淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


系統識別號 U0002-2408200612095600
中文論文名稱 產業專業化對經營效率及獲利能力之影響-以我國合夥型會計師事務所為例
英文論文名稱 The Effect of Industry Specialization on Efficiency and Profitability: Evidence from Public Accounting Firms in Taiwan
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 會計學系碩士在職專班
系所名稱(英) Department of Accounting
學年度 94
學期 2
出版年 95
研究生中文姓名 黃玲穎
研究生英文姓名 Ling-Ying Huang
學號 792470170
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
第二語文別 英文
口試日期 2006-06-21
論文頁數 115頁
口試委員 指導教授-張寶光
委員-張寶光
委員-黃台心
委員-陳心田
中文關鍵字 會計師事務所  產業專業化  經營效率  獲利能力 
英文關鍵字 Public accounting firms  industry specialization  operating efficiency  profitability 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學商學
中文摘要 本研究以審計服務供給面之觀點,探討合夥型會計師事務所之產業專業化對經營效率及獲利能力之影響。以台灣財政部及主計處所公布「會計師事務所服務業調查報告」1989至2003年之公開資料庫進行分析,主要研究結論包括以下三方面。首先,在產業專業化與技術效率之關係方面,以全體合夥會計師事務所為對象分析時,其產業專業化程度與技術效率間顯著地呈現由負到正的U型非線性關係,顯示在產業專業化程度較小之階段,可能未具規模經濟,故與技術效率間呈現負向關係。但隨著產業專業化程度之逐漸提昇,其與技術效率間則轉成正向關係,即產業專業化程度愈高,則技術效率愈高。此種由負到正的U型非線性關係,主要由小型合夥會計師事務所驅動而成。當進一步將技術效率分解成純粹技術效率(即管理效率)與規模效率時可以發現,產業專業化與純粹技術效率類似於技術效率之型態,至於在規模效率方面,產業專業化程度與其規模效率間之顯著關係僅存在於大型且遞增規模報酬的次樣本中。其次,技術效率與獲利能力間之關係方面,以整體合夥會計師事務所為對象分析時,其技術效率與淨利率間顯著地呈現由正到負的倒U型非線性關係,顯示在技術效率較小之階段,與淨利率間呈現正向關係。但隨著技術效率之逐漸提昇,其與淨利率間則轉成負向關係,即技術效率愈高,則淨利率之邊際增量愈低,此種非線性之關係可能受制於市占率之潛在影響。至於兩個技術效率的組成份子方面,純粹技術效率與淨利率間之關係,類似於技術效率與淨利率間之關係。在規模效率方面,全體合夥會計師事務所三組不同情況規模效率次樣本,即遞增、固定、及遞減規模報酬之分析結果指出,除了遞增規模報酬族群之規模效率與淨利率具顯著之關係外,其餘族群及係數均無顯著之結果。整體而言,前述之實證結果傾向支持產業經濟理論中效率結構假說之論點,即效率愈高則獲利能力愈高。最後,在產業專業化對獲利能力之影響方面,以全體合夥型會計師事務所為對象進行係數估計,由於全體合夥會計師事務所將大型及小型合夥的會計師事務所混合估計,使得產業專業化對其淨利率之影響受到干擾。本文將全體合夥型會計師事務所依大、小型會計師事務所產業專業化程度對其淨利率之影響分別估計後發現,具相對較高專業水準之大型會計師事務所,由於有對公開發行公司進行財務簽證工作,故其專業水準通常較高,此一較高之專業水準則為潛在地促使其產業專業化程度與獲利能力呈現在先升後降影響型態的潛在因素。相反地,在低專業的會計師事務所,由於客戶規模均較小,且無法提供關鍵性的公開發行公司財務簽證工作,故亦潛在地促使其產業專業化程度與獲利能力呈現在先降後升之影響型態。至於是否有其他之原因則有待進一步之驗證。
英文摘要 Based on auditing service supply side viewpoint, this thesis studies the effects caused by industry specialization of public accounting firms on their operating efficiency and profitability. After detailed analysis on Taiwan, R.O.C. Ministry of Finance and Directorate-General of Budget published open data bank from year 1989 to year 2003, a major research conclusion is reached in the following three aspects.Firstly, on the subject of correlation of industry specialization and technical efficiency, when applying overall partnership accounting firms in the sample data population as study objects, the correlation represented by the slope of technical efficiency over industry specialization is in significant non-linear U shape. It implies that when scale economy has not achieved, the public accounting firms with low industry specialization have negative slope of the correlation defined in the above lines; while those with high industry specialization