本研究運用Huang et al. (2014) 所提出之隨機共同生產邊界模型探討臺灣、大陸與美國會計師事務所之效率與生產力。研究對象以三個國家前百大會計師事務所之排名資料，針對2007至2009年相同的投入產出要素進行靜態與動態之比較分析。隨機共同生產邊界與先前所提出之確定共同邊界模型最大的不同處在於其第二階段仍採用隨機邊界法進行估計。此外，本研究亦將一般化Metafrontier Malmquist生產力指數的概念從距離函數延伸至生產函數。主要實證結果如下：首先，臺灣會計師事務所的平均總技術效率最高，然平均技術差距比率則以美國會計師事務所為最佳，顯示美國會計師事務所整體所採用的生產技術居三國之首。然而，兩者間並未呈顯著差異。臺灣屬於小型開放經濟體，雖然其事務所的規模明顯小於美國與大陸，但其專業人員因擁有傑出的生產力使其整體的總技術效率優於其他兩國。其次，在樣本期間大陸會計師事務所的總技術效率與技術差距比率雖居三者之末，但觀其每年技術差距比率的成長幅度卻顯著優於臺灣與美國，顯示大陸會計師事務所的生產邊界正逐漸趕上共同生產邊界。最後，大陸會計師事務所的平均生產力 (gMMPI) 成長幅度亦顯著高於美國與臺灣，主要原因來自其本身的技術進步與潛在技術變動的追趕。推此原因應與近年來大陸政府大力推行會計師事務所做大做強的政策有關。

This study employs the newly developed stochastic metafrontier production function by Huang et al. (2014) to compare the technical efficiencies and productivity changes of public accounting firms among Taiwan, China, and the U.S., operating under different technologies. Although the public accounting firms play an important role in a nation’s capital market, the accounting firm has not attracted much attention to academic researchers. The main difference between the stochastic metafrontier production function and the one proposed by Battese et al. (2004) and O’Donnell et al. (2008) lies in the second step, where the stochastic frontier approach (SFA) is recommended instead of programming techniques. Furthermore, this study extends the concept of the generalized metafrontier Malmquist productivity index (gMMPI), which is originally based on the distance function framework (Orea 2002; Chen and Yang 2011), to production function. In this research, Taiwan’s accounting firms are found to have the highest average metafrontier technical efficiency (MTE) and accounting firms in the U.S. have the highest technology gap ratio (TGR). Nonetheless, the average TGR and MTE values of American firms are closer to those of Taiwan. Taiwan is a small open economy and although its accounting firms are smaller in scale compared to the U.S. and China, its overall production efficiency is superior. This may be attributed to the outstanding productivity of professional employee in Taiwan’s accounting firms, indicating that the professionalism of employee plays a vital role in the production process of firms. Although Chinese accounting firms have the lowest average values for TGR and MTE, the mean TGR of Chinese firms grows more rapidly than that of firms in the other countries, indicating that the gap between the metafrontier and Chinese frontier shrinks more quickly than do the gaps in the U.S. and Taiwan. In addition, their average gMMPI surpasses the other two countries. This is mainly incurred by the fastest technical progress and catch-up with the potential technology in Chinese firms. This may be associated with Chinese governmental policies that encourage fast expansion in the scale of accounting firms.

Table of Content
Chapter 1	Introduction	1
1.1.	Research Background and Motivation	1
1.2.	Research Purpose	5
1.3.	Research Contribution	5
1.4.	Flow Chart of Research	6
1.5.	Glossary	8
Chapter 2	A Comparison of the Technical Efficiency of Public Accounting Firms across Countries	11
2.1.	Introduction	11
2.2.	Literature Review	14
2.2.1.	Efficiencies of the Accounting Firms	14
2.2.2.	Literature Review of Metafrontier Approach	17
2.3.	Methodology	18
2.3.1.	Stochastic Metafrontier Approach	18
2.3.2.	Empirical Model	24
2.4.	Variable Definition and Data Sources	25
2.4.1.	Data Sources and Sample Selection	25
2.4.2.	The Output	26
2.4.3.	Input Variables	27
2.4.4.	Descriptive Statistics	28
2.5.	Empirical Results	31
2.5.1.	Results of Group Frontier Estimation	31
2.5.2.	Results of Metafrontier Estimation	35
2.5.3.	Various Efficiency Measures	37
2.5.4.	Hypothesis Testing	40
2.6.	Conclusion	41
Chapter 3	A Comparison of the Metafrontier Productivity Changes of Public Accounting Firms across Countries	43
3.1.	Introduction	43
3.2.	Literature Review	47
3.2.1.	Productivity Growths of the Public Accounting Firms	47
3.2.2.	Metafrontier Approach and gMMPI	49
3.3.	Methodology	51
3.3.1.	Technical Efficiency and TGR	51
3.3.2.	Metafrontier Malmquist Productivity Index	53
3.3.3.	Stochastic metafrontier approach	59
3.4.	Hypothesis Development	63
3.5.	The Data	65
3.5.1.	Data Sources and Variable Definition	65
3.5.2.	Descriptive Statistics	66
3.6.	Empirical Results	69
3.6.1.	Results of Group Frontier Estimation	69
3.6.2.	Results of the Metafrontier Model	72
3.6.3.	Results of the gMMPI	76
3.6.4.	Significance Tests of the Difference in the Components of the gMMPI	83
3.7.	Conclusion	84
Chapter 4	Conclusions and Recommendations	88
4.1.	Concluding Remarks	88
4.2.	Limitations and Recommendations	90
References		91
Appendix A		97


