审计市场集中度实证文献综述

IF 2 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Hany Elbardan, Amr Kotb, M. Ishaque
{"title":"审计市场集中度实证文献综述","authors":"Hany Elbardan, Amr Kotb, M. Ishaque","doi":"10.1142/s1094406023500063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Synopsis The research problem The extant audit market concentration (AMC) literature is quite scattered, which makes it challenging to comprehend the current state of knowledge and to highlight the areas that require further exploration. An improved understanding of AMC and its possible effects require a comprehensive review of the AMC literature, since no such review has yet been published. Therefore, our paper intends to: (a) synthesize the empirical work in the AMC literature; (b) determine the limitations in the ways AMC has been investigated; (c) identify avenues of inquiry that could guide future thinking on AMC; and (d) develop insights into how future AMC investigations can be further developed. Motivation The most noticeable developments in AMC occurred after the audit firm megamergers of the 1980s and 1990s and Andersen’s demise in 2002. This trend toward fewer and larger suppliers of auditing services has sparked intense debate about the costs and benefits of AMC. However, the literature provides mixed evidence on the determinants and consequences of AMC. Adopted methodology A structured literature review [Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Guthrie, J. (2016). On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 29(5), 767–801. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1939 ] was employed to review the extant AMC literature. Analyses We analyzed 108 empirical papers published in 39 peer-reviewed quality accounting and auditing journals in the English language over a 55-year period (1967 to mid-2021). Findings The analysis suggests a consistent rise in AMC levels, leading to a tight oligopoly and, in rare cases, to a duopoly, across countries and over time. Studies of audit pricing and audit quality comprise the predominant part of the literature, and these report mixed findings as to whether AMC facilitates monopolistic pricing and allows audit-quality-threatening behaviors. This could be attributed to several factors, including the focus on short-term effects of AMC; substantial variations in how concentration was measured; and misguided use of proxies for audit competition and audit quality. The review identifies four key limitations that circumscribe our understanding of AMC: (a) the lack of investigation into the actual dynamic rivalry among audit firms; (b) great reliance on the positivistic approach and quantitative methods, and the lack of use of explicit theories aside from economic theories; (c) a focus on the audit of publicly listed companies in the United States, the U.K., and Australia; and thus; (d) the absence of key organizational settings and central regions in the AMC debate. To counter these limitations, this review puts forward possible future research avenues that can help to advance our understanding of AMC to address emerging challenges in the field.","PeriodicalId":47122,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Accounting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Review of the Empirical Literature on Audit Market Concentration\",\"authors\":\"Hany Elbardan, Amr Kotb, M. Ishaque\",\"doi\":\"10.1142/s1094406023500063\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Synopsis The research problem The extant audit market concentration (AMC) literature is quite scattered, which makes it challenging to comprehend the current state of knowledge and to highlight the areas that require further exploration. An improved understanding of AMC and its possible effects require a comprehensive review of the AMC literature, since no such review has yet been published. Therefore, our paper intends to: (a) synthesize the empirical work in the AMC literature; (b) determine the limitations in the ways AMC has been investigated; (c) identify avenues of inquiry that could guide future thinking on AMC; and (d) develop insights into how future AMC investigations can be further developed. Motivation The most noticeable developments in AMC occurred after the audit firm megamergers of the 1980s and 1990s and Andersen’s demise in 2002. This trend toward fewer and larger suppliers of auditing services has sparked intense debate about the costs and benefits of AMC. However, the literature provides mixed evidence on the determinants and consequences of AMC. Adopted methodology A structured literature review [Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Guthrie, J. (2016). On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 29(5), 767–801. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1939 ] was employed to review the extant AMC literature. Analyses We analyzed 108 empirical papers published in 39 peer-reviewed quality accounting and auditing journals in the English language over a 55-year period (1967 to mid-2021). Findings The analysis suggests a consistent rise in AMC levels, leading to a tight oligopoly and, in rare cases, to a duopoly, across countries and over time. Studies of audit pricing and audit quality comprise the predominant part of the literature, and these report mixed findings as to whether AMC facilitates monopolistic pricing and allows audit-quality-threatening behaviors. This could be attributed to several factors, including the focus on short-term effects of AMC; substantial variations in how concentration was measured; and misguided use of proxies for audit competition and audit quality. The review identifies four key limitations that circumscribe our understanding of AMC: (a) the lack of investigation into the actual dynamic rivalry among audit firms; (b) great reliance on the positivistic approach and quantitative methods, and the lack of use of explicit theories aside from economic theories; (c) a focus on the audit of publicly listed companies in the United States, the U.K., and Australia; and thus; (d) the absence of key organizational settings and central regions in the AMC debate. To counter these limitations, this review puts forward possible future research avenues that can help to advance our understanding of AMC to address emerging challenges in the field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47122,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Accounting\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Accounting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1142/s1094406023500063\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/s1094406023500063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

