Article of Capital Budgeting Survey
Capital Budgeting Surveys: The
Future is Now
Richard M. Burns and Joe Walker
This research is motivated by two major factors: (1) the over twenty year hiatus since the last thorough review ofthe capital budgeting survey literature, and (2) past appeals to the finance academic community by researchers to explore neglected areas ofthe capital budgeting process. In response, and using a four-stage capital budgeting process as a guide, the authors review the capital budgeting survey literature from 1984 through 2008 and find that some ofthe neglected areas have infact been directly addressed. Unfortunately, the most prevalent focus of capital budgeting surveys continues to be that ofthe selection stage. As a result, many areas ofthe capital budgeting process still remain relatively unexplored, providing numerous survey research opportunities.
This research effort is motivated by two tnajor factors: 1) the twenty year hiatus since the last thorough review of the capital budgeting survey literature, and 2) past observations and appeals made to the finance academic community by fellow researchers to explore neglected areas of the capital budgeting process through more focused and directed survey research. Richard M. Burns is a Professor of Finance at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL Joe Walker is an Associate Professor of Finance at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL.
The authors wish to thank the Editor and the anonymous referee for their many helpful comments and suggestions.
78
The first factor stands on its own as justification for an update of the capital budgeting survey literature. The last comprehensive reviews were made by researchers Scott and
Petty (1984) and Mukherjee (1987) over twenty years ago.
Regarding the second factor, almost three decades ago,
Kim (1979) noted that too much emphasis was being placed on methods of ranking and selecting capital budgeting proposals. Scott and Petty (1984) also
Future is Now
Richard M. Burns and Joe Walker
This research is motivated by two major factors: (1) the over twenty year hiatus since the last thorough review ofthe capital budgeting survey literature, and (2) past appeals to the finance academic community by researchers to explore neglected areas ofthe capital budgeting process. In response, and using a four-stage capital budgeting process as a guide, the authors review the capital budgeting survey literature from 1984 through 2008 and find that some ofthe neglected areas have infact been directly addressed. Unfortunately, the most prevalent focus of capital budgeting surveys continues to be that ofthe selection stage. As a result, many areas ofthe capital budgeting process still remain relatively unexplored, providing numerous survey research opportunities.
This research effort is motivated by two tnajor factors: 1) the twenty year hiatus since the last thorough review of the capital budgeting survey literature, and 2) past observations and appeals made to the finance academic community by fellow researchers to explore neglected areas of the capital budgeting process through more focused and directed survey research. Richard M. Burns is a Professor of Finance at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL Joe Walker is an Associate Professor of Finance at the
University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL.
The authors wish to thank the Editor and the anonymous referee for their many helpful comments and suggestions.
78
The first factor stands on its own as justification for an update of the capital budgeting survey literature. The last comprehensive reviews were made by researchers Scott and
Petty (1984) and Mukherjee (1987) over twenty years ago.
Regarding the second factor, almost three decades ago,
Kim (1979) noted that too much emphasis was being placed on methods of ranking and selecting capital budgeting proposals. Scott and Petty (1984) also