IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does leverage influence auditor choice? A cross-country analysis


  • Géraldine Broye
  • Laurent Weill


This article investigates the impact of legal environment on the relationship between leverage and auditor choice in 10 European countries. We demonstrate that the relationship between the choice of a high-quality auditor and firm leverage varies significantly across countries. This finding suggests the absence of a systematic demand for auditing to mitigate agency problems between insiders and debtholders. These differences are explained through legal environment indicators. We create in this aim an index to measure auditor liability exposure. Our results provide evidence that the stronger the protection of creditor rights and disclosure requirements, the higher the demand for audit quality by highly-leveraged companies. Inversely, the auditor liability exposure has a negative impact on the link between leverage and auditor choice.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Géraldine Broye & Laurent Weill, 2008. "Does leverage influence auditor choice? A cross-country analysis," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/14152, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/14152

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Romer, Paul M, 1986. "Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-1037, October.
    2. Robert J. Barro, 2013. "Inflation and Economic Growth," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 14(1), pages 121-144, May.
    3. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    4. Traca, Daniel A., 2002. "Imports as competitive discipline: the role of the productivity gap," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-21, October.
    5. Peretto, Pietro F, 1998. "Technological Change, Market Rivalry, and the Evolution of the Capitalist Engine of Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 53-80, March.
    6. Peretto, Pietro F., 1999. "Firm size, rivalry and the extent of the market in endogenous technological change," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1747-1773, October.
    7. Dasgupta, Partha & Stiglitz, Joseph, 1980. "Industrial Structure and the Nature of Innovative Activity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 90(358), pages 266-293, June.
    8. Claude d'Aspremont & Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira & Louis-André Gérard-Varet, 2010. "Strategic R&D investment, competitive toughness and growth," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 6(3), pages 273-295.
    9. Rebelo, Sergio, 1991. "Long-Run Policy Analysis and Long-Run Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(3), pages 500-521, June.
    10. Encaoua, D. & Ulph, D., 2000. "Catching-up or Leapfrogging ? The Effects of Competition on Innovation and Growth," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 2000.97, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    11. Traca, Daniel A., 2001. "Quantitative restrictions, market power and productivity growth," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 95-111, June.
    12. Vencatachellum, Desire, 1998. "Endogenous growth with strategic interactions," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 233-254, September.
    13. van de Klundert, Theo & Smulders, Sjak, 1997. " Growth, Competition and Welfare," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(1), pages 99-118, March.
    14. Pietro Peretto & Sjak Smulders, 2002. "Technological Distance, Growth And Scale Effects," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(481), pages 603-624, July.
    15. Peretto, Pietro F, 1996. "Sunk Costs, Market Structure, and Growth," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 37(4), pages 895-923, November.
    16. Philippe Aghion & Christopher Harris & Peter Howitt & John Vickers, 2001. "Competition, Imitation and Growth with Step-by-Step Innovation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 68(3), pages 467-492.
    17. Peretto, Pietro F., 1999. "Cost reduction, entry, and the interdependence of market structure and economic growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 173-195, February.
    18. Aghion, Philippe & Harris, Christopher & Vickers, John, 1997. "Competition and growth with step-by-step innovation: An example," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-5), pages 771-782, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Jamel Azibi & Hubert Tondeur & Mohamed Tahar Rajhi, 2010. "Auditor Choice And Intitutionnel Investor Characteristics After The Enron Scandal In The French Context," Post-Print hal-00481076, HAL.
    2. repec:eee:spacre:v:15:y:2012:i:2:p:287-310 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Charles Piot & Alain Schatt, 2010. "La réglementation de l’audit est-elle dans l’intérêt public:quelques enseignements du modèle français," Working Papers CREGO 1100606, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    4. Leif Atle Beisland & Roy Mersland & R. Oystein Strøm, 2012. "Audit Quality and Corporate Governance: Evidence from the Microfinance Industry," Working Papers CEB 12-034, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Reheul, Anne-Mie & Van Caneghem, Tom & Verbruggen, Sandra, 2011. "Auditor choice in the Belgian nonprofit sector: a behavioral perspective," Working Papers 2011/36, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    6. repec:jso:coejss:v:6:y:2017:i:4:p:886-901 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/14152. 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: (Benoit Pauwels). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.