بررسی نقش خودگزینی و درونزایی بر رابطه بین هزینه یابی بر مبنای فعالیت و عملکرد شرکت های پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه حسابداری، واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران.

2 استادیار اقتصاد،گروه مدیریت بازرگانی واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران.

3 دانشجوی دکتری مهندسی مالی، واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران.

4 کارشناسی ارشد حسابداری، دانشکده شهید رجایی، دانشگاه فنی و حرفه ای استان خراسان، ایران.

چکیده

این پژوهش رابطه بین اتخاذ هزینه یابی بر مبنای فعالیت و عملکرد را بررسی می کند. همچنین به ارزیابی گرایش انتخاب (خودگزینی) و ماهیت درون زایی ارتباط آنها می پردازد. از مدل هکمن برای ارزیابی گرایش انتخاب نمونه و رویکرد ولدریج2SLS-IV، برای بررسی درونزایی استفاده شد. از بین شرکتهای پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران طی سال های 1392 تا 1396 به صورت تصادفی برای230 شرکت پرسش نامه ارسال شد، 198 شرکت از آنها در نظرسنجی شرکت کردند (میزان پاسخ 86 درصد). پس از پردازش های اولیه، 170 داده بعنوان نمونه برای تجزیه و تحلیل باقی ماند.نتایج نشان داد که پس از کنترل گرایش انتخاب نمونه و درونزایی، ضریب هزینه یابی بر مبنای فعالیت در روش هکمن و هزینه یابی بر مبنای فعالیت در روش 2SLS-IV در مقایسه با ضریب هزینه یابی بر مبنای فعالیت در روش حداقل مربعات معمولی به طور قابل توجهی بالاتر می شود. علاوه بر این، هر دو نسبت معکوس میلز، تحت آزمونF مدل هکمن و هاسمن ، تحت روش ولدریج2SLS، مثبت و معنادار هستند که حضور هر دو گرایش انتخاب نمونه و درونزایی را تایید می کند. به طور کلی، کنترل گرایش انتخاب نمونه و درونزایی در درستی ارزیابی اهمیت ارتباط عملکرد هزینه یابی بر مبنای فعالیت ضروری می باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of Stock Price Pressure on Management Earnings Forecasts

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sina Kheradyar 1
  • S. Mozaffar Mirbargkar 2
  • Masoud Asadi 3
  • Shaban Mohammadi 4
1 Assistant Professor in Accounting, Department of Accounting, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran
2 Assistant Professor in Economy, Department of Management, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran
3 Ph.D. student of financial engineering, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran
4 MSC. Accounting, Shahid Rajaee Faculty, Vocational University of Khorasan, Iran
چکیده [English]

This research examines the relationship between cost-based adoption of activity and performance. It also deals with the evaluation of the tendency of choice (abandonment) and the nature of endogenousity. The Hackman model was used to evaluate the trend of sample selection and the approach of Waldridge 2 SLS-IV, to investigate the endogenous. Among the companies admitted to Tehran Stock Exchange during the years 2014 to 2018, randomly, 230 companies were sent questionnaires, 198 of them participated in the survey (86% response rate). After the initial processing, 170 data remained as an example for analysis. The results showed that after controlling the trend of sample selection and introversion, the cost-based costing based on activity in the Hackman method and activity-based costing in the 2SLS-IV method Compared to the activity-based cost-benefit ratio, it is significantly higher in the least-squares method. In addition, both reverse Mills proportions are positive and significant under the Factor Hackman and Hausman model under the Weldridge 2 SLS method, which confirms the presence of both trends in sample selection and endogenous. In general, controlling the trend of sample selection and introversion to properly assess the importance of the relationship between cost-based activity-based activities.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Activity-based costing
  • self-immolation
  • endogenous
  • Performance
*   برادران حسن زاده، رسول؛ میر جواد سید نژاد.(1386). بررسی مقایسه‌ای هزینه‌یابی سنتی و هزینه‌یابی بر مبنای فعالیت در شرکت آهنگری تراکتورسازی ایران،مجله مدیریت بهره وری،مقاله 9، دوره 1، شماره 3، ، صفحه 239-263.

