회계법인의 효율성 및 생산성에 관한 연구
- Alternative Title
- A study on the Efficiency and Productivity of Accounting Firms
- Abstract
- 본 연구는 우리나라 회계법인을 대상으로 1997년부터 2008년까지 BCC(Banker,Charnes and Cooper)모형과 비지향적․ 비방사적 MI(Malmquist Productivity Index)모형을 이용하여 효율성과 생산성변화를 분석하였다.
BCC분석결과, 전체회계법인은 21.7%, 대형회계법인은 7.4%, 중소형회계법인은 23%로 비효율이 나타났다. 2001년 이후 비효율은 증가하였는데, 2001년 회계법인의 설립기준이 완화됨에 따른 효과에 기인한다. 즉, 대형회계법인의 규모비효율이 12% 증가한 것은 중소형회계법인의 신설에 따른 시장잠식효과로, 중소형회계법인의 순수비효율이 16.7% 증가는 합동회계사무소의 회계법인 전환에 따른 효과로 볼 수 있다.
회계법인 설립기준완화 이후 전체회계법인의 비효율은 12.4%, 순수비효율은 11.2%, 대형회계법인은 규모비효율면에서 8.0%, 중소형회계법인은 비효율12.3%, 순수비효율 12.1%의 증가를 보였다. 또한, 회계개혁법 이후 대형회계법인은 2.2%의 규모비효율감소, 중소형회계법인은 2.5%의 규모비효율증가를 보여 대형회계법인과 중소형회계법인의 규모비효율이 상반된 결과를 보여주었다.
효율성에 영향을 주는 변수에 대한 회귀분석 결과, 규모와 연령을 고려한 모형의 경우 전체기간에 대하여 양(+)의 값을 보였다. 이는 매출액이 클수록, 설립연한이 높을수록 효율성도 높다는 결과를 보여준다. 사무직원 1인당 회계사수는 모든 모형에서 유의한 양(+)의 계수값을 보였고 일부 모형에서만 유의하였다. 종업원 1인당 훈련비용은 모두 양(+)의 계수값을 보였으나, 연령을고려한 모형에서만 부분적으로 유의하였다.
매출액 중 회계감사수익 비율은 전체기간에 대하여 음(-)과 양(+)의 값이 혼재되어 나타났다. 이는 부분적으로 이 비율이 높을수록 효율성이 낮은 것으로 볼 수 있다. 매출액 중 세무서비스수익 비율의 경우는 전체모형에서 유의한 계수값을 보여주고 있어 세무서비스수익 비율이 높을수록 효율성이 증가하는 것으로 나타났다. 매출액 중 경영자문수익 비율은 모든 모형에서 음(-)의 유의성을 보여, 경영자문서비스수익 비율이 낮을수록 효율성이 증대함을 의미한다.
MI 분석결과, 전체회계법인은 9.9%의 규모불변생산성증가로 나타났는데, 규모가변효율성증가는 평균 6.6%, 규모가변기술증가는 평균 1.9%, 규모효율성증가는 5.7%를 보여 생산성증가가 효율성변화와 규모효율성변화에 크게 의존하는 것으로 나타났다.
회계법인의 설립기준이 완화된 이후 전체회계법인은 유의하게 규모불변생산성증가, 규모가변기술변화, 규모효율성변화는 둔화를 보였다. 반면, 규모가변효율성변화는 증가를 보여주었다. 이는 회계법인 설립기준 완화에 따라 신설 법인 증가 효과로 보여진다. 또한, 회계개혁법 이후에는 전체회계법인과 중소형회계법인에서 규모가변기술은 감소에서 증가로 변화하였는데, 이는 회계개혁법 이후에 생산성 증가원인이 기술변화에 의한 것이라 할 수 있다.
회계개혁법 전후의 생산성 변화에 대한 회귀분석 결과, 회계개혁법 이전의 매출액 중 회계감사수익 비율과 경영자문서비스 비율이 클수록 생산성지수의 변화가 커지는 것으로 나타났다.
