Local Government Accounting Standard-setting in Australia: Did Constituents Participate?

The Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (PSASB) has developed accounting standards for the public sector in Australia. A procedural 'due process' has been developed to protect the openness, neutrality and independence of Australian standard-setting both in the private and public sectors. Prior research into constituent participation in the 'due process' for specific cases in the public sector has raised doubts as to whether the 'due process' operated in an open, neutral and independent manner. It has found that account preparers were under-represented in their responses and used less sophisticated lobbying strategies than other respondents. The research also concluded that some constituents had favourable access to the 'due process', and that standard setters did not receive all pertinent information from constituents. This paper examines constituent participation in the 'due process' for the first public sector accounting standard, that for local government ( AAS 27 ). The submissions made on the exposure draft preceding the standard – ED 50 – have been analysed using content analysis. The findings suggest that account preparers were well-represented in their responses and adopted the lobbying strategy of weighting their responses with supporting argument for the most controversial issues. Contrary to prior research, the paper concludes that in the case of ED 50 there is no evidence that the 'due process' failed to operate in an open and neutral manner.     

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.     

Constituent Participation and the IASB's International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee

Abstract

While international convergence of accounting standards is becoming more of a reality, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) continues to seek greater acceptance and legitimacy as an institution. Constituent participation is one key component for an organization to obtain legitimacy and success. This study investigates constituent participation of one significant part of the IASB, the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC). IASB/IFRIC constituents are classified in two ways: (1) geographically (by country and region); and (2) stakeholder interest group (the accounting profession, regulators, preparers and users). Respondents writing comment letters in regards to IFRIC's first 18 Draft Interpretations are examined. A total of 272 respondents from 40 countries generated 714 comment letters. The European Union provided a majority of writers and letters, with the UK being the largest contributor. The USA, Canada and developing countries generated few letters. Constituent participation significantly increased over IFRIC's predecessor committee, but responses remain concentrated with 35 respondents, mostly professional accountancy bodies and accounting standard-setters, generating 58% of the comment letters. Users accounted for only 5% of letters. While improved constituent participation may support the notion of increased legitimacy, limited participation by some IFRIC constituents suggests that the IASB should further promote constituent participation to achieve greater legitimacy.     

The PSASB: The Accounting Profession in Regulatory Space

This study uses the "regulatory space" construct to examine the role of the organised accounting profession in expanding and enhancing the domain of accrual accounting to Australian public-sector financial reporting, through the advent, operations and output of the PSASB as its participant in regulatory space. To fully understand the role of the accounting profession, its actions and impacts are placed in historical and political contexts that also give consideration to the roles of other participants in regulatory space.     

IPSAS or IFRS as the Framework for Public Sector Financial Reporting? New Zealand Preparers’ Perspectives

The last 30 years have seen public sector accounting in many countries undergo considerable change. More recently, some governments adopted accrual accounting and International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), some adopted modified International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) while others continued with cash‐based accounting. New Zealand (NZ) has, for more than two decades, followed a sector neutral approach to financial reporting and standard setting where the same accounting standards were applied to all entities in all sectors: for‐profit, not‐for‐profit and the public sector. This period included the adoption of IFRS by for‐profit entities with minor modifications for the public sector. The suitability of IFRS for the public sector has been questioned and, recently, standard setters in NZ decided to adopt a sector‐specific standard‐setting approach with multiple tiers for each sector. The for‐profit sector will continue to follow IFRS but reporting standards for the public sector will be based on IPSAS. In this period of change we sought the views of preparers of public sector financial reports regarding the users of such reports and their preferences for the public sector reporting framework. We also sought the views of the preparers regarding the usefulness of each financial statement for users, and whether the benefits of reporting by their organisations exceeds the costs. The findings indicate support for maintaining IFRS as a basis for reporting in the NZ public sector. However, IPSAS modified to NZ conditions is also perceived as an acceptable option by respondents in this study. The income statement is, in the opinion of the respondents in this study, the most useful statement while cash flows appear to hold little value. A high proportion of respondents believe that the benefits of reporting exceed the costs, which contradicts the view that such reports are mainly compliance documents that provide little value. This finding contributes to the continuing debate on costs versus benefits on the recent introduction of IPSAS as the reporting framework for the public sector and the perceived appropriateness of IPSAS in public sector reporting.     

