为地方政府开放审计市场:英国和荷兰的五股力量

IF 3.1 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Financial Accountability & Management Pub Date : 2021-08-24 DOI:10.1111/faam.12302
Dennis de Widt, Iolo Llewelyn, Tim Thorogood
{"title":"为地方政府开放审计市场:英国和荷兰的五股力量","authors":"Dennis de Widt,&nbsp;Iolo Llewelyn,&nbsp;Tim Thorogood","doi":"10.1111/faam.12302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Both England and the Netherlands have seen efforts to liberalise their audit markets for local government in recent decades. According to economic theory, these should benefit buyers as increased competition produces lower prices and improved quality. Increasing the number of competing audit firms in markets traditionally dominated by few large firms is widely seen as a key ingredient to this process. However, liberalisation has taken different paths in England, compared to the Netherlands. In England, a national-level collaborative purchasing arrangement has seen a small number of large firms competing, whilst in the Netherlands, a free market has led to the withdrawal by Big-4 firms and rapidly growing market share by mid-tier and small firms. In this paper, we analyse contrasting market developments in local public audit in England and the Netherlands and accordingly analyse the underlying factors through applying an established framework for market analysis from industrial economics, Porter's five forces framework, together with an institutional logics approach to further understand the factors involved. We find the Porter framework a useful tool to identify structural differences between markets but one that requires further analysis to explain underlying dynamics, which in the case of Dutch and English local public audit markets is effectively provided by the use of concepts from institutional logics including a historical contingency analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":47120,"journal":{"name":"Financial Accountability & Management","volume":"38 3","pages":"394-425"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/faam.12302","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Liberalising audit markets for local government: The five forces at work in England and the Netherlands\",\"authors\":\"Dennis de Widt,&nbsp;Iolo Llewelyn,&nbsp;Tim Thorogood\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/faam.12302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Both England and the Netherlands have seen efforts to liberalise their audit markets for local government in recent decades. According to economic theory, these should benefit buyers as increased competition produces lower prices and improved quality. Increasing the number of competing audit firms in markets traditionally dominated by few large firms is widely seen as a key ingredient to this process. However, liberalisation has taken different paths in England, compared to the Netherlands. In England, a national-level collaborative purchasing arrangement has seen a small number of large firms competing, whilst in the Netherlands, a free market has led to the withdrawal by Big-4 firms and rapidly growing market share by mid-tier and small firms. In this paper, we analyse contrasting market developments in local public audit in England and the Netherlands and accordingly analyse the underlying factors through applying an established framework for market analysis from industrial economics, Porter's five forces framework, together with an institutional logics approach to further understand the factors involved. We find the Porter framework a useful tool to identify structural differences between markets but one that requires further analysis to explain underlying dynamics, which in the case of Dutch and English local public audit markets is effectively provided by the use of concepts from institutional logics including a historical contingency analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Financial Accountability & Management\",\"volume\":\"38 3\",\"pages\":\"394-425\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/faam.12302\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Financial Accountability & Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faam.12302\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Accountability & Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faam.12302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

近几十年来,英格兰和荷兰都在努力为地方政府开放审计市场。根据经济理论,这应该有利于买家,因为竞争加剧会降低价格,提高质量。在传统上由少数几家大公司主导的市场上,增加竞争审计公司的数量被广泛视为这一进程的关键因素。然而,与荷兰相比,自由化在英国采取了不同的道路。在英国,一个国家级的合作采购安排已经看到了少数大公司的竞争,而在荷兰,一个自由市场已经导致四大公司的退出和快速增长的市场份额的中型和小型公司。在本文中,我们分析了英国和荷兰地方公共审计的不同市场发展,并通过应用工业经济学的既定市场分析框架,波特的五力框架,以及制度逻辑方法来进一步了解所涉及的因素,相应地分析了潜在的因素。我们发现波特框架是一个有用的工具,可以识别市场之间的结构性差异,但需要进一步分析来解释潜在的动态,在荷兰和英国的地方公共审计市场的情况下,通过使用制度逻辑的概念,包括历史权变分析,有效地提供了潜在的动态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Liberalising audit markets for local government: The five forces at work in England and the Netherlands

Both England and the Netherlands have seen efforts to liberalise their audit markets for local government in recent decades. According to economic theory, these should benefit buyers as increased competition produces lower prices and improved quality. Increasing the number of competing audit firms in markets traditionally dominated by few large firms is widely seen as a key ingredient to this process. However, liberalisation has taken different paths in England, compared to the Netherlands. In England, a national-level collaborative purchasing arrangement has seen a small number of large firms competing, whilst in the Netherlands, a free market has led to the withdrawal by Big-4 firms and rapidly growing market share by mid-tier and small firms. In this paper, we analyse contrasting market developments in local public audit in England and the Netherlands and accordingly analyse the underlying factors through applying an established framework for market analysis from industrial economics, Porter's five forces framework, together with an institutional logics approach to further understand the factors involved. We find the Porter framework a useful tool to identify structural differences between markets but one that requires further analysis to explain underlying dynamics, which in the case of Dutch and English local public audit markets is effectively provided by the use of concepts from institutional logics including a historical contingency analysis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Environmental reporting in public sector organizations: A review of literature for the future paths of research Unfolding crowd‐based accountability of a charity fund during the war Tribute for Irvine Lapsley Making sense of climate change in central government annual reports and accounts: A comparative case study between the United Kingdom and Norway
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1