IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-19-00178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of agency conflicts on audit quality demand: Evidence from Tunisia

Author

Listed:
  • Soumaya Ayedi

    (Assistant, GEF2A-Lab, University of Carthage, Faculty of Economics and Management of Nabeul)

  • Azhaar Lajmi

    (Assistant Professor, GEF2A-Lab, University of Tunis, Higher Institute of Management)

  • Emna Boumediene

    (Associate professor, MOCFINE, University of Manouba)

Abstract

This study investigates whether agency conflicts affected the demand of audit quality by Tunisian listed firms. Our theoretical framework suggests that firms with high agency conflicts were more likely to demand audit quality. Focusing on owners, shareholders and lenders agency conflicts, we conduct an empirical study based on data from 253 firm-year observations. Our findings are consistent with the predictions of agency theory. We show that an increase in managerial ownership decreases the likelihood that the firm will engage a Big 4 auditor. An increase in ownership concentration and leverage in high investment opportunities set, on the other hand, increases the likelihood of a firm demanding higher audit quality. We document that size of audited client is also a significant determinant of audit quality demand.

Suggested Citation

  • Soumaya Ayedi & Azhaar Lajmi & Emna Boumediene, 2019. "The effects of agency conflicts on audit quality demand: Evidence from Tunisia," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(3), pages 2175-2183.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-19-00178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2019/Volume39/EB-19-V39-I3-P204.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jill Collis & Robin Jarvis & Len Skerratt, 2004. "The demand for the audit in small companies in the UK," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(2), pages 87-100.
    2. Azhaar Lajmi & Marjène Gana, 2011. "Structure de Propriété et Qualité de l'Audit Externe : Cas des Entreprises Belges Cotées," Post-Print hal-00650542, HAL.
    3. Hope, Ole-Kristian & Langli, John Christian & Thomas, Wayne B., 2012. "Agency conflicts and auditing in private firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 500-517.
    4. Watts, Ross L & Zimmerman, Jerold L, 1983. "Agency Problems, Auditing, and the Theory of the Firm: Some Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(3), pages 613-633, October.
    5. Sabri Boubaker & Duc Khuong Nguyen (ed.), 2012. "Board Directors and Corporate Social Responsibility," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-38930-4, March.
    6. Khan, Arifur & Muttakin, Mohammad Badrul & Siddiqui, Javed, 2015. "Audit fees, auditor choice and stakeholder influence: Evidence from a family-firm dominated economy," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 304-320.
    7. Salim Darmadi, 2016. "Ownership concentration, family control, and auditor choice," Asian Review of Accounting, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 24(1), pages 19-42, February.
    8. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1986. "Large Shareholders and Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 461-488, June.
    9. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1988. "Management ownership and market valuation," Scholarly Articles 29407535, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    10. Clive Lennox, 2005. "Management Ownership and Audit Firm Size," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 205-227, March.
    11. Charles Piot, 2001. "Agency costs and audit quality: evidence from France," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 461-499.
    12. Joseph P. H. Fan & T. J. Wong, 2005. "Do External Auditors Perform a Corporate Governance Role in Emerging Markets? Evidence from East Asia," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 35-72, March.
    13. Aladdin Dwekat & Zeena Mardawi & Islam Abdeljawad, 2018. "Corporate Governance and Auditor Quality Choice: Evidence from Palestinian Corporations," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 8(2), pages 47-53.
    14. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1988. "Management ownership and market valuation : An empirical analysis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 293-315, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maarten Corten & Tensie Steijvers & Nadine Lybaert, 2015. "The demand for auditor services in wholly family-owned private firms: the moderating role of generation," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(1), pages 1-26, January.
