El factor geográfico en la determinación de la calidad de la auditoría
The geographical factor in the determination of audit quality
Resumen
El objetivo de este artículo es analizar la influencia del factor geográfico en la determinación de la calidad de la auditoría. En concreto, la hipótesis que se plantea sostiene que la calidad de la auditoría se ve afectada por la ubicación y por la existencia de efectos indirectos generados por dos factores: (1) la especialización y la reputación de las firmas de auditoría y (2) el desarrollo económico e institucional de la provincia donde se localiza la firma de auditoría. Con este objetivo hemos desarrollado un estudio empírico para probar la existencia de tales efectos espaciales (ubicación y desbordamiento) en una muestra representativa del mercado de auditoría español. El estudio incluye técnicas econométricas espaciales, teniendo en cuenta las características específicas de las empresas auditadas, así como otros factores externos. Los resultados destacan la importancia de incluir la dimensión espacial cuando se estudia la calidad de la auditoría. Así, se confirma la existencia de un efecto localización que identifica que los valores más altos de calidad se encuentran en las zonas de España más desarrolladas. Además, nos encontramos con un efecto espacial indirecto entre las distintas provincias que también influye en la calidad de la auditoría, de forma que la calidad que alcanza una firma de auditoría en cierta localización se extiende a las zonas colindantes. Los resultados permiten concluir que en la promoción de políticas gubernamentales que conduzcan a mejorar la calidad de la auditoría se debe considerar efecto desbordamiento que confirma el estudio.
Descargas
Citas
[Anselin, 2001] L. Anselin. Spatial econometrics. Companion to Theoretical Econometics,
[Bartov et al., 2001] E. Bartov, F.A. Gul, J.S.L. Tsui. Discretionary-accruals models and audit qualifications. Journal of Accounting and Economics,, 30 (2001), pp. 421-452
[Behn et al., 2008] B.K. Behn, J.H. Choi, T. Kang. Audit quality and the properties of analysts earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review, 83 (2008), pp. 327-349
[Brauninger and Nieburh, 2005] M. Brauninger, A. Nieburh. Agglomeration, spatial interaction and convergence in the EU. HWWA Discussion paper, (2005)pp. 322
[Broye and Weill, 2008] G. Broye, L. Weill. Does leverage influence audit choice? A cross-country analysis. Applied Financial Economics, 18 (2008), pp. 715-731
[Carcello and Nagy., 2004] J.V. Carcello, A.L. Nagy. Client size, audit specialization and fraudulent financial reporting. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19 (2004), pp. 651-668
[Chaney et al., 2004] P.K. Chaney, D.C. Jeter, L. Shivakumar. Self-selection of audits and audit pricing in private firms. The Accounting Review, 79 (2004), pp. 51-72
[Ciccone, 2002] A. Ciccone. Agglomeration effects in Europe. European Economic Review, 46 (2002), pp. 213-227
[Colbert and Murray, 1998] G. Colbert, D. Murray. The association between auditor quality and auditor size: an analysis of small CPA firms, Journal of Accounting. Auditing and Finance, 13 (1998), pp. 135-350
[Cravens et al., 1994] K.S. Cravens, J.C. Flagg, H.D. Glover. A comparison of client characteristics by auditor attributes: implications for the auditor selection process. Managerial Auditing Journal, 9 (1994), pp. 27-36
[Dall’erba, 2007] S. Dall’erba. Productivity convergence and spatial dependence among Spanish regions. Journal of Geographical System, 7 (2007), pp. 207-227
[Datta et al., 1999] S. Datta, M. Iskandar-Datta, A. Patel. Bank monitoring and the pricing of corporate public debt. Journal of Financial Economics, 51 (1999), pp. 435-449
[De Angelo, 1981] L. De Angelo. Auditor size and auditor quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1 (1981), pp. 113-127
[Doogar and Easley, 1998] R. Doogar, R. Easley. Concentration without differentiation: a new look at the determinants of audit market concentration. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 25 (1998), pp. 235-253
[Ellison and Glaeser, 1999] G. Ellison, E. Glaeser. The geographic concentration of industry: does natural advantage explain agglomeration?. American Economic Review, 89 (1999), pp. 311-316
