Advertisement

Journal of Management Control

, Volume 29, Issue 3–4, pp 225–273 | Cite as

Asymmetric cost behavior in local public enterprises: exploring the public interest and striving for efficiency

  • Shohei NagasawaEmail author
Original Paper
  • 262 Downloads

Abstract

Asymmetric cost behavior, which was first identified in Germany in the 1920s, has attracted the attention of researchers over the last two decades. Cost management is essential not only for commercial enterprises (CEs) but also for public organizations. Therefore, in this research, I focus on local public enterprises (LPEs), one type of public organization in Japan, and clarify their cost behavior. Then, taking the perspective of institutional theory, I compare LPEs with CEs. Because LPEs are required to behave according to the restrictions of LPE law, they are more vulnerable to institutional pressure. Specifically, LPEs have two normative institutional constraints: (1) efficiency and (2) the public interest (i.e., the responsibility to support people’s everyday lives). Therefore, LPEs must provide certain services even if they are unprofitable. To explore whether normative institutional pressure causes LPEs to be cost inefficient, I compare the cost behavior of these enterprises with that of CEs in five ways. I analyze (1) panel data covering 40 years, (2) the change over time, (3) the differences by industry type, (4) the relationship with population changes, and (5) the effect of political influence. I find that LPEs’ cost management is not necessarily cost inefficient; however, their ability to adjust costs may be lost in the future due to the influence of institutional constraints. I therefore assert that LPE administrators must constantly struggle to balance the institutional constraints of the public interest and efficiency since these factors require long-term, stable management.

Keywords

Local public enterprises Sticky costs Anti-sticky costs Asymmetric cost behavior Public interest Efficiency Institutional constraints 

JEL Classification

H83 M41 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to Thomas Werner Guenther not only for suggesting improvements to the manuscript but also for all the advice he has given me to improve my research over the years. I would also like to thank the two reviewers for carefully reviewing the manuscript and for their many useful comments.

