The purpose of this paper is to emphasize the importance of selecting the efficiency evaluation model that best represents the known and postulated relation between inputs and outputs. By ignoring the input/output relationship, Mehrez, Brown, and Khouja (MBK) misspecify the efficiency evaluation model and misinterpret the distortions resulting from their misspecification as being paradoxical. This paper shows that the use of the appropriate data envelopment analysis (DEA) model reflecting the matched output/input (MOI) technology postulated by MBK will always provide efficiency estimates that satisfy their MOI axiom. Statistical consistency of the DEA estimator also implies that even with MBK's use of a misspecified model, the frequency of violation of their MOI axiom is likely to be small for large samples. Résumé. L'auteur insiste sur l'importance du choix du modèle de l'évaluation du rendement qui représente le mieux la relation connue et postulée entre les intrants et les extrants. En ignorant la relation intrant‐extrant, Mehrez, Brown et Khouja (MBK) définissent mal le modèle d'évaluation du rendement et jugent, à tort, les distorsions résultant de cette définition comme étant paradoxales. L'auteur démontre que le recours à l'analyse intégrale appropriée des données s'inspirant de la technologie de concordance extrant‐intrant postulée par MBK produit toujours des estimations du rendement qui respectent l'axiome de concordance. La cohérence statistique des estimations issues de l'analyse intégrale des données donne également à penser que même lorsqu'on utilise un modèle mal défini comme le font MBK, la fréquence des dérogations à l'axiome de concordance extrant‐intrant tend à être faible pour les gros échantillons.

This paper analyzes a formal principal‐agents model of resource allocation and coordination in which demand for transfer pricing arises endogenously within a decentralized environment characterized by asymmetric information and divergence of preferences. It is shown that a modified Groves scheme achieves full information efficiency in a setting of the type considered by Harris, Kriebel, and Raviv (1982) and Cohen and Loeb (1984) only if the information asymmetry is postcontract and collusion is precluded. Conditions for the optimality of a coordination mechanism that is immune to collusion are also examined. It is shown that demand for a collusion‐free marginal cost‐type transfer pricing scheme arises if the agents are risk neutral, the cost function is separable but not necessarily linear, and the information asymmetry is postcontract. Résumé. Les auteurs analysent un modèle structuré d'affectation des ressources et de coordination mandant‐mandataire, dans lequel la demande de prix de cession interne est issue, de façon endogène, d'un contexte décentralisé caractérisé par une information asymétrique et une divergence des préférences. Les auteurs démontrent qu'un schéma Groves modifié permet d'atteindre l'efficacité maximum de l'information dans un contexte semblable à celui qu'utilisent Harris, Kriebel et Raviv (1982) et Cohen et Loeb (1984), uniquement si l'asymétrie de l'information est postérieure au contrat et si la collusion est rendue impossible. Ils examinent également les conditions d'optimalité d'un mécanisme de coordination qui est à l'abri de la collusion. Les auteurs démontrent qu'il y a demande de prix de cession interne, à l'abri de la collusion, du type coût marginal si les mandataires sont neutres à l'egard du risque, si la fonction de coûts peut être isolée sans être nécessairement linéaire, et si l'asymétrie de l'information est postérieure au contrat.

Performance evaluation, Linear aggregation, Compensation contracts

In this paper we extend Varian's (1984) nonparametric production analysis to situations when the set of observed output, input, and price data is not consistent with profit maximization for at least one firm. In such cases, Varian's results imply that no production possibility set containing all observations can rationalize the observed data. We identify each firm whose performance, given the prices faced by it, may be found consistent with profit maximization relative to some production possibility set containing all observed output-input vectors. We show that the set 4' of all such firms can itself be weaklv rationalized in the sense that there exists a (closed, convex, and monotone) production possibility set that contains all the observations, and relative to which the performance of all the firms in the set 8O is consistent with profit maximization given their respective prices. By definition, firms not included in this largest set d of efficient observations unambiguously deviate from profit maximizing behavior for any production possibility set containing all observations. We follow Farrell (1957) and analyze these deviations into technical and allocative efficiency measures, considering as admissible all closed, convex, and monotone production possibility sets relative to which the performance of each firm in the set g remains consistent with profit maximization. We then describe nonparametric methods for determining the tightest upper and lower bounds on the technical, allocative, and aggregate efficiency measures evaluated relative to all such admissible production possibility sets. It is seen that the tightest upper bound on the technical efficiency measure is the same as the value computed by the nonparametric efficiency evaluation technique known as data envelopment analysis, thus establishing a link between this literature in management science/operations research and the nonparametric production analysis in economics.

Presents empirical evidence that prior accounting information such as capital expenditure, retained earnings, funds from operations and dividend history is useful in explaining cross-sectional variations in the market response to stock dividend announcements. Information content of disclosures and their usefulness to the investor.

Conventional management accounting principles used to evaluate relevant costs have been developed under the assumption of deterministic manufacturing settings. Manufacturing operations, however, are complex and stochastic. In this paper we examine the impact of stochasticity in the production process on relevant costs based on a dynamic assessment of capacity constraints. We develop a model to analyze the behavior of relevant costs with respect to changes in the expected duration and variability in set-ups and processing. An implication of this analysis is that for profit maximization capacity will exceed expected demand if production rates or demand are stochastic.

