The Equity Accounting Saga in Australia: Cyclical Standard Setting

Equity accounting in Australia has had a long, chequered history. This article examines that history by reference to a succession of six Exposure Drafts, one Statement of Accounting Practice and two Standards issued between 1968 and 1995. We adapt Nobes' (1991, 1992a. 1992b) cycle model of regulation to explain variation in 'standardization' across these documents. Nobes defined 'standardization' to mean the restriction of choice in accounting methods but we modify the concept to allow for measurement rule 'improvements' and changes in required disclosure levels. Nobes' cycle model has four stages: a starting point of varied practice: energy inputs, often crises, drawing attention to the issue at hand: forces opposing and forces in favour of standardization. A cycle- like pattern of variation in standardization emerges in the present context. Potential shortcomings of the cycle model are addressed, including Skerratt and Whittington's (1992) criticisms of Nobes' cycle model. The article extends the literature with respect to a cyclical explanation of the standard setting process. The cycle pattern evident here reflects a slow and incomplete resolution of various conceptual and legal difficulties in regulating equity accounting in Australia.     

The Pivotal Role Of Accounting Concepts In The Development Of Public Sector Accounting Standards

Perhaps the most important decision made by the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board was taken soon after it was formed in 1983. That decision was to adopt a conceptual approach to the development of public-sector accounting standards. This paper explores the implications for the reform of public-sector financial reporting practices in Australia.     

Monopoly versus Competition in Setting Accounting Standards

Financial accounting standards are set by organizations granted a significant degree of monopoly power by various governments. While there has been considerable debate on the merits of national (e.g., US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)) versus international (International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)) monopolies, little attention has been paid to the merits of using competing standard‐setting organizations (SSOs) for setting accounting standards. We compare the standard‐setting processes of the FASB/IASB to the processes of four technology‐oriented SSOs to assess the role of competition. We also provide a case study of monopoly and competitive standards in telephony. Both telephony and accounting yield some gains from coordination, and similar arguments are used (under the labels of comparability and consistency of accounting) in debates about granting a monopoly to their respective SSOs. Our results show that a group of volunteers competing with the government‐sanctioned monopoly of International Telecommunications Union transformed the telephone industry. Thanks to this standards competition, we enjoy free video internet calling and massive cost savings. Implications for accounting standard setting are discussed.     

Structure and Argument in Accounting Standards

This paper summarises the results of a detailed examination of the contents of explanatory notes of Statements of Standard Accounting Practice. The presentation of argument in the explanatory notes is discussed in the light of recent writings on rhetoric, and the Accounting Standards Committee is assessed in terms of its performance as a persuader rather than by reference to the substantive requirements of SSAPs. The paper suggests that changes in the structure of future accounting standards would be desirable, and concludes by linking the rhetorical perspective to the notion of a conceptual framework.     

Political Influences in Changes to Setting Australian Accounting Standards

The process of establishing regulatory arrangements for setting accounting standards in most Western countries has frequently exposed conflict between private-sector bodies, professional accounting organisations, and government bodies, each attempting to dominate the process in order to gain favoured outcomes. Recent changes by the Australian Federal Government in the structure of setting accounting standards show a substantial shift in power from the two professional accounting bodies (ICAA and ASCPA) to the government. The groups who believe they will gain more influence in the new structure have supported the changes and there has been little opposition from groups losing power for fear of ending up with even less. The initial proposal to adopt IASC accounting standards was effectively discarded in the reforming legislation, showing the government’s sensitivity to corporate reactions and reluctance to relinquish power to an international body. Although some activities in the period preceding the change can be categorised within the corporatism and inter-organisational domain conflict models of regulatory processes, the actions of the government in initiating change do not fit with the role of dispassionate arbiter in neo-corporatism and the muted reaction of the professional accounting bodies is inconsistent with predictions of domain defence.     

