Accounting for government guarantees: perspectives on fiscal transparency from four modes of accounting

Government guarantees are increasingly important as a policy instrument in public infrastructure investment and to assist the banking and financial sectors following the global financial crisis. This paper analyses how different modes of accounting characterize such guarantees in the contexts of public sector financial reporting, statistical accounting, budgeting and long-term fiscal projections. Guarantees are difficult to specify for accounting treatment and consistent conceptualization of liabilities. These difficulties make it attractive for governments to treat obligations as off-budget and off-balance sheet contingent liabilities, rather than recognize them in financial statements and statistical accounts. Miller and Power’s territorializing, mediating, adjudicating and subjectivizing roles of accounting are utilized to analyse the reporting of UK government guarantees. Provisioning for guarantees is complex in financial reporting statements and often absent in national accounts, a deficiency which Eurostat has attempted to address by devising the concept of standardized guarantees and by securing more disclosure of contingent liabilities. There is potential for future research especially where there is greater mediation between the four modes of government accounting.     

Ambiguous but tethered: An accounting basis for sustainability reporting

Sustainability reporting continues to become more widespread, despite ambiguities underlying the concept that may lead to varied interpretations and wider scope for “managing public perceptions” (e.g., Cho et al., 2010, Neu et al., 1998). An examination of the current form it takes using the GRI suggests a trade-off between principles and rules, with reduced emphasis on normative principles and a rather simplistic pursuit of “objective” measurement largely adapting to traditional accounting goals. While exploratory in nature, the paper suggests the need for “alignment” through an emphasis on principles based on normative stakeholder theory (Reed, 1999, Reed, 2002) that can draw from accounting without usurping the stakeholder goals underlying sustainability. This normative approach adds to the discourse on sustainability accounting by envisaging a wider and more localized perspective on firm accountability that could potentially stimulate the innovative endeavors of the corporation in the pursuit of wider wealth creation.     

Governmentality in accounting and accountability: A case study of embedding sustainability in a supply chain

This paper examines how the introduction of sustainability accounting has been used by an organization as a means to seek to govern social, economic and environmental issues relating to suppliers. The concept of governmentality and four analytics of government are proposed as a means to examine systematic ways of exercising power and authority. This theoretical framework illuminates the specific rationales and practices of government that enable particular aspirations of reform – such as sustainability – to be constituted. The analysis is informed by the discussion of the implementation of sustainability-orientated regimes of practice in the context of a single supply chain within a major supermarket chain in the UK against the theoretical analytics of government. The paper provides novel empirical insights into how sustainability accounting shaped forms of power, rationales and practices in a supply chain. It explores the extent to which senior decision-takers frame and use sustainability accounting to foster disciplinary effects based ostensibly upon social and environmental goals. These are found in practice to be reformulated primarily according to an economic (rather than social or environmental) regime of practice.     

Accounting and sustainable development: An exploration

As the social and environmental impacts of human activity have become more evident, the role of sustainable development as an organising principle in a variety of policy contexts and over multiple scales has become central. There are, at least, two implications that emerge from this observation. First, morally infused problems that need to be addressed have become more intractable, requiring innovation in our modes of thinking. Second, new spaces have emerged where the academy might explore how knowledge is created, validated and translated (or not) alongside policy and practice settings. One outcome of these trends has been the emergence of a stream of work (sustainability science) which investigates how disciplines might develop knowledge that progresses sustainable development. The aim of this paper, in line with the focus of the special issue, is to explore what possibilities emerge for accounting in light of a sustainability science approach. To achieve this end the paper starts with an exploration of the frustrations expressed in the literature over the perceived lack of progress made by social and environmental accounting towards addressing sustainable development. The paper then introduces sustainability science with the aim of imagining how an accounting for sustainable development might emerge. The paper closes with two illustrations of how a sustainability science approach to accounting could develop.     

会计报告、会计方程与会计误差

会计方程是会计报告的理论基石。现行会计方程以资产恒等于负债加所有者权益为核心。会计科学的本质是计量科学,计量科学的重要特征是存在计量误差。会计对资产的计量是估计与判断的结果,而估计与判断必然产生会计误差。但现行会计方程没有反映会计误差,从而影响了以会计方程为基石的会计报告的科学性和有用性。本文引入会计误差的概念,对会计基本方程进行探讨,在此基础上,对会计误差的内涵、产生与影响、会计误差与托宾q的关系等问题进行研究,旨在对会计报告改革有所帮助。     

贷款拨备、会计透明与银行稳健

贷款拨备政策不仅会影响到银行会计透明,而且也会影响到银行稳健经营。本文首先回顾了美国银行业1980年代以来在贷款拨备问题上的经验教训,以及美国银行界与会计界为此所展开的冲突和争论。然后,对我国银行业自建立贷款拨备政策以来所经历的政策变迁及其对银行稳健和会计透明的影响进行了经验分析。最后,在上述经验研究的基础上提出若干启示与建议。     