Accounting For Financial Instruments: An Overview

The explosion in the growth of derivative financial instruments in recent years is a major cause of concern for accounting standard-setters. This paper considers the reasons for the growth and identifies the accounting problems associated with these instruments. The relevant United States and Australian pronouncements are discussed. Major proposals in ED 59 Financial Instruments are outlined and two critical issues concerning the automatic writedown of financial assets and the treatment of anticipatory hedges are identified. ED 59 contains similar proposals to E 48 issued by the IASC. However, there are some differences between the two documents and these are discussed. The paper also considers possible developments in accounting for financial instruments.     

Measuring and Reporting The Nation's Finances: Statistics and Accounting

Measuring and reporting the nation's finances are based on government budgeting, national accounting and the accounting discipline, which are all fundamentally different. The nature and extent of these differences has rarely been made explicit. The most visible change in the accounting discipline in the second half of the 20th century was the emergence of codifications of accounting, with concomitant policy–making processes that allow for 'due process'. One result is that each codification is different within countries such as the UK and US, as well as between them. The codifications for government budgeting and national accounting are different again. The article offers some broad conclusions.     

Charity performance reporting,regulatory approaches and standard-setting

Internationally, there are strong calls for charities’ formal annual reporting to include non-financial performance information. Without the international standards common in other sectors, national accounting standard-setters often regulate charities’ reporting. Lacking evidence on approaches to encouraging/mandating charity performance reporting, and the effectiveness of these approaches, we ask: “How have different jurisdictions responded to calls for increasing performance reporting?”We conduct a benchmarking study that indicates differences in current reporting practices between Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. By discussing both current regimes and proposed projects, we develop and illustrate a typology of regulatory approaches to performance reporting. These range from command and control, where standard-setters mandate specific performance reporting standards, through to market regulation, where charities and/or sector bodies acting as regulatory entrepreneurs determine what is to be reported. Between these extremes, the typology describes new governance approaches, with standard-setters partnering and collaborating with other actors. These approaches lead to different requirements with potentially significant implications for performance accountability in the respective jurisdictions. We argue that our regulatory typology contributes useful insights for the many jurisdictions grappling with how to regulate their charity sector and encourage performance reporting.     

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.     

The Downside of Harmonisation Haste: The Equity Accounting Experience

While the main harmonisation objective of legalising the use of equity accounting in the consolidated financial statements has been achieved to the relief of Australian business, the Australian standard-setting boards have had less success in harmonising the detailed application and implementation rules. With no clear conceptual direction, they appear to have arbitrarily adhered to, and deviated from, international precedents on ancillary issues of significance to the users and preparers of financial statements.     

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.     

GAAP,GFS and AASB 1049: perceptions of public sector stakeholders

Efforts by Australian standard‐setters to harmonise public sector financial reporting resulted in AASB 1049, which sought to bridge the divide between generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)‐based and government finance statistics (GFS)‐based financial statements. However, whether AASB 1049 has resulted in information that is considered appropriate for the public sector has not been examined. We explore this issue by comparing the requirements of AASB 1049 with the responses from a survey of public sector stakeholders on the appropriate accounting treatment and presentation of selected financial items. The analysis suggests consensus with AASB 1049 on presentation issues but less consensus on accounting treatments.     

Issues affecting the development of an international accounting standard on financial instruments

While the global convergence of accounting standards is making steady progress, certain issues stand out as challenges. A major area where an international accounting standard has not gained universal acceptance is that of financial instruments. The European Union's refusal to adopt all of International Accounting Standard (IAS) 39, Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement, highlights that fact. The International Accounting Standards Board continues to address financial instruments in efforts to remedy this situation. Thus, it is important to better understand issues affecting the development of an international financial instruments accounting standard. The purpose of this study is to find out what issues are important to respondents in their comment letters regarding the Financial Instruments Discussion Paper (FIDP), and whether stakeholder groups differ in positions and the reasons given to support their views. The FIDP represented a major step toward approval of IAS 39 and proposed fair value accounting for all financial instruments. Over 1500 pages of comment letters were generated by the 168 respondents, who represented over 20 countries and several different stakeholder groups. While most respondents disagreed with the FIDP, differences in support and the specific issues used to support those positions were found by stakeholder interest group (accounting profession, regulators, standard-setters, financial analysts, and preparers) and by stakeholder nationality.     