*   خشنود خانکهدانی، حسین؛ کاوه پرندین.(1394). بررسی تطبیقی رویکرد های تسهیم هزینه در محاسبه بهای تمام شده خدمات بخش رادیولوژی بیمارستان اردیبهشت شیراز به روش هزینه یابی بر مبنای فعالیت،مجله حسابداری دولتی،مقاله 8، دوره 2، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 3، صفحه 83-92.

*   رجبی احمد.(1390). هزینه یابی بر مبنای فعالیت (ABC)، نگرشی نوین جهت محاسبه بهای تمام شده آموزش رشته های گروه پزشکی( مطالعه تطبیقی: دانشگاه های علوم پزشکی شیراز، فسا و یزد)، بررسیهای حسابداری و حسابرسی :   تابستان 1390 , دوره  18 , شماره  64 ; از صفحه 35-65.

*   محسنی،عبدالرضا؛ روح‌اله وفایی‌پور.(1398). اولویت بندی عوامل موثر بر نسل سوم هزینه یابی بر مبنای فعالیت عملگرا (PFABC) (مطالعه موردی: بیمارستان نمازی شیراز)،مجله حسابداری مدیریت، مقاله 10، دوره 12، شماره 41، صفحه 171-184.

*      Al-Omiri, M., & Drury, C. (2007). A survey of factors influencing the choice of product costing systems in UK organizations. Management Accounting Research, 18(4), 399–424.

*      Anderson, S.W. (1995). A framework for assessing cost management system changes: The case of activity-based costing implementation at General Motors 1986–1993. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7, 1–51.

*      Angrist, J.D., & Pischke, J.S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

*      Armitage, H., & Russell, G. (1993). Activity-based management information: TQM's missing link. Cost & Management, 7–12.

*      Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.

*      Atkinson, A.A., Banker, R.D., Kaplan, R.S., & Young, S.M. (2001). Management Accounting (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

*      Baldwin, J., Diverty, B., & Sabourin, D. (1995). Technology use and industrial transformation: Empirical perspectives. In T. Courchene (Ed.), Technology, information and public policy. Kingston, Ont: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy, Queen's University.

*      Banker, R.D., Bardhan, I.R., & Chen, T.Y. (2008). The role of manufacturing practices in mediating the impact of activity-based costing on plant performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(1), 1–19.

*      Banker, R.D., Potter, G., & Srinivasan, D. (2000). An empirical investigation of an incentive plan that includes nonfinancial performance measures. The Accounting Review, 75, 65–92.

*      Bardhan, I.R., Whitaker, J., & Mithas, S. (2006). Information technology, production process outsourcing and manufacturing plant performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(2), 13–40.

*      Barnow, B.S., Cain, G.G., & Goldberger, A.S. (1981). Issues in the analysis of selectivity bias. Evaluation Studies Review Annual, 5, 43–59.

*      Bartels, L.M. (1991). Instrumental and quasi-instrumental variables. American Journal of Political Science, 35(3), 777–800.

*      Bjørnenak, T. (1997). Diffusion and accounting: The case of ABC in Norway. Management Accounting Research, 8(1), 3–17.

*      Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Booth, P., & Giacobbe, F. (1998). Predicting the adoption of activity-based costing in Australian manufacturing firms. Paper presented to the European Accounting Association Annual Congress, Antwerp, Belgium.

*      Borthick, A.F., & Roth, H.P. (1995). Accounting for time: Reengineering business processes to improve responsiveness. In S.M. Young (Ed.), Readings in Management Accounting. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

*      Brewer, P., Juras, P., & Brownlee, R., II (2003). Global Electronics, Inc.: ABC implementation and the change management process. Issues in Accounting Education, 18(1), 49–69. Brimson, J. (1991). Activity accounting: An activity based costing approach. New York: Wiley.

