Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Asymmetric cost behavior, which was first identified in Germany in the 1920s, has attracted the attention of researchers over the last two decades. Cost management is essential not only for commercial enterprises (CEs) but also for public organizations. Therefore, in this research, I focus on local public enterprises (LPEs), one type of public organization in Japan, and clarify their cost behavior. Then, taking the perspective of institutional theory, I compare LPEs with CEs. Because LPEs are required to behave according to the restrictions of LPE law, they are more vulnerable to institutional pressure. Specifically, LPEs have two normative institutional constraints: (1) efficiency and (2) the public interest (i.e., the responsibility to support people’s everyday lives). Therefore, LPEs must provide certain services even if they are unprofitable. To explore whether normative institutional pressure causes LPEs to be cost inefficient, I compare the cost behavior of these enterprises with that of CEs in five ways. I analyze (1) panel data covering 40 years, (2) the change over time, (3) the differences by industry type, (4) the relationship with population changes, and (5) the effect of political influence. I find that LPEs’ cost management is not necessarily cost inefficient; however, their ability to adjust costs may be lost in the future due to the influence of institutional constraints. I therefore assert that LPE administrators must constantly struggle to balance the institutional constraints of the public interest and efficiency since these factors require long-term, stable management.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Anderson, M. C., Banker, R. D., & Janakiraman, S. (2003). Are selling, general, and administrative costs “sticky”? Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1), 47–63. CrossRef
Anderson, S. W., & Lanen, W. N. (2007). Understanding cost management: What can we learn from the evidence on “sticky costs”. Working Paper in Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=975135. Accessed February 2, 2015.
Balakrishnan, R., Eldenburg, L., Krishnan, R., & Soderstrom, N. (2010). The influence of institutional constraints on outsourcing. Journal of Accounting Research, 48(4), 767–794.
Banker, R. D., & Byzalov, D. (2014). Asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 43–79. CrossRef
Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., & Chen, L. T. (2013). Employment protection legislation, adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 55(1), 111–127. CrossRef
Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., Ciftci, M., & Mashruwala, R. (2014a). The moderating effect of prior sales changes on asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 221–242. CrossRef
Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., & Plehn-Dujowich, J. M. (2014b). Demand uncertainty and cost behavior. The Accounting Review, 89(3), 839–865. CrossRef
Bertero, E., & Rondi, L. (2000). Financial pressure and the behaviour of public enterprises under soft and hard budget constraints: Evidence from Italian panel data. Journal of Public Economics, 75(1), 73–98. CrossRef
Boshch, J. M. A., & Blandon, J. G. (2011). The influence of size on cost behavior associated with tactical and operational flexibility. Estudios de Economia, 38(2), 419–455. CrossRef
Bradbury, M. E., & Scott, T. (2014). Do managers understand asymmetric cost behavior? Working paper in University of Technology Sydney. https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/ADG_Conf2015_30.%20Michael%20Bradbury_Do%20Managers%20Understand%20Asymmetric%20Cost%20Behaviour.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2017.
Brasch, H. D. (1927). Zur Praxis der Unkostenschwankungen und ihrer Erfassung. Betriebswirtschaftliche Rundschau, 4, 65–74.
Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, D. C. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17(2), 127–140. CrossRef
Cohen, S., Karatzimas, S., & Naoum, V. C. (2017). The sticky cost phenomenon at the local government level: Empirical evidence from Greece. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 18(4), 445–463. CrossRef
Collin, S. Y., Tagesson, T., Andersson, A., Cato, J., & Hansson, K. (2009). Explaining the choice of accounting standards in municipal corporations: Positive accounting theory and institutional theory as competitive or concurrent theories. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(2), 141–174. CrossRef
Crediop, Dexia. (2004). Local public companies in the 25 countries of the European Union. Paris: Dexia.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Dalla Via, N., & Perego, P. M. (2014). Sticky cost behavior: Evidence from small and medium sized companies. Accounting & Finance, 54(3), 753–778. CrossRef
De Bruijn, J.A.H., Ten Heuvelhof, E., & Van Twist, M. (2004). Calculeren voorbij de calculus. Identificatie van publieke belangen in het politiek-bestuurlijk debat. In Essays over de Calculus van het Publiek Belang. Kenniscentrum voor Ordeningsvraagstukken.
Dijkgraaf, E., & Gradus, R. H. J. M. (2011). Efficiency effects of privatising refuse collection: Be careful and alternatives present. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, 2011-156/3. https://papers.tinbergen.nl/11156.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2018.
Dimaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. CrossRef
Eldenburg, L., Hermalin, B. E., Weisbach, M. S., & Wosinska, M. (2004). Governance, performance objectives and organizational form: Evidence from hospitals. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10(4), 527–548. CrossRef
Eldenburg, L., & Krishnan, R. (2003). Public versus private governance: A study of incentives and operational performance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 35(3), 377–404. CrossRef
Eldenburg, L., & Krishnan, R. (2008). The influence of ownership on accounting information expenditures. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(3), 739–772. CrossRef
Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 283–307. CrossRef
Grossi, G., & Reichard, C. (2008). Municipal corporatizations in Germany and Italy. Public Management Review, 10(5), 597–617. CrossRef
Günther, T. W., Riehl, A., & Rößler, R. (2014). Cost stickiness state of the art of research and implications. Journal of Management Control, 24(4), 301–318. CrossRef
He, D., Teruya, J., & Shimizu, T. (2010). Sticky selling, general, and administrative cost behavior and its changes in Japan. Global Journal of Business Research, 4(4), 1–10.
Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the market versus planning dichotomy: Understanding privatisation and its reverse in US cities. Local Government Studies, 33(4), 555–572. CrossRef
Hodge, G. A. (2000). Privatization: An international review of performance. Boulder: Westview Press.
Holzhacker, M., Krishnan, R., & Mahlendorf, M. D. (2015). The impact of changes in regulation on cost behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(2), 534–566. CrossRef
Kawarada, T. (2005). Local public enterprises accounts theory. Osaka: Seibunsha.
Koike, A., Sadakane, K., Furuichi, E., & Katayama, S. (2015). Regional economic estimation of redundancy effects from transport investments. Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 71(5), 201–208.
Local Public Enterprise Division. Local public Enterprise YearBook No. 22 (1974)– No. 61 (2013). Local Public Finance Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan.
Malik, M. (2012). A review and synthesis of ‘cost stickiness’ literature. Working Paper in Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2276760. Accessed July 26, 2016.
Martinsons, M. G., & Davison, R. M. (2007). Strategic decision making and support systems: Comparing American, Japanese and Chinese management. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 284–300. CrossRef
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. CrossRef
Murray, H. A. (1975). A comparing public and private management: An exploratory essay. Public Administration Review, 35, 364–371. CrossRef
Nakai, H. (1988). Quantitative analysis of contemporary fiscal burden—Financial burden problem through national and local governments. Tokyo: Yuhikaku.
Nakano, K. (2016). Effects of population and household structures on residential electricity demand a literature review and future research agenda. The Electric Power Economic Research, 63, 35–49.
Nee, V., & Cao, Y. (2005). Market transition and the firm: Institutional change and income inequality in urban China. Management and Organization Review, 1(1), 23–56. CrossRef
Nishioka, H., Yamauchi, M., & Koike, S. (2007). A Report on the Utilization of ‘Population Projections by Prefecture and Municipality: 2000–2030 (by IPSS)’. Journal of Population Problems, 63(4), 56–73.
Noreen, E., & Soderstrom, N. (1997). The accuracy of proportional cost models: Evidence from hospital service departments. Review of Accounting Studies, 2(1), 89–114. CrossRef
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179. CrossRef
Ooshima, K. (1971). The business administration of the public (enterprise enlarged edition). Tokyo: Hakuto-shobo.
Pesch, U. (2005). The predicaments of publicness: An inquiry into the conceptual ambiguity of public administration. Ph.D. Thesis in Leiden University of Leiden.
Population Census Division. Population census 2005, 2010, and 2015. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan.
Population Census Division. The report of population movement based on basic resident register system 1995– 2013. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan.
Rainey, H. G. (1997). Understanding and managing public organizations. New York: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. W., & Levine, C. L. (1976). A comparing public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 36, 233–246. CrossRef
Saussier, S., & Klien, M. (2014). Local public enterprises: A taxonomy. La Chaire EPPP. Sorbonne Business School. https://chaire-eppp.org/local-public-enterprises-a-taxonomy/?lang=en. Accessed July 19, 2016.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Sepasi, S., & Hassani, H. (2015). Study of the effect of the firm size on costs stickiness: Evidence from Tehran Stock Exchange. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 13(6), 4143–4159.
Sørensen, R. J. (2007). Does dispersed public ownership impair efficiency? The case of refuse collection in Norway. Public Administration, 85(4), 1045–1058. CrossRef
Subramaniam, C., & Weidenmier, M. W. (2016). Additional evidence on the sticky behavior of costs. Advances in Management Accounting, 26, 275–305. CrossRef
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2008). Public enterprises: Unresolved challenges and new opportunities. Publication based on the Expert Group Meeting on Re-inventing Public Enterprise and their Management.
Van Genugten, M. L. (2008). The art of alignment: Transaction cost economics and public service delivery at the local level. Working Paper in University of Twente. https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-art-of-alignment-transaction-cost-economics-and-the-provision. Accessed February 18, 2018.
Voorn, B., Van Genugten, M. L., & Van Thiel, S. (2017). The efficiency and effectiveness of municipally owned corporations: A systematic review. Local Government Studies, 43(5), 820–841. CrossRef
Weiss, D. (2010). Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review, 85, 1441–1474. CrossRef
Wollman, H. (2000). Local government modernization in Germany: Between incrementalism and reform waves. Public Administration, 78(4), 915–936. CrossRef
Wollmann, H., Baldersheim, H., Citroni, G., Marcou, G., & McEldowney, J. (2010). The provision of public Services in Europe: Between state, local government and market. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. CrossRef
Yasukata, K. (2012). The cost fluctuation analysis of the Japanese enterprises. Tokyo: Chuo-keizai-sha.
Yasukata, K., Kajiwara, T., Sima, Y., & Kurisu, T. (2011). Nonprofit organization/public organization’ empirical analysis of cost fluctuation—The moderate effect of occupancy rate for National Hospital Organization. Journal of Cost Accounting, 35(1), 141–150.
Zanella, F., Oyelere, P., & Hossain, S. (2015). Are costs really sticky? Evidence from publicly listed companies in the UAE. Applied Economics, 47(60), 6519–6528. CrossRef
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5), 726–743. CrossRef
- Asymmetric cost behavior in local public enterprises: exploring the public interest and striving for efficiency
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Journal of Management Control
Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung
Print ISSN: 2191-4761
Elektronische ISSN: 2191-477X
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© BBL, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Neuer Inhalt/© hww, Voraussetzungen für wirtschaftliche additive Fertigung/© Marco2811 | Fotolia