Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-3
Cost Accounting at the Service Level: An Analyis of Transaction Cost Influnces on Indirect Cost Measurment in the Cost Accounting Plans of Large US Cities
Cost accounting has been used in public organizations for over 100 years. In spite of cost accounting's history, there remains little empirical research of multiple organizations use of cost accounting at the department or service level. This paper uses the data from large U.S. cities’ central cost accounting plans, budgets, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, and common measures of transaction costs to examine the influence of economic transaction costs on the measurement of indirect cost measurement for services. The results indicate that indirect cost measurement is limited by the transaction costs that arise from asset specificity at the service level but measurement uncertainty is related with a higher likelihood of observing an indirect cost driver. Transaction cost theory may help explain the notable underutilization of cost accounting in public organizations, but it also highlights the need for understanding the different dimensions of transaction costs for cost accounting and performance measurement.
AmmonsD., CoeC., & LombardoM. (2001). Performance-comparison projects in local government: Participants' perspectives. Public Administration Review, 61(1), 100–110.
2.
AmmonsD. N., & CarterL. (2000). Benchmarking as a performance management tool: Experiences among municipalities in North Carolina. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 12(1), 106–124.
3.
AmmonsD. N., & RivenbarkW. C. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 304–318.
4.
AndersonS. W. (1995). A framework for assessing cost management system changes: The case of activity based costing implementation at General Motors. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7(1), 1–51.
5.
AndersonS. W., & YoungS. M. (1999). The impact of contextual and process factors on the evaluation of activity-based costing systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24(7), 525–559.
6.
AndersonS. W., & YoungS. M. (2001). Implementing management innovations: Lessons learned from activity based costing in the US automobile industry: Springer Netherlands.
7.
AustinP. C. (2010). Estimating multilevel logistic regression models when the number of clusters is low: a comparison of different statistical software procedures. The International Journal of Biostatistics, 6(1).
8.
BairdK., HarrisonG., & ReeveR. (2007). Success of activity management practices: the influence of organizational and cultural factors. Accounting & Finance, 47(1), 47–67.
9.
BairdK., HarrisonG. L., & ReeveR. C. (2004). Adoption of activity management practices: a note on the extent of adoption and the influence of organizational and cultural factors. Management Accounting Research, 15(4), 383–399.
10.
BaldwinC. Y. (2008). Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(1), 155–195.
11.
BatesD., & SarkarD. (2007). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes.
12.
BaumolW. J. (1993). Health care, education and the cost disease: a looming crisis for public choice. Public Choice, 77(1), 17–28.
13.
BermanE., & WangX. (2000). Performance measurement in US counties: Capacity for reform. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 409–420.
14.
BrimsonJ. A., AntosJ., & CollinsJ. (1999). Driving value using activity-based budgeting: Wiley.
15.
BrownR. E., MyringM. J., & GardC. G. (1999). Activity based costing in government: possibilities and pitfalls. Public Budgeting & Finance, 19(2), 3–21.
16.
BrownT. L., & PotoskiM. (2003). Managing contract performance: A transaction costs approach. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(2), 275–297.
17.
BrownT. L., & PotoskiM. (2005). Transaction costs and contracting: The practitioner perspective. Public Performance & Management Review, 28(3), 326–351.
18.
ClingermayerJ. C., & FeiockR. C. (1997). Leadership turnover, transaction costs, and external city service delivery. Public Administration Review, 57(3), 231–239.
19.
CoaseR. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.
20.
CoaseR. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.
21.
CoeC. K. (2007). Governmental and nonprofit financial management. Viena VA: Management Concepts Inc.
22.
CoeC. K., & O'SullivanE. (1993). Accounting for the hidden costs: A national study of internal service funds and other indirect costing methods in municipal governments. Public Administration Review, 53(1) 9–64.
23.
CrozierM. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon: University of Chicago Press.
24.
DahlmanC. J. (1979). The problem of externality. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(1), 141–162.
FernandezS., & RaineyH. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168–176.
27.
FinklerS. A.PurtellR., CalabreseT., & SmithD. (2012). Financial management for public, health, and not-for-profit organizations (4 ed.): Prentice Hall.
28.
FosterG., & SwensonD. W. (1997). Measuring the success of activity-based cost management and its determinants. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 109–142.
29.
GeigerD. R. (2010). Cost management and control in government, fighting the cost war through leadership driven management. New York: Business Expert Press.
30.
GelmanA., & HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models: Cambridge University PressNew York.
31.
GosselinM. (1997). The effect of strategy and organizational structure on the adoption and implementation of activity-based costing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 105–122.
32.
HatryH. (2006). Performance measurement: getting results: Urban Institute Press.
33.
HoA. (2006). Accounting for the value of performance measurement from the perspective of Midwestern mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 217.
34.
HoA., & NiA. (2005). Have cities shifted to outcome oriented performance reporting?—A content analysis of city budgets. Public Budgeting & Finance, 25(2), 61–83.
35.
InnesJ., & MitchellF. (1995). A survey of activity-based costing in the UK's largest companies. Management Accounting Research, 6(2), 137–153.
36.
JohnstonJ. M., & GirthA. (2012). Government contracts and “managing the market”: Exploring the costs of strategic management responses to weak vendor competition. Administration and Society, 44(1).