References

  1. Anderson, M. C., Banker, R. D., & Janakiraman, S. (2003). Are selling, general, and administrative costs “sticky”? Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1), 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. W., & Lanen, W. N. (2007). Understanding cost management: What can we learn from the evidence on “sticky costs”. Working Paper in Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=975135. Accessed February 2, 2015.
  3. Balakrishnan, R., Eldenburg, L., Krishnan, R., & Soderstrom, N. (2010). The influence of institutional constraints on outsourcing. Journal of Accounting Research, 48(4), 767–794.Google Scholar
  4. Banker, R. D., & Byzalov, D. (2014). Asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 43–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., & Chen, L. T. (2013). Employment protection legislation, adjustment costs and cross-country differences in cost behavior. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 55(1), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., Ciftci, M., & Mashruwala, R. (2014a). The moderating effect of prior sales changes on asymmetric cost behavior. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banker, R. D., Byzalov, D., & Plehn-Dujowich, J. M. (2014b). Demand uncertainty and cost behavior. The Accounting Review, 89(3), 839–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bel, G., & Costas, A. (2006). Do public sector reforms get rusty? Local privatization in Spain. Journal of Policy Reform, 9(1), 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13841280500513084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bertero, E., & Rondi, L. (2000). Financial pressure and the behaviour of public enterprises under soft and hard budget constraints: Evidence from Italian panel data. Journal of Public Economics, 75(1), 73–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boshch, J. M. A., & Blandon, J. G. (2011). The influence of size on cost behavior associated with tactical and operational flexibility. Estudios de Economia, 38(2), 419–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradbury, M. E., & Scott, T. (2014). Do managers understand asymmetric cost behavior? Working paper in University of Technology Sydney. https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/ADG_Conf2015_30.%20Michael%20Bradbury_Do%20Managers%20Understand%20Asymmetric%20Cost%20Behaviour.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2017.
  12. Brasch, H. D. (1927). Zur Praxis der Unkostenschwankungen und ihrer Erfassung. Betriebswirtschaftliche Rundschau, 4, 65–74.Google Scholar
  13. Calleja, K., Steliaros, M., & Thomas, D. C. (2006). A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons. Management Accounting Research, 17(2), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, S., Karatzimas, S., & Naoum, V. C. (2017). The sticky cost phenomenon at the local government level: Empirical evidence from Greece. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 18(4), 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collin, S. Y., Tagesson, T., Andersson, A., Cato, J., & Hansson, K. (2009). Explaining the choice of accounting standards in municipal corporations: Positive accounting theory and institutional theory as competitive or concurrent theories. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(2), 141–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crediop, Dexia. (2004). Local public companies in the 25 countries of the European Union. Paris: Dexia.Google Scholar
  17. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Dalla Via, N., & Perego, P. M. (2014). Sticky cost behavior: Evidence from small and medium sized companies. Accounting & Finance, 54(3), 753–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Bruijn, J.A.H., Ten Heuvelhof, E., & Van Twist, M. (2004). Calculeren voorbij de calculus. Identificatie van publieke belangen in het politiek-bestuurlijk debat. In Essays over de Calculus van het Publiek Belang. Kenniscentrum voor Ordeningsvraagstukken.Google Scholar
  20. Dijkgraaf, E., & Gradus, R. H. J. M. (2011). Efficiency effects of privatising refuse collection: Be careful and alternatives present. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, 2011-156/3. https://papers.tinbergen.nl/11156.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2018.
  21. Dimaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Domberger, S., & Jensen, P. (1997). Contracting out by the public sector: Theory, evidence, prospects. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 13(4), 67–78.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/13.4.67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Domberger, S., & Rimmer, S. (1994). Competitive tendering and contracting in the public sector: A survey. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 1(3), 439–453.  https://doi.org/10.1080/758536232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eldenburg, L., Hermalin, B. E., Weisbach, M. S., & Wosinska, M. (2004). Governance, performance objectives and organizational form: Evidence from hospitals. Journal of Corporate Finance, 10(4), 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eldenburg, L., & Krishnan, R. (2003). Public versus private governance: A study of incentives and operational performance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 35(3), 377–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eldenburg, L., & Krishnan, R. (2008). The influence of ownership on accounting information expenditures. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(3), 739–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grossi, G., & Reichard, C. (2008). Municipal corporatizations in Germany and Italy. Public Management Review, 10(5), 597–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Günther, T. W., Riehl, A., & Rößler, R. (2014). Cost stickiness state of the art of research and implications. Journal of Management Control, 24(4), 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. He, D., Teruya, J., & Shimizu, T. (2010). Sticky selling, general, and administrative cost behavior and its changes in Japan. Global Journal of Business Research, 4(4), 1–10.Google Scholar
  31. Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the market versus planning dichotomy: Understanding privatisation and its reverse in US cities. Local Government Studies, 33(4), 555–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodge, G. A. (2000). Privatization: An international review of performance. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  33. Holzhacker, M., Krishnan, R., & Mahlendorf, M. D. (2015). The impact of changes in regulation on cost behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(2), 534–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kawarada, T. (2005). Local public enterprises accounts theory. Osaka: Seibunsha.Google Scholar
