跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.201.97.0) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/04/19 13:35
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:鍾彥良
研究生(外文):Yang-Liang Chung
論文名稱:台灣地區會計師事務所效率評估-資料包絡分析法之應用
論文名稱(外文):Measuring the Efficiency of Accounting Service Industry in Taiwan- An Application of DEA Approach
指導教授:侍台誠
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:元智大學
系所名稱:會計學系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:會計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2006
畢業學年度:94
語文別:中文
論文頁數:61
中文關鍵詞:會計師事務所效率審計品質資料包絡分析法
外文關鍵詞:accounting firmsefficiencyaudit qualityData Envelopment Analysis
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:14
  • 點閱點閱:538
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
欲執行會計師工作之專業人員須通過會計師考試後方能取得執業之基本資格,故Benston(1985)認為會計師考試係屬會計師專業的進入障礙之ㄧ。考選部於民國77年起大幅提高會計師錄取人數,即意味著對會計師事務所服務業解除管制之政策。此一政策使得執業會計師與事務所家數大量湧入審計市場,導致整體產業利潤率逐年下滑,市場結構丕變。準此,本研究擬採用財政部統計處民國78至91年之「會計師事務所服務業調查報告」之原始普查資料,首先使用DEA評估會計師事務所之效率值,並將審計品質納入考量;其次,在對影響各效率值的外在環境因素進行Tobit迴歸分析。本研究實證結果顯示:

1.台灣地區會計師事務所服務業平均技術無效率,實係導因於規模無效率,
亦即事務所未處於最適規模下生產,以致造成資源浪費。

2.雖然DEA效率值檢定多不支持審計供給量增加對效率值有不利之影響,惟迴
歸分析結果發現此一政策對各效率值確實為負面之效果,且將期間以年度虛擬變數衡量時,更能顯示此解除管制政策不利之結果。

3.不同品質事務所下,6大/5大事務所在整體技術效率表現最好,規模效率則是非6大/5大合夥事務所中有公開發行簽證收入者最佳,至於純技術效率值最良好的係在獨資事務所中,惟在品質同類、規模類似之前提下,吾人可見規模效率最高者乃6大/5大事務所。

4.由於6大/5大事務所已呈規模報酬遞減,顯示並不適宜經由合併以擴大經營規模;獨資事務所大多處在固定規模報酬階段,故應維持目前小者恆小之現狀;至於非6大/5大合夥事務所之無公開發行簽證收入者,在規模報酬遞增之比例最高,故可藉由合併以擴大服務規模,達到合併之?鰨纂C尤其在會計師事務所兩極化發展日趨分明之際,此中型事務所為求生存或可尋求與其他中、小型事務所合併。
Having to pass the certified public accountant (CPA) qualification examination is one of the barriers of entering the CPA profession in Taiwan. In 1988, the Ministry of Examination determined to lower the exam’s passing threshold, and contributed to a large number of qualified CPAs flooding into the audit market. Since that time the fierce competition for engagement solicitation has been promoted and imposed a tremendous impact on the accounting profession. Observing this phenomenon, the author of this thesis tries to evaluate the technical efficiency value for the public accounting industry in Taiwan for the period of 1989 to 2002, by using the Data Envelopment Analysis Method. In addition, audit quality is also considered while conducting efficiency estimation. Furthermore, the study applies the Tobit regression model to explore the determinant factors of influencing the DEA efficiency scores. The empirical data used are from the annual survey of the accounting service industry in Taiwan, provided by the Department of Statistics of the Ministry of Finance, R.O.C.

The major findings are summarized as follows.

1. The overall technical inefficiency of the accounting service industry in Taiwan resulted mainly from scale inefficiency.

2. Most of the efficiency test results did not significantly support the hypothesis that increase of audit service supply has a negative effect on the industry’s efficiency. On the other hand, the results of Tobit regression analysis pointed out that the efficiency of the industry declined after the exam’s passing threshold lowered. It could easily demonstrate the impact of the deregulation policy if time dummy variable considered.

3. Among accounting firms of different audit quality level, the Big6/Big5 CPA firms were shown to be ranked the best in technical efficiency performance. The non-Big6/non-Big5 partnership-form firms with revenues from performing public offerings audits were ranked the top in scale efficiency dimension. The firms in the form of sole proprietorship performed excellent from the viewpoint of pure technical efficiency. However, if the author re-examined the efficiency issues under the assumption of homogeneous audit quality level, the Big6/Big5 firms were shown to surpass the others in scale efficiency dimension.