*      Bromwich, M., & Bhimani, A. (1989). Management accounting: Evolution, not revolution. London: Chartered Institute of Management Accountants.

*      Brown, D.A., Booth, P., & Giacobbe, F. (2004). Technological and organizational influences on the adoption of activity-based costing in Australia. Accounting and Finance, 44, 329–356.

*      Brown, J., & Earle, J. (2000). Privatization, competition and transition policy strategies: Theory and evidence from Russian enterprise panel data. Stockholm: Mimeo SITE.

*      Bruns, W.J., Jr., & McKinnon, S.M. (1993). Information and managers: A field study. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 5, 84–123.

*      Cagwin, D., & Bouwman, M.J. (2002). The association between activity-based costing and improvement in financial performance. Management Accounting Research, 13(1), 1–39.

*      Capon, N.J., Farley, U., & Hoenig, S. (1990). Determinants of financial performance: A meta-analysis. Management Science, 36(10), 1143–1159.

*      Carolfi, I.A. (1996). ABM can improve quality and control costs. Cost & Management, 12–16.

*      Clarke, P.J., Hill, N.T., & Stevens, K. (1999). Activity-based costing in Ireland: Barriers to and opportunities for change. Critical Perspectives in Accounting, 443–468.

*      Clason, D., & Dormody, T. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31–35.
Coates, J.B., Davis, E.W., Emmanual, C.R., Longden, S.G., & Stacey, R.J. (1992). Multinational companies performance measurement systems: International perspectives. Management Accounting Research, 3, 133–150.

*      Compton, T.R. (1996). Implementing activity-based costing. The CPA Journal, 66(3), 20–27.

*      Cooper, R. (1988). The rise of activity-based costing — Part two: When do I need an
activity-based cost system? Journal of Cost Management, 2, 34–36.

*      Cooper, R. (1989). The rise of activity-based costing — Part three: How many cost drivers do you need and how do you select them? Journal of Cost Management,34–45. Cooper, R., & Kaplan, R.S. (1988). Measure cost right: Make the right decisions. Harvard Business Review, 66, 96–103.

*      Cooper, R., & Kaplan, R.S. (1991). The design of cost management systems. NJ, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.

*      Cooper, R., Kaplan, R.S., Kaplan, R.S., Kaplan, R.S., Maisel, L., Morrissey, E., et al. (1992). Implementing activity-based management: Moving from analysis to action. Montvale, NJ: Institute of Management Accountants.

*      Cooper, R., & Zmud, R.W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36, 123–139.

*      Doyle, S. (2002). Software review: Is there a role for activity-based costing (ABC) in database marketing? Journal of Database Marketing, 10, 175–180

*      Dutz, M., & Hayri, A. (1999). Does more intense competition lead to higher growth? CEPR discussion paper no. 2249.

*      Foster, G., & Swenson, D. (1997). Measuring the success of activity-based costing management and its determinants. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 109–141.

*      Franko, D.L. (1989). Global corporate competitions: Who's winning, who's losing, and the R&D factor as one reason why. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 449–474.

*      Gordon, L.A., & Silvester, K.J. (1999). Stock market reactions to activity-based costing adoption. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 18(3), 229–235.

*      Gosselin, M. (1997). The effect of strategy and organizational structure on the adoption and implementation of activity-based costing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 105–122.

*      Gosselin, M. (2007). A review of activity-based-costing: Techniques, implementation and consequences. In C.S. Chapman, A.G. Hopwood, & M.D. Shields (Eds.), Handbook of management accounting research, 2. (pp. 641–671). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

*      Greene, W.H. (2003). Econometric analysis. London: Prentice-Hall International.
Gunasekaran, A., & Sarhadi, M. (1998). Implementation of activity-based costing in manufacturing. International Journal of Production Economics, 56–57, 231–242.

*      Gupta, M., & Galloway, K. (2003). Activity-based costing/management and its implications for operations management. Technovation, 23, 131–138.

*      Hayes, R., & Wheelwright, S. (1984). Restoring our competitive edge. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

*      Heckman, J. (1974). Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply. Econometrica, 42, 679–694.

