An accounting revolution? The financialisation of standard setting

This paper analyses the political-economic content of the recent ‘revolutionary’ shift in financial accounting rules for listed companies, specifically the rise of IFRS and fair value. It connects this shift to the socio-economic changes that are currently being discussed in the literature on financialisation, e.g. the rise of shareholder value and the proprietary view of the firm. Two ideal-typical accounting systems are constructed on the basis of normative accounting theory and extant standards – historical cost accounting (HCA) and fair value accounting (FVA). The ‘accounting revolution’ of the past 10–15 years can be understood as a qualitative shift from HCA to FVA. It is further argued that these ideal-typical systems are related to different circuits or forms of capital – productive and money capital respectively – and to the particular perspective that these afford on the, capitalist firm. Inasmuch as financialisation is related to the circuit of money capital one can make sense of the rise to prominence of FVA, which represents the dominance of a financial view of the firm in the field of financial accounting. Throughout this paper, however, the limits to financialisation are also highlighted and traced back to the ineradicable manifestation of the circuit of productive capital.     

A CRITIQUE ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING: TOWARDS A POLITICAL ECONOMY OF CLASSIFICATION—THE SEARCH FOR OWNERSHIP

This paper is a critique on contemporary accounting¹classification studies. It suggests that such studies have thus far provided an inadequate assessment of and explanation for extant international contemporary accounting diversity. This paper locates the discussion within a neo Marxian political economy, and explores how notions of structure and hierarchy central to the institutional traditions of economic liberalism and the social priorities of capital have increasingly invaded the classification and understanding of contemporary accounting diversity. It contends that such classification studies are a product of capitalist desires to import and assimilate increasingly distant realms of business life into the capital@8alabour value relation/contemporary accounting@8icapital relation. Furthermore, this paper suggests that such classification studies fail to recognise the impact of such social, political and economic arrangements as they are increasingly reupholstered and redistributed by the changing priorities of capital, resulting in a limited appreciation of the constitutive power of capital and its influence on contemporary accounting.     

股权转债权方案新探

由于股权分置的原因,形成了上市公司特殊的股权融资偏好的行为特征和资本形成机制,要解决我国资本市场这一矛盾,必须进行股权分置改革。“股权转债权”作为解决股权分置的新思路,对于条件适合的上市公司,不仅操作较简便,而且符合其流通股股东的利益,并能有效改善公司治理结构和盈利能力。     

Capitalist accountability and the British Industrial Revolution: The Carron Company, 1759–circa. 1850

The paper argues that accounting historians can help us to understand the origins of the British Industrial Revolution (BIR) by explaining the contribution of accounting to financial success. It re-examines the archive of the Carron Company (hereafter, ‘Carron’) from its formation in 1759 to around 1850 to explore the theory derived from Marx that class conflict, the capitalist mentality, its social relations of production, and accounts, drove the BIR. It shows that, contrary to the currently accepted view that Carron’s early financial accounts were a ‘shambles’, its partners used integrated financial and management accounts based on double entry bookkeeping to impose capitalist accountability on their managers and workers. The paper argues that zealous accounting was critical to Carron’s financial success because accountability for capital drove organisational and technical innovation and it underlay the partners’ early social solidarity. Carron’s partners worked collectively during the company’s difficult formative period up to the 1780s, using accounts to hold the managing partner and his subordinates accountable to them for the circulation of capital and to conduct class war against their workers. From the 1790s, the managing partner exploited a weakness in Carron’s system of corporate governance to understate its profits to demoralise other partners into selling their shares to give him control, which he used to divert a disproportionate share of its accumulating wealth to him and his family. The paper concludes that Carron’s history supports the Marxist theory that accounts played an important role in fuelling the BIR by giving capitalists a technology for controlling production for profit, what Marx called controlling the ‘valorization process’, and for promoting the social cohesion of capital. It calls on accounting historians to test this theory by revisiting the archives of other leading BIR firms, so that we can construct a history of this pivotal shift in the trajectory of world economic development on solid empirical foundations.     