[Fargher et al., 2001] N. Fargher, M.H. Taylor, D.T. Simon. The demand for audit reputation across international markets for audit services. The International Journal of Accounting, 36 (2001), pp. 407-433
[Ferguson and Stokes, 2002] A. Ferguson, D. Stokes. Brand name audit pricing, industry specialization, and leadership premiums post-big 8 and big 6 mergers. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19 (2002), pp. 77-110
[Feroz et al., 1991] E.H. Feroz, K. Park, V.S. Pastena. The financial and market effects of the SECs accounting and auditing enforcement releases. Journal of Accounting Research, 29 (1991), pp. 107-129
[Florax and Folmer, 1995] R. Florax, H. Folmer. Specification and estimation of spatial linear regression models. Monte Carlo evaluation of the pre-test estimators. Regional science and urban economics, 22 (1995), pp. 404-432
[Francis, 2004] J.R. Francis. What do we know about audit quality. The Bristish Accounting Review, 36 (2004), pp. 345-368
[Francis and Krishnan, 1999] J.R. Francis, J. Krishnan. Accounting accruals and auditor reporting conservatism. Contemporary Accounting Research, 16 (1999), pp. 135-165
[Francis and Wilson, 1988] J.R. Francis, E. Wilson. Auditor changes a joint test of theories relating to agency costs and auditor differentiation. The Accounting Review, 4 (1988), pp. 663-682
[Gómez et al., 2004] N. Gómez, E. Ruiz, C. De Fuentes, M. García. Audit quality and the going concern decision making process: Spanish evidence. European Accounting Review, 13 (2004), pp. 597-620
[Greene, 2008] W. Greene. Econometric Analysis. 5th, Pearson International Edition, (2008)
[Guedhami and Pittman, 2006] O. Guedhami, J.A. Pittman. Ownership concentration in privatized firms: the role of disclosure standards, audit choice, and auditing infrastructure. Journal of Accounting Research, 44 (2006), pp. 889-929
[Guedhami et al., 2009] O. Guedhami, J.A. Pittman, W. Saffar. Auditor choice in privatized firms: empirical evidence on the role of state and foreign owners. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 48 (2009), pp. 151-171
[Hope et al., 2008] O.K. Hope, T. Kang, W. Thomas, Y.K. Yoo. Culture and audit choice: a test of the secrecy hypothesis. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 27 (2008), pp. 357-373
[Huang and Li, 2009] R.D. Huang, H. Li. Does the market dole out collective punishment? an empirical analysis of industry, geography, and Arthur Andersens reputation. Journal of banking & finance, 33 (2009), pp. 1255-1265 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-306411
[Kane and Velury, 2004] G.D. Kane, U. Velury. The role of institutional ownership in the market for auditing services: an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 57 (2004), pp. 976-983
[Kang et al., 2009] M.P. Kang, J.T. Mahoney, D. Tan. Why firms make unilateral investments specific to other firms: the case of OEM suppliers. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (2009), pp. 117-135
[Khurana and Raman, 2004] I. Khurana, K. Raman. Litigation risk and the financial reporting credibility of Big 4 versus Non-Big audits: evidence from Anglo-American countries. The Accounting Review, 79 (2004), pp. 473-495
[Krugman, 1991] P. Krugman. Target zones and exchange rate dynamics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (1991), pp. 669-682
[Lennox, 2000] C. Lennox. Do companies successfully engage in opinion-shopping? evidence from the UK. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29 (2000), pp. 321-337
[Louis, 2005] H. Louis. Acquirers’ abnormal returns and the non-big 4 audit clientele effect. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 40 (2005), pp. 75-99
[Mansi et al., 2004] S.A. Mansi, W.F. Maxwell, D.P. Miller. Does audit quality and tenure matter to investors? evidence from the bond market. Journal of Accounting Research, 42 (2004), pp. 755-793
[Maté et al., 2009] M.L. Maté, D. García, F. López. Spatial effects in the productivity convergence of Spanish industrial SMEs. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 141 (2009), pp. 13-36
[Moizer, 1997] P. Moizer. Auditor reputation: the international empirical evidence. International Journal of Auditing, 1 (1997), pp. 61-74
