Reconsidering the participative budgeting–performance relation: A meta-analysis regarding the impact of level of analysis, sample selection, measurement, and industry influences

Klaus Derfuss

The British Accounting Review, 2016, vol. 48, issue 1, 17-37

Abstract: The relationship of participative budgeting with performance presents a much debated but still unsettled issue in management accounting research. In this paper, meta-analysis is used to explore, whether methodological concerns, such as the level of analysis, sample selection, and variations in the measurement of performance, and theoretical concerns, such as industry differences, help explain observed inconsistencies in prior results. In line with theoretical predictions, the overall participative budgeting–performance relation is positive and significant. Moreover, this relation and the positive, significant ones of participative budgeting with departmental, budgetary, and managerial performance generalize across settings. In addition, for the relation with managerial performance, moderating influences of objective versus subjective and relative versus absolute self-rating measures of performance as well as private versus public sector samples emerge, which thus are important boundary conditions for future theory development. In contrast to theoretical predictions, the relation of participative budgeting with organizational performance is heterogeneous and does not generalize across settings.

Keywords: Participative budgeting; Performance; Meta-analysis; Level of analysis; Measurement; Industry (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890838915000347
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:bracre:v:48:y:2016:i:1:p:17-37

DOI: 10.1016/j.bar.2015.07.001

Access Statistics for this article

The British Accounting Review is currently edited by Nathan Lael Joseph and Alan Lowe

More articles in The British Accounting Review from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().