ABSTRACT
Numerous higher education institutions apply a full costing system in their accounting model due to the imposition of formal agents (governments/funding institutions), or by suggestion of informal agents (associations). This paper analyzes whether the rationale applied by these agents to justify the use of the full costing rather than the direct/variable system is consistent with the theoretical bases underlying both costing systems. Methodologically, we review the mainstream literature that explores the links between the management accounting model and the use of its informative outcomes for the decision-making in higher education institutions. We conclude that there exists a gap between the theory-based statements and the information needs of these institutions. Remarkably, the full costing system falls short of adequateness for these institutions, which need information for their managerial decision-making process rather than for other industries' decisions such as stock valuation. Thus, this paper contributes to a critical view on the use of full costing systems and calls for redirecting current practices towards other more effective partial costing systems. Our findings have implications for academic, managers and policymakers interested on the implementation and improvement of managerial accounting in public higher education institutions.