*      Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–162.

*      Hendricks, K.B., & Singhal, V.R. (1997). Does implementing an effective TQM program actually improve operating performance? Empirical evidence from firms that have won quality awards. Management Science, 44, 1258–1274.

*      Hoerl, A.E., & Kennard, R.W. (1970). Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics, 12, 5S67.

*      Huber, G.P., & Power, D.J. (1985). Retrospective reports of strategy level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 171–180.

*      Innes, J., & Mitchell, F. (1995). A survey of activity-based costing in the UK's largest companies. Management Accounting Research, 6(2), 137–153. Innes, J., Mitchell, & Sinclair, A.D. (2000). A survey of activity-based costing in the UK's largest companies: A comparison of 1994 and 1999 survey results. Management Accounting Research, 11, 349–362.

*      Ittner, C.D. (1999). Activity-based costing concepts for quality improvement. European
Management Journal, 17(5), 492–500.

*      Ittner, C.D., Lanen, W.N., & Larcker, D.F. (2002). The association between activity-based costing and manufacturing performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(3), 711–726.

*      Jorgenson, D.M., & Enkerlin, M.E. (1992). Managing quality costs with the help of activitybased costing. Journal of Electronics Manufacturing, 2, 153.

*      Kaplan, R.S. (1992). In defense of activity-based cost management. Management Accounting, 58–63.

*      Kaplan, R.S. (1993). Research opportunities in management accounting. Journal of
Management Accounting Research, 5(3), 1–14.

*      Kaplan, R.S. (1998). Innovation action research: Creating new management theory and practice. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 89–118.

*      Kaplan, R.S., & Cooper, R. (1998). Cost & effect: Using integrated cost systems to drive profitability and performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

*      Kerlinger, F.N. (1992). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

*      Khanna, V. (2002). Learn the ABC of business. Businessline, 1.

*      Khanna, M., & Damon, L.A. (1999). EPA's voluntary 33/50 program: Impact on toxic releases and economic performance of firms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 37, 1–25.

*      Kinney, M.R., & Wempe, W.F. (2002). Further evidence on the extent and origins of JIT's profitability effects. The Accounting Review, 77(1), 203–225.

*      Konings, J. (1997). Competition and firm performance in transition economies: Evidence from firm-level surveys in Slovenia, Hungary and Romania. CEPR discussion paper no. 1770.

*      London: Centre for Economic Policy Research. Konrad, A.M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 787–820.

*      Krumwiede, K.R. (1998). The implementation stages of activity-based costing and the impact of contextual and organizational factors. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 239–277.

*      La Porta, R., & Lopenz-de-Silane, F. (1999). The benefits of privatization: Evidence from Mexico. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 1193–1242.

*      Lancaster, K. (1979). Variety, equity, and efficiency. New York: Columbia University Press.

*      Larsen, R.J., & Marx, M.L. (1981). An introduction to mathematical statistics and its applications. Prentice-Hall.

*      Lee, L.F., & Trost, R.P. (1978). Estimation of some limited dependent variable models with application to housing demand. Journal of Econometric, 8(3), 357–383.

*      Levitt, S.D. (1997). Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effect of police on crime. American Economic Review, 87(3), 270–290.

*      Li, K., & Prabhala, N.R. (2006). Self-selection models in corporate finance. In B. Espen Eckbo (Ed.), Handbook of corporate finance: Empirical corporate finance, Vol. A, (chap. 2). Libby, T., & Waterhouse, J.H. (1996). Predicting change in management accounting systems. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 8, 137–150.

*      Likert, A. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. NY: Archives of Psychology.

*      Little, R. (1985). A note about models for selectivity bias. Econometrica, 53(6), 1469–1474.

*      Loh, L., & Venkatraman, N. (1995). An empirical study of information technology outsourcing: Benefits, risks, and performance implications. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Systems. Amsterdam (pp. 277 288).

