THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR

This paper offers a review of the conceptual framework projects that have been done by, or on behalf of, accounting standard-setting bodies, and that have concerned themselves with public sector accounting. Developments since 1966 in North America are the primary focus, although the UK and New Zealand are also explicitly addressed. The major theme identified is the ubiquity of the user/user needs approach, despite the continuing lack of evidence about user needs. The paper tries to explain this and concludes that standard-setting bodies have used these conceptual frameworks to establish their own legitimacy, by appealing to the public interest.     

The 'NZ' in 'NZ IFRS': Public Benefit Entity Amendments

In 1992, New Zealand adopted a sector-neutral approach to standard setting – where the difference in accounting treatment is driven by differences in the nature of transactions and not by ownership or the objectives of the reporting entity. This study reviews the impact of adaptations of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) to ensure their successful application in a sector-neural environment. A fundamental question of the move to IFRS is whether the public benefit entity amendments in NZ IFRS have contaminated the IFRS for profit-orientated entities or diluted the available guidance for public benefit entities. This suggests that it is worthwhile for Australia and New Zealand to monitor and reconsider their sector-neutral approach to adopting IFRS.     

`Sector Neutrality' and NPM'Incentives': Their Use in Eroding the Public Sector

Despite New Zealans public-sector reformers' claims that financial reporting changes promote competitive neutrality and improved accountability and transparency, privatisation-favouring "incentives" were designed into the system at a hidden detailed level. That distorted system has been encompassed within the accounting profession's standard-setting activities through standard-setters' erroneous claims, in Australia and New Zealand, that the accounting profession's conceptual framework and accounting standards are sector-neutral. These claims help to conceal the fact that the public-sector financial management system has been designed to be partial, with its incentives structured to erode the public sector and favour privatisation.     

'Sector Neutrality' and NPM 'Incentives': Their Use in Eroding the Public Sector

Despite New Zealans public-sector reformers' claims that financial reporting changes promote competitive neutrality and improved accountability and transparency, privatisation-favouring "incentives" were designed into the system at a hidden detailed level. That distorted system has been encompassed within the accounting profession's standard-setting activities through standard-setters' erroneous claims, in Australia and New Zealand, that the accounting profession's conceptual framework and accounting standards are sector-neutral. These claims help to conceal the fact that the public-sector financial management system has been designed to be partial, with its incentives structured to erode the public sector and favour privatisation.     

A European view on the legitimacy of accounting procedures: Towards a deliberative-accountability framework for analysis

Accounting rules affect fundamental areas of social interaction encompassing groups that have diverse and conflicting interests regarding financial reporting. In the absence of a coherent social choice theory, concepts of legitimacy can be used to assess the acceptance of accounting standard-setting processes and their resulting norms. In this paper, we analyze the standard-setting process in Europe. Accounting rules in Europe are developed in a two-stage process involving both private standard-setting and public rule-making. From a structural perspective, the European Union (EU) is well positioned to develop legitimate accounting procedures. However, the original purpose and the ensuing legitimacy of its control mechanism are jeopardized when EU structures are used and sometimes abused for policy formation and the creation of EU-IFRS.     

Selective Commercialisation of Public-Sector Accounting and its Consequences for Public Accountability

This paper examines the exclusion of two accounting standards from the commercialised public-sector accounting model in Australia. It locates the commercialisation in the wider context of the global neo-liberal reform ideology and argues that the selective commercialisation is a product of the neo-corporatist standard-setting process and policy networks that can be explained by public choice and agency theories. It is found that the exclusions have resulted in a significant erosion of public accountability. As implementing the excluded standards will constitute a contradiction in policy, abrogation of the commercialised accounting model might be feasible and appropriate     

VALUE FOR MONEY AUDITING IN NEW ZEALAND: COMPETING FOR CONTROL IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

This paper provides an overview of the changing role of performance or Value for Money (VFM) auditing in the New Zealand public sector. In many countries there has been a strong interest in public sector reform and the place of accounting technologies such as VFM. A theoretical framework, derived from public policy literature, is used to explain the changing role and relevance of VFM auditing in New Zealand. Within the policy process problems, solutions and opportunities are relatively separate streams. Expert groups or epistemic communities compete to define the problem and to advocate their particular solutions. The Office of the Auditor-General is presented as an epistemic community within the New Zealand policy process and the technology of VFM as a solution to the problems of the day. However, the Treasury (NZ) also developed a policy solution involving radical restructure of the public sector, challenging the existing role of VFM. In response, the Audit Office re-defined the role of VFM auditing as a service to the parliamentary select committees. The changing role of VFM illustrates the flexible and the contestable nature of accounting technologies and casts some doubt on the argument that the growth of accounting in the public sector is inevitable.     