본 연구는 비방사적․ 비지향적 MI 분석을 통해 회계개혁법 이후 우리나라 회계법인의 효율성과 생산성변화를 원천별로 생산성지수, 효율성변화, 기술변화, 규모효율성변화로 분해하여 분석하였다는데 의의가 있다.|In this study, the efficiency and productivity of Korean Accounting Firms within the period from 1997 to 2008 were investigated by means of the BCC model, non radial and non oriented Malmquist index(MI). For measuring
efficiency change over time is Malmquist Index using non
parametric DEA models. Most of prior studies utilized the radial oriented models. Thus, they suffer from the neglect of slacks and infeasibility.
Malmquist model deals with data sets over time that can display large variation in magnitude and hence the super efficiency model suffer from many infeasible solutions. However, the non radial and non oriented model is free from such problems and takes account of all existing slacks. The non radial Malmquist indices were proposed by Tone(2004). So using the non radial and non oriented Malmquist productivity index over the panel data from 1997 through 2008 of 576 Korean Accounting Firms, this study
measured total number of employees and total assets of accounting firms are used as input variables, and auditing revenue, taxtation revenue, and management advisory service revenue are used by output variables. And Accounting Firm need to exercise due care in selecting an appropriate returns to scale type. Because of DEA is a data oriented and non parametric method, this identification problem is common to all DEA applications.
The main results of this study is summarized as follows. According to the analysis result of the BCC model, the efficiency of the whole accounting firms was on average 0.783, where the average inefficiency of 21.7% existed, and big and non big accounting firms among them were
7.4% and 23 %, respectively. Since 2001, the inefficiency increased largely from 11.2% to 26.9%, and this is attributed to the effect from the relief of accounting firm establishment condition. In case of the big accounting firms, the input oriented size inefficiency increased up to 12%, and this is
seemed to be an effect of market encroachment followed by the new establishment of non big accounting firms. The non big accounting firms showed the increase of 16.7 % in the pure inefficiency, it is probably due to the effect of the accounting office conversion of accounting firms. The
inefficiency and the pure inefficiency of the whole accounting firms showed a significant increase of 12.4 % and 11.2 %, respectively. Since the accounting reform act, the big accounting firms showed a decrease of 2.2% in the size inefficiency, while the non big accounting firms showed an increase of 2.5 % vice versa.
In order to investigate the elements which affect the efficiency, regression analysis was introduced. As a result, size and age showed a significantly impact. CPA to employee ratio showed a significantly impact all regression
models. Considering age, training expenditure per employee showed a significantly positive impact. The proportion of audit service revenue showed a not significantly impact some regression models. The proportion of taxtation service revenue showed a significantly positive impact all regression models. The result of the MI analysis exhibited that the whole
accounting firms showed a productivity improvement of average 9.9 % in CRS. This was explained that the increase of the productivity strongly depended on the variation of the size efficiency.
Since the relief of the accounting firm establishment condition, the whole accounting firms showed the significant decreases in CRS productivity increase, VRS technology change, and size efficiency change from 19.7 %
to 8.1 %, 5.0 % to -6.2 %, and 14.2 % to 4.2 %, respectively, while a VRS efficiency change showed an increase from 4.0 % to 16.4 %. These changes are caused rather by the productivity change of the non big firms than that of the big firms, and this is seemed as a result of the increase of the
new accounting firms according to the relief of the accounting firm establishment condition.
As the result of the regression analysis on the identification of the elements that affect the productivity change before and after the accounting reform act, the change of the productivity index became larger, as the accounting and auditing ratio and management advisory service ratio
became larger. However, it was shown from the empirical analysis result that their increment was not considerably improved. Policy implications of these results are that to improve the accounting firms.
The difference of this study from the previous studies is that the change of the efficiency and the productivity were dissolved into the Malmquist Productivity Index, efficiency change, technical change, and scale efficiency change and analysed by resources. Unfortunately, several points that the SBM model considering the slacks in static analysis could not be used, that the input variable-accounting firm's human resources- were not detailed more, and that the output variable- taxtation service fee- on the business report was not classified into the title of account are still required for further deeper study.
