رفتار نامتقارن هزینه: مروری بر متون و روش‌شناسی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حسابداری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، ایران

2 استاد و عضو هیات علمی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، ایران (نویسنده مسئول)

3 دانشیار و عضو هیات علمی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج، ایران

چکیده

این مقاله ادبیات رو به رشد رفتار نامتقارن هزینه که یک روش جدید تفکر درباره هزینه‌ و به تبع آن درباره سود است را مرور می‌کند. درحالیکه دیدگاه سنتی رفتار هزینه، یک رابطه مکانیکی را بین فعالیت‌ها و هزینه‌ها توصیف می‌کند، این نگرش جایگزین، پایه های اصلی رفتار هزینه را تشخیص می‌دهد که شامل هزینه‌های تعدیل منابع و تصمیمات مدیریتی است. این دو پایه اصلی رفتار هزینه، بر اساس دیدگاه مدرن منجر به هزینه‌های "چسبنده" و "ضد چسبنده" می‌شوند؛ برخلاف دیدگاه سنتی که معتقد است این دو پایه منجر به هزینه‌های "ثابت" و "متغیر" می‌شوند. این پژوهش، رفتار نامتقارن هزینه را در یک چارچوب جامع انسجام بخشیده، شواهد تجربی را در حمایت از این چارچوب مرور می‌کند. همچنین موضوعات تجربی و روش‌شناسی مهم در این حوزه پژوهشی را به منظور افزایش درک و آگاهی پژوهشگران به تفصیل توضیح می‌دهد. در پایان کاربردهای پژوهش رفتار هزینه را در درک موضوعات مربوط به حسابداری مالی، صنعتی و مدیریت برشمرده و درباره چالش‌‌ها و فرصت‌های پیش‌روی مطالعات آتی بحث می‌کند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Asymmetric Cost Behavior: Review of Literature and Methodology

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahboobe Sadat Mortazavi Nasiri 1
  • Hashem Nikoomaram 2
  • Bahman Banimahd 3
1 Ph.D. student of Accounting, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran
2 Professor of Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author)
3 Associate Professor of Accounting, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Iran
چکیده [English]

This paper synthesize the growing literature on asymmetric cost behavior which is a new way of thinking about costs and, by extension, earnings. While the traditional cost behavior model describes a mechanistic relation between activity and costs, this alternative view recognizes the primitives of cost behavior: resource adjustment costs and managerial decisions. These primitives give rise to “sticky” and “anti-sticky” costs, along with traditional “fixed” and “variable” costs as extreme cases. This paper formulate an integrated framework of asymmetric cost behavior and review the empirical evidence in support of this framework. Furthermore it clarifies empirical issues and methodologies in the related literature which is important for increasing understanding of researchers in this field. Finally it reviews the implications of cost behavior research in understanding of issues related to financial, cost and managerial accounting and discuss opportunities for future research.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • managerial decisions
  • resource adjustment costs
  • Asymmetric Cost Behavior
  • Cost Stickiness

