CHANGES IN THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OF AUDITORS: (IN)STALLING THE EIGHTH DIRECTIVE IN THE UK

In 1984 the European Commission issued the Eighth Company Law Directive requiring each member State to ensure that its national rules met common standards for the education, training and qualification of statutory auditors (84/253/EEC; OJ 1984 L126/20). The Directive insisted that national governments take responsibility for the regulation of auditors, a requirement that clashed with the autonomy which many professional bodies believed they possessed. In this article we explore the processes through which the Eighth Directive on the regulation of auditors has been implemented in the UK. We argue that the Eighth Directive illuminates the effects of political and economic discourses on the development of accounting and auditing regulations and the protocols involved in installing such regulations into particular national contexts. The Eighth Directive represents a revealing moment in the shifts in political discourse (towards neo-liberalism) in the UK and the problems of reconciling new modes of economic and political thinking withinternationalregulatory programmes and institutions. Moreover, the implementation of the Eighth Directive in the UK cannot be comprehended outside of (i) an analysis of the problems the British Government has had in “managing” the accountancy profession in the UK and (ii), understanding the powerful image of the auditing industry as a key contributor to the UK economy.     

Mediating Interests: The Accountancy Bodies' Responses to the McFarlane Report

There is now a considerable literature on the significance for accountants of their being accepted as a profession. The claim that they have regard to ‘the public interest’ in their activities is a central feature of the accountancy bodies’ claims to being accepted as a ‘profession’. This, they argue, distinguishes them from trade associations and trade unions. The claim is significant for both their economic and symbolic value. This paper examines the accountancy bodies’ claims by examining their responses to the 1992 publication of a discussion document The Future of Auditing by the Auditing Practices Board. Responses by four major professional bodies are analysed in detail. It is concluded that most of them do not attempt to redeem the claim to have regard to the public interest. Instead, they are mainly concerned to promote their members' private interests, frequently by advocating policy measures that will advance their own members' interests at the expense of those of other accountancy bodies. The significance of the contradiction between the transparency of this advocacy and the considerable effort expended in claiming to act in the public interest is discussed.     

Simple theories for complex processes: Accounting policy and the market for myopia

The tendency to use simplified models to capture and predict complex phenomena in the social sciences is discussed and criticized by examining a paper on policymaking, Watts and Zimmerman's “Demand for and Supply of Accounting Theories: The Market for Excuses.” Criticism of the paper takes three forms: 1) the methodology and testability is shown to be suspect; 2) the applicability of the evidence cited to the propositions stated is questioned; 3) contrary evidence is given to rebut the theory.     

ACCOUNTING REGULATION: AN ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE

This paper analyses the debate over accounting regulation. Accepting the need for regulation, it first rejects the view of accounts as maps before going on question the conventional wisdom that the incompatibility of "interests" means that lack of agreement on standards is inevitable. It argues that conflicts over accounting standards are the result of clashes of worldview rather than interest, and provides evidence of this by analysing the debate over three contentious standards. The conclusion is that an agreed conceptual framework is feasible, although not on the basis currently envisaged.     

ACCOUNTING REGULATION: AN ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE: A REPLY

The comments by Willmott on the desirability of extending the argument of Laughlin and Puxty (1983) are welcomed. The roles of class and the State in accounting regulation are discussed, and Habermas's theory of communicative competence briefly alluded to as a means of dissolving conflict as an extension of the earlier paper.     

Ethical statements as smokescreens for sectional interests: The case of the UK accountancy profession

The UK accountancy industry has traded upon its professional status as a means of expanding and legitimating its activities. Extensive appeals are made to ethical codes and disciplinary arrangements as part of its claim to professional status. This study examines some recent events relating to audit failures and alleged unprofessional conduct by accountancy firms and their partners in the UK with a view to assessing the validity of the claims to professional status. It concludes that the rhetoric of the claims is belied by the failure/inability of the professional accountancy bodies to take effective action against the offending firms or their partners.Austin Mitchell After an early career as a university lecturer he became a television journalist and since 1983 has been a Member of Parliament. He was the Labour Party's Trade and Industry spokesman from 1987–1989. He published a number of books and many articles in the press.Anthony Puxty has since 1987 been professor of Accounting and Finance at the University of Strathclyde. He has published some seven books and more than seventy papers and articles.Prem Sikka is a professionally qualified accountant. He is currently a Principal Lecturer at the University of East London. He has published two research monographs and more than seventy five articles.Hugh Willmott is currently a Senior Lecturer in the Manchester School of Management, having worked previously at the University of Aston and the Copenhagen Business School. He has published seven books and contributed numerous articles to leading management, accounting, finance, and social science journals.