 
List of Tables
Table 2-1　Descriptive statistics	30
Table 2-2　Joint tests for equality of mean inputs and outputs among sample countries	31
Table 2-3　Parameter estimates of group-specific production frontiers	34
Table 2-4　Parameter estimates of the metafrontier production function	36
Table 2-5　Summary statistics of various measures of efficiency in accounting firms	38
Table 2-6　Significance tests for measures of TGR and MTE across countries	40
Table 3-1　Descriptive statistics	67
Table 3-2　Joint tests for equality of mean inputs and outputs among countries	68
Table 3-3　Parameter estimates of group-specific production frontiers	71
Table 3-4　Parameter estimates of the metafrontier production function	73
Table 3-5　Summary statistics of various measures of efficiency in the accounting industry	75
Table 3-6　Significance Tests for Measures of TGR and MTE across Countries	76
Table 3-7　Decomposition of the gMMPI	85
Table 3-8　Cross-country Significance test for elements of the gMMPI	86
Table 3-9　Cross-period significance test for elements of the gMMPI	87

 
List of Figures
Figure 1-1　Flow chart of research	7
Figure 2-1　SMPF Approach-GTE	39
Figure 2-2　SMPF Approach-TGR	39
Figure 2-3　SMPF Approach-MTE	39
Figure 2-4　QP Approach-GTE	39
Figure 2-5　QP Approach-TGR	39
Figure 2-6　QP Approach-MTE	39
Figure 3-1　GMPI across countries	79
Figure 3-2　gMMPI across countries	79
Figure 3-3　CUT across countries	81
Figure 3-4　PTC across countries	81
Figure 3-5　CUS across countries	82
Figure 3-6　CUE across countries	82
Figure A-1　A Production Frontier	97
Figure A-2　Metafrontier Production Model	101