مراجع

*       Aboody, D., S. Levi, and D. Weiss. 2014. Operating leverage and future earnings. Working paper, University of California.
*       Anderson, M. A., R. D. Banker, and S. Janakiraman. 2003. Are Selling, General, and Administrative costs sticky? Journal of Accounting Research 41: 47–63.
*       Anderson, M. A., R. D. Banker, R. Huang, and S. Janakiraman. 2007. Cost behavior and fundamental analysis of SG&A costs. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 22 (1): 1–28.
*       Anderson, S. W., and W. N. Lanen. 2009. Understanding cost management: What can we learn from the empirical evidence on “sticky costs”? Working paper, University of Michigan.
*       Anderson, M.A., and J. H. Lee. 2016. Asymmetric cost behavior: A life-cycle analysis. Working paper, University of Calgary.
*       Anderson, M. A., and D. Yu. 2016. Fundamental analysis conditioned on prior period sales and firm efficiency. Working paper, University of Calgary.
*       Atasoy, H., R. D. Banker. 2014. Resource adjustment and DEA efficiency scores. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Atasoy, H., R. D. Banker, and D. Byzalov. 2016a. Production outsourcing and demand uncertainty. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Atasoy, H., R. D. Banker, and J. Nasev. 2016b. Managers’ expectations and earnings. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., and L. Chen. 2006. Predicting earnings using a model based on cost variability and cost stickiness. The Accounting Review 81 (2): 285–307.
*       Banker, R. D., I. Kama, and D. Weiss. 2012. Do investors comprehend available information on cost behavior? Working paper, Temple University and Tel-Aviv University.
*       Banker, R. D., S. Basu, D. Byzalov, and J. Chen. 2012a. Asymmetric timeliness of earnings: Conservatism or sticky costs? Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., and S. Fang. 2013. Loan financing and real cost management. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., S. Basu, and D. Byzalov. 2013a. Asymmetries in cost-volume-profit relation: Cost stickiness and conditional conservatism. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., D. Byzalov, and L. T. Chen. 2013b. Employment protection legislation, adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior. Journal of Accounting and Economics 55 (1): 111–127.
*       Banker, R. D., D. Byzalov, and L. Chen. 2013c. Employment protection legislation, adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior. Journal of Accounting and Economics 55 (1), 111–127.
*       Banker, R. D., D. Byzalov, M. Ciftci, and R. Mashruwala. 2013d. The moderating effect of prior sales changes on asymmetric cost behavior. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., and D. Byzalov. 2014. Asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research 26 (2): 43–79.
*       Banker, R. D., D. Byzalov, M. Ciftci, and R. Mashruwala. 2014a. The moderating effect of prior sales changes on asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research 26 (2): 221–242.
*       Banker, R. D., R. Flasher, and D. Zhang. 2014c. Strategic positioning and asymmetric cost behavior. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D. and F. C. Liu. 2015. An empirical study of sticky cost behavior at activity level. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., and H. U. Park. 2016. Profit elasticity and abnormal returns after sales decline. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., and S. Fang. 2016. Real cost management around loan financing. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R.D., S. Basu, D. Byzalov, and J. Y. Chen. 2016a. The confounding effect of cost stickiness on conservatism estimates. Journal of Accounting and Economics 61 (1): 203–220.
*       Banker, R. D., D. Bu, and Y. Liang. 2016b. Transformation indicators, earnings persistence, earnings volatility and earnings forecast errors. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., D. Byzalov, S. Fang, and B. Jin. 2016c. Operating asymmetries and propensity score matching in discretionary accrual models. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., J. Chen, and H. U. Park. 2016d. Cost behavior models analysts and investors use. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., S. Fang, and M. N. Mehta. 2016e. Anomalous financial performance ratios for firms experiencing a decline in sales during economic slowdowns. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., I. Hwang, and H. Oh. 2016f. Manufacturing capacity utilization and asymmetric cost behavior. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., B. Jin, and M. N. Mehta. 2016g. Short-term bonus for CEOs and cost stickiness. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., S. Lee, and H. U. Park. 2016h. Sensitivity of outsourcing costs to demand characteristics in private and state-owned enterprises. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, R. D., H. U. Park, and X. Zhong. 2016i.The source of persistence in analysts’ relative forecast accuracy. Working paper, Temple University.
*       Banker, Rajiv D. and Byzalov, Dmitri and Fang, Shunlan and Liang, Yi, Cost Management Research (October 25, 2017). Journal of Management Accounting Research, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2882713 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2882713
*       Balakrishnan, R., and T. S. Gruca. 2008. Cost stickiness and core competency: A note. Contemporary Accounting Research 25 (4): 993–1006.
*       Brüggen, A., and J. O. Zehnder. 2014. SG&A cost stickiness and equity-based executive compensation: Does empire building matter? Journal of Management Control 25 (3-4): 169–192.
*       Cannon, J. N., B. Hu, J. J. Lee, and D. Yang. 2016. The impact of international takeover laws on corporate resource adjustments: Evidence from the asymmetric behavior of Selling, General, and Administrative costs. Working paper, Iowa State University.
*       Caylor, M. L., and T. J. Lopez. 2013. Cost behavior and executive bonus compensation. Advances in Accounting 29 (2): 232–242.
*       Chen, C. X., H. Lu, and T. Sougiannis. 2012. The agency problem, corporate governance, and the asymmetrical behavior of Selling, General, and Administrative costs. Contemporary Accounting Research 29: 252–282.
*       Chen, C. M., M. A. Delmas, and M. B. Lieberman. 2015. Production frontier methodologies and efficiency as a performance measure in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal 36 (1): 19–36.