have positive slope. The major driving force of forming such non-linear U shape correlation is small public accounting firms. If we break down technical efficiency into pure technical efficiency (i.e. managerial efficiency) and scale efficiency, the correlation of industry specialization and pure technical efficiency resembles the correlation of industry specialization and technical efficiency. While such inferred correlation of industry specialization and scale efficiency only exist in subset samples of public accounting firms with big firm size and increasing return to scale characteristics.Secondly, on the subject of correlation of technical efficiency and profit margin, when applying overall partnership accounting firms in the sample data population as study object, the correlation represented by the slope of profit margin over technical efficiency is in significant non-linear upside down U shape. This implies that public accounting firms with low technical efficiency have positive slope of the correlation stated above, while those with high technical efficiency have negative slope. That is, partnership accounting firms with higher technical efficiency will have lesser marginal increment on profit margin, and we assume this non-linear correlation might be indirectly effected by market share of public accounting firms. As conducting the same breaking down analysis of technical efficiency, the correlation of pure technical efficiency and profit margin resembles that of technical efficiency and profit margin. In the correlation of scale efficiency case, by breaking down sample population of partnership accounting firms into three subsets, as increasing return to scale, fixed return to scale, and decreasing return to scale subsets, the result analysis implies only increasing return to scale subset has significant correlation between scale efficiency and profit margin, while there is no such significant correlation in the other two subsets. Overall speaking, the research result prone to support efficiency structure hypothesis in the industrial organization theory, in other words, the higher efficiency makes the higher profitability.Finally, on the subject of effect caused by industry specialization on profit margin, when applying overall partnership accounting firms in the sample data population as study objects to conduct coefficient estimation, due to the nature of sampling method of the data used which mixing big size firms with small size ones to compose the overall partnership accounting firms sample population, it is hard to clearly identify the effect caused by industry specialization on profit margin. Therefore, this study proposes to do the separate studies on the defined effect by dividing the sample population by big