Motivations behind users’ participation in the standard-setting process: Focus on financial analysts

The aim of this study is to investigate what motivates financial analysts to participate in the accounting standard-setting process. We focus on financial analysts because they are an important group of the financial statements users. The paper employs the meso-level approach used by Durocher et al. (2007) that integrates the macro domain’s focus on the standard setters with the micro domain’s focus on individuals and thus it links the characteristics of due process for standard setting with users’ attitudes. We develop a survey for the Chartered Financial Analysts Institute (CFA), which is one of the largest associations of investment professionals in the world, and collected data through computer-assisted Web interviews. We use a structural equation model with PLS to test our hypotheses. Our main findings confirm that a combination of micro and macro domains explains the frequency of financial analysts’ participation in the standard setting process. This investigation, thus, deepens our understanding of motivations behind analysts’ involvement in the accounting standard-setting process and delivers both theoretical contributions and practical insights.     

两种基本财务会计信息需求与供给的矛盾和协调

投资者为满足决策需要和增强契约有效性产生了两种基本的信息需求,即有关公司未来业绩和风险的信息和与经理努力程度高度相关的业绩衡量信息。现实环境的财务会计无法同时在一份报告中完美地提供上述信息,对两种基本信息需求的权衡和报告成为经理利益驱动的会计选择结果。管制和准则在一定程度上协调了投资者和经理之间的会计信息的供需矛盾。认识我国当前的财务会计及其报告的环境,对会计研究者和准则制定者来说都具有重大的意义。     

Making up users

Within recent years, financial statement users have been accorded great significance by accounting standard-setters. In the United States, the conceptual framework maintains that a primary purpose of financial statements is to provide information useful to investors and creditors in making their economic decisions. Contemporary accounting textbooks unproblematically posit this purpose for accounting. Yet, this emphasis is quite recent and occurred despite limited knowledge about the information needs and decision processes of actual users of financial statements. This paper unpacks the taken-for-grantedness of the primacy of financial statement users in standard-setting and considers their use as a category to justify and denigrate particular accounting disclosures and practices. It traces how particular ideas about financial statement users and their connection to accounting standard setting have been constructed in various documents and reports including the conceptual framework and accounting standards.     

Understanding participation in accounting standard-setting: the case of AASB ED 192 Revised Differential Reporting Framework

This paper explores the motives of participants in the standard-setting process, based on the premise that standard-setters strive for standards that are useful for decision-making by a wide range of financial statement users. Our setting is the development of a contentious but contained Australian accounting standard, Reduced Disclosure Requirements. A consultative process initiated by the Australian Accounting Standards Board to create a specific Australian accounting standard for differential reporting provided an opportunity for interested parties to participate. We analyse the motives of participants through semi-structured interviews with members of the Australian Accounting Standards Board and comment letter writers who responded to the relevant exposure draft. Our findings identify participants’ economic and political motivations and question the ability of the current standard-setting process to extract decision-making requirements from a wide range of users of financial statements and to reflect these in financial reporting standards. We find that the perspectives gathered are homogenised and that the process privileges the voices of powerful elites.     

The academic community’s participation in global accounting standard-setting

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are now used in more than 100 countries. In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is considering a “Work Plan” to allow or require US corporations to use IFRS. Considering the rising importance of IFRS, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), the SEC, the European Union (EU), and others have called for broader stakeholder participation in the global accounting standard-setting process. Academicians are seen as one group that has the potential to have a strong positive influence in the shaping of accounting standards.This study investigates the academic community’s participation in the IASB’s standard-setting process through the submission of comment letters for 79 issues. For 55 IASB issues, 90 academics and academic organizations (5.8% of all respondents) provided 153 responses (2.7% of total responses). For 24 Draft Interpretations issued by the IASB’s International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC), just 17 academics and academic organizations (4.9% of respondents) provided 20 responses (1.9%).Overall, Anglo country writers dominated, with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States together providing a majority of writers and responses. Non-Anglo EU countries provided about a quarter of the writers and responses. While academic interest increased for a few issues, usually discussion papers and substantive issues, the overall response rate remained low. Possible reasons for low participation rates are discussed, as well as some changes that may increase academic engagement with the IASB’s standard-setting process.     

