Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate the prevalence of earnings management in the Australian not-for-profit (NFP) disability service providers sector, as well as to understand the motivations for and implications of such practices. This research is important for stakeholders, such as members and funders, as well as the broader Australian community, considering the significant financial resources allocated to these organizations from the public purse.

The authors employ a longitudinal dataset containing financial data from 154 Australian NFP disability service providers, collected over a two-year period (2015–2016). Through the analysis of detailed balance sheets and income statements, the authors seek to uncover evidence of earnings management practices in this sector. The study’s results provide valuable insights into the behaviour of the charitable human services sector.

The findings reveal that Australian NFP disability service providers engage in earnings management practices, primarily aimed at reducing reported profits to meet the normative financial expectations of stakeholders, such as public sector funders and philanthropists. The executives of these organizations strive to report profits close to zero, being cautious not to report a loss, which might raise concerns about their sustainability.

The authors contribute to the existing literature on earnings management in the NFP sector by focussing on Australian disability service providers, an area that has been under-researched due to a lack of suitable data. The results offer insights into the incentives and implications of earnings management practices in this sector and highlight the need for a revaluation of accounting standards, reporting requirements and audit arrangements applicable to the NFP sector.

The purpose of this paper is to show that 2009 H1N1 “swine” influenza pandemic vaccination policies deviated from predictions established in the theory of political survival, and to propose that pandemic response deviated because it was ruled by bureaucratized experts rather than by elected politicians.

Focussing on the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, the paper employs descriptive statistical analysis of vaccination policies in nine western democracies. To probe the plausibility of the novel explanation, it uses quantitative and qualitative content analyses of media attention and coverage in two deviant cases, the USA and Denmark.

Theories linking political survival to disaster responses find little empirical support in the substantial cross-country variations of vaccination responses during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Rather than following a political logic, the case studies of media coverage in the USA and Denmark demonstrate that the response was bureaucratized in the public health agencies (CDC and DMHA, respectively). Hence, while natural disaster responses appear to follow a political logic, the response to pandemics appears to be more strongly instituted in the hands of bureaucratic experts.

There is an added value of encompassing bureaucratic dynamics in political theories of disaster response; bureaucratized expertise proved to constitute a strong plausible explanation of the 2009 pandemic vaccination response.

Pandemic preparedness and response depends critically on understanding the lessons of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic; a key lesson supported by this paper is that expert-based agencies rather than political leaders are the pivotal actors.

This paper is the first to pinpoint the limitations of political survival theories of disaster responses with respect to the 2009 pandemic. Further, it is among the few to analyze the causes of variations in cross-country pandemic vaccination policies during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.