- Author(s)
- 노희영
- Issued Date
- 2010
- Awarded Date
- 2010-08
- Type
- Dissertation
- URI
- https://repository.sungshin.ac.kr/handle/2025.oak/7354
http://dcollection.sungshin.ac.kr/jsp/common/DcLoOrgPer.jsp?sItemId=000000006437
- Alternative Author(s)
- Noh, Hee Young
- Affiliation
- 성신여자대학교 일반대학원 경영학과
- Department
- 일반대학원 경영학과
- Advisor
- 이석영
- Table Of Contents
- 논문개요
제1장 서론 ····························································1
제1절 연구동기 및 목적 ··············································1
제2절 논문의 구성 ··················································6
제2장 우리나라 회계산업에 대한 개관 ··································7
제1절 회계산업의 역사 ··············································7
1. 1960-1970년대 ·················································7
2. 1980-1990년대 ···············································8
3. 2000년-현재 ·················································10
제2절 회계감사제도의 변천 ·········································14
1. 배정제도 ······················································14
2. 자유수임제도 ··················································15
3. 감사인 지정제도 ···············································15
4. 감사인 유지제도 ··············································16
5. 감사인 강제교체제도 ··········································16
제3장 연구방법론과 기존문헌연구 ·····································17
제1절 이론의 변천 ·················································17
1. 효율성과 생산성 ···············································17
1.1 효율성 ······················································17
1.2 생산성 ······················································19
2. DEA이론의 개요 ··············································20
3. 정태적 모형 ···················································21
3.1 CCR모형 ···················································23
3.2 BCC모형 ···················································27
3.3 SBM모형 ···················································29
4. 동태적 모형 ··················································30
4.1 Malmquist 생산성 지수 ·····································31
4.2 방사적 여부와 지향적 여부 ··································36
4.3 모형식 ·····················································37
4.4 규모효율성 변화 ············································39
제2절 국내·외의 선행연구 ··········································42
1. 생산함수관련 선행연구 ········································42
2. DEA관련 선행연구 ············································43
2.1 국내연구 ···················································44
2.2 국외연구 ···················································45
제4장 연구설계 ······················································49
제1절 연구가설 ····················································49
1. 효율성 관련 가설 ·············································49
1.1 가설 1 ······················································49
1.2 가설 2 ·····················································52
2. 생산성변화 관련 가설 ·········································57
2.1 가설 3 ·····················································58
2.2 가설 4 ·····················································60
제2절 연구모형 ····················································62
1. DEA투입/산출변수 ············································62
2. 효율성 관련 모형 ·············································63
2.1 가설 1의 검증 ··············································64
2.2 가설 2의 검증 ··············································64
3. 생산성 관련 모형 ·············································66
3.1 가설 3의 검증 ············································· 67
3.2 가설 4의 검증 ··············································67
제3절 표본의 선정과 분석 기간 ·····································68
제5장 실증 분석 ·····················································70
제1절 기초통계량과 상관관계 ·······································70
1. DEA분석을 위한 투입/산출 변수 ·······························70
1.1 투입변수: 회계법인의 인적구성과 물적구성 ··················70
1.1.1 회계법인의 인적구성 ······································71
1.1.2 회계법인의 물적구성 ···································· 73
1.2 산출변수: 회계법인의 수익원천의 변화 ·······················74
2. 회귀분석 관련 변수 간 상관관계 ·······························77
3. 회귀분석 관련 변수의 기초통계량 ······························78
제2절 BCC 추정결과와 회귀분석 ····································80
1. BCC분석 결과 ················································ 81
1.1 가설 1의 검증 ···············································81
1.2 가설 1-1. 1-2의 검증 ·······································91
2. BCC회귀분석 결과(가설 2의 검증) ···························· 93
제3절 MI 추정결과와 회귀분석 ··································· 100
1. MI분석 결과 ················································ 100
1.1 가설 3의 검증 ············································ 100
1.2 가설 3-1, 3-2의 검증 ·································· 102
2. MI회귀분석 결과(가설 4의 검증) ······························107
제6장 요약 및 결론 ·················································109
제1절 요약 및 결론 ·············································· 109
제2절 연구의 공헌 및 한계점 ······································114
참고문헌 ···························································116
ABSTRACT ························································125
- Degree
- Doctor
- Publisher
- 성신여자대학교 일반대학원 경영학과
-
Appears in Collections:
- 경영학과 > 학위논문
- 공개 및 라이선스
-
- 파일 목록
-
Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.