*      Maddala, G.S. (1983). Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. (Econometrics Society Monographs No. 3). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

*      Maiga, A.S., & Jacobs, F.A. (2008). Extent of ABC use and its consequences. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(2), 533–566.

*      Malmi, T. (1997). Towards explaining activity-based costing failure: Accounting and control in a decentralized organization. Management Accounting Research, 7, 459–480.

*      Masten, S.E. (1996). Empirical research and transaction cost economics: Challenges, progress, directions. In J. Groenewegen (Ed.), Transaction cost economics and beyond (pp. 43–64). Boston: Kluwer.

*      McGowan, A.S., & Klammer, T.P. (1997). Satisfaction with activity-based cost management implementation. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 217–237.

*      Miller, D. (1996). A preliminary typology of organizational learning: Synthesizing the literature. Journal of Management, 22(3), 485–505. Miller, J.G., & Vollman, T.E. (1985). The hidden factory. Harvard Business Review, 142 150.

*      Mishra, B., & Vaysman, I. (2001). Cost system choice and incentives — Traditional vs. activity-based costing. Journal of Accounting Research, 39(3), 619–641.

*      Morrow, M., & Connolly, T. (1994). Practical problems of implementing ABC. Accountancy, 3, 76–78.

*      Murray, M.P. (2006a). Avoiding invalid instruments and coping with weak instruments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(4), 111–132.

*      Murray, M.P. (2006b). The bad, the weak, and the ugly: Avoiding the pitfalls of instrumental variables estimation. Lewiston, ME: Department of Economics, Bates College.

*      Nickell, S. (1996). Competition and corporate performance. Journal of Political Economy, 104(4), 724–746.

*      Player, S. (1998). Activity-based analyses lead to better decision making. Healthcare Financial Management, 52(8), 66–70.

*      Plowman, B. (2001). Activity-based management: Improving processes and profitability. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Co.

*      Podsakoff, P.M., & Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

*      Porter, T.J., & Kehoe, J.G. (1993). Using activity-based costing and value analysis to take the pain out of downsizing at a naval shipyard. National Productivity Review, 13(1), 115–125.

*      Raffish, N., & Turney, P. (1991). Glossary of activity-based management. Cost Management Journal, 53–63.

*      Rafig, A., & Garg, A. (2002). Activity-based costing and financial institution: Old wine in new bottles or corporate panacea. Journal of Bank Cost and Management Accounting, Association for Management Information, 15(2), 1–15.

*      Reeve, J.R. (1995). Cost management in continuous process environments. In B.J. Brinker (Ed.), Handbook of cost management. Boston: Warren, Gorham & Lamont.

*      Scott, S.G., & Bruce, R.A. (1994). Determinant of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.

*      Shields, M. (1995). An empirical analysis of firms' implementation experiences with activity-based costing. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 148–166.

*      Simons, R. (1990). The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage: New perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(1/2), 127–143.

*      Skinner, W. (1974). The focused factory. Harvard Business Review, 52(3), 113–121.

*      Smith, C., & Watts, R. (1992). The investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend, and compensation policies. Journal of Financial Economics, 7, 117–161.

*      Söderbom, M. (2009). Applied econometrics. Lecture 2: Instrumental variables, 2SLS and GMM. Down-loadable at.

*      Staiger, D., & Stock, J.H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 65(3), 557–586.

*      Stolzenberg, R.M., & Relles, D.A. (1997). Tools for intuition about sample selection bias and its correction. American Sociological Review, 62(3), 494–507.

*      Swenson, D.W. (1995). The benefits of activity-based cost management to the manufacturing industry. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 167 180.

*      Swenson, D.W. (1998). Managing costs through complexity reduction at Carrier Corporation. Management Accounting, 20–28. Van Nguyen, H., & Brooks, A. (1997). An empirical investigation of adoption issues relating to activity-based costing. Asian Accounting Review, 5, 1–18.

*      Wooldridge, J. (2001). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

*      Wooldridge, J. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. London: The MIT Press.

*      Wooldridge, J. (2006). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (3rd Ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Thomson South-Western