size partnership accounting firms and small size ones. Hence it implies that, big size accounting firms with high professional capability do provide financial attestation service to stock-go-public company, therefore they are more professional compared to small size ones, which also drives these big size accounting firms to meet the tendency of the correlation represented by the slope of profit margin over industry specialization is in significant non-linear upside down U shape. In contrast, for those small size accounting firms with low professional capability, since their customer size is smaller in average, meanwhile as they could not provide crucial financial attestation service to stock-go-public companies, hence they meet the tendency of the correlation represented by the slope of profit margin over industry specialization is in significant non-linear U shape. Other reasons for such result are to be studied or examined in future researches
論文目次 目 錄
第壹章 緒論
第一節 研究背景及動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 研究流程 5
第貳章 文獻探討
第一節 會計師事務所產業專業化之涵義及其影響 6
第二節 產業專業化與經營效率之關係 14
第三節 經營效率與獲利能力之關係 19
第四節 產業專業化與獲利能力之關係 20
第五節 效率的概念 24
第六節 文獻評述 26
第參章 研究設計
第一節 研究架構 29
第二節 變數衡量 30
第三節 資料分析方法 33
第四節 樣本說明 37
第肆章 敘述統計分析
第一節 會計師事務所產業專業化之分析 38
第二節 投入產出變數之敘述統計 49
第三節 研究變數之敘述統計 53
第伍章 實證結果與分析
第一節 產業專業化對技術效率影響之實證結果 78
第二節 技術效率對獲利能力影響之實證結果 85
第三節 產業專業化對獲利能力影響之實證結果 91
第四節 產業專業化、技術效率與淨利率之因徑分析結果 97
第陸章 結構、意涵與未來研究建議
第一節 研究結論 106
第二節 管理意涵 108
第三節 未來研究建議 108
參考文獻 109
表目錄

表3-2-1 本研究之控制變數彙總表 32
表4-1-1 合夥型會計師事務所委託人產業別合併前產業專業化指標之敘述統計表 40
表4-1-2 合夥型會計師事務所委託人產業別合併後產業專業化指標之敘述統計表 43
表4-1-3 各年度委託人產業別合併後會計師事務所業務收入之敘述統計 45
表4-2-1 投入產出變數敘述統計彙總表 50
表4-2-2 皮爾森(Pearson)及Spearman相關係數矩陣表--全體合夥 51
表4-2-3 皮爾森(Pearson)及Spearman相關係數矩陣表—大型合夥 51
表4-2-4 皮爾森(Pearson)及Spearman相關係數矩陣表—小型合夥 52
表4-3-1 各變數敘述統計彙總表 54
表4-3-2 皮爾森(Pearson)及Spearman相關係數矩陣表--全體合夥 58
表4-3-3 皮爾森(Pearson)及Spearman相關係數矩陣表—大型合夥 60
表4-3-4 皮爾森(Pearson)及Spearman相關係數矩陣表—小型合夥 62
表5-1-1 產業專業化對技術效率之迴歸結果表 (Tobit model) 79
表5-1-2 產業專業化對純粹技術效率之迴歸結果表 (Tobit model) 81
表5-1-3 產業專業化對規模效率之迴歸結果表:全體合夥會計師事務所 82
表5-1-4 產業專業化對規模效率之迴歸結果表:大小型合夥會計師事務所 83
表5-2-1 技術效率對淨利率之迴歸結果 86
表5-2-2 純粹技術效率對淨利率之迴歸結果 87
表5-2-3 規模效率對淨利率之迴歸結果-全體合夥 88
表5-2-4 規模效率對淨利率之迴歸結果-大小型合夥 90
表5-3-1 產業專業化對獲利能力影響之實證結果-全體合夥 91
表5-3-2 產業專業化對獲利能力影響之實證結果-大、小型合夥 93
表5-4-1 因徑分析彙總表 105
圖目錄

圖1-3-1 研究流程圖 5
圖2-5-1 效率分類圖 24
圖3-1-1 產業專業化與經營效率及獲利能力之研究架構 29
圖3-3-1 計算技術效率值之投入產出結構圖 34
圖4-3-1 全體合夥會計師事務所產業專業化與技術效率之關係圖 (1989-2003年) 66
圖4-3-10 大型合夥事務所產業專業化與規模效率之關係圖 (1989-2003年) 72
圖4-3-11 規模效率遞增,大型合夥產業專業化與規模效率關係圖(1989-2003年) 72
圖4-3-12 規模效率遞減,大型合夥產業專業化與規模效率關係圖(1989-2003年) 73
圖4-3-13 小型合夥會計師事務所產業專業化與規模效率之關係圖 (1989-2003年) 73
圖4-3-14 規模效率遞增,小型合夥產業專業化與規模效率關係圖(1989-2003年) 74
圖4-3-15 規模效率遞減,小型合夥產業專業化與規模效率關係圖(1989-2003年) 74
圖4-3-16 全體合夥會計師事務所產業專業化與淨利率之關係圖 (1989-2003年) 76
