Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons

2006, Management Accounting Research

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MAR.2006.02.001

Abstract

Contemporary studies on cost behaviour find that costs increase more with activity increases than they decrease in response to equivalent activity decreases. This sticky cost behaviour contradicts the traditional model which assumes that costs behave symmetrically for activity increases and decreases. Using a sample of US, UK, French, and German firms, we find that operating costs are sticky in response to changes in revenues; operating costs increase, on average, by around 0.97% per 1% increase in revenues, but decrease by only 0.91% per 1% decrease in revenues. Costs of French and German firms are more sticky than costs of UK and US firms; we conjecture that this result is attributable to differences in systems of corporate governance and managerial oversight. Costs tend to be less sticky over longer time-horizons and when firms sustain larger drops in revenue. Firm-specific and industry characteristics also impact on levels of cost stickiness.

References (11)

  1. Anderson, M., Banker, R., Janakiraman, S., 2003. Are selling, general, and distribution costs sticky? J. Account. Res. 41 (1), 47-63.
  2. Balakrishnan, R., Peterson, M., Soderstrom, N., 2004. Does capacity utilization affect the stickiness of costs? J. Account. Audit. Finance 19 (3), 283-299.
  3. Ball, R., Kothari, S., Robin, A., 2000. The effect of international institutional factors on properties of accounting earnings. J. Account. Econ. 29 (1), 1-51.
  4. Cooper, R., Kaplan, R., 1998a. Cost and Effect-Using Integrated Cost Systems to Drive Profitability and Performance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
  5. Cooper, R., Kaplan, R., 1998b. The Design of Cost Management Systems-Text and Cases, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey.
  6. Gorton G., Schmid F., 2000. Class struggle inside the firm: a study of German co-determination, Working Paper, NBER.
  7. La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., Vishny, R., 2000. Investor protection and corporate governance. J. Financial Econ. 58 (1), 3-27.
  8. Noreen, E., Soderstrom, N., 1997. The accuracy of proportional cost models: evidence from hospital service departments. Rev. Account. Stud. 2, 89-114.
  9. O'Sullivan, M., 2003. The political economy of comparative corporate governance. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 10 (1), 23-72.
  10. Subramaniam, C., Weidenmier, M., 2003. Additional evidence on the sticky behaviour of costs. Working Paper, Texas Christian University.
  11. White, H., 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48, 817-838.