现有的审计市场集中度(AMC)文献相当分散,这给了解知识现状和突出需要进一步探索的领域带来了挑战。为了更好地了解AMC及其可能的影响,需要对AMC文献进行全面的回顾,因为目前还没有发表过这样的回顾。因此,本文拟:(a)综合AMC文献中的实证工作;(b)确定对AMC进行调查的方式的限制;(c)确定可以指导未来对AMC思考的探究途径;(d)深入了解未来AMC调查如何进一步发展。AMC最引人注目的发展发生在上世纪八九十年代审计公司的大规模合并和安达信2002年的倒闭之后。审计服务供应商越来越少、规模越来越大的趋势,引发了有关AMC成本与收益的激烈辩论。然而,文献提供了关于AMC的决定因素和后果的混合证据。采用的方法:结构化文献综述[Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Guthrie, J.(2016)]。站在巨人的肩膀上:进行结构化的文献综述。会计、审计与责任学报,29(5),767-801。https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1939]被用来回顾现有的AMC文献。我们分析了55年间(1967年至2021年中期)发表在39种同行评议的高质量英语会计和审计期刊上的108篇实证论文。分析表明,随着时间的推移,AMC水平持续上升,导致各国出现严格的寡头垄断,在极少数情况下还会出现双寡头垄断。对审计定价和审计质量的研究占了文献的主要部分,这些研究报告了关于AMC是否促进垄断定价和允许审计质量威胁行为的混合结果。这可以归因于几个因素,包括关注AMC的短期影响;测量浓度的方法有很大的差异;对代理审计竞争和审计质量的误导使用。审查确定了限制我们对AMC理解的四个关键限制:(a)缺乏对审计公司之间实际动态竞争的调查;(b)过分依赖实证主义方法和定量方法,缺乏使用除经济理论以外的明确理论;(c)专注于对美国、英国和澳大利亚上市公司的审计;因此;(d)在AMC辩论中缺少关键的组织设置和中心区域。为了克服这些局限性,本综述提出了未来可能的研究途径,有助于提高我们对AMC的理解,以应对该领域的新挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Review of the Empirical Literature on Audit Market Concentration
Synopsis The research problem The extant audit market concentration (AMC) literature is quite scattered, which makes it challenging to comprehend the current state of knowledge and to highlight the areas that require further exploration. An improved understanding of AMC and its possible effects require a comprehensive review of the AMC literature, since no such review has yet been published. Therefore, our paper intends to: (a) synthesize the empirical work in the AMC literature; (b) determine the limitations in the ways AMC has been investigated; (c) identify avenues of inquiry that could guide future thinking on AMC; and (d) develop insights into how future AMC investigations can be further developed. Motivation The most noticeable developments in AMC occurred after the audit firm megamergers of the 1980s and 1990s and Andersen’s demise in 2002. This trend toward fewer and larger suppliers of auditing services has sparked intense debate about the costs and benefits of AMC. However, the literature provides mixed evidence on the determinants and consequences of AMC. Adopted methodology A structured literature review [Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Guthrie, J. (2016). On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 29(5), 767–801. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1939 ] was employed to review the extant AMC literature. Analyses We analyzed 108 empirical papers published in 39 peer-reviewed quality accounting and auditing journals in the English language over a 55-year period (1967 to mid-2021). Findings The analysis suggests a consistent rise in AMC levels, leading to a tight oligopoly and, in rare cases, to a duopoly, across countries and over time. Studies of audit pricing and audit quality comprise the predominant part of the literature, and these report mixed findings as to whether AMC facilitates monopolistic pricing and allows audit-quality-threatening behaviors. This could be attributed to several factors, including the focus on short-term effects of AMC; substantial variations in how concentration was measured; and misguided use of proxies for audit competition and audit quality. The review identifies four key limitations that circumscribe our understanding of AMC: (a) the lack of investigation into the actual dynamic rivalry among audit firms; (b) great reliance on the positivistic approach and quantitative methods, and the lack of use of explicit theories aside from economic theories; (c) a focus on the audit of publicly listed companies in the United States, the U.K., and Australia; and thus; (d) the absence of key organizational settings and central regions in the AMC debate. To counter these limitations, this review puts forward possible future research avenues that can help to advance our understanding of AMC to address emerging challenges in the field.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The aim of The International Journal of Accounting is to advance the academic and professional understanding of accounting theory, policies and practice from the international perspective and viewpoint. The Journal editorial recognizes that international accounting is influenced by a variety of forces, e.g., governmental, political and economic. Thus, the primary criterion for manuscript evaluation is the incremental contribution to international accounting literature and the forces that impact the field. The Journal aims at understanding the present and potential ability of accounting to aid in analyzing and interpreting international economic transactions and the economic consequences of such reporting. These transactions may be within a profit or non-profit environment. The Journal encourages a broad view of the origins and development of accounting with an emphasis on its functions in an increasingly interdependent global economy. The Journal also welcomes manuscripts that help explain current international accounting practices, with related theoretical justifications, and identify criticisms of current policies and practice. Other than occasional commissioned papers or special issues, all the manuscripts published in the Journal are selected by the editors after the normal double-blind refereeing process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信