Calculating profit: A historical perspective on the development of capitalism

The paper introduces the notion of different methods of calculating and analysing profitability as signatures of capitalism at different stages of development. Its point of departure is Bryer’s thesis of the capitalist mentality, which is subject to theoretical and empirical critique and developed in new directions. Interactions between the development of the productive forces and the socialisation of capital ownership jointly impact on these signatures, such that profit calculations are historically contingent. Aspects of feudalism, particularly restrictions on usury impacted upon accounting calculation, retarding their development. In the industrial revolution calculations reflected the scale and scope of specialised investment in plant, whilst the progressive socialisation of capital prompted a separate set of calculative practices. It was only in the 20th century, with the unification of large scale industry and finance capital that the modern notion of profitability as return on capital employed finally developed.     

Americanism and financial accounting theory – Part 2: The ‘modern business enterprise’, America's transition to capitalism,and the genesis of management accounting

The paper uses accounting evidence to explore when and how capitalism came to America. It continues the search for capitalists in American history begun in ‘Americanism and financial accounting theory. Part 1: Was America Born Capitalist?’ Part 1 concluded that America was not ‘born capitalist’ in Marx's sense, and that the capitalist mentality had not appeared in farming even by the late 19th century, on southern slave plantations by the Civil War, or in manufacturing enterprises by the 1830s. This paper (Part 2) challenges Alfred Chandler's thesis that the ‘modern business enterprise’ brought ‘a new type of capitalism’ from around the mid-19th century. It re-examines accounting evidence from the Boston textile mills, the railroads, and the iron and steel industry. It concludes that the Boston Associates who historians often see as ‘proto-capitalists’, the ‘managerial capitalists’ Chandler sees on the railroads, and the ‘entrepreneurial capitalists’ he sees in the iron and steel industry and elsewhere, remained semi-capitalists because their capitals and workers were not ‘free’. The paper re-examines the ‘costing renaissance’, the introduction and spread of product costing, standard costing, ROI and flexible budgets, and the evidence in Chandler's and Johnson and Kaplan's studies of the DuPont Powder Company and General Motors. This suggests that capitalism only appeared in America by around 1900, after more than two decades of intense conflict between ‘capital and labour’, and became established by the 1920s. This is the critical turning point in American business history, not the appearance of ‘managerial capitalism’, the paper argues. It concludes that America did not catch up with British capitalism until the late 1920s because its ruling elite faced an ideological problem created by its exceptional transition from a society of simple commodity producers and semi-capitalists, particularly the threat of popular socialism. The final paper, Part 3: ‘Adam Smith, the rise and fall of socialism, and Irving Fisher's theory of accounting’, argues that Fisher made a seminal contribution to solving this problem, but his legacy is a pathological theory of financial accounting.     

Accounting activism and Bourdieu's ‘collective intellectual’ – Reflections on the ICL Case

The aim of this paper is to reflect upon the practice of accounting academics as ‘collective intellectuals’ – inspired by the actions and conception of Pierre Bourdieu. While accounting researchers have drawn upon Bourdieu's theoretical contributions on habitus, field and capital, little attention has been paid to his later, more critical ideas and practice of intervention post 1995. As a result, accounting research has yet to discover Bourdieu's work on the ‘collective intellectual’ and, thus, consider its contribution to our understanding of how accounting academics can participate in a form of activism against neoliberalism that would not be in contradiction with professional norms of rigorous research. Rather, activism could enhance academic research.Central to this paper is a reflection on a case of intervention involving a diverse collection of academics and activists who came together to launch a coordinated response to a large-scale industrial disaster in Scotland in 2004. The collective in question took various interventionary steps to campaign for a Public Inquiry into the disaster and seek justice and accountability for workers past and present. These steps are analysed with respect to the methods adopted and the work and practice of Bourdieu's collective intellectual.     

