Some Like it Non-Financial …

Abstract

Over the last decades the process of modernization in the public sector has fostered the adoption of new accounting techniques, such as accrual accounting and non-financial performance measurement systems. The purpose of this paper is to test hypotheses on the different perceptions of politicians and managers as to the importance of performance information. Our findings suggest that politicians’ and managers’ views on the importance of performance information are more similar than expected. They also show that accounting innovations are in some cases embraced with enthusiasm (non-financial performance), whereas in other cases they are hardly recognized (e.g. accrual accounting).     

Development of a multi-dimensional measure for assessing entrepreneurial ecosystems

ABSTRACT

Researchers and theorist have put great effort into defining and examining entrepreneurial ecosystems and how business clusters develop in certain regions. Favourable entrepreneurship ecosystems are thought to drive business and innovation. However, a commonly accepted measure of entrepreneurial ecosystem favourableness has yet to be developed. The purpose of the present research is to contribute to ecosystems research by taking a two-study approach to developing and validating a perceptual measure of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The perceptual measure is based upon prior conceptual frameworks that outline ecosystems. In developing this measure, we are able to further unpack and illuminate the factor structure of ecosystems, the results of which have direct scholarly and practitioner uses.     

Justifying Public Sector Accounting Change from the Inside: Ex-post Reflections from Three Countries

Looking at accounting reforms in central government, the paper investigates how key actors (senior managers responsible for developing and/or implementing change) account for the related change outcomes subsequent to implementation. Using aggregated data from three countries (the UK, Italy, and Austria), and a mixed-methods approach, the study investigates which rhetorical strategies are used to construct ex-post legitimation or delegitimation of the changes, and how these strategies are associated with different perceived outcomes of change. Building on previous literature, possible strategies for ex-post (de-)legitimation and outcomes of change are identified. The study finds that radical change (leading to new accounting systems bedding down with accompanying new interpretative schemes) is associated with ex-post legitimation based on rationalization. In contrast, incremental change (introducing new accounting tools, but not resulting in changed interpretative schemes) is often connected with narratives criticizing (or delegitimating) the change. The study contributes to the scant body of literature focusing on ex-post legitimation of accounting change. How managers justify change in relation to its outcomes provides useful insights for the current situation when, as a consequence of crisis and austerity, new roles and relevancies for accounting and control systems continue to emerge. It is argued that for change to be substantive, it is not only essential that the actual systems and structures of accounting are adjusted, but it is critical that the way people interpret and make sense of accounting information (and consequently take decisions) is also modified. The particular challenges of achieving this in a period of crisis are highlighted.     

Public Sector Reforms: Changing Contours on an NPM Landscape

Previous studies suggest that public sector accounting has moved from Public Administration (PA) to New Public Management (NPM) ideas and, more recently, towards a New Public Governance (NPG) approach. These systems are presented as mutually exclusive and competing. Focusing on accounting changes in the UK central government, this paper explores whether movements towards NPG ideas can be identified at the level of political debate. No evidence is found that NPM is a transitory state. Rather, the findings demonstrate that political debate continues to utilise predominantly NPM arguments, with the three systems viewed as containing complementary, rather than competing, schemes.     

Justifying accounting change through global discourses and legitimation strategies. The case of the UK central government

Accounting has been viewed, especially through the lens of the recent managerial reforms, as a neutral technology that, in the hands of rational managers, can support effective and efficient decision-making. However, the introduction of new accounting practices can be framed in a variety of ways, from value-neutral procedures to ideologically charged instruments. Focusing on financial accounting, budgeting and performance management changes in the UK central government, and through extensive textual analysis and interviews in three government departments, this paper investigates: how accounting changes are discussed and introduced at the political level through the use of global discourses; and what strategies organisational actors subsequently use to talk about and legitimate such discourses at different organisational levels. The results show that in political discussions there is a consistency between the discourses (largely New Public Management) and the accounting-related changes that took place. The research suggests that a cocktail of legitimation strategies was used by organisational actors to construct a sense of the changes, with authorisation, often in combination with, at the very least, rationalisation strategies most widely utilised. While previous literature posits that different actors tend to use the same rhetorical sequences during periods of change, this study highlights differences at different organisational levels.