in Management, 3(2), 75-86.
Gibcus, P., & Kemp, R. G. M. (2003). Strategy and small firm performance. Zoetermeer: EIM
Business & Policy Research.
Harvie, C, Narjoko, D., & Oum, S. (2010). Constraints to Growth and Firm Characteristic
Determinants of SME Participation in Production Networks. Integrating Small and
Medium Enterprises (SMEs) into the More Integrate East Asia.
IFC. (2010). Scaling-Up SME Access to Financial Services in the Developing World: Financial
Inclusion Experts Group|SME Finance Sub-Group: International Finance Corporation.
World Bank Group.
Jogaratnam, G., Tse, E. C., & Olsen, M. D. (1999). Strategic Posture, Environmental
Munificence, and Performance: An Empirical Study of Independent Restaurants. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 23(2), 118–138. doi: 10.1177/109634809902300202
Kongolo, M. (2010). Job creation versus job shedding and the role of SMEs in economic
development. African Journal of Business Management, 4(11), 2288-2295.
245
www.hrmars.com
 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
February 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2
ISSN: 2222-6990

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and
Linking it to Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135.
Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm
performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management
Review, 32(2), 817–835. doi: 10.2307/20159337
Marr, B., & Schiuma, G. (2003). Business performance measurement – past, present and
future. Management Decision, 41(8), 680–687. doi: 10.1108/00251740310496198
McMahon, R. G. P. (2001). Deriving an Empirical Development Taxonomy for Manufacturing
SMEs Using Data from Australia's Business Longitudinal Survey. Small Business
Economics, 17(3), 197–212. doi: 10.1023/a:1011885622783
Mihaiu, D. (2014). Measuring Performance in the Public Sector: Between Necessity and
Difficulty. Studies in Business and Economics, 9(2), 40–50.
Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. W., & Hill, R. C. (1996). Measuring performance in entrepreneurship
research. Entrepreneurship and New Firm Development, 36(1), 15–23. doi:
10.1016/0148-2963(95)00159-x
Naudé, W., Szirmai, A., & Goedhuys, M. (2011). Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Developing
Countries: UNU-WIDER.
Nguyen, H. T., Alam, Q., Perry, M., & Prajogo, D. (2009). The Entrepreneurial role of the State
and SMEGrowth in Vietnam. Journal of Administration & Governance, 4(1), 60–71.
OECD. (2004a). Effective Policies for Small Business: A Guide For The Policy Review Process and
Strategic Plans For Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development: OECD and
UNIDO.
OECD. (2004b). small and medium sized enterprises in turkey issues and policies: Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
OECD. (2009). The impact of the global crisis on SME and entrepreneurship financing and
policy responses: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).
OECD. (2013). Recent Trends in SME and Entrepreneurship Finance.
Oji, K. O. (2006). Transformation of Micro Finance Schemes from Subsistence Living to Small
Scale Enterprises in Nigeria: Analyses of Policies and Integration of Science and
Technology into the Client activities. Nairobi: United Nations Educational, Scientific and
cultural Organizations (UNESCO).
Okpara, J., & Wynn, P. (2007). Determinants of Small Business Growth Constraints in a Sub-
Saharan African Economy. SAM advanced management journal : amj, 72(2), 24–35.
Okpara, J. O. (2011). Factors constraining the growth and survival of SMEs in Nigeria.
Management Research Review, 34(2), 156–171. doi: 10.1108/01409171111102786
Okpara, J. O., & Kumbiadis, N. (2008). SMEs Export Orientation and Performance: Evidence
from a Developing Economy. International Review of Business Research Papers, 4(5
October-November), 109–119.
Omoruyi, O. O., & Okonofua, B. A. (2005). Cottage Industries: A Tool for Rural Development
and Poverty Reduction in Nigeria. Benin Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 13–26.

246
www.hrmars.com
 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
February 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2
ISSN: 2222-6990

Onwukwe, C. V., & Ifeanacho, I. M. (2011). Impact of government intervention on the growth
of small and medium scale enterprises in Imo State. International Journal of Research in
Commerce, Economics, 1(7 November), 1–5.
Ostgaard, T. A., & Birley, S. (1995). New venture competitive strategies and their relation to
growth. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 7(2), 119–141. doi:
10.1080/08985629500000008
Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: a framework for management control systems
research. Management Accounting Research, 10(4), 363–382. doi:
10.1006/mare.1999.0115
Parker, C. (2000). Performance measurement. Work Study, 49(2), 63–66. doi:
10.1108/00438020010311197
Penrose, E. (1995). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosenbusch, N., Rauch, A., & Unger, J. M. (2007). Entrepreneurial stress and long term survival
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2007.
Sathe, V. (2006). Corporate entrepreneurship: Top manageers and new business creation.
Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Sefiani, & Bown. (2013). What Influences the Success of Manufacturing SMEs? A Perspective
from Tangier. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(7).
Sevrani, K., & Bahiti, R. (2008). ICT in Small and Medium Enterprises.
Snodgrass, D. R., & Winkler, J. P. (2004). Enterprise growth initiatives: Strategic directions and
options: Prepared for the U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau of
Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade: Development Alternatives, INC (DAI) Final
Report.
Sobri Minai, M., & Lucky, E. O.-I. (2011). The Moderating Effect of Location on Small Firm
Performance: Empirical Evidence. International Journal of Business and Management,
6(10). doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v6n10p178
Soriano, D. R. (2010). Management factors affecting the performance of technology firms.
Journal of Business Research, 63(5), 463–470. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.04.003
Werner, S., Brouthers, L. E., & Brouthers, K. D. (1996). International Risk and Perceived
Environmental Uncertainty: The Dimensionality and Internal Consistency of Miller's
Measure. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3), 571–587. doi:
10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490144
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business
performance: a configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71–91.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001
Wolff, J. A., & Pett, T. L. (2006). Small-Firm Performance: Modeling the Role of Product and
Process Improvements*. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 268–284. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-627X.2006.00167.x
Wymenga, P., Spanikova, V., Barker, A., Konings, J., & Canton, E. (2012). EU SMEs in 2012: at
the crossroads: Annual report on small and medium-sized enterprises in the EU,
2011/12. Rotterdam: European Commission.

247
www.hrmars.com
 International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
February 2015, Vol. 5, No. 2
ISSN: 2222-6990

Zahra, S. A. (1996). Technology strategy and financial performance: Examining the moderating
role of the firm's competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(3), 189–
219. doi: 10.1016/0883-9026(96)00001-8
Zahra, S. A., & Bogner, W. C. (2000). Technology strategy and software new ventures'
performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 135–173. doi: 10.1016/s0883-
9026(98)00009-3
Zahra, S. A., & Garvis, D. M. (2000). International corporate entrepreneurship and firm
performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 469–492. doi: 10.1016/s0883-
9026(99)00036-1

248
www.hrmars.com

View publication stats