The Dutch East-India Company and accounting for social capital at the dawn of modern capitalism 1602–1623

Capitalism’s profound effect on society has encouraged economic and accounting historians to hypothesise about the importance of double entry bookkeeping to its development. According to Sombart the continual reinvestment of the profits earned depended on the existence of a capitalist form of double-entry bookkeeping that would allow investors and managers to measure the return on investments as a means of making rational business decisions. More recently, with particular reference to the English East-India Company Bryer has argued that the adoption of the capitalist form of double-entry bookkeeping was essential to resolving the social conflict between investing capitalist classes that arose with the rise of industrial capitalism in England in the late 17th and 18th centuries by providing the means to calculate the rate of return on socialised capital. This paper widens the historical context of these debates to The Netherlands in the early 17th century by examining accounting practices of the Dutch East-India Company, the epitome of modern capitalism in motives, organization and funding. It establishes that, although the 17th century Dutch were pre-eminent in Europe in their knowledge of the capitalist form of double-entry bookkeeping, at no time during the period covered by the first charter (1602–1623) of the Dutch East-India Company, or thereafter, did the domestic operations of the Company use this form of bookkeeping across all chambers. This meant that the investors did not have the necessary information that would have allowed them to calculate the return on their investments. Indeed, the Company’s investors neither expected nor demanded information to calculate the return on their investments and, hence, double-entry bookkeeping was not a necessary condition for Dutch capitalism in the manner suggested by Sombart, Weber and Bryer. Instead, the form which capitalism developed in The Netherlands recognised the social and economic impact of its unique geography which produced a society characterised by a monetary economy, a long tradition of joint ownership, and a free market for assets and capital rights.     

An analysis of accounting education research in accounting education: an international journal – 1992–2001

This paper reviews the research papers contained within the first ten volumes of Accounting Education: an international journal since its launch in 1992, identifying both areas that have been well covered and those that present opportunities for further research. The paper compares coverage with accounting education research published in the USA. It is hoped that the paper will be of interest to researchers who wish to establish the prior literature on their research topics or who are searching for research topics and/or methods that have been hitherto underexplored. The paper also provides some observations about the methods employed and source of papers in order to gain further insight into the state of accounting education research at the start of the 21st century.     

“Who am I? Where are we? Where do we go from here?” Marxism,voice, representation,and synthesis

Recently Kim (2008) and Chua (1998) have warned critical accounting researchers of the dangers involved in oral history research in accounting involving a privileged researcher(s) and a cultural or racial “other”. The end result of this research often is that the researcher gets a promotion and a pay rise whilst the others remain in the same position that they were in before the research. These warnings are extremely important and should be the source of much personal reflection and even agonizing on the part of those researchers that do this type of research. However, I argue that Kim's negative tone, whilst justified in a polemic, should not discourage researchers to the extent that they shy away from compassionate explorations of topics involving the other in favour of “safer” capital markets or other mainstream accounting research. Those researchers writing from a Marxist perspective will continue to see the primary source of exploitation as the capitalist production process and its extraction of surplus-value from the workers without payment. This does not mean that such researchers somehow “ignore race” although some types of racist acts Marxism finds hard to explain satisfactorily. To illustrate these arguments, I present a case study of the legendary 1970s punk musician and philosopher Joe Strummer of the Clash to suggest how a compassionate and authentic individual can meaningfully and boldly address issues of the other and the exploitation that they face within a Marxist framework. The maturation and increased sophistication of Strummer's lyrics by 1978 suggest that young artists (and researchers) need to be permitted the opportunity to make mistakes and to grow as part of their own existentialist personal journeys.     

必须重视马克思运用科学技术对资本主义经济运行的分析

马克思在《资本论》中运用科学技术的理论,从深层次上揭示了资本主义生产关系的实质,论证了剩余价值理论,并创立了资本有机构成的学说,解决了资产阶级古典政治经济学无法解决的理论难题。因此,深入研究马克思关于科学技术的理论,对于运用科技促进我国经济的发展具有极其重要的现实意义。     

Americanism and financial accounting theory – Part 1: Was America born capitalist?