37.
JulnesP. L., & HolzerM. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 693–708.
KaplanR. S., & CooperR. (1998). Cost & effect: using integrated cost systems to drive profitability and performance: Harvard Business Press.
40.
KaplanR. S., & NortonD.P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard–Measures That Drive Performance, Harvard Business Review, January-February, 71–79.
41.
KehoeJ. (1995). Activity-based management in government: Coopers & Lybrand.
42.
KrackhardtD. (2001). Viscosity models and the diffusion of controversial innovation. In LomiA. & LarsenE. (Eds.) Dynamics of organizations: Computational modeling and organization theories: AAAI Press.
43.
LangloisR. N. (2006). The secret life of mundane transaction costs. Organization Studies, 27(9), 1389–1410.
44.
LevinJ., & TadelisS. (2010). Contracting for government services: theory and evidence from US citiesThe Journal of Industrial Economics, 58(3), 507–541.
45.
LevineC. H. (1985). Police management in the 1980s: From decrementalism to strategic thinking. Public Administration Review, 45, 691–700.
46.
LevineC. H., RubinI., & WolohojianG. G. (1981). The politics of retrenchment: How local governments manage fiscal stress: Sage PublicationsBeverly Hills, CA.
47.
LindblomC. (1965). The intelligence of democracy: Free PressNew York.
48.
LorigA. N. (1936). Cost accounting and the classification of municipal expenditures. The Accounting Review, 11(3), 291–295.
49.
MalmiT. (1997). Towards explaining activity-based costing failure: accounting and control in a decentralized organization. Management Accounting Research, 8, 459–480.
50.
MarchJ. G., & OlsenJ. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics: Free Press.
McCueC. P. (2001). Local government accountants as public managers: An evolving role. State & Local Government Review, 33(2), 144–157.
53.
MelkersJ. (2003). Incorporating performance measures into the budget process. In PoisterT. H. (Ed.), Measuring Performance in Public and Non-Profit Organizations. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
54.
MelkersJ., & WilloughbyK. (1998). The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review, 58(1).
55.
MelkersJ., & WilloughbyK. (2005). Models of performance measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180–190.
56.
MoeT. M. (2009). Collective bargaining and the performance of the public schools. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 156–174.
57.
MohrZ. (2015). An analysis of the purposes of cost accounting in large US cities. Public Budgeting and Finance, 35(1), 95–115.
58.
MohrZ. (2016) Performance Measurement and Cost Accounting: Are They Complementary or Competing Systems of Control?Public Administration Review, 76(4), 616–625.
59.
MoynihanD. P., & PandeyS. K. (2005). Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 421.
60.
MullinsD. R., & ZornC. K. (1999). Is activity based costing up to the challenge when it comes to privatization of local government services?Public Budgeting & Finance, 19(2), 37–58.
PinkettH. T. (1965). The Keep Commission, 1905–1909: A Rooseveltian effort for administrative reform. The Journal of American History, 52(2), 297–312.
63.
PoisterT. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations: Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.
64.
PremchandA. (2006). Public expenditure management: Selected themes and issues. In FrankH. (Ed.), Public Financial Management. Boca Raton, Fl: CRC Press.
65.
PurtellR. M., & FossettJ. W. (2010). Beyond budgeting: public-service financial education in the 21st century. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 95–110.
66.
RaudenbushS. W., & BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1): Sage Publications, Inc.
67.
RivenbarkW. C. (2005). A historical overview of cost accounting in local government. State & Local Government Review, 37(3), 217–227.
68.
RivenbarkW. C., & CarterK. L. (2000). Benchmarking and cost accounting: the North Carolina approach. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 12, 125–137.
69.
RogersE. M. (2003). The diffusion of innovations. (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
70.
ShieldsM. D. (1995). An empirical analysis of firms' implementation experiences with activity-based costing. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7(1), 148–165.
71.
SimonH. A., GuetzkowH., KozmetskyG., & TyndallG. (1954). Centralization vs. decentralization in organizing the controller's department: A research study and report. New York: Controllership Foundation.
72.
SteinR. M. (1990). The budgetary effects of municipal service contracting: A principal-agent explanation. American Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 471–502.
73.
TurneyP. B. (2010). Activity Based Costing: An Emerging Foundation for Performance Management. Cost Management, 24(4).
74.
WeissB. (1997). Activity-based costing and management: Issues and practices in local government: Government Finance Officers Association.
75.
WildavskyA. (1964). The politics of the budgetary process. Boston/Toronto.
76.
WilliamsD. (2003). Measuring government in the early twentieth century. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 643–659.
77.
WilliamsD. W. (2004). Evolution of performance measurement until 1930. Administration & Society, 36(2), 131–165.
78.
WilliamsonO.E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications: a study in the economics of internal organization. New York: Free Press.
79.
WilliamsonO. E. (1985). The economic intstitutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
80.
WilliamsonO. E. (1999). Public and private bureaucracies: A transaction cost economics perspective. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 15(1), 306–342.
81.
YusufJ., FowlesJ., GrizzleC., & LiuG. (2012). State fiscal constraints on local government borrowing: effects on scale and cost. In LevineH., JusticeJ., & ScorsoneE. (Eds.), Handbook of Local Government Fiscal Health. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
