This paper pursues the thought that the divide between ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ that Gendron and Rodrigue observe in the field of accounting research, is no more than a reflection or symptom of the more consequential divide that financial accounting enacts between the corporate entity and its social and natural environment. This shows accounting issues contributing to technical field legitimacy and emergence, such as the role of knowledge production, valuation practices and receptive environments, and the distinction between legitimate investments that can be valued and investment venture profitability.
#Generally accepted accounting principles pdf professional
Crucially, the epistemic cultures approach highlights deepening knowledge, resources and professional expertise, and their development through experimentation, failures and negative knowledge. The growth of knowledge, practices and tools was thus a necessary condition for the recognition of artwork as an asset class. Investment venture success has been determined by legitimacy as much as by profitability, given durable expectations about the evaluation and monitoring of investments. Technical knowledge about the financial characteristics of art has been developed alongside practical knowledge about how best to structure investment ventures. Using historical and ethnographic data covering half a century, we review the growth of the art investment field through an epistemic cultures lens. What can studying the creation of knowledge tell us about how new technical fields emerge and develop? This paper shows how a knowledge community may be necessary to support the legitimacy of new products that undergo performance evaluation before purchase.
However, the nature, diversity and complexity of factors identified in this paper are such that that they cannot be adequately captured using their proposed model. From their literature review the authors have collated an impressive, though not complete, range of factors that may have some impact on some stakeholder's perceptions of the value of financial reporting change. Individual perceptions of the possible future value of a financial reporting system are so contextually and socially defined that it is difficult to see how they could be empirically incorporated into their theoretical model. This commentary reflects on some of the assertions of the model in relation to the social and organisational processes of how accounting standards are changed and on the possibility of combining a multiplicity of factors into a meaningful value or values. They draw upon research from the social sciences to build a multiple factor model to measure stakeholder perceptions of the relative ‘value’ of different financial reporting systems. Their argument is based on an assumption that a better understanding of change processes is required in order to bring about financial reporting system change. They argue that their model provides improved understanding of individual characteristics and perceptions of financial reporting users, preparers and auditors that allow regulators and standard setters to devise strategies to cope with a range of implementation problems associated with new financial reporting systems. published in this issue of Accounting Forum. This commentary is about the article by Fontes et al. Our findings demonstrate the crucial information role of accounting in enhancing decentralization monitoring mechanisms and in thereby reducing corruption.
These findings are robust to alternative measures of accounting, decentralization and corruption and to endogeneity tests. In contrast, decentralization has a negative and decreasing effect on reducing corruption among countries with weak-quality accounting practices. Using multiple sources of data, we find that decentralization has a positive and increasing effect on reducing corruption among countries with a high-quality accounting practice. We argue that the effectiveness of decentralization as an anti-corruption barrier is complemented by the quality of the accounting practice in a country. Understanding this connection is important because weak financial accounting and reporting systems can inhibit monitoring incentives and thus reduce decentralization benefits in countering corruption. In this article, we connect these two strands of literature on corruption. In prior studies, accounting and decentralization corruption solutions have so far been analysed in isolation.
0 kommentar(er)