圖4-3-17 大型合夥會計師事務所產業專業化與淨利率之關係圖 (1989-2003年) 76
圖4-3-18 小型合夥會計師事務所產業專業化與淨利率之關係圖 (1989-2003年) 77
圖4-3-2 大型合夥會計師事務所產業專業化與技術效率之關係圖 (1989-2003年) 66
圖4-3-3 小型合夥會計師事務所產業專業化與技術效率之關係圖 (1989-2003年) 67
圖4-3-4 全體合夥事務所產業專業化與純粹技術效率之關係圖 (1989-2003年) 68
圖4-3-5 大型合夥事務所產業專業化與純粹技術效率之關係圖 (1989-2003年) 68
圖4-3-6 小型合夥事務所產業專業化與純粹技術效率之關係圖 (1989-2003年) 69
圖4-3-7 全體合夥會計師事務所產業專業化與規模效率之關係圖 (1989-2003年) 70
圖4-3-8 規模效率遞增時,全體合夥產業專業化與規模效率關係圖(1989-2003年) 70
圖4-3-9 規模效率遞減時,全體合夥產業專業化與規模效率關係圖(1989-2003年) 71
圖5-3-1 大型會計師事務所1989-2003年市場占有率趨勢圖 94
圖5-3-2 小型會計師事務所1989-2003年市場占有率趨勢圖 96
圖5-4-1 產業專業化、技術效率與淨利率之因徑分析─全體合夥 98
圖5-4-2 產業專業化、純粹技術效率與淨利率之因徑分析─全體合夥 99
圖5-4-3 產業專業化、規模效率與淨利率之因徑分析─全體合夥 99
圖5-4-4 產業專業化、技術效率與淨利率之因徑分析─大型合夥 101
圖5-4-5 產業專業化、純粹技術效率與淨利率之因徑分析─大型合夥 101
圖5-4-6 產業專業化、規模效率與淨利率之因徑分析─大型合夥 102
圖5-4-7 產業專業化、技術效率與淨利率之因徑分析─小型合夥 103
圖5-4-8 產業專業化、純粹技術效率與淨利率之因徑分析─小型合夥 104
圖5-4-9 產業專業化、規模效率與淨利率之因徑分析─小型合夥 104
參考文獻 參 考 文 獻
一、 中文文獻(依筆劃排序)
李文智、黃蘭貴、蔡彥卿,2000,以結構-行為-績效模型研究台灣審計市場,,國立成功大學第一屆亞太會計與財務研究研討會。
李建然、許書偉與陳政芳,2003,非審計服務與異常應計數之關聯性研究,會計評論,第37期:1-30。
宋鎮照,2004,「南向」政策的社會場域與策略連結:從東南亞社會文化發展之機會與挑戰談起,立法院院聞,第32卷第1期:61-76。
邱秀清,2002,會計師事務所規模對審計品質之影響,商學學報(空大),第10期:11-27。
姜家訓,2005,會計師事務所之產業專精及查核年資與盈餘品質之關係,當代會計,第六卷第一期:23-60。
洪振詠,1997,會計師事務所產業經驗與新上市公司簽證市場關聯性之探討,東吳大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
翁志強,1998,台灣會計師事務所規模與多樣化經濟、效率及獲利能力之探討,政治大學經濟學系博士論文。
高強、黃旭男、Sueyoshi, T.合著(2003),管理績效評估─資料包絡分析法,華泰文化,台北市。
陳玲瓏,1997,產業集中度與會計師事務所產業專長對事務所優勢地位之影響—以上市公司為例,東吳大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。陳燕錫、傅鍾仁、林昭伶,2005,會計師事務所市場佔有率對財務績效之影響—以審計公費下限取消為例,2005年兩岸會計與管理學術研討會論文集:1-24。
陳耀宗、劉若蘭與林坤霖,2003,產業專家、客戶滿意度與審計公費關連性之研究,會計評論,第37期:31-52。
郭國興,2003,台商對大陸投資與產業國際競爭力之研究—兼論產業空洞化,今日合庫,第29卷第12期:50-64。
梁榮輝與廖振盛,2004,產業西進與產業空洞化,企銀季刊,第27卷第1期:143-153。
張文瀞,2005,品牌聲譽、產業專業化與審計人員市場佔有率關連性:取消審計公費下限分析,會計評論,第40期:91-118。
張重昭與林嬋娟,2000,會計師事務所之專業形象研究,台大管理論叢,第11期 (1):35-71。
張閔凱,2001,會計師事務所產業專業化之決定因素-台灣審計市場之實證研究,國立成功大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
張建宏,2002,台灣產險業獲利能力與管理績效關係分析之研究-資料包絡分析法之應用,高雄第一科技大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。
張寶光、楊忠城與陳燕錫,2004,我國會計師事務所人力資源替代性之演變—以合夥型會計師事務所為例,當代會計,第5卷第1期:1-23。
黃蘭貴,2001,會計師事務所合併之技術效率比較分析,國立台灣大學會計學研究所博士論文。
楊靜雯,1999,『如何加強會計師對財務資訊之簽證品質』會議紀實,會計研究月刊,第162期:118-192。
蔡松慧,2002,南向政策的重要據點—蘇比克灣工業區,電工資訊雜誌,第143期:62-64。
賴金城,2005,南向與西向投資之選擇—以台商對越南投資為例,玄奘人文學報,第5期:117-146。
二、 英文部份(依字母排序)
Arneet, H. E. and P. Danos. 1979. CPA Firm Viability, Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan.
Bain, J. S. 1967. Industrial Organization. Second Edition.
Bain Joe S. 1951. Relation of Profit Rate to Industry Concentration:American Manufacturing,1936-1940. The Quarterly Journal of economics 1(3):293-324.
Balsam, S., J. Krishnan and J. S. Yang. 2003. Auditor industry specialization and earnings quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22 (September): 71-97.
