Search results

The enormous success of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in becoming globally accepted accounting standards leads to challenges in the future. The purpose of this paper is to outline challenges that arise from political influences and from the pressure to sustain a successful path in the development of standards. It considers two strategies for future growth which the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) follows: the work on fundamental issues and diversification to private entities.

The development of IFRS is discussed and evaluated against insights gained from accounting theory. In particular, results from information economics illustrate potential difficulties of the development of a new conceptual framework for international accounting standards.

The main findings are: the growth strategies adopted by the IASB are risky; the conceptual framework does not sufficiently take into account the diverse objectives of financial reporting; stewardship, prudence, and aggregation can be desirable characteristics of accounting information; and standards that are developed for listed companies need not be well suited for private entities.

The paper suggests that skepticism is warranted about the viability of a consistent framework that applies globally, and that there are benefits to constrained competition among different standards.

The paper reviews academic research that has implications for standard setting and identifies key issues in developing global accounting standards.

Accounting comparability has been the subject of significant interest in empirical financial accounting research. Recent literature, particularly that following De Franco et al.’s (2011) influential study, has focused on utilizing the output of the financial reporting process to measure accounting comparability. In this paper, we conduct an early survey of studies using output-based measures of comparability. We provide two distinct contributions to the literature. First, we describe and comment on four important measurement concepts as well as the studies that introduced them. With this methodological contribution, we aim to facilitate the measurement choice for empirical accounting researchers engaged in comparability research. Second, we classify the sub-streams of literature and related studies. In providing this content-related contribution, we sum up what has already been achieved in output-based accounting comparability research and highlight potential areas for prospective research. As a whole, our study attempts to guide empirical researchers who (plan to) undertake studies on accounting comparability in selecting relevant topics and choosing adequate approaches to measurement.

After some introductory words about the preeminence of German accounting research during the first half of the 20th century, the paper offers a survey of the most important theories of accounts classes that still prevailed during the first two decades or longer. Following World War I, the issue of hyperinflation in Austria and Germany stimulated a considerable amount of original accounting research. After the inflationary period, a series of competing Bilanztheorien, discussed in the text, dominated the scene. Two figures emerged supremely from this struggle. The first was Eugen Schmalenbach, with his “dynamic accounting”, a series of further important contributions to inflation accounting, to the master chart of accounts, to cost accounting, and to other areas of business economics. The other scholar was Fritz Schmidt, with his organic accounting theory that promoted replacement values and his emphasis on the profit and loss account, no less than the balance sheet. The gamut of further eminent personalities, listed in chronological order, contains the following names: Schär, Penndorf, Leitner, Gomberg, Nicklisch, Rieger, Prion, Osbahr, Passow, Dörfel, Sganzini, Walb, Calmes, Kalveram, Meithner, Lion, Töndury, Mahlberg, le Coutre, Geldmacher, Max Lehmann, Leopold Mayer, Karl Seidel, Alfred Isaac, Mellerowicz, Seyffert, Beste, Gutenberg, Käfer, Seischab, Kosiol, Münstermann, and others. Separate Sections or Sub‐Sections are devoted to charts and master charts of accounts in German accounting theory, as well as to cost accounting and the writing of accounting history.

This paper aims to analyse the character and strength of the claims made in an emerging literature offering a sociology of financial reporting principles.

The analysis evaluates exemplary works in the literature against the characteristics of the paranoid style first identified by Richard Hofstadter: overheated claims of a far-reaching, malign and collusive machinery of influence; a reductive, rationalistic and dualistic reading of events; weak empirics; and weak theorisation.

A significant stream within the literature is coming to be constructed in the paranoid style. Paranoid stylistics, used as a diagnostic tool, alerts us here to distorted judgement.

Alternative ways of avoiding the dangers of paranoid-style readings are suggested, ranging from resisting the temptations towards such readings to a radical re-working of the epistemics of “socio-accounting”.

The danger of allowing the conclusions advanced in the literature to go unchallenged is that they may influence society’s attitude to accounting, public policy-making and scholars’ willingness to contribute to the crafting of reporting principles and standards.

Although paranoid style analysis has been widely used to examine narratives in other academic fields, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to apply it to scholarly accounting.