IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/bracre/v39y2007i1p39-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The attitude of Libyan auditors to inherent control risk assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Ritchie, Bob
  • Khorwatt, Esamaddin

Abstract

Previous empirical evidence contradicts the practices of audit risk assessment recommended by the professional auditing standards. Key differences represent the presumption that auditors can readily distinguish between different categories of risk, how they assess such risks in practice, their application to the different account levels and their capacity to differentiate between what may constitute potentially high or low risks. The paper addresses these differences in the context of the Libyan auditors’ perceptions and practices. The nature and development of the audit profession in Libya makes this a good comparator for the US and UK contexts of audit behaviour. Equally importantly, the religious, political and socio-cultural context combined with Libya's role as an emergent economy is representative of many other economies in the world, thus providing a good comparator for assessing the validity and applicability of the established auditing management principles and procedures. One hundred and sixty four practicing auditors in Libya were investigated, initially by questionnaire and subsequently interview of a smaller sample of 20 auditors. The evidence reinforces prior empirical evidence that inherent and control risks are assessed interdependently, auditors are aware of the risk differentials depending on the level of account and are cognizant of factors normally associated with potentially high and low risk levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Ritchie, Bob & Khorwatt, Esamaddin, 2007. "The attitude of Libyan auditors to inherent control risk assessment," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 39-59.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:bracre:v:39:y:2007:i:1:p:39-59
    DOI: 10.1016/j.bar.2006.11.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890838906001247
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.bar.2006.11.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haskins, Mark E. & Dirsmith, Mark W., 1995. "Control and inherent risk assessments in client engagements: An examination of their interdependencies," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 63-83.
    2. Arnold Wright & Sally Wright, 1996. "The Relationship Between Assessments of Internal Control Strength and Error Occurrence, Impact and Cause," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 58-71.
    3. Dirsmith, Mark W. & Haskins, Mark E., 1991. "Inherent risk assessment and audit firm technology: A contrast in world theories," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 61-90.
    4. Colbert, Janet L., 1988. "Inherent risk: An investigation of auditors' judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 111-121, March.
    5. Luc Quadackers & Theodore Mock & Steven Maijoor, 1996. "Audit risk and audit programmes: archival evidence from four Dutch audit firms," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 217-237.
    6. Peters, James M. & Lewis, Barry L. & Dhar, Vasant, 1989. "Assessing inherent risk during audit planning: The development of a knowledge based model," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 359-378, July.
    7. Peters, Jm, 1990. "A Cognitive Computational Model Of Risk Hypothesis Generation," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28, pages 83-103.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Masoud, Najeb, 2017. "An empirical study of audit expectation-performance gap: The case of Libya," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-15.
    2. Yasser Barghathi & David Collison & Louise Crawford, 2018. "Earnings management and audit quality: stakeholders’ perceptions," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 22(3), pages 629-659, September.

    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. Gary S. Monroe & Juliana K. L. Ng & David R. Woodliff, 1993. "The Importance Of Inherent Risk Factors: Auditors‘ Perceptions," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 3(6), pages 34-46, November.
    2. Steven Salterio, 1994. "Researching for Accounting Precedents: Learning, Efficiency, and Effectiveness," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 515-542, June.
    3. Philip A Collier & Stewart A Leech & Nicole Clark, 1999. "A validated expert system for decision making in corporate recovery," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 75-88, June.
    4. Mohammad Hudaib & Roszaini Haniffa, 2009. "Exploring auditor independence: an interpretive approach," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 22(2), pages 221-246, January.
    5. Federica De Santis, 2016. "Auditing Standard Change and Auditors' Everyday Practice: A Field Study," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(12), pages 41-54, December.
    6. Hung Chan, K. & Mo, Phyllis L. L., 1998. "Ownership effects on audit-detected error characteristics: An empirical study in an emerging economy," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 235-261.
    7. Skerratt, L.C.L. & Woodhead, A., 1992. "Modelling audit risk," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 119-137.
    8. W. Robert Knechel & Lasse Niemi & Mikko Zerni, 2013. "Empirical Evidence on the Implicit Determinants of Compensation in Big 4 Audit Partnerships," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 349-387, May.
    9. Power, Michael K., 2003. "Auditing and the production of legitimacy," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 379-394, May.
    10. Timothy C. Miller & Michael Cipriano & Robert J. Ramsay, 2012. "Do auditors assess inherent risk as if there are no controls?," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 27(5), pages 448-461, May.
    11. Edgley, Carla, 2014. "A genealogy of accounting materiality," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 255-271.
    12. Prof. R.W Gakure & John Karanja Ngugi & Peter Musangi Ndwiga & Simon Maina Waithaka, 2012. "Effect 0f Credit Risk Management Techniques 0n The Performance 0f Unsecured Bank Loans Employed Commercial Banks In Kenya," International Journal of Business and Social Research, MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, vol. 2(4), pages 221-236, August.
    13. Chalmers, Keryn & Hay, David & Khlif, Hichem, 2019. "Internal control in accounting research: A review," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 80-103.
    14. Alan Kilgore & Renee Radich & Graeme Harrison, 2011. "The Relative Importance of Audit Quality Attributes," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 21(3), pages 253-265, September.
    15. Maroun, Warren & Duboisée de Ricquebourg, Alan, 2024. "How auditors identify and report key audit matters - An organizational routines perspective," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    16. Coller, Maribeth & Tuttle, Brad, 2002. "The acquisition of price-relevant domain knowledge by a market," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 77-101, February.
    17. Stamatios Dritsas & George Petrakos, 2018. "Risk of Material Misstatement in Fluctuated Economic Environments: The Case of Greece," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(6), pages 243-248, June.
    18. Bo Cowgill, 2019. "Bias and Productivity in Humans and Machines," Upjohn Working Papers 19-309, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    19. Bikki Jaggi & Judy Tsui, 1999. "Determinants of audit report lag: further evidence from Hong Kong," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 17-28.
    20. Lineke Sneller & Ries Bode & Arnoud Klerkx, 2017. "Do IT matters matter? IT-related key audit matters in Dutch annual reports," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 139-151, May.

    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:eee:bracre:v:39:y:2007:i:1:p:39-59. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-british-accounting-review .

    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.