Market structure and audit fees: A local analysis

Contemporary Accounting Research

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 529-562

  Bandyopadhyay, Sati P ^a   Kao, Jennifer L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Audit fees; Auditor market concentration; Client influence; Dual local perspective

Indexed keywords

EID: 4644240327     PISSN: 08239150     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1506/4A05-11UF-1MQA-57JE     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Alberta. 2000. Municipal Government Act. RSA 2000, c. M-26.
2. Allossery, P. 2000. CanWest deal raises concerns for ad buyers: Media directors hope growing giant is advertiser-friendly. National Post, August 7, C04.
3. Atkinson, S., and J. Kerkvliet. 1989. Dual measures of monopoly and monopsony power: An application to regulated electric utilities. Review of Economics and Statistics 71 (2): 250-7.
4. Bandyopadhyay, S., and J. L. Kao. 2001. Competition and Big-Six brand name reputation: Evidence from the Ontario municipal audit market. Contemporary Accounting Research 18 (1): 27-64.
5. Banker, R. D., W. W. Cooper, and G. Potter. 1992. A perspective on research in governmental accounting. The Accounting Review 67 (3): 496-510.
6. Belsley, D., E. Kuh, and R. Welsch. 1980. Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
7. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). CICA handbook. Toronto: CICA.
8. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). CICA public sector accounting handbook. Toronto: CICA.
9. Chan, D., A. Ferguson, D. Simunic, and D. Stokes. 2001. A spatial analysis and test of oligopolistic competition in the market for audit services. Working paper, University of British Columbia.
10. Chung, H., and S. Kallapur. 2003. Client importance, non-audit services, and abnormal accruals. The Accounting Review 78 (4): 931-55.
11. Cotterill, R. S. 1986. Market power in the retail food industry: Evidence from Vermont. Review of Economics and Statistics 68 (3): 379-86.
12. DeAngelo, L. 1981. Auditor size and quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3 (3): 183-99.
13. Dopuch, N., M. Gupta, D. Simunic, and M. Stein. 2003. Production efficiency and the pricing of audit services. Contemporary Accounting Research 20 (1): 47-77.
14. Eichenseher, J., and P. Danos. 1981. The analysis of industry-specific auditor concentration: Towards an explanatory model. The Accounting Review 56 (3): 479-92.
15. Foreman, S., J. Wilson, and R. Scheffler. 1996. Monopoly, monopsony and contestability in health insurance: A study of Blue Cross Plans. Economic Inquiry 34 (4): 662-77.
16. Francis, J., D. Stokes, and D. Anderson. 1999. City markets as a unit of analysis in audit research and the re-examination of Big 6 market shares. Abacus 35 (2): 185-206.
17. Frankel, R., M. Johnson, and K. Nelson. 2002. The relation between auditors' fees for non-audit services and earnings quality. The Accounting Review 77 (Supplement): 71-105.
18. Giroux, G., and C. Wiggins. 1987. Intergovernmental grants and local needs. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 6 (3): 169-83.
19. Hay, G. A., and R. J. Reynolds. 1985. Competition and antitrust in the petroleum industry: An application of the merger guidelines. In Antitrust and Regulation: Essays in Memory of John J. McGowan, ed. F. M. Fisher, 15-48. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. MacDonald, J. 1989. Concentration and railroad pricing. In Concentration and Price, ed. L. Weiss, 205-12. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Matthews, T., S. Bandyopadhyay, and J. L. Kao. 2003. Determinants and sensitivity of intergovernmental grants: Evidence from Ontario municipalities. Working paper, University of Alberta.
22. Merrifield, J. 1999. Monopsony power in the market for teachers: Why teachers should support market-based education reform. Journal of Labor Research 20 (3): 377-91.
23. Ontario. 2001. Municipal Act, 2001. SO 2001, c. 25.
24. Palmrose, Z. 1986. Audit fees and auditor size: Further evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 24(1): 97-110.
25. Pearson, T., and G. Trompeter. 1994: Competition in the market for audit services: The effect of supplier concentration on audit fees. Contemporary Accounting Research 11(1): 115-35.
26. Penno, M., and B. Walther. 1996. The concentration of local markets: A study of accounting, advertising and law. Accounting Horizon 10 (2): 88-99.
27. Reynolds, J., and J. Francis. 2001. Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics 30 (3): 375-400.
28. Roberts, W., and G. W. Glezen. 1990. Determinants of school district audit fees. Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting 6:127-47.
29. Rubin, M. 1988. Municipal audit fee determinants. The Accounting Review 63 (2): 219-36.
30. Schmalensee, R., and R. Willig. 1989. Handbook of industrial organization. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
31. Thomas, D. 2002. "Edmonton has it easy", Toronto says. Edmonton Journal, October 6, A9.
32. Tomczyk, S., and W. Read 1989. Direct measurement of supplier concentration in the market for audit services. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 9 (1): 98-106.
33. Wallman, S. 1996. The future of accounting (part III): Reliability and auditor independence. Accounting Horizons 10 (4): 76-97.
34. Ward D., R. Elder, and S. Kattelus. 1994. Further evidence on the determinants of municipal audit fees. The Accounting Review 69 (2): 399-411.
35. Weiss, L., ed. 1989. Concentration and price. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Wootton, C., S. Tonge, and C. Wolk. 1994. Pre and post Big 8 mergers: Comparison of audit concentration. Accounting Horizons 8 (3): 58-74.