IASB和FASB之间的准则协调及其对我国准则制定的启示——以权益基础薪酬准则为例

虽然IASB和FASB已经加强了在准则制定方面的协调和合作 ,但两个准则制定机构在最近颁布的有关权益基础薪酬会计处理规定上仍存在一定差异。本文分析了出台权益基础薪酬规定的背景 ,并简要总结了两者之间的差异 ;以此为基础 ,探讨IASB和FASB就准则差异所做的处理 ,及其展开的协调。最后就IASB和FASB的协调方式 ,对我国的准则国际协调提出了几点启示。     

International Accounting Standards: An Alternative Rationale

International aspects of financial reporting have begun to receive an increasing amount of attention by a range of organizations. There is a need then, to appraise critically the performance and the underlying rationale of those agencies responsible for influencing international practices. Identification and appraisal of the rationale underlying the existence of those agencies is a necessary step in determining their potential for achieving the objectives which they have been set. This paper examines the rationale behind one of these agencies, the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC, 1977). Unlike many others, the paper does not attempt to explain why we should have an organization such as the IASC and the standards it produces. Rather, it represents an attempt to explain why we do have an organization such as the IASC. To that end, an alternative rationale is suggested for the output of the IASC, based on theories of professional selfinterest, agency, and property rights. It is argued that that rationale is likely to have significantly greater explanatory power in respect of the present output produced by the IASC than those traditionally presented.     

会计准则制定模式的新思考:"五星模型"的应用

会计准则的制定模式是会计理论界由来已久的争论焦点之一。目前,会计界公认的会计准则制定模式主要有三种:政府集中制、民间自主制和民间制定政府监管的混合制。本文分别评述了三种模式的优点和缺点,并结合实际提出一套新的基于公共选择理论的可行方案——五星模型。     

The FRC AND Accounting Standard‐Setting: Should I Still Call Australia Home?

This paper analyses the decision of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) to replace Australian accounting standards with international accounting standards on 1 January, 2005. Two main topics are considered: the appropriateness of the FRC's directive, and the case against the proposed adoption date. We argue that the FRC has not conducted sufficient consultation with affected parties and that the hasty implementation will impose costs that could have been avoided with the exercise of more caution.     

财务会计模式的历史变迁:分析视角的考察

会计目标及实现这一目标的会计原则,规定着会计实务的主要方面,本文通过四个分析性模型从理论层面上对会计模式的历史变迁作了一个概括。完全且完美市场背景下的经济收益观是最早的会计模式。在市场不完全或不完美时,会计目标重新定位于提供决策有用的信息,提高会计数据的信息含量、更为相关可靠地计量企业的资产、负债,成为了会计政策选择理论上的标准。由于存在基于会计数据的不完全契约,会计契约观认为,减少可供选择的会计政策或硬化会计政策选择的标准,是降低契约(代理)成本的基本举措。     

关于制定《增值税会计准则》的探讨

\世界各国对增值税会计处理的有关准则规定和我国增值税对会计的实际影响,产生了制定《增值税会计准则》的客观要求。该准则的目标是确认、计量、记录和报告当期应交增值税额以及增值税资产或负债,按照税法正确计算销项税额、进项税额、进项税额传出、出口退额和未交增值税额,为编制增值税明细表,以便向报表使用者提供有关纳税信息作出规范,该准则的内容应该包括：增值税会计的专门术语及其定义、业务性原则、确认与计量、报表     

Competing Regulatory Agencies With Conflicting Agendas: Setting Standards For Cash Flow Reporting In Australia

Financial accounting regulatory arrangements adopted in most Western countries often involve the participation of (and interactions between) public-sector and private-sector regulatory agencies. The political process associated with the development of accounting rules not only involves the efforts of interested parties seeking to secure the content of rules favourable to their interests but also the behaviours of regulatory agencies as they compete to influence or control the regulatory 'agenda'.
Regulatory agencies develop their own agendas, in light of their own perceived priorities and the regulatory initiatives of other agencies. The placing of an accounting issue on the agenda of one agency may be warmly supported by other agencies or, alternatively, be viewed as a threat to the regulatory ambitions of those other agencies.
This case study reviews the emergence and eventual resolution of an accounting issue that was initially promoted by a government agency in April 1984 but then ultimately developed as a professional accounting standard in December 1991. The study describes the activities of public and private-sector agencies during this eight-year period as they responded to proposals for the introduction of disclosure rules concerning cash flows. Evidence was obtained from public records, documents provided by interest groups, and structured and semi-structured interviews with key participants in the events described.
The analysis is underscored by our understanding of competitive regulatory interactions and formal models for analysing agenda entrance (Cobb et al. 1976). This analysis shows how the profession's standard-setting body was unable to control the global agenda for accounting rule-making as a consequence of the intervention of another body, the Australian Stock Exchange.     

