Summary

Previous research has often portrayed successful early internationalizers as firms that “go global fast” — and do so lean, with minimal resources. Our meta-analysis of 378 studies shows this view is misleading. High-performing early internationalizers succeed because they build and orchestrate the right resources, time their entry carefully, and understand which capabilities truly translate across borders. These insights challenge decades of theory and offer a roadmap for entrepreneurs, investors, and policymakers who want to get global growth right.

The Big Question: What Really Drives Early International Success?

For over 30 years, scholars have been fascinated by early internationalization — the phenomenon of firms entering foreign markets shortly after their founding. This research stream has shaped much of international entrepreneurship theory. However, many of its foundational claims remain contested.

Dominant theories suggest that successful early internationalizers thrive because they act quickly, operate leanly, and rely on entrepreneurial alertness to compensate for scarce resources. Our research team conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis on early internationalization, combining data from 426 samples across 378 studies. The result is a comprehensive picture to date of what actually drives early international success — and the findings overturn several of the field’s core assumptions.

Myth 1: Success Comes Despite Scarcity

Classic theories depict early internationalization as a bold leap into foreign markets by resource-constrained firms. A sharp contrast to more established “multinational firms” who have spent years building up cushions of resources to protect them in the international market. Our findings tell a different story.

High-performing early internationalizers are resource-rich, not resource-poor. They possess human capital, such as founders with entrepreneurial or international experience and strong educational backgrounds, as well as firm-level capabilities including R&D intensity, robust networks, and systems that allow them to leverage both internal and external resources. They may lack the financial reserves or large teams of established multinationals, but they have what matters most for internationalization — and, crucially, they know how to orchestrate those resources effectively to create value across borders. For example, UiPath deliberately built a deep engineering base and strategic partnerships before relocating its headquarters to New York, keeping its core R&D in Romania while cultivating global channels, which enabled rapid post-entry scaling through effective capability orchestration rather than operating from a position of scarcity (Martin, 2021; Business Review Romania, 2018).

In short, what matters is not asset accumulation per se, but the entrepreneurial judgment used to align and deploy resources purposefully. Resource scarcity is not a virtue; successful early internationalizers deliberately build and mobilize their capabilities before going abroad.

Myth 2: Faster Is Always Better

Another foundational belief in the literature is that rapid internationalization leads to superior adaptability and performance. This argument rests on the well-known idea of “learning advantages of newness” — that young firms benefit from agility, flexibility, and freedom from outdated routines, allowing them to thrive in foreign markets.

Our meta-analysis calls this into question. Firms that delay their first international entry slightly tend to achieve better post-entry performance. Rushing into foreign markets can magnify the liabilities of newness, stretching managerial capacity and leaving little time to adapt. By waiting just long enough to build internationally transferable capabilities — those that create value just as well internationally as at home — and strengthening networks, firms enter foreign markets better prepared and achieve superior outcomes. Spotify illustrates this logic well. Rather than racing into the U.S. market, the company spent nearly two years securing licensing agreements with major record labels and scaling its technological infrastructure, launching in July 2011 only after critical capabilities were firmly in place, which enabled rapid adoption and durable growth following entry (The Guardian, 2011; Lutz, 2018).

This suggests that timing is a strategic decision — and that the best performers use patience to convert potential liabilities into a platform for sustainable international growth.

Myth 3: More Is Always Better

Many assume that “more” — more resources, more markets, faster expansion — automatically leads to better international performance. Our study paints a much more nuanced picture. Entrepreneurial experience and education shape firm-level capabilities, but they function differently and must be understood in relation to each other. In addition, different resources influence internationalization in distinct ways: marketing resources tend to speed up entry and widen geographic scope but are sometimes linked to lower foreign-sales ratios and weaker post-entry performance if not carefully adapted, whereas R&D resources often delay entry but are associated with higher international sales and stronger performance over time.

The lesson is that quality, fit, and orchestration matter more than raw quantity. The same resource bundle can help in one dimension of internationalization, hinder another, and have no effect on a third. The contrasting experiences of Casper and Nubank illustrate this point. Casper expanded quickly into European markets but soon wound down operations and initiated layoffs when performance lagged, reflecting the pitfalls of rapid and insufficiently adapted expansion (Fast Company, 2020). Nubank, by contrast, prioritized the development of strong technological and regulatory capabilities before expanding gradually from Brazil into Mexico and Colombia, ultimately achieving record profitability once its capabilities proved transferable across markets (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 2024; Reuters, 2025; Nubank Investor Relations, 2025).

Implications Beyond Academia

Our findings carry clear implications for practice:

• Entrepreneurs: Build upstream capabilities (e.g., R&D, knowledge creation) before going abroad. Enter when your firm is organizationally ready — not simply as soon as possible. Adapt downstream capabilities like marketing for each host market rather than assuming one-size-fits-all.
  
  
• Policymakers: Support programs that give ventures access to networks and knowledge resources, which are more valuable than just financial subsidies for rapid expansion.
  
  
• Investors: Look beyond speed-to-market as a measure of success. The strongest long-term performers often invest more time in developing transferable resource bases before scaling internationally.

Looking Ahead

This meta-analysis sets a new baseline for research on early internationalization. By showing that resource richness, deliberate timing, and nuanced capability deployment drive success, we hope to inspire both scholars and practitioners to rethink what makes early internationalizers thrive.

The next generation of research will need to explore how digitalization, new global platforms, and shifting geopolitical realities interact with these dynamics. But one conclusion is already clear: it is time to move beyond the simple narratives of scarcity, speed, and “more is better” toward a richer understanding of what international growth really requires.