This paper (Part 1), and two related papers (Part 2: The ‘modern business enterprise’, America's transition to capitalism, and the genesis of management accounting; and Part 3: Adam Smith, the rise and fall of socialism, and Irving Fisher's theory of accounting), explore historical links between American ideology and Irving Fisher's theory of accounting. They explain Fisher's theory as the product of America's exceptional transition to capitalism and the ideological consequences. Part 1 uses Marx's theories of the transition in England, of colonisation, and of ideology, to construct an accounting history model of America's transition to capitalism that identifies the dominant social relations of production and calculative mentalities, and uses them to predict the accounting signatures and political ideologies we should observe if the theories are correct. Parts 1 and 2 test the model. Part 3 explores the ideological consequences of America's transition, for America and financial accounting. Scholars generally assume that America was ‘born capitalist’; historians argue it became capitalist sometime from the late 18th to early 19th centuries. The model, however, identifies early farmers as ‘simple commodity producers’ who, it predicts, kept only single entry accounts of debt, and had a ‘producer’ ideology of ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’. It identifies planters and manufacturers as ‘semi-capitalists’ – part merchant capitalist and part simple commodity producer – who it predicts calculated ‘profit’ as consumable surplus, pursued the ‘simple rate of profit’, controlled only prime costs, and had an ideology of ‘individualism’ that combined the producers’ ideology with the merchants’ ‘laissez-faire’. Part 1 re-examines evidence from accounts to around the mid-19th century, which confirms that farmers were not capitalists and that even the most advanced merchants, manufacturers and planters were semi-capitalists. Part 2 searches for capitalists in the second half of the 19th century. It re-examines evidence from the accounts of the Boston Associates who historians have seen as ‘proto-industrial capitalists’; from the railroads heralded by Chandler as the beginning of ‘managerial capitalism’; and from ‘entrepreneurial capitalists’ like Andrew Carnegie who created the large corporations that conquered America from the 1880s. Their financial accounts and cost management systems reveal the same semi-capitalist mentality found in the early 19th century. Re-examination of the ‘costing renaissance’ in the 1890s and evidence from the DuPont Powder Company and General Motors from 1900 to 1920, suggests that only from around 1900, after escalating conflict between ‘capital and labour’, did the capitalist mentality appear in new management accounting systems focused on ‘return on investment’. Part 3 shows that the accounting evidence closely correlates with the history of American political ideology. It argues that Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations dominated American politics until the late 19th century because it theorised a nation of simple commodity producers and semi-capitalists. It explains the delay in America's transition compared to Britain's, and the decline in the popularity of laissez-faire from the 1880s, as consequences of this exceptional starting point. ‘Big business’ capitalism created an ideological problem for America's ruling elite, particularly the threat of socialism from around 1900 to 1920. Part 3 argues that Fisher's neoclassical theory of ‘capital’ and ‘income’, designed as a critique of Marx, responded to this problem and played an important role in undermining middle class support for socialism. Fisher said he based his theory on accounting practice, particularly double entry bookkeeping, but Part 3 shows he did not use or understand it, which divorced his accounting from reality. American history's legacy to the world, the papers therefore conclude, is a pathological theory of financial accounting.     

CAPITAL AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING: A COMMENTARY ON BRYER'S “A MARXIST CRITIQUE OF THE FASB'S CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK”1

Bryer (1999) reiterates criticisms of the “balance-sheet” approach underlying the FASB's conceptual framework as failing either to explain or guide the development of financial accounting practice, and aims to demonstrate how operational and objective principles of financial accounting can be derived from Marx's labour theory of “surplus-value”. However, the potentially conflicting objectives of “Marxist” accountings remain unresolved, and Bryer's attempted derivation of accounting rules for individual business enterprises appears to misunderstand the rationale of Marx's detailed examination of the circuits of capital in Parts One and Two of Volume II of @9pCapital@2p and to offer no critical foundation for Praxis. It is argued here that the focus of a critical Marxist accounting would more appropriately shift to recognising the extraction of surplus-value from labour and its addition to the value of inventory during the process of production (rather than reporting profit as the result of sale). However, the practical application of such a principle would still require the use of convention-based allocations at least as arbitrary as those of conventional financial accounting and, more fundamentally, such a change of accounting principle could not in itself be sufficient to “force the secret of profit making” under the capitalist mode of production. The accounting would still be consistent with both Marxist and neoclassical economic theories of the nature of capitalism. Bryer's approach to deriving Marxist accounting rules cannot help us to understand the problematic nature of the power of modern financial accounting.     

Manufacturing shareholder value: The role of accounting in organizational transformation

This paper explores the role of accounting calculations in constructing shareholder value within the context of organizational transformation in work organization. Using an intensive longitudinal case study (Conglom, a pseudonym), the paper relates innovation and experimentation in new forms of work organization to a drive for shareholder value creation. The priority given to shareholder value creation was articulated through a proliferation of accounting metrics and calculations that intermediated between the strategic preoccupation with securing financial profitability, as demonstrated by the share price, and the operational challenge of squeezing costs and improving margins to boost short-term performance through outsourcing, programme management and divestment. We interpret the discourse of shareholder value creation and the development of related accounting metrics as a hegemonic move which is central to the reassertion of capital – a development that, we contend, is symptomatic of a shift towards a more ‘despotic’ mode of capitalist reproduction [Burawoy, M., (1985). The politics of production. London: Verso], where the whip of the market, allied to notions of possessive individualism, free choice and self-determination, progressively replaces the velvet glove of the corporatist state.     

A Marxist accounting history of the British industrial revolution: a review of evidence and suggestions for research

An important debate neglected by accounting historians concerns the existence, origins and significance of the British Industrial Revolution (BIR). A key problem is explaining why Britain was such a technologically creative society. Part one uses accounting ideas to explain Marx's theory that industrial capitalism first appeared in Britain and was revolutionary because it took control of production to maximise the rate-of-return on capital employed. Part two shows that accumulating evidence of the use of modern management accounting by leading firms during the BIR supports Marx's view that it was a capitalist revolution in his sense. Part three argues that the accounting history of Boulton and Watt supports the hypothesis that the capitalist mentality and accounts drove revolutions in the technical and social relations of production during the BIR. Part four re-examines other well-known key sites for the study of accounting history and argues that these cases support the hypothesis that the primary cause of variations in accounting during the BIR was variations in the social relations of production. The paper makes suggestions for further research and concludes that, by thoroughly testing Marx's theory, accounting historians can make an important contribution to a major historical debate.     

Was America born capitalist? A counter view

This paper is a response to Part 1 of Rob Bryer's analysis of American business consciousness in the period prior to the mid-1800s. It argues that RB's historical model for tracking the transition to capitalism in the US based on accounting signatures is too simplistic, and that the evidence he presents is ambiguous, relying as it does on the interpretation of secondary sources. The paper questions RB's unique definition of capitalism as well as his conception of a clear point of divide between the capitalist and pre-capitalist worlds, and argues that the capitalist mentality or spirit existed in America long before the early 20th century based on current evidence.     

Americanism and financial accounting theory – Part 3: Adam Smith,the rise and fall of socialism,and Irving Fisher's theory of accounting

