A rejoinder to 'Measuring production efficiency in a not-for

A rejoinder to 'Measuring production efficiency in a not-for

Mensah and Li (1993) find fault with Hayes and Millar's implied assumption of cross-sectionally fixed cost shares and the use of an additional measure of output and an alternative measure of technology, which raises questions regarding model specification. In a rejoinder, Hayes and Millar discu...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Accounting review 1993-01, Vol.68 (1), p.89
Hauptverfasser: Hayes, Robert D, Millar, James A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Budgeting
Efficiency
Nonprofit organizations
Studies
Variables
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page 89
container_title The Accounting review
container_volume 68
creator Hayes, Robert D
Millar, James A
description Mensah and Li (1993) find fault with Hayes and Millar's implied assumption of cross-sectionally fixed cost shares and the use of an additional measure of output and an alternative measure of technology, which raises questions regarding model specification. In a rejoinder, Hayes and Millar discuss 2 areas of concern in order to address any previous omissions, needed clarifications, or differences in purposes. Their intended interpretation is that 1. line-item budgeting requires that the cost shares be fixed for the duration of the budget period for a given operating unit, and 2. fixed cost shares may inhibit the discretionary power of operating unit managers to substitute one input for another in an environment of changing relative input prices. The estimation procedure with cross-sectional data simply contemplates that the budgetary units are operating at different points on an underlying production function.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_218530967</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>86302</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_2185309673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjrsKAjEURIMouD7-4WJjFUj2vWAjotjY2S_LbiIJcq_mUfj3pvADrIbhzIGZsUxWVcubrm7mLBNCSF62eb1kK-9tqmXdyYwdjuCUJYOTchAI9jc1-OgMPuDlaIpjMISgtDajUTh-wCAMgBS4JrdhCz08vdr-cs12l_P9dOVJfUflQ28pOkyoz2VbFSJ9Kf4afQGLiTgL</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218530967</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A rejoinder to 'Measuring production efficiency in a not-for</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Hayes, Robert D ; Millar, James A</creator><creatorcontrib>Hayes, Robert D ; Millar, James A</creatorcontrib><description>Mensah and Li (1993) find fault with Hayes and Millar's implied assumption of cross-sectionally fixed cost shares and the use of an additional measure of output and an alternative measure of technology, which raises questions regarding model specification. In a rejoinder, Hayes and Millar discuss 2 areas of concern in order to address any previous omissions, needed clarifications, or differences in purposes. Their intended interpretation is that 1. line-item budgeting requires that the cost shares be fixed for the duration of the budget period for a given operating unit, and 2. fixed cost shares may inhibit the discretionary power of operating unit managers to substitute one input for another in an environment of changing relative input prices. The estimation procedure with cross-sectional data simply contemplates that the budgetary units are operating at different points on an underlying production function.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0001-4826</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1558-7967</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ACRVAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Sarasota: American Accounting Association</publisher><subject>Budgeting ; Efficiency ; Nonprofit organizations ; Studies ; Variables</subject><ispartof>The Accounting review, 1993-01, Vol.68 (1), p.89</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Accounting Association Jan 1993</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hayes, Robert D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Millar, James A</creatorcontrib><title>A rejoinder to 'Measuring production efficiency in a not-for</title><title>The Accounting review</title><description>Mensah and Li (1993) find fault with Hayes and Millar's implied assumption of cross-sectionally fixed cost shares and the use of an additional measure of output and an alternative measure of technology, which raises questions regarding model specification. In a rejoinder, Hayes and Millar discuss 2 areas of concern in order to address any previous omissions, needed clarifications, or differences in purposes. Their intended interpretation is that 1. line-item budgeting requires that the cost shares be fixed for the duration of the budget period for a given operating unit, and 2. fixed cost shares may inhibit the discretionary power of operating unit managers to substitute one input for another in an environment of changing relative input prices. The estimation procedure with cross-sectional data simply contemplates that the budgetary units are operating at different points on an underlying production function.</description><subject>Budgeting</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Nonprofit organizations</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Variables</subject><issn>0001-4826</issn><issn>1558-7967</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1993</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNjrsKAjEURIMouD7-4WJjFUj2vWAjotjY2S_LbiIJcq_mUfj3pvADrIbhzIGZsUxWVcubrm7mLBNCSF62eb1kK-9tqmXdyYwdjuCUJYOTchAI9jc1-OgMPuDlaIpjMISgtDajUTh-wCAMgBS4JrdhCz08vdr-cs12l_P9dOVJfUflQ28pOkyoz2VbFSJ9Kf4afQGLiTgL</recordid><startdate>19930101</startdate><enddate>19930101</enddate><creator>Hayes, Robert D</creator><creator>Millar, James A</creator><general>American Accounting Association</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X1</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8A9</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ANIOZ</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRAZJ</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19930101</creationdate><title>A rejoinder to 'Measuring production efficiency in a not-for</title><author>Hayes, Robert D ; Millar, James A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_2185309673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1993</creationdate><topic>Budgeting</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Nonprofit organizations</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Variables</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hayes, Robert D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Millar, James A</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Accounting &amp; Tax Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Accounting &amp; Tax Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax &amp; Banking Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax &amp; Banking Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>The Accounting review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hayes, Robert D</au><au>Millar, James A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A rejoinder to 'Measuring production efficiency in a not-for</atitle><jtitle>The Accounting review</jtitle><date>1993-01-01</date><risdate>1993</risdate><volume>68</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>89</spage><pages>89-</pages><issn>0001-4826</issn><eissn>1558-7967</eissn><coden>ACRVAS</coden><abstract>Mensah and Li (1993) find fault with Hayes and Millar's implied assumption of cross-sectionally fixed cost shares and the use of an additional measure of output and an alternative measure of technology, which raises questions regarding model specification. In a rejoinder, Hayes and Millar discuss 2 areas of concern in order to address any previous omissions, needed clarifications, or differences in purposes. Their intended interpretation is that 1. line-item budgeting requires that the cost shares be fixed for the duration of the budget period for a given operating unit, and 2. fixed cost shares may inhibit the discretionary power of operating unit managers to substitute one input for another in an environment of changing relative input prices. The estimation procedure with cross-sectional data simply contemplates that the budgetary units are operating at different points on an underlying production function.</abstract><cop>Sarasota</cop><pub>American Accounting Association</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0001-4826
ispartof The Accounting review, 1993-01, Vol.68 (1), p.89
issn 0001-4826
1558-7967
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_218530967
source EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Budgeting
Efficiency
Nonprofit organizations
Studies
Variables
title A rejoinder to 'Measuring production efficiency in a not-for
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T23%3A58%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20rejoinder%20to%20'Measuring%20production%20efficiency%20in%20a%20not-for&rft.jtitle=The%20Accounting%20review&rft.au=Hayes,%20Robert%20D&rft.date=1993-01-01&rft.volume=68&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=89&rft.pages=89-&rft.issn=0001-4826&rft.eissn=1558-7967&rft.coden=ACRVAS&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E86302%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218530967&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true