  35. Koike, A., Sadakane, K., Furuichi, E., & Katayama, S. (2015). Regional economic estimation of redundancy effects from transport investments. Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 71(5), 201–208.Google Scholar
  36. Local Public Enterprise Division. Local public Enterprise YearBook No. 22 (1974)No. 61 (2013). Local Public Finance Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan.Google Scholar
  37. Malik, M. (2012). A review and synthesis of ‘cost stickiness’ literature. Working Paper in Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2276760. Accessed July 26, 2016.
  38. Martinsons, M. G., & Davison, R. M. (2007). Strategic decision making and support systems: Comparing American, Japanese and Chinese management. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 284–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murray, H. A. (1975). A comparing public and private management: An exploratory essay. Public Administration Review, 35, 364–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nakai, H. (1988). Quantitative analysis of contemporary fiscal burden—Financial burden problem through national and local governments. Tokyo: Yuhikaku.Google Scholar
  42. Nakano, K. (2016). Effects of population and household structures on residential electricity demand a literature review and future research agenda. The Electric Power Economic Research, 63, 35–49.Google Scholar
  43. Nee, V., & Cao, Y. (2005). Market transition and the firm: Institutional change and income inequality in urban China. Management and Organization Review, 1(1), 23–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nishioka, H., Yamauchi, M., & Koike, S. (2007). A Report on the Utilization of ‘Population Projections by Prefecture and Municipality: 2000–2030 (by IPSS)’. Journal of Population Problems, 63(4), 56–73.Google Scholar
  45. Noreen, E., & Soderstrom, N. (1997). The accuracy of proportional cost models: Evidence from hospital service departments. Review of Accounting Studies, 2(1), 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ooshima, K. (1971). The business administration of the public (enterprise enlarged edition). Tokyo: Hakuto-shobo.Google Scholar
  48. Pérez-López, G., Prior, D., & Zafra-Gómez, J. L. (2015). Rethinking new public management delivery forms and efficiency: Long-term effects in Spanish local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1157–1183.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pesch, U. (2005). The predicaments of publicness: An inquiry into the conceptual ambiguity of public administration. Ph.D. Thesis in Leiden University of Leiden.Google Scholar
  50. Population Census Division. Population census 2005, 2010, and 2015. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan.Google Scholar
  51. Population Census Division. The report of population movement based on basic resident register system 19952013. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan.Google Scholar
  52. Rainey, H. G. (1997). Understanding and managing public organizations. New York: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. W., & Levine, C. L. (1976). A comparing public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, 36, 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saussier, S., & Klien, M. (2014). Local public enterprises: A taxonomy. La Chaire EPPP. Sorbonne Business School. https://chaire-eppp.org/local-public-enterprises-a-taxonomy/?lang=en. Accessed July 19, 2016.
  55. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Sepasi, S., & Hassani, H. (2015). Study of the effect of the firm size on costs stickiness: Evidence from Tehran Stock Exchange. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 13(6), 4143–4159.Google Scholar
  57. Sørensen, R. J. (2007). Does dispersed public ownership impair efficiency? The case of refuse collection in Norway. Public Administration, 85(4), 1045–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Subramaniam, C., & Weidenmier, M. W. (2016). Additional evidence on the sticky behavior of costs. Advances in Management Accounting, 26, 275–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2008). Public enterprises: Unresolved challenges and new opportunities. Publication based on the Expert Group Meeting on Re-inventing Public Enterprise and their Management.Google Scholar
  60. Van Genugten, M. L. (2008). The art of alignment: Transaction cost economics and public service delivery at the local level. Working Paper in University of Twente. https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-art-of-alignment-transaction-cost-economics-and-the-provision. Accessed February 18, 2018.
  61. Voorn, B., Van Genugten, M. L., & Van Thiel, S. (2017). The efficiency and effectiveness of municipally owned corporations: A systematic review. Local Government Studies, 43(5), 820–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weiss, D. (2010). Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review, 85, 1441–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wollman, H. (2000). Local government modernization in Germany: Between incrementalism and reform waves. Public Administration, 78(4), 915–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wollmann, H., Baldersheim, H., Citroni, G., Marcou, G., & McEldowney, J. (2010). The provision of public Services in Europe: Between state, local government and market. ‎Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yasukata, K. (2012). The cost fluctuation analysis of the Japanese enterprises. Tokyo: Chuo-keizai-sha.Google Scholar
  66. Yasukata, K., Kajiwara, T., Sima, Y., & Kurisu, T. (2011). Nonprofit organization/public organization’ empirical analysis of cost fluctuation—The moderate effect of occupancy rate for National Hospital Organization. Journal of Cost Accounting, 35(1), 141–150.Google Scholar
  67. Zanella, F., Oyelere, P., & Hossain, S. (2015). Are costs really sticky? Evidence from publicly listed companies in the UAE. Applied Economics, 47(60), 6519–6528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5), 726–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business Administration, Graduate School of Social SciencesTokyo Metropolitan UniversityHachioji-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations