Auditor Type and Audit Quality in China: The Role of State Ownership

This study examines the resource-based view (RBV) against the institution-based view (IBV) using China's state-engineered audit market, where a decade of policy-driven consolidation created a Top 6 group of local audit firms intended to rival the Big 4. The RBV suggests that the Big 4's accumulated, firm-specific resources should sustain a quality advantage regardless of policy support. The IBV suggests that state-conferred institutional capital, reinforced by state ownership (SOE) on the client side, should narrow or eliminate that advantage. Using a sample of 4,525 listed companies and 17,047 firm-year observations covering 2019–2023, audit quality is proxied by audit fees, discretionary accruals, modified audit opinions, and financial solvency (the Altman Z-score), with a Heckman two-stage model addressing auditor-choice selection bias. Because Hausman tests reject random effects in favour of fixed effects for all four proxies (p < 0.01), the models are estimated with firm and year fixed effects and standard errors clustered at the firm level; variance inflation factors remain below 3.1 throughout, and the current ratio and leverage are excluded from the financial-solvency equations because both are direct arithmetic components of the Altman Z-score used to construct that measure. Under this firm-level test, only the Big 4's audit-fee premium proves robust, persisting after the Heckman correction and consistent with the RBV. The Big 4's advantage does not extend to the other three proxies once time-invariant firm heterogeneity is controlled for: discretionary accruals are statistically indistinguishable across auditor tiers, the Top 6 rather than the Big 4 are significantly associated with a higher incidence of modified opinions, and the Top 6 show only a marginal association with stronger financial solvency (p < 0.10) with no corresponding Big 4 effect. State ownership does not significantly moderate the relationship between auditor type and any of the four audit-quality proxies once firm heterogeneity is controlled for. These findings indicate that the Big 4's resource-based advantage in China is concentrated in fee-setting rather than distributed evenly across audit-quality dimensions, and that associations reported under less conservative panel specifications, including an apparent state-ownership link to financial solvency, do not survive controlling for firm-level heterogeneity. The focus on Chinese listed firms limits generalizability to other emerging markets, though the RBV-IBV framework itself is transportable to settings where governments have sponsored domestic professional-service champions. Policy aimed at closing audit quality gaps through consolidation or institutional protection should be paired with direct investment in the technical and human-capital resources that continue to distinguish the Big 4 on the one dimension of audit quality, pricing power, where their advantage remains demonstrable.

Keywords

Auditor type, audit quality, resource-based view, institution-based view, state ownership