4. The thesis also presented that the Big6/Big5 firms operated under the stage of decreasing returns to scale so that scale expansions were not recommended. Meanwhile, the non-Big6/non-Big5 partnership-form firms without revenues from performing public offerings audits operated under the status of increasing returns to scale and thus were suggested to consider the merger and acquisition strategy in order to promote operating efficiency. Most firms in the form of sole proprietorship were operating under constant returns to scale. They might merely keep the status quo.
第一章、緒論...................................01
一 研究背景............................................01
二 研究動機與目的................................03
三 論文架構..............................05

第二章、文獻探討.............................06
一 會計師事務所績效與效率之相關文獻..................06
二 審計品質相關文獻................................08
三 綜合評述................................10

第三章、研究方法...................................12
一 DEA 評估模式 .................................12
二 Tobit 迴歸分析................................21
三 資料來源......................................25

第四章、實證結果與分析...............................28
一 效率評估結果與分析..............................28
二 Tobit 迴歸分析實證結果.........................35
三 事務所合併議題探討...............................43
四 進階模式分析...................................44

第五章、結論.............................53

參考文獻..........................................55

附錄...........................................58
一、中文部份

王泰昌、劉嘉雯,2002,會計師考試錄取人數改變數對審計市場影響之實證研究,中山管理評論,第十卷第一期,頁93-126。
林柄滄,1992,會計大戰(續),眾信聯合會計師事務所。
林柄滄,1998,會計大戰,眾信聯合會計師事務所。
侍台誠,2004,台灣地區會計師事務所服務業成本特性之研究,國立台灣大學會計研究所博士論文。
柯承恩、蘇裕惠與李文智,1993,談審計總體簽證市場研究之供給面,會計研究月刊,第八十九期,頁91-98。
孫遜,2004,資料包絡分析法-理論與運用,揚智文化。
財政部統計處,1990-2002,中華民國台灣地區會計師事務所服務業調查報告。
高強、黃旭男及Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,2004,管理績效評估-資料包絡分析法,華泰文化。
馬秀如,1996,商業.會計.記帳人,會計研究月刊,第一三Ο期,頁16-29。
馬秀如,1998,商業、會計、記帳人II──記帳業者與會計師相爭的三方演義,會計研究月刊,第一五六期,頁18-31。
張錫?]、周齊武,1992,資料包絡分析及其在效率評估上之應用,會計評論,第26期,頁76-92。
黃蘭貴,2001,會計師事務所合併之技術效率比較分析,國立台灣大學會計研究所博士論文。
楊靜雯,1999,以結構、行為與績效模型研究會計師事務所產業-考慮審計品質之影響,國立台灣大學會計研究所碩士論文。

二、英文部分

Arens, A. A ., R. J. Elder, and M. S. Beasley. 2003. Auditing and Assurance Service, Prentice Hall, Inc.
Banker, R. D., A. Charnes, and W. W. Cooper. 1984. Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiency in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science 30 (September): 1078-1092.
-----, H. Chang, and R. Natarajan. 1999. Statistical Tests of Allocative Efficiency Using DEA: An Application to the U.S. Public Accounting Industry. Sixth European Workshop on Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, Copenhagen, Denmark.
-----. 2005. Productivity change, technical progress, and relative efficiency change in the public accounting industry. Management Science 51 (February): 291-304.
Barzel, Y. 1977. Some fallacies in the interpretation of information costs. Journal of Law and Economics 20 (October): 291-307.
Benston, G. 1985. The Market for Public Accounting Services, Demand, Supply, and regulation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 4: 33-79.
Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes. 1978. Measuring the Efficiency of Decision-Making Units. European Journal of Operational Research 2: 429-444.
Chen, A. L., Roger C. Y. Chen, 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 (July): 155-170.
Cheng, T. W., K. L. Wang and C. C. Weng. 2000. A study of Technical Efficiencies of CPA Firms in Taiwan. Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies 3 (March): 27-44.
Chow, C. W. 1982. The demand for external auditing: Size、debt and ownership influence. The Accounting Review 57(2): 272-91.
DeAngelo, L. E. 1981a. Auditor Independence, Low Balling, and Disclosure regulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3 (August): 113-127.
-----. 1981b. Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of
Accounting and Economics 3 (December): 183-199.
Farrell, M. J. 1957. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 120: 253-281.
Francis, J. and E. Wilson. 1988. Auditor Change: A Joint Test of Theory Relating to Agency Costs and Audit Differentiation. The Accounting Review 4 (October): 663-682.
Fried, H. O., C. A. K. Lovell and S.S. Schmidt. 1993. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jerris, S. I. and T.A. Pearson. 1996. Benchmarking CPA Firms for Productivity and Efficiency. The CPA Journal 66(7): 64-66.
-----. 1997. Benchmarking CPA Firms for Productivity and Efficiency: An Update. The CPA Journal 67(3): 58-62.
Lee, C. J., C. Liu, and T. Wang. 1999. The 150-hour rule. Journal of Accounting and Economics 27 (April): 203-228.
Palmrose, Z. 1986. Auditor Fees and Auditor Size: Further Evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 24 (Spring): 97-110.
Seiford, L.M. 1996. Data Envelopment Analysis: the Evolution of the State of the Art(1978-1995). Journal of Productivity Analysis 7 (July): 99-138.
Simunic, D. A. and M. T. Stein. 1987. Product Differentiation in Auditing: Auditor Choice in the Market for Unseasoned New Issues. The Canadian Certified General Accountants’ Research Foundation.
Wallace, W. A. 1980. The Economics Role of the Audit in Free and Regulated
Markets. Touche Ross & Co. Aid to Education Program.
Wang, W. 2000. Evaluating the Technical Efficiency of Large US Law Firms.
Watts, R., and J. Zimmerman. 1986. Positive Accounting Theory, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top