Measurement of formal harmonization progress:: The IASC experience

As a result of globalization, the accounting profession has become increasingly aware of the need to establish a single set of accounting standards that would be valid in the international arena. Recent events highlight the timeliness of this study, which provides an empirical measurement of International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) progress throughout its harmonization history. The purpose of this article is twofold: first, a new measure of the advances achieved through formal harmonization and second, to use this methodology to evaluate the IASC achievements all through its standard-setting activity. Our results prove that the IASC has made great progress in regard to the level of harmony achieved through the accounting standards it has issued or revised. Nevertheless, we conclude that the IASC needs to continue working towards greater formal harmonization. Our study also indicates research directions that could advance the study of formal harmonization. This specific area of research has generally been disregarded in the existing literature, a trend we would like to see reversed, considering that its application can provide valuable insight for standard-setting processes, especially now that the accounting community is so conscious of the need to advance the harmonization process.     

收入准则的国际比较与启示

2006年2月,我国财政部出台了新会计准则,以顺应世界经济一体化的形势.本文将新会计准则和国际会计准则中的收入准则加以比较,以发现差别,并分析会计准则国际趋同的形势.     

The use of International Accounting Standards terminology, a survey of IAS compliance disclosure

This study examined where and how companies that purport to be using International Accounting Standards (IAS) are referring to IAS in their financial statements. Virtually all firms surveyed referred to IAS in the footnotes but referred to IAS in the audit report just under 50 percent of the time. The largest group of companies uses a combination of home-country and IAS standards. A significant number of firms report the use of IAS standards with exceptions. The majority of these firms do not discuss the dollar impact of those exceptions. Referencing IAS with home country standards or exceptions reduces comparability and transparency of financial statements. The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) is referenced as the source of IAS in about half of the cases. Failure to reference the IASC as the source of IAS may result in ambiguity concerning what IAS means     

IASC改组的控制权之争与启示

在IASC改组过程中,美国与欧洲之间围绕改组后的IASC的控制权发生了激烈的争夺战,它们的强势地位迫使IASC修改了改组计划,最终同意了美国的改组建议,并于2001年1月正式完成改组。本文认为,IASC/IASB是富国的俱乐部,广大发展中国家处于绝对的弱势地位。     

On the myth of “Anglo-Saxon” financial accounting: a comment

Alexander and Archer (AA) in this journal suggest that the existence of Anglo-Saxon accounting (ASA) is a myth. They identify four hypotheses that might be thought to underpin ASA and seek to show that they are false. This comment suggests that two of the hypotheses are not central to AA's definition of ASA, and that the other two are more complex but do contain some support for the existence of ASA. More importantly, strong support for the existence of ASA can be found elsewhere in similar conceptual approaches and accounting practices and in international cooperation. It is suggested that the identification of ASA does have explanatory and predictive power for recent and forthcoming international developments.     

美国每股收益会计准则评析

本文对美国每股收益会计准则（本文所称“美国每股收益会计准则”为广义上的会计准则，包括会计原则委员会意见书、财务会计准则公告等）进行了评析，并将其与国际会计准则及我国的《企业会计准则第34号——每股收益》进行了比较，以期为我国相关准则的制定提供参考。     

On the Myth of “Anglo-Saxon” Financial Accounting

The term “Anglo-Saxon accounting” (ASA) is used by a number of academic writers on the subject of International Accounting to refer to an approach to financial accounting and reporting that is supposedly common to the UK and Ireland, the USA and other English-speaking countries including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. While most of the writers we cite as using this term are continental Europeans, they also include an Englishman, J. Flower. The term is typically used to imply not just similar conceptual and technical approaches, but also a hegemonic alliance in the international politics of accounting regulation.This article seeks to establish that ASA in this sense is a myth. We do this first by critically examining four putative commonalities that are frequently attributed to the UK and USA approaches to financial accounting and that form the basis of the myth, and second by indicating the unfeasibility of such a hegemonic alliance within the IASC. A myth may have some factual foundations, but belief in it rests also on bases that are non-factual. So it is with ASA. In particular, analysis of the terms “true and fair view” (TFV) and “fair presentation (FP) in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)” shows that, far from their possessing a semantic equivalence that constitutes a commonality between UK and US financial reporting, their interpretation indicates a profound difference between the UK and US approaches. What UK and US financial reporting have historically shared is a micro- and capital market orientation that lends itself to international accounting regulation in a context of global capital markets. But with such an orientation now being generally accepted internationally, the differences between UK and US financial reporting are taking on an increased significance that this article seeks to highlight.     

现值会计计量:研究历程、实际运用与原因剖析

2006年2月15日,财政部发布了38项具体会计准则,并于2007年1月1日起率先在上市公司执行。新会计准则与国际惯例接轨,比较全面地在我国会计准则体系中导入了公允价值计量属性,正式确定了包括历史成本、重置成本、可变现净值、现值以及公允价值等在内的五种主要会计计量属性。本文针对现值会计计量问题,探讨了中外现值计量研究的发展历程、实际运用及其原因。     

新会计准则中利得和损失的不足与完善之见

关于利得和损失,国际会计准则委员会和美国财务会计准则委员会给出的概念内涵不同,其地位也不同.尽管首次将利得和损失概念引入准则体系是新会计准则的亮点之一,但笔者认为,新会计准则在这方面仍有不足之处,需要进一步修订和完善.     

全球会计准则:会计国际化展望

本文从以下六个方面对会计的国际化进行介绍、分析和展望：(1)IASB工作的重大成果；(2)IASC基金会的目标；(3)国际会计准则理事会的组成情况；(4)准则咨询委员会(SAC)和国际财务报告解释委员会(IFRIC)的作用；(5)全球会计准则的工作安排；(6)欧洲联盟、澳大利亚、加拿大等对全球会计准则的态度。从这几方面的介绍与分析，总结了全球化准则——会计国际化是经济全球化的客观需要，但各上市公司在国内仍需要按各国会计准则编制另一套财务报表，即对内一套，对外一套。