We analyze theoretically and empirically the effect of preference policies, which favor some auditors over others for reasons unrelated to the audit. For example, an auditee may prefer minority-owned auditors, all else equal. We construct an analytical model of the competitive bidding process for audit services. We show that preference policies can sometimes improve the audit procurement process by encouraging price concessions from non-preferenced auditors. We test model predictions in a setting amenable to empirical identification of preference; many municipalities prefer local firms over more distant firms. We find strong evidence of local preference, with local firms earning a 13 percent fee premium over non-local firms. We show that audit fees depend not only on the winning firm's capabilities but also crucially on the winning firm's incremental capabilities over the next best alternative. Lastly, we identify conditions under which preference policies benefit audit procurement outcomes. JEL Classification: M42, D44, M48, H83 Key words: audit markets, auditor selection, competitive bidding, local preference
|Date of creation:||Feb 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (860) 486-4889
Fax: (860) 486-4463
Web page: http://www.econ.uconn.edu/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Cantillon, Estelle, 2008.
"The effect of bidders' asymmetries on expected revenue in auctions,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 1-25, January.
- Estelle Cantillon, 2008. "The effect of bidders' asymmetries on expected revenue in auctions," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9001, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Estelle Cantillon, 2000. "The Effect of Bidders' Asymmetries on Expected Revenue in Auctions," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1279, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Roberto Burguet & Martin Perry, 2002.
"Bribery and Favoritism by Auctioneers in Sealed Bid Auctions,"
Departmental Working Papers
200205, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
- Burguet Roberto & Perry Martin K, 2007. "Bribery and Favoritism by Auctioneers in Sealed-Bid Auctions," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27, June.
- Roberto Burguet & Martin Perry, 2000. "Bribery and Favoritism by Auctioneers in Sealed Bid Auctions," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1827, Econometric Society.
- Mougeot, Michel & Naegelen, Florence, 2005. "A political economy analysis of preferential public procurement policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 483-501, June.
- Roberto Burguet & Martin K. Perry, 2009.
"Preferred suppliers in auction markets,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
RAND Corporation, vol. 40(2), pages 283-295.
- Roberto Burguet & Martin K. Perry, 2008. "Preferred Suppliers in Auction Markets," Working Papers 355, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
- Roberto Burguet & Martin K. Perry, 2008. "Preferred Suppliers in Auction Markets," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 752.08, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- Vlad Mares & Mikhael Shor, 2008. "Industry concentration in common value auctions: theory and evidence," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 37-56, April.
- Todd Kaplan & Shmuel Zamir, 2012. "Asymmetric first-price auctions with uniform distributions: analytic solutions to the general case," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 269-302, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uct:uconnp:2012-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Francis Ahking)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.