[Mur et al., 2009] J. Mur, F.A. López, A. Angulo. Instability and convergence between the European regions. Journal of Geographical Systems, 12 (2009), pp. 259-280
[Nair and Rittenberg, 1987] R.D. Nair, L.E. Rittenberg. Messages perceived from audit, review and compilation reports: extension to more diverse groups. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 7 (1987), pp. 15-38
[Carrera et al., 2005] N. Carrera, I. Gutiérrez, S. Carmona. Concentración en el mercado de auditoría en España. análisis empírico del período 1990-2000. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 34 (2005), pp. 423-458
[Niskanen et al., 2010] M. Niskanen, J. Karjalainen, J. Niskanen. The role of auditing in small private family firms: is it about quality and credibility?. Family Business Review, 23 (2010), pp. 230-245
[Palmrose, 1988] Z. Palmrose. An analysis of auditors litigation and audit service quality. The Accounting Review, 63 (1988), pp. 55-73
[Piot, 2001] C. Piot. Agency costs and audit quality: evidence from France. European Accounting Review, 10 (2001), pp. 461-499
[Reynolds and Francis, 2001] J.K. Reynolds, J.R. Francis. Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office –level auditor reporting decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30 (2001), pp. 375-400
[Rob and Fishman, 2005] R. Rob, A. Fishman. Is bigger better? customer base expansion through word-ofmouth reputation. Journal of Political Economy, 113 (2005), pp. 1146-1162
[Rollins and Bremser, 1997] T.P. Rollins, W.G. Bremser. The Secs enforcement actions against auditors: an auditor reputation and institutional theory perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 8 (1997), pp. 191-206
[Ruiz et al., 2002] E. Ruiz, N. Gómez, A. Guiral. An intersectoral and size comparation of the quality of the accounting information through audit reports. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 112 (2002), pp. 545-581
[Sainty et al., 2002] B.J. Sainty, G.K. Taylor, D.D. Williams. Investor dissatisfaction toward audits,. Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance, 17 (2002), pp. 111-137
[Shocley and Holt, 1983] R. Shocley, R. Holt. A behavioral investigation of supplier differentiation in the market for audit services. Journal of Accounting Research, 21 (1983), pp. 545-564
[Sucher et al., 1999] P. Sucher, P. Moizer, M. Zarova. The images of the Big Six audit firms in the Czech Republic. The European Accounting Review, 8 (1999), pp. 499-521
[Sundgren, 1998] S. Sundgren. Auditor choices and auditor reporting practices: evidence from Finnish small firms. The European Accounting Review, 7 (1998), pp. 443-465
[Vanstraelen, 2000] A. Vanstraelen. Impact of renewable long-term audit mandates on audit quality. European Accounting Review, 9 (2000), pp. 419-442
[Wang et al., 2008] Q. Wang, T.J. Wong, L. Xia. State ownership, the institutional environment, and audit choice: evidence from China. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 46 (2008), pp. 112-134
[Whisenant et al., 2003] S. Whisenant, S. Sankaraguruswamy, K. Raghunandan. Evidence on the joint determination of audit and non-audit fees. Journal of Accounting Research, 41 (2003), pp. 721-744
Las obras que se publican en esta revista están sujetas a los siguientes términos:
1. Ediciones de la Universidad de Murcia (EDITUM) y ASEPUC conservan los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia de uso indicada en el punto 2.
2. Las obras se publican en la edición electrónica de la revista bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional. Permite copiar, distribuir e incluir el artículo en un trabajo colectivo (por ejemplo, una antología), siempre y cuando no exista una finalidad comercial, no se altere ni modifique el artículo y se cite apropiadamente el trabajo original. Esta revista no tiene tarifa por la publicación Open Access. ASEPUC y EDITUM financian los costes de producción y publicación de los manuscritos.
3. Condiciones de auto-archivo. Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir electrónicamente la versión publicada de sus obras, ya que favorece su circulación y difusión y con ello un posible aumento en su citación y alcance entre la comunidad académica.
