Search results

The paper aims to offer a viewpoint on how governmental budgeting needs to be reconsidered after the COVID-19 outbreak.

Building on extant research, and drawing on the Italian context, the paper provides reflections on four interrelated aspects: (1) how budgeting and reporting processes and formats are being modified; (2) how budgeting may enhance governments' financial resilience; (3) how citizens are involved in the budgeting cycles and (4) how emergency responses may produce opportunities for corruption.

To tackle COVID-19 related challenges, budgeting, rebudgeting, reporting processes and formats need to be reconsidered and supported by the development of new competencies. Governments will need to put stronger emphasis on the anticipatory and coping roles of budgeting to reduce public organizations' exposure to shocks and support governmental resilience. The involvement of citizens has proven critical to face the pandemic and will become increasingly relevant due to the financial impacts of COVID-19 on future public service provision. Greater attention to the risks of increased corruption is also needed.

Drawing lessons from one of the countries most hit by COVID-19, the paper offers a viewpoint on a timely topic of international relevance by looking in an integrated way at interrelated topics such as budgeting, rebudgeting, reporting, financial resilience, coproduction and corruption.

The purpose of this polyphonic paper is to report on interdisciplinary discussions on the state-of-the-art and future of public sector accounting research (PSAR). The authors hope to enliven the debates of the past and future developments in terms of context, themes, theories, methods and impacts in the field of PSAR by the exchanges they include here.

This polyphonic paper adopts an interdisciplinary approach. It brings into conversation ideas, views and approaches of several scholars on the actual and future developments of PSAR in various contexts, and explores potential implications.

This paper has brought together scholars from a plurality of disciplines, research methods and geographical areas, showing at the same time several points of convergence on important future themes (such as accounting as a mean for public, accounting, hybridity and value pluralism) and enabling conditions (accounting capabilities, profession and digitalisation) for PSA scholarship and practice, and the richness of looking at them from a plurality of perspectives.

Exploring these past and future developments opens up the potential for interesting theoretical insights. A much greater theoretical and practical reconsideration of PSAR will be fostered by the exchanges included here.

In setting out a future research agenda, this paper fosters theoretical and methodological pluralism in the interdisciplinary research community interested in PSAR in various contexts. The discussion perspectives presented in this paper constitute not only a basis for further research in this relevant accounting area on the role, status and developments of PSAR but also creative potential for practitioners to be more reflective on their practices and also intended and united outcomes of such practices.

This paper aims to highlight the importance of (public) value(s) and publicness in accounting and accountability research. It pinpoints a range of issues that scholars need to contemplate when reconsidering publicness in accounting research and practice.

The paper adopts an interdisciplinary literature review associated with a conceptual discussion of the actual and future challenges of public service accounting and accountability in considering public value(s).

The paper illustrates the centrality of (public) value(s) at the individual, organizational and societal levels in shaping and being shaped by calculative practices, and shows that looking at the interconnections between values and accounting is a fruitful research avenue. Moreover, it highlights the power of embracing interdisciplinary approaches to illuminate these interconnections and relate them to complex and current phenomena.

The paper’s originality lies in the reconsideration of (public) value(s) for public service accounting scholars, providing a critical reflection and setting new research avenues.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the convergence of private and public sector accounting standards is affecting conceptual and practical issues relating to heritage. More specifically, the paper is intended to provide a better understanding of the state of the art in national and international accounting standards on heritage assets, and of the views influencing such standards.

A qualitative documentary analysis is carried out to explore the variety of existing positions and views on heritage, ranging from the scholarly literature, through potential stakeholders and users, to international and national standard setters.

The analysis shows that the path of convergence between public and private sector standards and practices is still problematic. After more than two decades of debate around the nature, definition, measurement, and reporting of heritage, these issues are far from settled.