国际公共部门会计准则的回顾、基本框架及其启示

本文通过回顾国际公共部门会计准则 (IPSASs) 的发展史, 从公共部门财务报告的目标、会计核算基础、会计要素的分类、定义、确认和计量, 以及财务报表的列报等方面, 简要地介绍了国际公共部门会计准则的基本框架及其对我国开展公共部门会计改革和会计标准制定的启示。     

A Multi-Issue/Multi-Period Analysis of the Geographic Diversity of IASB Comment Letter Participation

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) establishes accounting standards now used in some form in over 100 countries. Diverse geographical participation in International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) standard-setting is seen as desirable as it may improve the consistency of IFRS applications, reduce criticism of regional over-influence, and promote the legitimacy of the IASB. This study investigates country participation and the regional and institutional factors that influence the geographic diversity of comment letters (CLs) in the IASB's standard-setting process. Using CLs regarding 57 IASB issues from 2001 through 2008, we find that countries with EU membership, G4+1 membership, donations to the IASB, and larger equity market development are associated with larger numbers of CLs and CL writers. Analysis of a subsample of more developed countries finds some evidence that countries with more historic divergence in accounting standards from IFRS also have more CL writers. In most countries, one of several major stakeholder interest groups, such as professional accountancy bodies, accounting standard-setters, and public accounting firms, send at least half of the CLs. While response levels for most countries vary greatly depending upon the nature or topic of an IASB issue, overall response levels remain low at just over 100 responses per issue and did not increase over time. While geographic diversity and response rates are greater than its predecessor the International Accounting Standards Committee, they are lower than those of many national standard-setters, possibly raising due process and legitimacy issues for the IASB.     

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.     

Pathway to 2005 IASB Standards

The proposed adoption of international accounting standards is a challenge worth meeting if the result is a set of internationally acceptable high-quality accounting standards that leads to improved transparent financial reporting. If the effort is unsuccessful, we will have lost a unique opportunity for accounting standard-setters to make a quantum improvement in the quality of financial reporting.     

Exploring attitudes to financial reporting in the Australian not‐for‐profit sector

The current level of satisfaction among different stakeholders about the current approaches and practises of financial reporting of not‐for‐profit (NFP) entities is underexplored ( Christensen and Mohr, 2003 ; Lee, 2004 ; Gray et al., 2006 ; Parker, 2007 ). This paper uses content analysis to examine submissions to the 2008 Australian Senate Economics Standing Committee for its inquiry into the disclosure regimes of charities and NFP organisations, which aimed to explore attitudes about financial reporting in the NFP sector. Financial reporting is viewed as an important part of accountability, but the sector identifies deficiencies in the current regime in terms of consistency, efficiency and transparency. Respondents to this inquiry believed that a sector‐specific accounting standard was important. Financial reporting standards, regulations and legal structures should be uniform across the entire sector, but with some variation allowed for smaller NFPs. The cost of complying with standards was a significant issue for smaller NFPs.     

Harmonisation of Government Finance Statistics and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

Harmonisation between the Australian accounting standards applicable to the public sector and Government Finance Statistics is the highest priority for Australian public-sector reporting. The objective of harmonisation is to achieve a standard for a single set of government reports which are auditable, comparable between jurisdictions, and in which the outcome statements are directly comparable with the relevant budget statements. The result will be an improvement in the quality, clarity and transparency of government financial statements, and will remove the source of confusion as to which set of financial reports presents a more reliable portrayal of financial results.     

The PSASB: The Accounting Profession in Regulatory Space

This study uses the "regulatory space" construct to examine the role of the organised accounting profession in expanding and enhancing the domain of accrual accounting to Australian public-sector financial reporting, through the advent, operations and output of the PSASB as its participant in regulatory space. To fully understand the role of the accounting profession, its actions and impacts are placed in historical and political contexts that also give consideration to the roles of other participants in regulatory space.