Behn, B. K., J. V. Carcello, D. R. Hermanson and R. H. Hermanson. 1997. The determinants of audit client satisfaction among clients of Big 6 firms. Accounting Horizons 11 (March): 7-24.
Brozen, Y. 1982. Concentration, Mergers, and Public Policy. New York: MacMillan Publishing.
Bröcheler, V., Maijoor S., and A.V. Witteloostuijn. 2004.Auditor human capital and audit firm survival-The Dutch audit industry in 1930-1992. Accounting, Organizations and Society 29:627-646.
Buzzell, R.D., Bradley T.G., Ralph G., and M. Sultan. 1975. A key to profitability. Harvard Business Review (53): 97-106.
Carcello, J. V., R. H. Hermanson and N. T. McGrath. 1992. Audit quality attributes: The perceptions of audit partners, preparers, and financial statement users. Auditing: A Journal of practice & Theory 11 (Spring): 1-15.
Casterella, J. R., J. R. Francis, B. L. Lewis and P. L. Walker. 2004. Auditor industry specialization, client bargaining power, and audit pricing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 23 (March): 123-140.
Chen, A., Chen R. C. Y., and W.C. Lee. 2002. The Effect of Passing Rate of CPA Examination on the Industrial Structure of Accounting Firms in Taiwan. PanPacific Management Review 5(2):155-170.
Chang, B. G. and Y. S. Chen. 2005. Production Function Forms under Technology Gap: Evidence from Public Accounting Firms in Taiwan. The Indian Journal of Economics LXXXV 339 (April): 515-530.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E. (1978), “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp.429-444.
Chen, A., Chen R. C. Y., and W.C. Lee. 2002. The Effect of Passing Rate of CPA Examination on the Industrial Structure of Accounting Firms in Taiwan. PanPacific Management Review 5(2):155-170.
Chen, K. Y., and S. Y. Wu. 2004. Industry specialists, audit fees and auditor size: Evidence from Taiwan. Taiwan Accounting Review 5(1): 41-69.
Choi, B. P., and M. A. Weiss. 2005. An empirical investigation of market structure, efficiency, and performance in property-liability insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance 72(4): 635-673.
Craswell A. T., J. R. Francis and S. L. Taylor. 1995. Auditor brand name reputations and industry specializations. Journal of Accounting and Economics 20: 297-322.
Danos, P. and J. W. Eichenseher. 1982. Auditing Industry Dynamics: Factors Affecting Changes in Client-Industry Market Shares. Journal of Accounting Research. (Autumn): 604-616.
Danos, P. and J. W. Eichenseher. 1986. Long-term trends toward seller concentration in the U.S. audit market. The Accounting Review (October): 633-650.
DeAngelo, L. 1981. Audit size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 1: 183-199.
De Beelde, I. 1997. An exploratory investigation of industry specialization of large accounting firms. International Journal of Accounting 32: 337-355.
DeFond, M. L., J. R. Francis and T. J. Wong. 2000. Auditor industry specialization and market segmentation: Evidence from Hong Kong. Auditing: A Journal of practice and Theory 19 (Spring): 49-66.
Demsetz, H. 1973. Industry structure, market rivalry, and public policy. Journal of Law and Economics 16: 1-9.
Demsetz, H. 1974. Two Systems of Belief about Monopoly and Public policy n Industry Concentration. The New Learning, Edited by Harvey Goldschmid: Boston, Little, Brown.
Dopuch, N. and D.A. Simunic. 1982. Competition in auditing: An assessment In Fourth Symposium on Auditing Research, Urbana: University of Illinois, 401-450.
Eichenseher, J. W., and P. Danos. 1981. The analysis of industry-specific auditor concentration: Towards an explanation model. The Accounting Review 56: 479-492.
Evanoff, D. D., D. Fortier. 1988. Reevaluation of the Structure-Conduct- Performance Relationship in Banking. Journal of Financial Services Research 11 : 277-294.
Farrel, M. J. 1957. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (120): 499-513.
Fisher, L., B. Reynolds, and A. Nixon. 2005. Special Reports: FTSE 100 Auditors Survey – Ebbers’ legacy. Accountancy 136(1345): 26.
Gale, B. T., B. S. Branch. 1982. Concentration Versus Market Share: Which Determines Performance and Why Does It Matter. Antitrust Bulletin (27): 83-106.
Hitt, Bierman, Shimizu and Kochhar. 2001. Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: A resource-based perspective. Academy of Management Journal. (44): 13.