Contesting public accountability: A dialogical exploration of accountability and social housing

This paper analyses the interaction between neoliberal inspired reforms of public services and the mechanisms for achieving public accountability. Where once accountability was exercised through the ballot box, now in the neoliberal age managerial and market based forms of accountability predominate. The analysis identifies resistance from civil society campaigns to the neoliberal restructuring of public services which leads to public accountability (PA) becoming a contested arena. To develop this analysis a re-theorisation of PA, as a relationship where civil society seeks to control the state, is explored in the context of social housing in England over the past thirty years. Central to this analysis is a dialogical analysis of key documents from a social housing regulator and civil society campaign. The analysis shows that the current PA practices are an outcome of both reforms from the government and resistance from civil society (in the shape of tenants’ campaigns). The outcome of which is to tell the story of the changes in PA (and accountability) centring on an analysis of discourse. Thus, the paper moves towards answering the question – what has happened to PA during the neoliberal age?     

Accounting and corporate accountability: a postscript

This paper comments upon Benston's analysis (Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1982, pp. 87–105) of corporate social accounting and reporting. It scrutinizes the mode of reasoning employed by Benston and pinpoints a number of deficiencies. Furthermore, it challenges the very framework of the analysis, questioning the appropriateness of the perspective adopted and revealing the normative issues involved. Our comments attempt to indicate that the value premises implicit in Benston's analysis are not the only ones possible or acceptable.     

Democracy,sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism seriously

There is wide-ranging recognition of the need for “new accountings” that foster democracy and facilitate more participatory forms of social organization. This is particularly evident in the sustainable development and social and environmental accounting literatures, with calls for more dialogic forms of accounting. However, there has been very little consideration of how “democracy” should be approached; and, in particular, the implications of any particular model of democracy for the kinds of accounting technologies that might be advocated. This paper seeks to contribute to the theoretical development of dialogic accounting and focuses on the sustainability arena for illustrative purposes. It draws on debates between deliberative and agonistic democrats in contemporary political theory to argue the case for an agonistic approach to dialogics; one that respects difference and takes interpretive and ideological conflicts seriously. In recognition of the ways in which power intrudes in social relations so as to deny heterogeneity and privilege certain voices, it seeks to promote a broadly critical pluralist approach. To this end, the paper proposes a set of key principles for dialogic accounting and draws on ecological economist Peter Söderbaum’s work on positional analysis applied to an existing accounting tool – the Sustainability Assessment Model (SAM) – to illustrate how such an approach might be operationalized. The paper also discusses limitations of the dialogic accounting concept and impediments to its implementation.     

Intersubjectivity — the challenge and opportunity for accounting

The purpose of this paper is to examine the origin, nature and intellectual character of the frameworks being used by the various critics of the public accounting profession. The paper looks at three major questions: (1) what are the frameworks critics are using to hold the profession accountable? (2) What does the response of the profession tell us about how it perceives the problem? (3) Where is the current mode of response likely to lead the profession? Our analysis identifies two different frameworks that underlie the criticism being directed at the profession. We label these the “rational scientist” and “humanist-philosopher” viewpoints. These frameworks differ in the way in which they approach intersubjective phenomena. The differences are especially sharp on the notion objectivity. The profession, thus, is caught between the crossfire of these views and is in the difficult position of responding to a set of critical standards for which there exists no consensual framework. Unfortunately, they seem to be moving more toward the “rational-scientist” position of objectivity which is likely to compound their difficulties.     

Variation in sustainability assurance practice: An analysis of accounting versus non-accounting providers

This study explores sustainability assurance (SA) practice as an arena of jurisdictional competition between accounting and non-accounting assurance providers. Prior literature on SA, a non-financial assurance practice, has documented the presence of both accounting and non-accounting firms as two major provider categories, pointing to the possibility of significant variation in practice among them. Unlike most prior studies that rely on the analysis of the content of SA reports, this article draws on an in-depth interview-based investigation of the practice. In particular, by reference to Abbott's theory of professions (1988), we explore efforts by different SA providers to claim their professional practice space. Our findings reveal notable differences in the providers' approaches to SA, both between and within the two key provider groups. We make sense of these differences as a consequence of the inter- and intra-professional competitive dynamics where different categories of providers appeal to and emphasize divergent knowledge bases and distinctive types of expertise as a way to differentiate themselves from competition and legitimize their practice approaches. This study contributes to the extant SA literature by providing a holistic overview of the practice field and an empirically drawn perspective on the nature of practice variation.     

公司分立的会计处理初探

为适应日益复杂多变的经营环境,公司在不断调整生产经营活动之外,往往必须对组织结构、资产结构、股本规模实施重大调整。这种重大调整包括扩张型的并购、发行新股,以及收缩型的分立。前者在当前的证券市场屡见不鲜,对会计处理问题已有规范,后者则属于市场创新,对会计处理问题既少有规范,也少见相关文献。本文拟就公司分立会计处理作一初步探讨。