Political control and audit fees: an empirical analysis of local state-owned enterprises in England

References

• Aars, J., & Ringkjøb, H. E. (2011). Local democracy Ltd: The political control of local government enterprises in Norway. Public Management Review, 13(6), 825–844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), i301–i319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Axén, L., Tagesson, T., Shcherbinin, D., Custovic, A., & Ojdanic, A. (2019). Does municipal ownership affect audit fees? Journal of Management and Governance, 23(3), 693–713.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beasley, M. S., & Petroni, K. R. (2001). Board independence and audit-firm type. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20(1), 97–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beattie, V., Goodacre, A., Pratt, K., & Stevenson, J. (2001). The determinants of audit fees—Evidence from the voluntary sector. Accounting and Business Research, 31(4), 243–274.
   Google Scholar
• Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Berge, D. M., & Torsteinsen, H. (2021). Corporatization in local government: Promoting cultural differentiation and hybridity? Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12737.
   Google Scholar
• Brinn, T., Peel, M. J., & Roberts, R. (1994). Audit fee determinants of independent & subsidiary unquoted companies in the UK - an exploratory study. The British Accounting Review, 26(2), 101–121.
   Google Scholar
• Cäker, M., & Siverbo, S. (2011). Management control in public sector joint ventures. Management Accounting Research, 22(4), 330–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campa, D. (2013). ‘Big Four fee premium’ and audit quality: Latest evidence from UK listed companies. Managerial Auditing Journal, 28(8), 680–707.
   Google Scholar
• Caperchione, E., Demirag, I., & Grossi, G. (2017). Public sector reforms and public private partnerships: Overview and research agenda. Accounting Forum, 41(1), 1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., Neal, T. L., & Riley Jr, R. A. (2002). Board characteristics and audit fees. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(3), 365–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clatworthy, M. A., Mellett, H. J., & Peel, M. J. (2002). The market for external audit services in the public sector: An empirical analysis of NHS trusts. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 29(9-10), 1399–1439.
   Google Scholar
• Collin, S. O. 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.
   Google Scholar
• Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Souza, J., & Nash, R. (2017). Private benefits of public control: Evidence of political and economic benefits of state ownership. Journal of Corporate Finance, 46, 232–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ettredge, M. L., Scholz, S., & Li, C. (2007). Audit fees and auditor dismissals in the Sarbanes-Oxley era. Accounting Horizons, 21(4), 371–386.
   Google Scholar
• Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 88(2), 301–325.
   Google Scholar
• Ferry, L., & Ahrens, T. (2017). Using management control to understand public sector corporate governance changes: Localism, public interest, and enabling control in an English local authority. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 13(4), 548–567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferry, L., Andrews, R., Skelcher, C., & Wegorowski, P. (2018). Corporatization of local authorities in England in the wake of austerity 2010-2016. Public Money & Management, 38(6), 477–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferry, L., & Eckersley, P. (2015). Accountability and transparency: A nuanced response to Etzioni. Public Administration Review, 75(1), 11–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrone, P., Grilli, L., & Rousseau, X. (2013). Management discretion and political interference in municipal enterprises: Evidence from Italian utilities. Local Government Studies, 39(4), 514–540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghafran, C., & O'Sullivan, N. (2017). The impact of audit committee expertise on audit quality: Evidence from UK audit fees. The British Accounting Review, 49(6), 578–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilson, S. C. (1990). Bankruptcy, boards, banks, and blockholders: Evidence on changes in corporate ownership and control when firms default. Journal of Financial Economics, 27(2), 355–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossi, G., & Thomasson, A. (2015). Bridging the accountability gap in hybrid organizations: The case of Copenhagen Malmö port. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(3), 604–620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habib, A., Ranasinghe, D., Muhammadi, A. H., & Islam, A. (2018). Political connections, financial reporting and auditing: survey of the empirical literature. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 31, 37–51.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, R. (2019). Debate: Alternative delivery models and corporatization in local government. Public Money & Management, 39(1), 4–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausman, J. A., & Taylor, W. E. (1981). Panel data and unobservable individual effects. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 49(6), 1377–1398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hay, D. C., Knechel, W. R., & Wong, N. (2006). Audit fees: A meta-analysis of the effect of supply and demand attributes. Contemporary Accounting Research, 23(1), 141–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HM Treasury. (2018). Public Expenditure: Statistical Analysis 2018. HM Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• IFAC/CIPFA. (2014). International Framework Good Governance in the Public Sector.