Downloads

PDF JATS XML

References

1. Alharasis, E. E., Alidarous, M., & Jamaani, F. (2022). Auditor industry expertise and external audit prices: Empirical evidence from Amman Stock Exchange-listed companies. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 8(1), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajar-02-2022-0051 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Cahan, S., Hay, D., & Li, L. Z. (2020). Audit firm merger and the strategic response by large audit firms. The British Accounting Review, 53(3), 100941. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Chan, K., Guo, Y., & Mo, P. L. L. (2020). Can auditors’ local knowledge compensate for a weaker regulatory oversight for the audit quality of foreign companies? Accounting and Business Research, 51(2), 127–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2020.1780109 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chang, H., Guo, Y., & Mo, P. L. L. (2019). Market competition, audit fee stickiness, and audit quality: Evidence from China. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 38(2), 79–99. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Che, L., Hope, O. K., & Langli, J. C. (2020). How Big-4 firms improve audit quality. Management Science, 66(10), 4552–4572. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chen, J., Dong, W., Li, S., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Perceived audit quality, state ownership, and stock price delay: Evidence from China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 25(1–2), 253–275. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chen, L., Huang, J., & Chen, X. (2020). Mixed-ownership reform and auditor choice: Evidence from listed state-owned enterprises. China Journal of Accounting Studies, 8(3), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/21697213.2021.1921975 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Chen, S., Krishnan, G. V., Li, W., & Zhang, Y. (2022). Do Big 4 auditors enhance audit quality in China? A “Behind the Scenes Look”. Journal of International Accounting Research, 21(2), 31–56. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Deng, S., & Macve, R. (2017). Perspectives from Mainland China, Hong Kong and the UK on the potential future roles of China’s auditing firms in the global profession. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3101435 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Deng, S., & Macve, R. (2018). How China has built an accounting and auditing profession with potential global impact. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3102253 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. El-Dyasty, M. M., & Elamer, A. A. (2020). The effect of auditor type on audit quality in emerging markets: Evidence from Egypt. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 29(1), 43–67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Feng, Z. Y., Huang, H. W., & Dao, M. (2020). US Big 4 and local auditors in the China initial public offering market. Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies, 22(04), 1950024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ferguson, C., Pinnuck, M., & Skinner, D. J. (2025). Why did the Big Four get so large? Evidence from Australia. Review of Accounting Studies, 30(3), 2508–2554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-025-09871-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Gillis, P. L. (2011). The Big Four in China: Hegemony and counter-hegemony in the development of the accounting profession in China. Ashgate Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Gong, Q., Li, O. Z., Lin, Y., & Wu, L. (2015). On the benefits of audit market consolidation: Evidence from merged audit firms. The Accounting Review, 91(2), 463–488. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Habib, A., Jiang, H., & Zhou, D. (2014). Audit quality and market pricing of earnings and earnings components in China. Asian Review of Accounting, 22(1), 20–34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Houqe, M. N., Monem, R., & Zijl, T. van. (2012). Government quality, auditor choice and adoption of IFRS: A cross country analysis. Advances in Accounting, 28(2), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2012.09.013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Karim, A. W., Zijl, T. van, & Mollah, S. (2013). Impact of board ownership, CEO-Chair duality and foreign equity participation on auditor quality choice of IPO companies: Evidence from an emerging market. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 21(2), 148–169. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ke, B., Lennox, C. S., & Xin, Q. (2015). The effect of China's weak institutional environment on the quality of Big 4 audits. The Accounting Review, 90(4), 1591–1619. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kharuddin, K. A. M., Basioudis, I. G., & Farooque, O. A. (2021). Effects of the Big 4 national and city-level industry expertise on audit quality in the United Kingdom. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 43, 100398. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Khurana, I. K., Lundstrom, N. G., & Raman, K. K. (2020). PCAOB inspections and the differential audit quality effect for Big 4 and non-Big 4 auditors. Contemporary Accounting Research, 38(1), 376–411. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Kim, J. B., Liu, X., & Zheng, L. (2012). The impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on audit fees: Theory and evidence. The Accounting Review, 87(6), 2061–2094. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kitto, A. R. (2024). The effects of non-Big 4 mergers on audit efficiency and audit market competition. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 77(1), Article 101618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2023.101618 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lento, C., & Yeung, W. H. (2021). The role of the Big 4 and second-tier international networks in redeveloping China’s audit market. Managerial Auditing Journal, 36(1), 40–71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Leung, N. W., Liu, J. J., & Wong, B. (2019). The emergence of second-tier auditors in China: Analysis of audit fee premium and audit quality. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 26(6), 684–708. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Li, B., Zhou, Y., Zhang, T., & Liu, Y. (2021). The impact of smog pollution on audit quality: Evidence from China. Atmosphere, 12(8), 1015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Li, X., Chen, X., Qi, B., & Tian, G. (2020). Employee quality and audit fee: Evidence from China. Accounting & Finance, 60(5), 4533–4566. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Liu, S. (2017). An empirical study: Auditors’ characteristics and audit fee. Open Journal of Accounting, 6(2), 52–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Liu, Y., Chen, J. Z., Chi, W., & Long, X. (2023). Auditors’ legal liability and client firms’ comparability: Evidence from China. Managerial Auditing Journal, 38(5), 685–709. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Macve, R. (2020). Perspectives from mainland China, Hong Kong and the UK on the development of China’s auditing firms: Implications and a research agenda. Accounting and Business Research, 50(7), 641–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2020.1736494 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Mao, J., Qi, B., & Xu, Q. (2017). Does international accounting network membership affect audit fees and audit quality? Evidence from China. The International Journal of Accounting, 52(3), 262–278. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Nguyen, L. Q. T., Le, D. T., Luu, H. N., Nguyen, A. H., & Hoang, T. G. (2019). The role of audit quality in preventing firm misreporting: Empirical evidence from China. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 16(1), 83–103. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y. L., & Jiang, Y. (2008). An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 920–936. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Rahman, M. J., & Wu, T. (2021). Volatility of other comprehensive income and audit fees: Evidence from China. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 18(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Rahman, M. J., Zhu, H., & Hossain, M. M. (2023). Auditor choice and audit fees through the lens of agency theory: Evidence from Chinese family firms. Journal of Family Business Management, 13(4), 1248–1276. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Rajgopal, S., Srinivasan, S., & Zheng, X. (2021). Measuring audit quality. Review of Accounting Studies, 26(2), 559–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-020-09570-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Tam, K., Xu, Q., Fernando, G., & Schneible, R. A. (2023). “Tone at the top”: Management’s discussion and analysis and audit quality. Managerial Auditing Journal. [Volume/issue/page details incomplete in source – please verify and complete before submission.] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Trần, M. D., Khairi, K. F., & Laili, N. H. (2019). A longitudinal study of audit quality differences among independent auditors. Journal of Economics and Development, 21(2), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/jed-10-2019-0040 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Tran, N. M., & Trần, M. H. (2023). Do audit firm reputation provide insight into financial reporting quality? Evidence from accrual and real management of listed companies in Vietnam. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2197675 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Wang, T. (2022). Can Big 4 auditors increase audit quality. BCP Business Management, 25, 246–253. https://doi.org/10.54691/bcpbm.v25i.1764 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Wu, X., Wang, C., & Li, B. (2018). Competition in China’s public accounting service market: Evidence from newly-established branch offices. China Journal of Accounting Studies, 6(4), 421–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/21697213.2019.1612191 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Wu, X., Sun, H., Kang, H., & Lee, J. (2024). Assessing the impact of analyst coverage and political connections on audit opinion shopping in China’s corporate sector. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5325102/v1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Xin, Q., Liu, Y., & Tang, Y. (2023). China's audit market competition and the competitive strategies of the international Big 4 audit firms. China Journal of Accounting Studies, 11(3), 574–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/21697213.2023.2239675 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Zhan, J., Her, Y., & Chen, K. (2020). Audit quality and audit size: Evidence from auditor mergers in China. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 31(3), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.22447 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Zhan, J., & Magnan, M. (2008). Auditor incentive and audit size: Evidence from Chinese audit market. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1082945 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Zheng, W., & Rahmat, M. F. (2023). Market competitive strategy, government ownership and audit firm choice: Evidence from China. Jurnal Pengurusan, 68. https://doi.org/10.17576/pengurusan-2023-68-13 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

Auditor Type and Audit Quality in China: The Role of State Ownership

Authors

Article Information

Publication Timeline

Abstract

Keywords

Downloads

References

Metrics

Views & Downloads

Similar Articles