Hogan, C. E. and D. C. Jeter. 1999. Industry specialization by auditors. Auditing: A Jouranl of Practice & Theory (Spring):1-17.
Kown, S. Y. 1996. The Impact of Competition within the Client’s Industry on the Auditor Selection Decision. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring): 53-70.
Krishnan, G. V. 2003. Audit quality and the pricing of discretionary accruals. Auditing 22(1): 109-126.
Krishnan, Gopal V. 2003. Does Big 6 auditor industry expertise constrain earnings management? Accounting Horizons 17 (Supplement): 1-16.
Kurtz, R. D., S. A. Rhoades. 1991. A Note on the Market hare-Profitability Relationship. Working Paper, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Lambson, V. E. 1987. Is the Concentration-Profit Correlation Partly and Artifact of Lumpy Technology?. American Economics Review (77): 731-733.
Lewin, A. Y. and Minton, J. W. (1986), “Determining Organizational Effectiveness: Another Look, and an Agenda for Research,” Management Science, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp.514-538.
Lynn, S. A. 1986. Segmenting a business market for a professional service.
Maijoor, S. J., and A. Vanstraelen. 2006. Earnings management within Europe: The effects of member state audit environment, audit firm quality and international capital markets. Accounting and Business Research 36(1): 33.
Mason. E. S. 1939. Price and production policies of large-scale enterprise. American Economic Review 29: 61-74.
Mayhew, B., and M. Wilkins. 2003. Audit firm industry specialization as a differentiation strategy: Evidence from fees charged to firms going public. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 22: 33-52.
O’Reilly, D. M. and J. T. Reisch. 2002. Industry specialization by audit firms: What does academic research tell us? The Ohio CPA Journal (July-September):42-44.
Palmrose, Z. V. 1986. Audit Fees and Auditor Size:Further Evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 24(1):97-110.
Peltzman, S. 1977. The Gains and Losses from industrial concentration. Journal of Law and Economics 20: 229-223.
Pong, C. K., and S Burnett. 2006. The implications of merger for market share, audit pricing and non-audit fee income: The case of PricewaterhouseCoopers. Managerial Auditing Journal 21: 7-22.
Prescott, J. E., Kohli A. K., and N. Venkatraman. 1986. The market share profitability relationship: An empirical assessment of major assertions and contradictions. Strategic Management Journal (7): 377-394.
Scherer, F. M. 1980. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. 2nd ed. Rand McNally, Chicago.
Shockley, R. A. and R. N. Holt. 1983. A Behavioral Investigation of Supplier Differentiation in the Market for Audit Services. Journal of Accounting Research: 545-564.
Shepherd, W. G.. 1972. The Elements of Market Structure. Review of Economics and Statistics (54): 25-37.
Shepherd, W. G. 1982. Economics of Scale and Monopoly Profits. In Industrial Organization, Antitrust and Public Policy, Edited by J.V. Craven Boston: Kluwer Njihoff.
Simon. D. 1985. The audit services market: Additional empirical evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 23 (March): 123-140.
Simunic, D. 1984. Auditing, consulting, and auditor independence. Journal of Accounting Research 5 (Fall): 71-78.
Smirlock, Gilligan and Marshall. 1984. Tobin’s q and the Structure-Performance Relationship. The American Economic Review. (74): 1051.
Smirlock, M. 1985. Evidence on the (Non) Relationship Between Concentration and Profitability in Banking. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking (17): 69-83.
Smirlock, Gilligan and Marshall. 1986. Tobin’s q and the Structure-Performance Relationship: Comment/Reply. The American Economic Review. (76): 1205.
Solomon, I., M. D. Shields and O. R. Whittington. 1999. What do industry-specialist auditors know? Journal of Accounting Research 37 (Spring): 191-208.
Stigler, G. L. 1964. A theory of oligopoly. Journal of Political Economy 72: 44-61.
Titman, S., and B. Trueman. 1986. Information quality and the valuation of new issues. Journal of Accounting and Economics 8: 159-172
Turpen, R. A. 1990. Differential pricing on auditors’ initial engagements: Further evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 9 (Spring): 60-76.
Ward, Elder and Kattelus. 1994. Futher evidence on the determinants of municipal audit fees. The Accounting Review. (69): 399.
論文使用權限
  • 不同意紙本論文無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用。
  • 不同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信