【正文】 the most important engagementspecific determinants of audit quality and , while we use two alternative, advanced accrual models to alleviate a concern overthe limitations inherent in the Jones(1991)model estimates of abnormal accruals, our measures ofaudit quality, namely unsigned abnormal accruals, may suffer from nontrivial measurement therefore cannot pletely rule out the possibility that the estimated coefficients on our testvariables are , given that a contemporaneous study of Francis and Yu(2009)documents the same positive association between audit quality and audit office size using twoadditional proxies for audit quality, ., auditors’ tendency to issue goingconcern opinion andclient firms’ likelihood to meet earnings benchmarks, we believe that our results are unlikelydriven by possible measurement , our results suggest that both regulators and audit firms should pay more attention tothe behavior of small offices because they are more likely to be economically dependent on aparticular client, and thus to promise audit particular, Big 4 audit firms may need toimplement strategies for providing a more homogenous level of audit services across offices ofdifferent sizes because a poorquality audit by a small office could significantly damage thereputation of the entire today’s global business environment, the issue of maintaining“uniform quality” should be an even more important concern to reputable auditors because theirbusiness bees increasingly internationalized in terms of locations and client , it may be more difficult for Big 4 audit firms to maintain uniform quality of service atthe office level across different jurisdictions around the , local offices in differentjurisdictions(., European Union and China)have their own client bases and are likely to bemore autonomous in making auditrelated decisions than those within the is thereforepossible that the size of a local practicing office plays a more significant role in determining thequality of audit services in other than in the the scarcity ofinternational evidence regarding the effect of audit office size on audit quality and audit pricing,we remend further research on the issue using international samples from different ，審計(jì)質(zhì)量與審計(jì)定價(jià)JongHag Choi, Chansog(Francis)Kim, JeongBon Kim, and YoonseokZang 摘要：此論文使用20002005年間對(duì)美國(guó)審計(jì)事務(wù)所大量取樣的所得數(shù)據(jù)，以此調(diào)查審計(jì)事務(wù)所中當(dāng)?shù)剞k事處規(guī)模大小對(duì)審計(jì)質(zhì)量和審計(jì)價(jià)格。Francis et ).To the extent that the office size is positivelyassociated with audit quality, one can predict that the larger is the office size, the higher is theaudit quality, and thus the greater is the audit , a positive association between theoffice size and audit fees could be viewed as evidence corroborating the positive associationbetween the office size and audit testing our hypotheses, we assert that biased earnings reporting can be used to drawinferences about audit quality, and we use the magnitude of abnormal accruals as a proxy for measure abnormal accruals, we rely on two alternative models developed by Ball andShivakumar(2006)and Kothari et al.(2005).In addition, we estimate the size of a local engagement office using the Audit Analytics database, which provides the identity of audit engagementoffices for all SEC registrant measure office size in two different ways: one based onthe number of audit clients in each office, and the other based on a total of audit fees earned byeach , our results reveal that in the market, both audit quality and audit fees arepositively associated with office size after controlling for audit firm size at the national levelproxied by a Big 4 dummy variable , industry leadership at the local office level proxied by anindustry specialist dummy variable), and other relevant results are robust to abattery of sensitivity checks we study contributes to the existing literature in several , our paper is one of fewstudies which document that audit quality is not homogeneous across local offices within an our knowledge, our paper is one of the first studies that provide direct evidence that thesize of anauditengagementofficeisanimportant engagementspecific determinant of auditquality in the results of our study suggest that future research on audit quality differentiation needs to pay more attention to officelevel auditor behavior as the unit of analysis and tothe size of a local engagement , this paper is the first to consider office size as acritical factor in audit that no previous research has examined whether audit feesare influenced by the size of a local office, our evidence helps us better understand the nature ofauditorclient relationships in the context of audit , the findings in this study provide both regulators and practitioners with useful insightsinto what determines audit quality and thus audit results suggest that regulators wouldhave a better assessment of audit quality if they shift the level of quality parison to smallversus large auditors at the office level, and away from Big 4 versus nonBig 4 auditors at thenational theory on quality premiums claims that producing goods and services ofa uniform quality for various markets and consumers over time is crucial for maintaining qualitypremiums(., Klein and Leffler 1981。Balsam et 。Becker et 。第一篇：Audit Office Size, Audit Quality, and AuditPricing JongHag Choi, Chansog(Francis)Kim, JeongBon Kim, and YoonseokZang SUMMARY: Using a large sample of client firms over the period 2000–2005,this paper investigates whether and how the size of a local practice office within anaudit firmhereafter, office size is a significant, engagementspecific factor determiningaudit quality and audit fees over and beyond audit firm size at the national level andauditor industry leadership at the city or office our empirical tests, audit qualityis measured by unsigned abnormal accruals, and the office size is measu