Comparison of cost stickness in manufacturing businesses: The case of Turkey, Indonesia and Mexico

Yıl 2022, , 386 - 398, 30.04.2022

Haluk Bengü , Can Fidancan

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.1059594

Cited By: 3

Öz

In this study, it is aimed to test the cost stickiness of listed manufacturing companies operating in Turkey, Indonesia and Mexico. The data of 255 companies, 120 from Turkey, 101 from Indonesia and 34 from Mexico, were used from 2001-2019. The panel data set of 4,535 observations of the three countries was obtained from Thompson Reuters Eikon. Two-stage differential GMM and system GMM dynamic panel data estimation method is used. Cost stickiness behavior is analyzed in terms of sales and cost of sales and sales and selling, general and administrative expenses using two models. As a result of the examinations, while only one of the two models, namely partial stickiness, was found in Turkey and Indonesia, cost stickiness was found in both models in Mexico.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cost, Cost Stickness, Asymetric Cost Behavour

İmalat işletmelerinde maliyet yapışkanlığının karşılaştırılması: Türkiye, Endonezya ve Meksika örneği

Öz

Çalışmada Türkiye, Endonezya ve Meksika ülkelerinde faaliyet göstermekte olan borsaya kote imalat işletmelerinin maliyet yapışkanlığın test edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Türkiye’den 120, Endonezya’dan 101 ve Meksika’dan 34 olmak üzere toplam 255 imalat işletmenin 2001-2019 dönem sonu verilerinden faydalanılmıştır. Üç ülkenin 4,535 gözlem sayısına ait panel veri seti Thompson Reuters Eikon’dan elde edilmiştir. İki aşamalı fark ve sistem genelleştirilmiş moment veri tahmin yöntemi (GMM) kullanılmıştır. Maliyet yapışkanlığı davranışı iki model kullanılarak satışlar ile satışların maliyeti ve satışlar ile faaliyet giderleri çerçevesinde analiz edilmiştir. İncelemeler sonucunda Türkiye ve Endonezya’ya ait verilerin analiz edildiği iki modelden yalnızca satışlar ile faaliyet giderleri arasında yapışkanlık bulgusuna rastlanırken Meksika’ya ait verilerde ise hem satışlar ile satışların maliyeti hem de satışlar ile faaliyet giderleri arasında maliyet yapışkanlığı bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Maliyet, Maliyet Yapışkanlığı, Asimetrik Maliyet

