This paper examines whether the type of competition in a market influences the association between the intensity of competition and demand for accounting information. Empirical analysis using a sample of 1,578 hospital-year observations from hospitals in California finds no association between the intensity of competition and demand for accounting information in the presence of quality competition; however, when firms compete on price, the need to control costs leads to a positive association between the two. In addition, the change in the unit of analysis in the hospital industry from the payer to the ailment increased the demand for accounting information for all California hospitals. This study suggests that competition intensity increases the demand for accounting information under one type of competition (price), but not another (quality competition), and thereby contributes to our understanding of the reasons for the mixed evidence in prior literature on the relation between competition and the demand for accounting information.

This study explores incentives and performance in organizations governed by publicly elected boards of directors and subsidized by taxes. Such organizations are likely to underpay Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), resulting in selection and incentive problems and hence poor operating performance. We compare municipal district hospitals to private nonprofit hospitals. CEO compensation in district hospitals is significantly lower than in the nonprofits. Operating margins in district hospitals are lower and deteriorate more rapidly over time. We rule out a number of other factors that could explain differences in performance. We conclude that the weak governance structure hampers district hospitals.

In strategic outsourcing contracts, a substantial portion of implementation occurs at the client's premises and requires integration of effort between the vendor and the client. Compensation design in such contracts involves trade‐offs between the higher (lower) incentive properties of fixed‐price (cost‐plus) contracts and their higher (lower) ex ante contracting and ex post adaptation costs. Uncertainty influences these trade‐offs and affects compensation design. We explore the compensation implications of two types of uncertainty—volatility and ambiguity—which are reflected in the client's accounting measures. Volatility reflects the unpredictability of changes in the future environment, which makes it difficult to contractually specify future contingencies. Ambiguity reflects lack of consensus about the nature, drivers, and value effects of uncertainty, which makes it difficult to contractually specify responses to contingencies if and when they occur. Volatility increases the likelihood of ex post adaptation costs, while ambiguity increases ex ante contracting costs; therefore, volatility and ambiguity decrease the attractiveness of fixed‐price contracts. We use accounting and market measures to calibrate volatility and ambiguity and examine their implications for compensation design and ex post renegotiation. Analysis of archival data for 455 strategic outsourcing contracts valued over $15 million indicates that volatility and ambiguity influence contract compensation design and renegotiation likelihood. These results hold even after controlling for asset specificity, task complexity, and relational factors. We conclude that accounting measures can provide signals of volatility and ambiguity and thereby influence compensation design in strategic interfirm contracts.

We examine the influence of normative and regulative institutional factors on cost shifting by nonprofit hospitals in their publicly reported statements. We explore whether normative constraints imposed by stakeholders, who prefer that nonprofit hospitals allocate their resources toward patient-related program services, influence the extent to which nonprofit hospitals shift costs toward program services and away from administrative and fundraising categories, thereby appearing more efficient. We also explore whether regulative factors, such as oversight, influence cost shifting behaviors. Results indicate that nonprofit hospitals facing higher normative pressures to demonstrate efficiency shift costs to a greater extent, and hospitals facing higher regulatory oversight shift costs to a lesser extent. Consistent with prior research, we also find that hospitals that obtain higher donations revenue shift costs to a greater extent. Our results show that, in addition to economic factors documented by prior literature, institutional factors also influence nonprofit hospitals’ cost shifting behaviors.

The relation of competition and cost accounting has been the subject of conflicting prescriptions, theories, and empirical evidence. Practitioner literature and textbooks argue that higher competition generally requires more accurate product costing. Theoretical economic analysis, in contrast, predicts that the optimal level of product-costing accuracy is sometimes higher at lower levels of competition. Results of survey research are inconsistent, suggesting a need for further identification of conditions under which higher competition leads to more accurate product costing. This study shows experimentally that individuals' choices of the level of product-costing accuracy depend not only on the current level of competition but also on the previous level of competition — that is, on an interaction between market structure (monopoly, duopoly, and four-firm competition) and market history (increasing versus decreasing competition). In the experiment, subjects decide on the quantity of data to collect at a pre-set price per datum to support more accurate product-cost estimates. Subjects collect the most cost data (i.e., choose the most accurate product costing) in monopoly, collect the least in duopoly, and an intermediate amount in the four-firm market, consistent with the pattern of optimal cost-data collection in Hansen's 1998 model. The process of convergence to the optimum differs significantly across market types and market histories, however. Subjects who begin in four-firm competition adapt more successfully to change than those who begin in monopoly. The lowest levels of decision performance occur when ex-monopolists face their first competitor: they overreact to this first encounter with competition and overspend on cost data.

The relation of competition and cost accounting has been the subject of conflicting prescriptions, theories, and empirical evidence. Practitioner literature and textbooks argue that higher competition generally requires more accurate product costing. Theoretical economic analysis, in contrast, predicts that the optimal level of product‐costing accuracy is sometimes higher at lower levels of competition. Results of survey research are inconsistent, suggesting a need for further identification of conditions under which higher competition leads to more accurate product costing. This study shows experimentally that individuals' choices of the level of product‐costing accuracy depend not only on the current level of competition but also on the previous level of competition — that is, on an interaction between market structure (monopoly, duopoly, and four‐firm competition) and market history (increasing versus decreasing competition). In the experiment, subjects decide on the quantity of data to collect at a pre‐set price per datum to support more accurate product‐cost estimates. Subjects collect the most cost data (i.e., choose the most accurate product costing) in monopoly, collect the least in duopoly, and an intermediate amount in the four‐firm market, consistent with the pattern of optimal cost‐data collection in Hansen's 1998 model. The process of convergence to the optimum differs significantly across market types and market histories, however. Subjects who begin in four‐firm competition adapt more successfully to change than those who begin in monopoly. The lowest levels of decision performance occur when ex‐monopolists face their first competitor: they overreact to this first encounter with competition and overspend on cost data.

We examine drivers and consequences of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) oversight of whistleblower cases of corporate fraud against the government. We find that the DOJ is more likely to intervene in and conduct longer investigations of cases that have a higher chance of victory and yield greater monetary proceeds, indicating that DOJ enforcement is influenced by its performance measures. DOJ intervention also affects the firm- and aggregate-level fraud environment. Firms subject to DOJ intervention improve their employee relations, internal controls, and board independence, and experience lower future whistleblowing risk. Whistleblowers avoid courts and agencies with low DOJ intervention rates. In contrast, we do not find that cases pursued by whistleblowers alone affect firms' or whistleblowers' behavior, suggesting that public enforcement through DOJ intervention has a greater deterrent effect on fraud than private enforcement by whistleblowers acting alone.

While budgetary controls with capital rationing are theoretically optimal and widespread in practice, empirical research documents their association with higher employee dishonesty compared to budgetary controls without rationing. In this study, we examine whether combining budgetary controls with mission statements in a system of management controls decreases employee dishonesty. We predict that the system's effect on dishonesty depends on the interaction of the social norms conveyed by each control instrument within the system. We study two types of budgetary controls that differ in whether they include budget rationing and two types of mission statements that differ in whether they emphasize integrity or fi nancial values. We provide experimental evidence that mission statements reduce employee dishonesty more if combined with budget rationing controls than non-rationing budgetary controls. This effect is enhanced when the mission statement conveys a norm of integrity, as opposed to a norm of fi nancial performance. Our results suggest that mission statements can mitigate the downsides of budget rationing, but this effect is less pronounced when the norms conveyed by each instrument are redundant.

This paper examines the extent to which accounting systems separately identify all the costs of environmental regulation. We estimate the relation between the “visible” costs of regulatory compliance (costs that firms' accounting systems correctly classify as “environmental”) and “hidden” environmental costs embedded in other accounts. We use plant-level data from 55 steel mills to estimate hidden costs, and we follow up with structured interviews of corporate-level managers and plant-level accountants. Empirical results show that a $1 increase in the visible cost of environmental regulation is associated with an increase in total cost (at the margin) of 10–11, of which 9–10 are hidden in other accounts. The findings suggest that inappropriate identification and accumulation of the costs of environmental compliance are likely to distort costs in firms subject to environmental regulation.