    2. Chiraz Ben Ali, 2014. "Corporate Governance, Principal-Principal Agency Conflicts, and Disclosure," Working Papers 2014-125, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    3. Raúl Barroso & Chiraz Ben Ali & Cédric Lesage, 2018. "Blockholders’ Ownership and Audit Fees: The Impact of the Corporate Governance Model," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 149-172, January.
    4. Mohamed M. El-Dyasty & Ahmed A. Elamer, 2021. "The effect of ownership structure and board characteristics on auditor choice: evidence from Egypt," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(4), pages 362-377, December.
    5. Ben Ali Chiraz & Cédric Lesage, 2010. "Ownership concentration and audit fees: do auditors matter most when investors are protected least?," Post-Print hal-00476923, HAL.
    6. Pascal Dumontier & Sonda Chtourou & Soumaya Ayedi, 2006. "La qualité de l'audit externe et les mécanismes de gouvernance des entreprises : Une étude empirique menée dans le contexte tunisien," Post-Print halshs-00548115, HAL.
    7. Shan, Yuan George & Troshani, Indrit & Tarca, Ann, 2019. "Managerial ownership, audit firm size, and audit fees: Australian evidence," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 18-36.
    8. repec:ipg:wpaper:2014-417 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Fuxiu Jiang & Kenneth A Kim, 2020. "Corporate Governance in China: A Survey [The role of boards of directors in corporate governance: a conceptual framework and survey]," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 24(4), pages 733-772.
    10. Najah Attig & Sadok El Ghoul & Omrane Guedhami & Sorin Rizeanu, 2013. "The governance role of multiple large shareholders: evidence from the valuation of cash holdings," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 17(2), pages 419-451, May.
    11. Connelly, J. Thomas & Limpaphayom, Piman & Nagarajan, Nandu J., 2012. "Form versus substance: The effect of ownership structure and corporate governance on firm value in Thailand," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1722-1743.
    12. Ezzeddine Abaoub & Soumaya Ayedi Chabchoub, 2008. "La demande de la qualité de l'audit externe : Quel apport de la théorie d'agence dans le contexte tunisien ?," Post-Print halshs-00522064, HAL.
    13. Hussein Abedi Shamsabadi & Byung-Seong Min & Richard Chung, 2016. "Corporate governance and dividend strategy: lessons from Australia," International Journal of Managerial Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 12(5), pages 583-610, October.
    14. Mazlina Mustapha & Ayoib Che Ahmad, 2011. "Agency theory and managerial ownership: evidence from Malaysia," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(5), pages 419-436, May.
    15. Sohail Ahmad Javeed & Tze San Ong & Rashid Latief & Haslinah Muhamad & Wei Ni Soh, 2021. "Conceptualizing the Moderating Role of CEO Power and Ownership Concentration in the Relationship between Audit Committee and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-26, June.
    16. Saibal Ghosh, 2023. "Auditor Exits and Firm Performance: Is There a Link?," Journal of Emerging Market Finance, Institute for Financial Management and Research, vol. 22(1), pages 31-56, March.
    17. Muttakin, Mohammad Badrul & Monem, Reza M. & Khan, Arifur & Subramaniam, Nava, 2015. "Family firms, firm performance and political connections: Evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 215-230.
    18. Dendi Ramdani & Arjen Witteloostuijn, 2012. "The Shareholder–Manager Relationship and Its Impact on the Likelihood of Firm Bribery," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 495-507, July.
    19. S. Mbulawa & N. F. Okurut & M. M. Ntsosa & N. Sinha, 2020. "Determinants of Corporate Dividend Policy under Hyperinflation and Dollarization by Firms in Zimbabwe," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 10(2), pages 1-1.
    20. Goergen, Marc & Manjon, Miguel C. & Renneboog, Luc, 2008. "Recent developments in German corporate governance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 175-193, September.
    21. Stavros E. Arvanitis & Theodoros V. Stamatopoulos & Dimitris Terzakis, 2018. "Is There a Non-linear Relationship of Market Value with Cash and Ownership?," SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, University of Piraeus, vol. 68(1), pages 3-25, January-M.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    audit quality; agency theory; ownership structure; leverage; investment opportunities;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M4 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting
    • G3 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-19-00178. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.