Kaynakça

• Abu- Serdaneh, J. (2014). The Asyhmetrical Behavior of Cost: Evidence from Jordan. Internatioanl Business Research, 113-122.
• Anderson, M., Banker, R., & Janakiraman, S. (2003). Are Selling, General, and Administrative Costs “Sticky”? Journal of Accounting Research , 47-63.
• Andri, A., & Soenjoto, E. (2018). The Asymmetrical Cost Behavior: Cost Stickiness in Indonesian Listed Manufacturing Companies. SSRN, 1-9.
• Armanto, B., Tiono, K., & Suthiono, H. (2014). The Stickiness of Selling, General, and Administrative Cost in the Indonesia Companies. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 39-53.
• Banker, R., & Chen, L. (2006). Labor Market Characteristics and Cross-Country Differences in Cost Stickness. Management Accounting Section, 1-41.
• Baumgarten, D. (2012). The Cost Stickiness Phenomenon. Köln: Gabler Verlag.
• Chen, C., Lu, H., & Sougiannis, T. (2012). The Agency Problem, Corporate Governance And The Asymmetrical Behavior Of Selling, General, And Administrative Costs. Contemporary Accounting Research, 252-282.
• Çelik, M., & Kök, D. (2013). Türkiye'de Maliyet Yapışkanlığının Geçerliliği: İstanbul Menkul Kıymetler Borsası (İMKB) Örneğinde Panel Veri Analizi. Business and Economics Research Journal, 37-47.
• Dierynck, B., Landsman, W., & Renders, A. (2012). Do Managerial Incentives Drive Cost Behavior? Evidence about the Role of the Zero Earnings Benchmark for Labor Cost Behavior in Private Belgian Firms. The Accounting Review Vol. 87, No 4, 1219-1246.
• Gürkan, S., & Kaya, Ö. (2020). Asimetrik Maliyet Davranışı Teorisi Açısından Şirketlerin Maliyet Davranışlarının İncelenmesi: THY, Turkcell ve Tüpraş Örneği. Mali Çözüm Cilt: 30 Sayı:157, 31-47.
• Haamermesh, D., & Pfann, G. (1996). Adjustment Cost in Factor Demand. Journal of Economic Literature Vol. XXXIV, 1264-1292.
• Hacıhasanoğlu, T., & Dalkılıç, E. (2018). Maliyet Yapışkanlığını Hipotezinin BİST İmalat Sektörü Kapsamında Test Edilmesi. Hitit Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1802-1808.
• He, D. , Teruya, J., & Shimizu, T. (2010). Sticky Selling, General, and Administrative Cost Behavior and its Changes in Japan. Global Journal of Business Research Vol:4 No:4, 1-10.
• Ibrahim, A. (2015). Economic Growth And Cost Stickness: Evidence From Egypt. Journal of Financial Reporting And Accounting Vol. 13, 119-140.
• İskenderoğlu, Ö., Karadeniz, E., & Atioğlu, E. (2012). Türk Bankacılık Sektöründe Büyüme, Büyüklük ve Sermaye Yapısı Kararlarının Karlılığa Etkisinin Analizi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 291-311.
• Karadeniz, E., Günay, F., & Koşan, L. (2019). Halka Açık Konaklama İşletmelerinde Maliyet Yapışkanlığının Analizi. Journal of Tourism Theory And Research, 171-181.
• Noreen, E., & Söderström, N. (1997). The Accuracy of Proportional Cost Models: Evidence From Hospital Service Departments. Review of Accounting Studies, 89-114.
• Özkaya, H. (2020). Sticky Cost Behavior: Evidence From Small And Medium Sized Enterprises in Turkey. Eurasian Business Review, 349-369.
• Pamplona, E., Fiirst, C., Silva, T., & Zonatto, V. (2016). Sticky costs in cost behavior of the largest companies in Brazil, Chile and Mexico. Contaduría y administración.
• Pervan, M., & Pervan, I. (2012). Analysis of Sticky Costs: Croatian Evidence. Recent Researches in Business and Economics, 152-157.
• Reynoso, L., Rio, C., & Berrones, J. (2021). Sticky Costs and Expenses are not Alike: Mexican Reality. Journal of Accounting, Business and Management, 14-30.
• Roodman, D. (2006, 12 17). How to Do xtabond2: An Introduction to “Difference” and “System” GMM in Stata. Center For Global Development. Center For Global Development: https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/11619_file_HowtoDoxtabond8_with_foreword_0.pdf adresinden alındı
• Sun, R., Ho, K.-C., Gu, Y., & Chen, C.-C. (2019). Asymmetric Cost Behavior and Investment in R&D: Evidence from China’s Manufacturing Listed Companies. Sustainability , 1-15.
• Venieris, G., Naum, V., & Vlisman, O. (2015). Organisation Capital And Sticky Behaviour Of Selling, General And Administrative Expenses. Management Accounting Research, 54-82.
• Warganegara, D., & Tamara, D. (2014). The Impacts of Cost Stickiness on the Profitability of Indonesia Firms. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 3542-3545.
• Weidenmier, M., & Subramaniam, C. (2003). Additional Evidence on the Sticky Behavior of Costs. TCU Working Paper, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=369941.
• Weiss, D. (2010). Cost Behavior And Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts. The Accounting Review. , 1441-1444.
• Yunaz, F., & Sasongko, C. (2018). Competition and Cooperation in Economics and Business, 9-17.
• Zanella, F., Oyelere, P., & Hossain, S. (2015). Are Costs Really Sticky? Evidence From Publicly Listed Companies In The UAE. Applied Economics, 6519-6528.