Balk, B. M. 2001. Scale efficiency and productivity change. Journal of Productivity Analysis 15 (3): 159-183.
Banker, R. D., H. Chang, and R. Cunningham. 2003. The public accounting industry production function. Journal of Accounting & Economics 35 (2): 255-281.
Banker, R. D., H. Chang, and R. Natarajan. 2005. Productivity change, technical progress, and relative efficiency change in the public accounting industry. Management Science 51 (2): 291-304.
Banker, R. D., H. Chang, and R. Natarajan. 2007. Estimating DEA technical and allocative inefficiency using aggregate cost or revenue data. Journal of Productivity Analysis 27: 115-121.
Battese, G. E., and D. S. P. Rao. 2002. Technology gap, efficiency and a stochastic metafrontier function. International Journal of Business and Economics 1: 87-93.
Battese, G. E., and T. J. Coelli. 1992. Frontier production functions, technical efficiency and panel data: With application to paddy farmers in India. Journal of Productivity Analysis 3: 153-169.
Battese, G. E., D. S. P. Rao, and C. J. O’Donnell. 2004. A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. Journal of Productivity Analysis 21: 91-103.
Bos, J. W. B., and H. Schmiedel. 2007. Is there a single frontier in a single European banking market? Journal of Banking & Finance 31 (7): 2081-2102.
Bröcheler, V., S. Maijoor, and A. van Witteloostuijn. 2004. Auditor human capital and audit firm survival: The Dutch audit industry in 1930-1992. Accounting, Organizations and Society 29 (7): 627-646.
Caves, D. W., L. R. Christensen, and W. E. Diewert. 1982a. Multilateral comparisons of output, input, and productivity using superlative index numbers. The Economic Journal 92 (365): 73-86.
Caves, D. W., L. R. Christensen, and W. E. Diewert. 1982b. The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output and productivity. Econometrica 50 (6): 1393-1414.
Chang, B. G., T. H. Huang, and C. Y. Kuo. 2014. A comparison of the technical efficiency of accounting firms among the US, China, and Taiwan under the framework of a stochastic metafrontier production function. Journal of Productivity Analysis (forthcoming).
Chang, H., H. L. Choy, W. W. Cooper, and T. W. Ruefli. 2009a. Using Malmquist indexes to measure changes in the productivity and efficiency of US accounting firms before and after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Omega 37(5): 951-960.
Chang, H., H. L. Choy, W. W. Cooper, B. R. Parker, and T. W. Ruefli. 2009b. Measuring productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency changes of CPA firms prior to, and following the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 43(4): 221-228.
Chang, H., J. Chen, R. Duh, and S. Li. 2011. Productivity growth in the public accounting industry: The roles of information technology and human capital. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 30 (1): 21-48.
Chen, K. H. 2012. Incorporating risk input into the analysis of bank productivity: Application to the Taiwanese banking industry. Journal of Banking & Finance 36 (7): 1911-1927.
Chen, K. H., and H. Y. Yang. 2011. A cross-country comparison of productivity growth using the generalised metafrontier Malmquist productivity index: with application to banking industries in Taiwan and China. Journal of Productivity Analysis 35: 197-212.
Chen, Y. S., Y. F. Yang, and L. W. Yang. 2012. The IT productivity paradox: Effects of training in audit firms. Human Systems Management 31 (3-4): 241-254.
Cheng, T. W., K. L. Wang, and C. C. Weng. 2000a. A study of technical efficiencies of CPA firms in Taiwan. Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies 3 (1): 27-44.
Cheng, T. W., K. L. Wang, and C. C. Weng. 2000b. Economies of scale and scope in Taiwan’s CPA service industry. Applied Economics Letters 7: 409-414.
Chia, F. C., M. Skitmore, G. Runeson, and A. Bridge. 2014. Economic development and construction productivity in Malaysia. Construction Management and Economics 32 (9): 874-887.
Coelli, T. J., D. S. P. Rao, C. J. O’Donnell, and G. E. Battese. 2005. An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. 2nd edition. NY: Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
Diewert, W. E. 1976. Exact and superlative index numbers. Journal of Econometrics 4 (2): 115-145.
Farag, M. S., and R. Z. Elias. 2012. Public accounting firms’ mix of service revenue and average productivity: Evidence using revenue per partner. Managerial Auditing Journal 27 (8): 712-727.
Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, M. Norris, and Z. Zhang. 1994. Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. The American Economic Review 84 (1): 66-83.
Farrell, M. J. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 120 (3): 253-290.
Funakoshi, M., and K. Motohashi. 2009. A quantitative analysis of market competition and productivity. Japanese Economy 36 (1): 27-47.
González, E., and F. Gascón. 2004. Sources of productivity growth in the Spanish pharmaceutical industry (1994–2000). Research Policy 33 (5): 735-745.
Greenwood, R., S. X. Li, R. Prakash, and D. L. Deephouse. 2005. Reputation, diversification, and organizational explanations of performance in professional service firms. Organization Science 16 (6): 661-673.
Hayami, Y. 1969. Sources of agricultural productivity gap among selected countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 51: 564-575.
Hayami, Y., and V. W. Ruttan. 1970. Agricultural productivity differences among countries. The American Economic Review 60: 895-911.
Hayami, Y., and V. W. Ruttan. 1971. Agricultural development: An international perspective. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Huang, C. J., T. H. Huang, and N. H. Liu. 2014. A new approach to estimating the metafrontier production function based on a stochastic frontier framework. Journal of Productivity Analysis 42 (3): 241-254.
Kato, A. 2009. Product market competition and productivity in the Indian manufacturing industry. The Journal of Development Studies 45 (10):1579-1593.
Knechel, W. R., P. Rouse, and C. Schelleman. 2009. A modified audit production framework: Evaluating the relative efficiency of audit engagements. The Accounting Review 84 (5): 1607-1638.
Moreira, V. H., and B. E. Bravo-Ureta. 2010. Technical efficiency and metatechnology ratios for dairy farms in three southern cone countries: a stochastic meta-frontier model. Journal of Productivity Analysis 33 (1): 33-45.
Nordenflycht, A. V. 2010. What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and taxonomy of knowledge-intensive firms. Academy of Management Review 35 (1): 155-174.
O’Donnell, C. J., D. S. P. Rao, and G. E. Battese. 2008. Meta-frontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empirical Economics 34: 231-255.
O’Keefe, T. B., R. D. King, and K. M. Gaver. 1994. Audit fees, industry specialization, and compliance with GAAS reporting standards. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13: 41-55.
Orea, L. 2002. Parametric decomposition of a generalized Malmquist productivity index. Journal of Productivity Analysis 18 (1): 5-22.
Parker, R. H., and R. D. Morris. 2001. The influence of U.S. GAAP on the harmony of accounting measurement policies by large companies in the UK and Australia. Abacus 37(3): 297-328.
Ray, S. C. 1998. Measuring scale efficiency from a translog production function. Journal of Productivity Analysis 11 (2): 183-194.
Simunic, D. A. 1980. The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 18 (1): 161-190.
Vancauteren, M., and B. H. de Frahan. 2011. Trade policy, competition and productivity: The impact of EU harmonization in the Dutch food processing industry. De Economist 159 (4): 483-509.