In the light of calls for increased measurement and reporting of public sector “assets”, and specifically for the definition of standards to recognise heritage, the paper suggests the need to strongly reconsider whether the convergence between public and private sector standards is desirable, feasible and effective. As such, the risks of embracing simplified or hybrid forms of accounting and reporting for heritage should be more seriously assessed. While reporting on heritage is important, it is fundamental to keep it distinct from reporting on government’s regular operations, in order to appreciate its specific value, nature and features.

Looking at European national standards for heritage, the IPSASB’s proposals, and the reactions to the latter by relevant stakeholders, the paper provides a pluralistic view on the positions and experiences about heritage, contributing to the debate on the convergence between private and public sector accounting standards.

This introductory chapter elaborates on the tricky issue of measurement in public sector financial reporting, which arises due to the particular features of the public sector when compared to the private sector. It provides a summary of the book chapters, highlighting the theoretical/practical frameworks used, methodologies and conclusions. Three themes are identified in the book, namely, (a) frameworks and methodologies; (b) measuring and reporting the elements in financial statements; and (c) heritage. This chapter identifies important avenues for further research.

The study contributes to the literature on public value and performance examining politicians’ and managers’ perspectives by investigating the importance they attach to the different facets of performance information (i.e. budgetary, accrual based- and non-financial information (NFI)).

We survey politicians and managers in all Italian municipalities of at least 80,000 inhabitants.

Overall, NFI is more appreciated than financial information (FI). Moreover, budgetary accounting is preferred to accrual accounting. Politicians’ and managers’ preferences are generally aligned.

NFI as a measure of public value is not alternative, but rather complementary, to FI. The latter remains a fundamental element of public sector accounting due to its role in resource allocation and control.

The preference for NFI over FI and of budgetary over accruals accounting suggests that the current predominant emphasis on (accrual-based) financial reporting might be misplaced.

Public value and performance are multi-faceted concepts. They can be captured by different types of information and evaluated according to different criteria, which will also depend on the category of stakeholders or users who assesses public performance. So far, most literature has considered the financial and non-financial facets of performance as virtually separate. Similarly, in the practice, financial management tends to be decoupled from non-financial performance management. However, this research shows that only by considering their joint interactions we can achieve an accurate representation of what public value really is.

Measurement and evaluation issues have long represented the main criticality of accrual accounting adoption in the public sector. While professional accountants and scholars have mostly focused on the recognition and measurement of typical public assets (e.g. heritage and community assets), the authors contend that more attention should be paid to the equity (net assets). The equity requires additional evaluation criteria that stem from the representation of an accounting aggregate that does not exist per se but rather derives as a residual from all the other items reported in the balance sheet. This chapter proposes an illustrative case study on the evolution of the accrual accounting principle for Italian local governments (LGs). The findings enable the gaining of a deeper understanding of how the equity can be represented and discuss which informative objectives it can address in public administrations. Practical recommendations are delivered for national and international accounting standard setters for the public sector.

Implementation of accrual-based accounting systems and the related preparation of an initial balance sheet are stimulating a debate on valuation and management of fixed assets, emphasising how critical it is to have adequate asset information. This chapter aims to propose a framework to clarify the relationship between the asset inventory and the asset register by examining the objectives and characteristics of asset information systems, drawing from experience regarding the implementation of asset inventories and registers from four countries (Malaysia, South Africa, Switzerland, and Australia – State of Victoria).

Heritage assets (HAs) are important goods or properties that define a country’s culture, history, and identity. Public sector entities are the primary custodians of a nation’s heritage properties; however, many local museums and historic houses are managed by private not-for-profit (NFP) organisations that essentially act to conserve these heritage places.

Through a documentary analysis, this chapter aims to investigate the points of convergence and the differences between accounting policies for governmental heritage and private NFP organisations.

The study demonstrates that even private NFP entities present the same characteristics as public sector ones in the accounting of heritage goods and that there are certain accounting standards being equally applicable; therefore, the accounting policies for governmental heritage are in accordance with the accounting policies for NFP organisations such as museums, art galleries, charities, churches, for their heritage goods.