*       Chen, C. X., T. Gores, and J. Nasev. 2015. Managerial overconfidence and cost behavior. Working paper, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
*       Ciftci, M., and F. M. Salama. 2016. Stickiness in costs and management earnings forecasts. Working paper, American University of Sharjah.
*       Ciftci, M., R. Mashruwala, and D. Weiss. 2016. Implications of cost behavior for analysts’ earnings forecasts. Journal of Management Accounting Research 28 (1): 57–80.
*       Cooper, R., and R. S. Kaplan. 1992. Activity-based systems: Measuring the costs of resource usage. Accounting Horizons (September): 1–13.
*       Demerjian, P., B. Lev, and S. McVay. 2012. Quantifying managerial ability: A new measure and validity tests. Management Science 58 (7): 1229–1248.
*       Dierynck, B., W. R. Landsman, and A. Renders. 2012. Do managerial incentives drive cost behavior? Evidence about the role of the zero earnings benchmark for labor cost behavior in private Belgian firms. The Accounting Review 87 (4): 1219–1246.
*       Garrison, R. H., E. W. Noreen, and P. C. Brewer. 2015. Managerial Accounting. 15th edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
*       Golden, J., and Z. Rezaee. 2016. Cost stickiness and sustainability performance: Integration of cost management and performance management. Working paper, University of Memphis.
*       Gores, T., C. Homburg, and J. Nasev. 2015. The impact of investor sentiment on operating expenditure – a catering perspective. Working paper, University of Cologne.
*       Gu. Z., S. Tang, and D. Wu. 2016. The political economy of labor cost behavior: Evidence from China. Working paper, Chinese University of Hong Kong.
*       Gupta, M., M. Pevzner, and C. Seethamraju. 2015. Firms’ inventory choices during the great recession. Working paper, Washington University at St. Louis.
*       Habib, A., and M. M. Hasan. 2015. Corporate social responsibility and cost stickiness. Working paper, Massey University.
*       Hartlieb, S., and T. R. Loy. 2016. Evidence on the trade-off between cost stickiness and income smoothing. Working paper, University of Bamberg.
*       Hall, C. M. 2016. Does ownership structure affect labor decisions? The Accounting Review, forthcoming.
*       Holzhacker, M., R. Krishnan, and M. D. Mahlendorf. 2015a. Unraveling the black box of cost behavior: An empirical investigation of risk drivers, managerial resource procurement, and cost elasticity. The Accounting Review 90 (6): 2305–2335.
*       Homburg, C., J. Nasev, and C. Richter. 2015a. Corporate financial distress and slack resources. Working paper, University of Cologne.
*       Homburg, C., J. Nasev, K. Reimer, and M. Uhrig-Homburg. 2016. Does cost management affect credit risk? Working paper, University of Cologne.
*       Huang, D., F. Jiang, J. Tu, and G. Zhou. 2016. Cost behavior and stock return. Working paper, Singapore Management University.
*       Hwang, I., W. J. Lee, D. G. Yang. 2016. Asymmetric inventory management and sales information. Working paper, Seoul National University.
*       Jang, Y., S. Radhakrishnan, and N. Yehuda. 2016. Asymmetric cost behavior and value creation in M&A Deals. Working paper, University of Texas at Dallas.
*       Kama, I., and D. Weiss. 2013. Do earnings targets and managerial incentives affect sticky costs? Journal of Accounting Research 51 (1): 201–224.
*       Kim, J. B., and K. Wang. 2016. Labor unemployment risk, downward resource adjustment, and sticky cost behavior. Working paper, University of Waterloo.
*       Kim, J. B., J. J. Lee, and J. C. Park. 2016. Internal control weakness and the asymmetrical behavior of Selling, General, and Administrative costs. Working paper, University of Waterloo.
*         Kitching, K. A., R. Mashruwala, and M. Pevzner. 2016. Culture and cost stickiness: A cross-country study. International Journal of Accounting, forthcoming.
*         Kong, D., S. Liu, and R. Shen. 2015. Salary cost stickiness and managerial decisions on human capital adjustment. Working paper, Huazhong University of Science and Technology.
*         Lee, W. J., J. Pittman, and W. Saffar. 2016. Political uncertainty and cost stickiness: Evidence from national elections around the world. Working paper, Seoul National University.
*         Liang, S., G. Zhao, and N. Wang. 2015. Managers’ personal characteristics, bank supervision, and cost stickiness. China Accounting and Finance Review 17: 70–120.
*         Oded, J., and D. Weiss. 2013. Do real economic choices sway asymmetric timeliness of earnings, Working paper, Tel-Aviv University.
*         Paek, W., T. Kim, and H. Kim. 2016. The effect of corporate social responsibility on cost asymmetric behavior. Working paper, Sungkyunkwan University.
*         Prabowo, R., R. Hooghiemstra, and P. Van Veen-Dirks. 2016. State ownership and labor cost stickiness. Working paper, University of Groningen.
*         Qin, B., A. W. Mohan, and Y. F. Kuang. 2015. CEO overconfidence and cost stickiness. Management Control & Accounting 2015 (2): 26–32.
*         Rouxelin, F., W. Wongsunwai, and N. Yehuda. 2016. Aggregate cost stickiness in GAAP financial statements and future unemployment rate. Working paper, University of New South Wales.
*         Shust, E., and D. Weiss. 2014. Discussion of Asymmetric cost behavior—Sticky costs: Expenses versus cash flows. Journal of Management Accounting Research 26 (2): 81–90.
*         Silge, L., and A. Wohrmann. 2016. Cost behavior in the firm life cycle – An empirical analysis. Working paper, University of Münster.
*         Subramaniam, C., and M.L. Weidenmier. 2003. Additional evidence on the sticky behavior of costs. Working paper, Texas Christian University.
*         Venieris, G., V. C. Naoum, and O. Vlismas. 2014. Organisation capital and sticky behaviour of selling, general and administrative expenses. Management Accounting Research 26: 54–82.
*         Weiss, D. 2010. Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review 85 (4): 1441–1474.
*         Xu, S., and K. Zheng. 2016. Tax avoidance and the asymmetric cost behavior. Working paper, University of Wyoming.
*         Yasukata K. 2013. Management forecasts in Japan: Do managers accurately estimate costs when they issue management forecasts? Working paper, Kinki University.
*         Zhou, P., B. W. Ang, and K. L. Poh. 2008. A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies. European Journal of Operational Research 189: 1–18
دانش حسابداری و حسابرسی مدیریت
دوره 7، شماره 28
دی 1397
صفحه 29-50

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار