Auditors experience significant problems auditing complex accounting estimates, and this increasingly puts financial reporting quality at risk. Based on analyses of the specific errors that auditors commit, we propose that auditors need to be able to think more broadly and incorporate information from a variety of sources in order to improve audit quality for these important accounts. We experimentally demonstrate that a deliberative mindset intervention improves auditors’ ability to identify unreasonable estimates by improving their ability to identify and incorporate into their analyses contradictory information from diverse parts of the audit and improving their ability to think critically about the evidence. We perform additional analyses to demonstrate that our intervention improves auditor performance by causing them to think differently rather than simply to work harder. We demonstrate that critical thinking can improve the identification of unreasonable estimates and, in doing so, we provide new directions for addressing audit quality issues.

Proper evaluation of cost-quality trade-offs inherent in regulatory policy requires identifying the structure of production from the behavioral response of quality to the policy change. However, estimating the structure of production with endogenous quality is difficult because of both measurement problems and data availability. We develop a simple method for identifying and estimating cost functions in the presence of endogenous and unobserved quality. Using this method, we estimate that a quality-adjusted cost function for nursing homes treating quality as exogenous yields seriously misleading estimates of marginal cost and economies of scale. We then used the parameter estimates to evaluate the cost-quality trade-off in nursing home regulatory policy.

The Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek (HOV) model of factor service trade is a mainstay of international economics. Empirically, though, it is a flop. This warrants a new approach. We test the HOV model with international and Japanese regional data. The strict HOV model performs poorly because it cannot explain the international location of production. Restricting the sample to Japanese regions provides no help, inter alia giving rise to what Daniel Trefler calls the "mystery of the missing trade." However, when we relax the assumption of universal factor price equalization, results improve dramatically. In sum, the HOV model performs remarkably well.

[Much of the past research in accounting ethics has focused on whether accountants conform to prescribed codes of professional ethics. Other research has been normative in nature, recommending what constitutes appropriate ethical conduct or focusing on the accountant's responsibility in society. This study selects a different approach by testing a multivariate measure of how accountants make ethical judgments. Data were gathered with the assistance of the Institute of Certified Management Accountants and the Institute of Management Accountants (formerly the National Association of Accountants). Accountants were asked to respond on bipolar scales to realistic scenarios involving ethical decisions. Several tests for construct validity produced supportive results for the hypothesized three-dimensional measure, with the dimensions being moral equity, relativism, and contractualism. First, we developed a questionnaire with four scenarios concerning ethical issues. Each scenario ended in a particular action taken by an individual. Responses to that action were recorded on eight bipolar scales, representing the three dimensions above. The questionnaire was mailed to 500 randomly selected certified management accountants resulting in a 62.8 percent response rate. Second, the results from a factor analysis and a traditional reliability coefficient test suggest that a high degree of internal consistency exists for each dimension of the measure. The appropriate factor loadings ranged from a low of 0.68 to a high of 0.92, while the reliability coefficients varied from 0.75 to 0.92. Next, the content validity of the three-dimensional measure was checked by comparing it with a global ethical/unethical measure. Again, the results support the hypothesis that the multivariate measure captures the appropriate domain of content. Adjusted R2 -values ranged from 0.59 to 0.76 when the global measure was regressed against the multivariate measure. Finally, a sense of predictive validity was obtained by comparing the multivariate measure with a behavioral intention measure for the respondent. Adjusted R2 -values ranged from 0.45 to 0.76 for the four scenarios tested, indicating that the three-dimensional measure "explains" a respectable portion of the variance in the behavioral intention of the individual. The multidimensional measure developed in this study may be a guide for future research into how accountants make ethical judgments. Such knowledge can be used in turn to develop useful codes of conduct, create ethical organizational cultures, and direct ethical training for and by accountants.]