This paper employs a generalized principal‐agent model to analyze accounting situations in which the outcome is not jointly observable and the principal's and agent's preferences are multiattribute in nature. This requires the consideration of accounting signals for risk‐sharing (or insurance) information in addition to performance evaluation (or incentive) information. It is shown that precisely two factors determine whether a signal will be valuable in the agency relationship: Observability of the agent's effort and the principal's multivariate risk neutrality. Sufficient conditions for various accounting signals to have value are also developed. Furthermore, when multiple accounting signals are available, it is shown that under certain conditions, the insurance components of the multiple signals can be aggregated into a single aggregate insurance measure and the incentive components of the signals can be aggregated (via a different aggregation procedure) into another aggregate incentive measure. Résumé. Les auteurs utilisent un modèle généralisé mandant‐mandataire pour analyser les situations comptables dans lesquelles le résultat n'est pas observable conjointement et les préférences du mandant et du mandataire comportent, par nature, de multiples attributs. Cela exige la prise en considération d'indicateurs comptables relatifs à l'information sur le partage des risques (ou de l'assurance) en plus de l'information relative à l'évaluation du rendement (ou aux stimulants). Les auteurs démontrent que deux facteurs permettent de déterminer avec précision si un indicateur sera valable dans la relation de mandataire: le caractère observable de l'effort du mandataire et la neutralité multivariée du mandant à l'égard du risque. Des conditions suffisantes pour que les divers indicateurs comptables soient valables sont également établies. En outre, lorsque des indicateurs comptables multiples sont disponibles, les auteurs démontrent que dans certaines conditions, les éléments des indicateurs multiples liés à l'assurance peuvent faire l'objet d'une regroupement en une seule mesure globale d'assurance, et que les éléments des indicateurs liés aux stimulants peuvent faire l'objet d'une regroupement (au moyen d'une méthode différente) en une autre mesure globale des stimulants.

Examines relationships between support activity costs and prices. Assumptions and definitions for various components of the cost and demand functions; Optimal pricing and capacity decisions of a centralized monopolist firm; Activity-based unit costs.

Recent research on cost driver analysis by Miller and Vollman (1985) and Cooper and Kaplan (1987) suggests that transactions deriving from the diversity of a firm's product line and the complexity of its production process, in addition to output volume, drive overhead costs. As a consequence, it is argued, conventional cost accounting systems based only on volume-related measures, such as units of output, direct labor hours, or machine hours, produce biased and materially misleading cost estimates for managerial decisions on price and product line (whether to continue or discontinue products, or to offer additional products). Systematic biases in cost estimates may also lead to distortions in flexible budgeting systems, variance analyses, and responsibility-accounting systems. Perhaps more important in the long run, omission of operations-based cost drivers may distort the investigation of the likely effects on costs of changes in operating strategies. Many firms have moved ahead on the basis of this perceived need for more accurate cost estimates and have designed and implemented activity-based costing systems (Schiff 1991). From an academic perspective, however, there is a need for further formal empirical research in this field. Cooper and Kaplan's (1987) evidence is based on field-study discussions with managers in a variety of manufacturing settings and experimentation with cost allocation and product-costing systems based on transactions. Foster and Gupta (1990) provide some of the first empirical evidence on the correlation of manufacturing overhead with output volume and operations- based measures that reflect characteristics of the manufacturing process. Using data obtained from 37 plants of a single manufacturing firm, Foster and Gupta found that most of the volume-related measures of output were highly correlated with manufacturing overhead (MOH), but because only a few measures of manufacturing complexity and efficiency were highly correlated with MOH, their findings leave the impression that systems based on just volume may not significantly distort information generated for managerial decision making. In contrast, we find empirical evidence in favor of incorporating operations-based cost drivers along with measures of volume in cost driver models. We draw upon previous work in cost accounting and economics to develop analogs in the airline industry for product diversity, production run volumes, and process complexity, and propose a framework for cost driver analysis in the U.S. airline industry. Using a panel of quarterly data for 1981-1985 compiled primarily from traffic and financial statistics submitted by carriers to the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) and Department of Transportation (DOT), we specify and estimate a multivariate system of cost functions with multiple cost drivers for the industry during the transition following deregulation. We find both volume- and operations-based cost drivers to be statistically significant. We also demonstrate the potential managerial importance of the operations-based drivers by explaining variations in marginal costs across airlines in terms of operating strategies reflected in the cost driver values. Empirical cost driver analysis is managerially significant for the industry and period that we examine. The proportion of indirect costs is large, and identification of input consumption for specific services is difficult. During the transition following deregulation, carriers adopted a rich variety of strategies to improve productivity, reduce costs, and increase market share. These strategies directly involved both volume- and operations-based cost drivers. The analytical framework and model that we have developed on the basis of prior literature concerned with the airline industry enable us to examine the differential cost effects of some of the most important strategies adopted.

Reviews the book "Improving Company Productivity: Handbook With Case Studies," by John W. Kendrick.