A previous paper (Part 1) rejected the conventional wisdom that America was ‘born capitalist’ and the historians’ consensus that it had become capitalist by the early-19th century; another (Part 2) rejected Chandler's thesis that the ‘modern business enterprise’ brought a ‘new form of capitalism’ to America from the 1840s. The accounting evidence suggests that America began to make the transition to capitalism around 1900 in a period of intense conflict between ‘capital and labour’ generated by ‘big business’ from the 1880s, a process not completed until the 1920s. This paper (Part 3) examines the consequences for America's political ideology and financial accounting theory. America's exceptional transition, it argues, explains the history of its political ideology, and this history explains Irving Fisher's theory of accounting. Section A argues that America lagged behind Britain because it started from a society of simple commodity producers and semi-capitalists, which created an exceptional ideological problem for its ruling elite. Big business generated hostility from workers, farmers and small employers – expressed in labour movements, ‘populism’, socialism, and ‘progressivism’ – and created an ideological problem by contradicting the ‘independent producer’ ideology of workers and farmers, and the ‘individual liberalism’ of small manufacturers and merchants, both underwritten by Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. The paper argues that Smith's theory of price articulates as semi-capitalist accounting, which explains his popularity in America until the appearance of big business in the 1880s. Socialism and progressivism became political forces in America from 1900 to around 1920. Progressivism produced ‘corporate liberalism’, the ideological counter to socialism that corporations could be made ‘socially responsible’ by government regulation and ‘publicity’ to ensure they earned only ‘fair’ returns, but this left two problems. First, socialists argued that no profit was ‘fair’, and second, fear of the ‘labour danger’ made American financial reports secretive and conservative. Section B argues that Irving Fisher responded to these problems with a theory of accounting, which he developed as a refutation of Marx and the American brand of socialism advocated by Eugene Debs, the threateningly successful presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America. An important but neglected reason for socialism's abrupt collapse around 1920, it argues, was that the socialists lost the intellectual argument with the middle classes, and that Fisher's theory played an important role in this defeat. Fisher was a vigorous self-publicist, strongly influenced the teaching of economics and accounting in the universities and, the paper argues, changed the language of American accounting. Fisher claimed that accounting practice supported his theory of ‘capital’ and ‘income’, but the paper shows he did not understand double-entry bookkeeping or the accountants’ ‘cost theory of value’, and therefore divorced accounting from the reality of business transactions. As his theory underlies the FASB's framework, the paper concludes that Fisher's legacy to the world is a pathological theory of financial accounting.     

The capital budgeting process and the energy trilemma - A strategic conduct analysis

This paper examines capital budgeting and its role in the ‘energy trilemma’. The key focus is on the role of knowledgeable agency in the analysis of strategic conduct. In particular, this study demonstrates how accounting tools can be used by executive managers, who, whilst dominant in their own organisations, are themselves subordinate to government in the United Kingdom and at the European level. The strategic conduct of actors is examined in a narrative, theorised case study setting spanning an 11-year period from 2006 to 2017. The principal contribution to knowledge from this study is the extent to which strategic investment accounting has played a role in changing regulatory and government policy in a privatised industry. Government and regulators were forced to take the generators' concerns seriously, because the generators (based on knowledge derived from capital budgets) restricted their capital expenditure rather than mobilising their resources. The generators highlighted that not only was this a problem of environmental sustainability and price for consumers, but also one of long-term supply. They argued that the government had to address all aspects of the trilemma when creating policy.     

Measuring Intangible Capital: A Review of Current Practice

This paper examines international practices that measure firm-level investments into intangible capital. The issues motivating the paper are the need for a standardised framework for measuring intangible capital and the possibility for standardised applications of these measures into the future. The paper analyses the differences and problems associated with the properties of the "official" (accounting) and "non-official" measurement approaches. We propose that the way to a standardised, more comparable approach to measuring intangible capital is to employ a back-to-basics "costs" approach which classifies investments in intangible capital as assets based on management intent at the time.     

Accounting for the Social Relations of Feudalism

It is becoming increasingly accepted that accounting concepts and practices can only be understood in their socio-historical context (e.g., Hopwood and Johnson, 1986). From this perspective, accounting scholars can both learn from historians, and may contribute to broader historical debates. The main purposes of the paper are: to make an accounting contribution to the debate between historians about the nature and development of feudalism in England and the transition to capitalism; to illustrate the general argument that accounting concepts and practices must be understood in the specific historical context in which they occur; and to suggest that a useful conceptual framework for understanding the emergence and development of feudal and capitalist accounting is Marx's concept of the ‘mode of production’.