会计准则的信息含量:中国会计准则与IFRS之比较

在我国 ,对如何实现中国会计准则国际化问题一直存在不同的认识。一种观点认为 ,不应过多地考虑“国家特色” ,主张尽快全面国际化 ;另一种观点则认为在会计国际化的同时 ,应当考虑并体现会计的国家特色 ,不应片面追求国际化。那么 ,究竟应当如何解决这些争端 ,把握好借鉴国际惯例和考虑中国国情的辨证关系 ,掌握好两者之间的结合“度” ?我们认为 ,会计准则信息含量的比较研究 ,可以帮助我们进行这方面的分析。本文采用实证研究的方法 ,通过中国会计准则与国际财务报告准则 (IFRS)信息含量的比较研究 ,为哪一种会计准则对信息用户更具决策相关性提供量化证据。研究结果表明 ,按照中国会计准则提供的会计盈余数据比按照国际财务报告准则提供的盈余数据更有信息含量。因而 ,当前我国的会计准则建设仍应考虑国情 ,不应当全盘照搬国际财务报告准则     

Government Accounting: An Assessment of Theory, Purposes and Standards

Government accounting and financial reporting aims to protect and manage public money and discharge accountability. These purposes, and the nature of public goods and tax financing, give rise to differences with commercial accounting. This is not yet reflected either in government accounting standards in English–speaking developed nations or in international public sector accounting standards. All of these are heavily influenced by private sector practices, which favour the accrual basis and consolidated reporting. This article argues for a gradual symmetric approach to accruals and a combination of government–wide and fund reporting. The author also proposes some broad accounting principles to promote political and economic accountability.     

The CF and Accounting Standards: The Persistence of Discrepancies

The conceptual framework (CF) has introduced a set of ideals and broad criteria for financial reporting focusing on servicing users' information needs. In this article, each concepts statement is considered, in turn, and its consistency with selected accounting standards examined. Particular attention is paid to accounting standards issued for the first time, or in a revised form, subsequent to the release of the concepts statements. It is found that many standards have provisions that are at odds with the CF. These inconsistencies come as no surprise. The CF is incomplete; the issue of measurement remains unresolved, leaving ambiguity in the definitions of concepts such as revenue. The CF project has remained unfinished while standard setters have given priority to other tasks, such as international harmonization, in resolving contemporary financial reporting issues.     

Public Choice and Accounting Standard Setting in New Zealand: An Exploratory Study

Recent studies in accounting regulation have used either the capture argument or the pluralistic notion to describe the enactment of accounting regulations. This paper explores the nature of the impact of public choice in accounting standard setting in New Zealand using the pluralistic notion. To provide an insight into the standard-setting process, this paper involves an examination of the establishment, withdrawal and re-establishment of New Zealand's most controversial standard after current cost accounting — the standard on investment property accounting (SSAP 17). The investigation considers the nature of public choice in the agenda entrance, demand and supply factors influencing standard setting in New Zealand. The results indicate that the New Zealand accounting standard-setting process is pluralistic in a limited way. Like most other English-speaking countries, the scope of participation for certain groups has been institutionalized on the supply side by way of membership of standard-setting committees of the New Zealand Society of Accountants. On the demand side, however, consumers of accounting have been provided with only limited scope for participating in the formal process of standard setting. Nevertheless, other means (i.e., exogenous and informal ones) may be used to influence the process. Overall, from both the demand and supply perspectives of regulation, the Big-8 accounting firms (as they were previously known) followed by the preparers of financial statements, seem to have greater participatory capacity in the New Zealand standard-setting process.     

论会计准则的法律地位

本文从法律的角度论述了会计准则的性质和地位 ,进而探讨了在西方遵循会计准则并非免除法律责任的充分条件 ,最后从我国法律体系和会计准则的基本特征出发 ,讨论了我国会计准则的法律地位。在我国 ,目前应当充分肯定会计准则的法律地位 ,在认定虚假财务报告时应以会计准则作为基本依据 ,同时应当努力提高会计准则的质量 ,缩小会计准则与公众意识的差距。