Neoliberalism, deregulation and Sarbanes‐Oxley

Barbara D. Merino (University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA)
Alan G. Mayper (University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA)
Thomas D. Tolleson (Texas Wesleyan University, Fort Worth, Texas, USA)

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

ISSN: 0951-3574

Publication date: 3 August 2010

Abstract

Purpose

The paper aims to use a neoliberal ideology to frame an analysis of how the power of ideas can be used to maintain a failed corporate governance model based on stockholder primacy.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper employs the concept of corporate hegemony to provide an understanding of the conditioning environment in the USA in the 1990s. It examines the tactics that neoliberals used to gain consensus for their ideology and to skillfully deflect criticism in the face of significant policy failures that have had a global impact.

Findings

The paper highlights the power of ideology to create a desired outcome. It finds that Sarbanes‐Oxley represented a neoliberal victory in that it legitimated shareholder primacy and continued use of a failed corporate governance model.

Practical implications

Sarbanes‐Oxley did not address the systemic problems associated with deregulation; it will not resolve the basic problem of how to prevent corporate malfeasance in an economic environment that rewards arbitrage capitalism, high risk and a focus on short‐term profits.

Originality/value

If shareholder primacy weakens accountability, as the paper suggests, then accounting researchers need to develop models that focus on deregulation rather than on regulatory capture and the use of state power to promote private interests. Accounting academics need to assume the role of public intellectuals and to reject Milton Friedman's focus on negative freedom as the sole objective of economic activity and examine economic well being in terms of positive freedom.

Keywords

Citation

Merino, B., Mayper, A. and Tolleson, T. (2010), "Neoliberalism, deregulation and Sarbanes‐Oxley", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 774-792. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571011065871

Download as .RIS

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2010, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Please note you might not have access to this content

You may be able to access this content by login via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
If you would like to contact us about accessing this content, click the button and fill out the form.
To rent this content from Deepdyve, please click the button.