The IASB standard-setting process: Participation and perceptions of financial statement users

The interests of users of financial statements are, in theory, paramount to accounting standard-setters. However, there is a dearth of research into users' participation in, and influence on, the process of setting accounting standards. The enhanced status now accorded to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) offers the opportunity to examine these issues in a new regulatory context. This study reports the results of a questionnaire survey of the perceptions of, and participation in, the IASB process of a sample of UK investment management firms. The findings suggest that these firms' participation is not as low as is often inferred from the public record of comment letters. In particular, a considerable number of firms participate through representative report user organisations such as the Investment Management Association. Other findings suggest that the major factor inhibiting investment firms from participating is the cost of lobbying, not complacency that the IASB is ‘on their side’ and will naturally safeguard their interests. Moreover, the respondents consider the accounting profession and the European and US accounting standard-setters to be the dominant interest groups in the IASB standard-setting process.     

Are Financial Reports Useful? The Views of New Zealand Public Versus Private Users

This study reports on surveys conducted with users of financial reports in New Zealand. We compare findings for users of reports of two types of for‐profit entities, namely those with public accountability (public entities) and those with no public accountability (private entities). The findings indicate that both types of users have similar perceptions regarding the usefulness of financial statements, with the income statement and balance sheet rated as the most useful components. Furthermore, both types of users, especially private users, perceive financial statements as the most important information source for decision making. Public users have a greater interest in supplementary information than private users. The findings of this study contribute to the debate around differential reporting for private companies and have policy implications with regard to the user‐needs approach to accounting standard setting.     

The U.K. private finance initiative: An accounting retrospective

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in the U.K. has been the subject of considerable interest in government, professional and academic literature. This reflects its importance as one of the classic forms of Public Private Partnership, its adoption in other jurisdictions, the scale of infrastructure investment under PFI legislation and the extent of controversy that has accompanied its development and application. The financial reporting of PFI schemes has been one element of this controversy in view of its potential to limit public sector financial accountability by off-balance sheet financing and the potential for alternative interpretations of its accounting treatment. It is now an appropriate time to review the turbulent history of accounting for the PFI as U.K. public sector accounting is now based upon International Financial Reporting Standards. This has resulted in the redundancy of previous accounting guidance issued by the UK ASB and the Treasury which, at the time of being abandoned, contained unresolved inconsistencies.This paper uses a triangulation method of investigation linking the input to, and output from, the regulatory process to an analysis of public domain evidence of press coverage and letters submitted to the standard setter and interviews with key participants to the standard-setting process. This approach shows that hidden pressures were influential in the process of developing PFI accounting regulation. Different interpretations of the ASB's principles-based Application Note and the Treasury's more rules-based Technical Note created de-facto alternative accounting treatments. The pressure, from organisations such as the Financial Reporting Advisory Board, for reform of PFI accounting was only released by the government's decision to switch the U.K. public sector to IFRS-based accounting.     

Politics of Financial Reporting and the Consequences for the Public Sector

This article examines the political processes surrounding public sector accounting standard setting, in particular, the Australian decision to adopt sector-neutral International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). It contends that the history of private and public sector involvement in the accounting standard setting process to date, and recourse to regulatory theory, assist in understanding these contemporary developments. The article reveals that private sector interests have dominated accounting standard setters at all important stages of standard setting in Australia. It concludes by arguing that, given this continued neglect by standard setters, if public sector financial reporting standards are to remain relevant to the public sector, then it may be necessary for public sector regulators to set their own standards.     

Infrastructure Accounting for Local Authorities: Technical Management and Political Context

Internationally, there has been mounting interest in the subject of accounting for infrastructure assets and their deterioration. In New Zealand, the adoption of full accrual accounting across the public sector from 1989 has meant that local authorities have been grappling for some time with the problem of how best to account for these assets in a manner which is relevant for both managers and elected representatives. This paper reviews methods of accounting for infrastructure in New Zealand local authorities, and explores how infrastructure assets and related expenses might be accounted for in a manner which is consistent with both the New Zealand accounting profession's conceptual framework and the requirements of democratic decision making over the allocation of resources.     

Economic Effects of Accounting Regulation for Public Accountants: Evidence from the Netherlands

This paper provides empirical evidence on the size of the audit market and the number of public accountants supplying services in an attempt to understand the effects of accounting regulation for public accountants. Intuitively, the size of the market for public accounting services would be expected to increase because of accounting regulation and have beneficial effects for public accountants. However, the actual effects of accounting regulation depend on the level of voluntary disclosure before the regulation, the degree of compliance with the regulation by firms and the number of public accountants supplying services. The size effects of two changes in Dutch accounting regulation, one in 1970 and one in 1983, are analysed empirically. The indicators of the size of the market for public accounting services used suggest an increase in the size of the audit market. The results for the supply side suggest that the total number of employed public accountants adjusted to this increase. However, the total number of partners did not adjust to the increased size of the market. Two alternative explanations for the different findings for employed public accountants and partners are provided and discussed.