   Google Scholar
• International Financial Reporting Standard 10. (2011). Consolidated Financial Statements, International Accounting Standards Board.
   Google Scholar
• International Financial Reporting Standard 11. (2011). Joint Arrangements, International Accounting Standards Board.
   Google Scholar
• International Financial Reporting Standard 12. (2011). Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities, International Accounting Standards Board.
   Google Scholar
• Klausen, J. E., & Winsvold, M. (2021). Corporate governance and democratic accountability: Local state-owned enterprises in Norway. Journal of Public Policy, 41(1), 161–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke, B. (2010). Examining accountability dimensions in state-owned enterprises. Financial Accountability & Management, 26(2), 134–162.
   Google Scholar
• Mohammad Rezaei, F., Mohd-Saleh, N., & Ahmed, K. (2018). Audit firm ranking, audit quality and audit fees: Examining conflicting price discrimination views. The International Journal of Accounting, 53(4), 295–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, P., & Lakoma, K. (2021). Debate: Public audit, the Redmond review, and the use of public interest reports. Public Money & Management, 41(2), 150–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen, T. H., Solstad, E., & Torsteinsen, H. (2017). The meaning of institutional logics for performance assessment in boards of municipal companies. Public Money & Management, 37(6), 393–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan, N. (2000). The impact of board composition and ownership on audit quality: Evidence from large UK companies. The British Accounting Review, 32(4), 397–414.
   Google Scholar
• Papenfuß, U. & Schmidt, C. A. (2020). Understanding self-regulation for political control and policymaking: Effects of governance mechanisms on accountability. Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12549
   Google Scholar
• Papenfuß, U., Van Genugten, M., De Kruijf, J., & Van Thiel, S. (2018). Implementation of EU initiatives on gender diversity and executive directors’ pay in municipally-owned enterprises in Germany and The Netherlands. Public Money & Management, 38(2), 87–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Public Audit Forum. (2016). Statement of Recommended Practice—Practice Note 10: Audit of financial statements of public sector bodies in the United Kingdom. National Audit Office.
   Google Scholar
• Redmayne, N. B., Bradbury, M. E., & Cahan, S. F. (2011). The association between audit committees and audit fees in the public sector. International Journal of Auditing, 15(3), 301–315.
   Google Scholar
• Redmond, T. (2020). Independent Review into the Oversight of Local Audit and the Transparency of Local Authority Financial Reporting. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916217/Redmond_Review.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rudgewick, O. (2021). Croydon set to lend more to troubled housing company. Public Finance (14 January).
   Google Scholar
• Sandford, M. (2016). Local Government: Alternative Models of Service Delivery. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number 05950.
   Google Scholar
• Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737–783.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simunic, D. A. (1980). The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 22(3), 161–190.
   Google Scholar
• Skelcher, C. (2017). An enterprising municipality? Municipalisation, corporatisation and the political economy of Birmingham City Council in the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries. Local Government Studies, 43(6), 927–945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2017). New development: Performance promises and pitfalls in hybrid organizations—five challenges for managers and researchers. Public Money & Management, 37(6), 425–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steccolini, I. (2019). Accounting and the post-new public management: Re-considering publicness in accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(1), 255-279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torsteinsen, H. (2019). Debate: Corporatization in local government—The need for a comparative and multi-disciplinary research approach. Public Money & Management, 39(1), 5–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vakkuri, J., & Johanson, J. E. (2018). Taming the monster–towards an understanding of hybrid organisations and governance. Public Money & Management, 38(3), 162–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voorn, B., Van Genugten, M., & Thiel, S. v. (2017). The efficiency and effectiveness of municipally-owned corporations: A systematic review. Local Government Studies, 43(5), 820–841.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voorn, B., Van Thiel, S., & Van Genugten, M. (2018). Debate: Corporatization as more than a recent crisis-driven development. Public Money & Management, 38(7), 481–482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Q., Wong, T. J., & Xia, L. (2008). State ownership, the institutional environment, and auditor choice: Evidence from China. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 46(1), 112–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar