The power of accounting: reflecting on water privatization?

Jean Shaoul (Manchester University, Manchester, UK)

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

ISSN: 0951-3574

Publication date: 1 August 1997

Abstract

The water industry was one of a number of publicly owned enterprises and assets which were privatized during the 1980s in the UK. The Government justified its privatization programme on a number of grounds. In particular, it claimed that privatization would improve industrial performance by subjecting the nationalized industries to the discipline of the market, and so would yield benefits, via greater efficiency, to the industry, customers and the nation. Examines first the extent to which an accounting model and the financial numbers in the annual reports and accounts can be used to substantiate Government claims, and describe and explain the outcomes. Assesses whether accounting can assume a constructive and emancipatory role, by challenging existing problem diagnosis ‐ public sector inefficiency ‐ and posing alternative questions and solutions. Shows that the financial evidence does not substantiate the Government’s claims. Finds that greater efficiency, meaning lower costs relative to output, did not occur. Significant increases in efficiency had occurred prior to privatization, leaving little room to improve efficiency without jeopardizing levels of service and future service provision. The distribution of the surplus, which is publicly seen as a conflict between consumers and shareholders, is in fact much wider than this. Argues that the surplus has been so distributed that it has not only substantially benefited the shareholders at the expense of other stakeholders, but also has created the conditions whereby the other stakeholders will be disadvantaged in the future. Concludes that the real beneficiaries were largely invisible in the Government’s case for privatization.

Keywords

Citation

Shaoul, J. (1997), "The power of accounting: reflecting on water privatization?", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 382-405. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579710178124

Download as .RIS

Publisher

:

MCB UP Ltd

Copyright © 1997, MCB UP 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.