Search results

To expand one's understanding about how accounting helps to shape, mediate and constitute the public interest, the private interest, and their relationships.

An interpretive approach is utilized to analyze the documents that have both informed and legitimized the Japanese financial regulatory changes since the end of 1970s.

The paper finds that the concepts of private and public interest, and their relationships have been mutable in the deployment of accounting rhetoric. The concept of private interest was given more concrete shape as the market‐oriented reform advanced in the name of public interest.

This paper sheds light on the constructing role of accounting in society, which in turn helps to understand changing conceptualizations of the public interest, the private interest, and their relationships.

The purpose of this study is to review current policy debates on convergence in Korea and the UK. This study compares the two countries' cases of how they prepare for convergence, what are the regulatory frameworks, and what are the conflicting issues in the convergence.

This study conducts a comparative case study between Korean and the UK. Data are collected through literature review, regulatory document and market research.

The regulation in the UK has been focused on how to change the notion of public interest in the convergence era, whereas the agenda in Korea seems to be how to apply a legacy of public interest to convergence services. The laws of public interest in Korea have been drawn from a legacy regime, which makes applying in a convergence era increasingly difficult. There is a compelling need for conceptual clarification in understanding the meaning of public interest in the convergence environment.

Future research may further investigate the effective regulatory framework in the emerging convergence era.

Regulation needs to be transparent, clear and proportional and distinguish between transport and content. This implies a more horizontal approach to regulation with a homogenous treatment of all transport network infrastructure and associated services, irrespective of the nature of the services carried.

This research identifies issues regarding convergences and suggests a way in which the two different principles of broadcasting and telecommunications can be integrated; how public interest laws can be reconciled with considerations of competition and economic efficiency is explained.

In recent years, public administration has been targeted by multiple reform efforts. In multiple instances, such initiatives have been ideologically couched in public-choice perspectives and entrenched beliefs that government is the problem. One unavoidable consequence of this continued bout of criticism is the fact that government currently has a noticeably decreased capacity of boosting creation of public value. Within this context, there certainly is an important need for approaches that would counterbalance the loss of public value induced by market fundamentalism. This article suggests that leadership, as a concept of theory and practice, due to its partial immunity to the private-public dichotomy, can provide a pragmatic avenue for nurturing public interest and public value within the devolution of governance, a declining trust in government and a diminished governmental capacity to propagate the creation of public value. While this article critically examines and assesses the capacity of different leadership perspectives in terms of creating and maximizing public value, its primary scope is not the provision of definite answers but rather the instigation of a much necessary discussion.

This paper aims to generate new research directions at the intersection of accounting, whistleblowing and publicness: defined as the attainment of public goals, interests and values.

A problematising review is used to challenge and rethink the existing accounting and whistleblowing literature by incorporating readings from the public interest and public value literature. The paper draws on the work of Dewey (1927), Bozeman (2007) and Benington (2009) to open up new ways of theorising relations between accounting, whistleblowing and publicness.

Firstly, the paper develops a public interest theoretical framework which shows whistleblowing is a public value activity that moves organisational wrongdoing into the public sphere where it is subject to democratic debate and dialogue required to reconcile the public's interests with what the public values. Secondly, this framework provides one answer to continuing questions in the literature of how to define accountings relationship to the public interest. Finally, the paper suggests this conceptual framework be used to stimulate debate on whether and how one should expand existing accounting and accountability knowledge boundaries to incorporate the broader social, political and moral concerns highlighted by whistleblowers acting in the public interest.

Accounting and whistleblowing research has ignored the theoretical implications of whistleblowing in the public interest. The paper shows how accounting and accountability can respond to the challenges of a shifting and intangible public interest by providing a conceptual framework to guide current and future theoretical questions of how accounting is connected to the public interest.

This paper aims to present a conceptual model for public relations specific to museums.

Based on relevant literature, a contingency model is developed for the public relations practices of museums.

The model offers the market orientation level of the management and the interest level of the publics as the major factors that influence the effectiveness of the public relations programs in museums. The interest level of the publics is offered as a moderating variable.

The model suggests that the effectiveness of the public relations programs of museums depends on two major factors. Although the interest level of the publics may seem to be uncontrollable at first glance, its negative impact can be largely controllable by managers by changing their own market orientation level – by adapting the public relations strategy to the targeted public depending on the interest level of that public.

The model is specifically designed for museums. It can be accepted as the first public relations model specifically offered for museums. The model here recognises the relationship between marketing and public relations.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of the public interest. The central question is whether the public interest is a usable concept in a time of social and political change. A historical overview of the public interest is provided. Two researchers are highlighted: David John Farmer and O.C. McSwite. The paper concludes by proposing the refusal of subjective identification with the public interest.

Discourse theory and Lacanian psychoanalysis are discussed in this paper. The emphasis in both approaches is to examine ethical challenges in politics and administration through new epistemological lenses. A further use of these research strategies is to identify existing institutional practices and situate administrative decision-making within those practices.

The findings in this paper indicate that while institutional resistance is useful, it can also be co-opted or result in retribution. In both cases, power is asserted and maintained by those who hold institutional power. David John Farmer’s work on anti-administration and O.C. McSwite’s work on administrative refusal are effective strategies to address the abuse of institutional power.

This paper introduces the concept of subjective identification to the literature of public administration. Subjective identification offers administrators a new approach to the ethical dilemmas they face in the workplace.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

To examine the rhetorical claims put forth by several prominent organizations in the American public accounting profession that claim to act in the public interest, and to attempt to identify the ideological position or positions underlying their claims.

Certain rhetorical claims put forth by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) are examined. A discussion of Paul Ricoeur's concept of ideology follows, along with an explanation of the way in which Ricoeur's understanding of ideology can be used to gain a better understanding of the ideology of the American public accounting profession.

Initially it appears that the rhetorical claims of the prominent organizations of the American public accounting profession reveal an underlying neo‐liberal ideology. Closer examination indicates a certain degree of ambiguity with respect to a neo‐liberal ideology, with a greater emphasis placed on the importance of regulation of capital markets through auditing and financial accounting standards setting. This ambiguity also reveals that there are economic interests involved and that these economic interests constitute a public accounting ideology, one which conflates the values and activities of the public accounting profession with serving the public interest. This public accounting ideology can be understood as providing a socially integrative function for the public accounting profession and also a justifying function with respect to maintaining the legitimate authority of CPAs with respect to auditing and financial accounting standards setting. The distortive aspect of ideology is also evident, in that there seems to be an inability to determine precisely what the meaning of the public interest is or may be.

This is a limited study of only three prominent organizations in the American public accounting profession.

May help to define the meaning of the term “the public interest.”

Uses Ricoeur's concept of ideology for the first time in the accounting literature. One of the first papers to explicitly address the meaning of “the public interest.”

Defaults in corporations, financial institutions and semipublic organizations have resulted in (corporate) governance Codes and Law provisions that aim to improve governance, risk management and policy making by executive and non-executive directors of involved boards in The Netherlands and across the globe. The aim of this chapter is to discuss how semipublic organizations deal with public interest and the contribution of multiple stakeholder team production theory (MSTP) to effectively deal with the issue of how to include interests of different stakeholders and the general public interest in the governance of and policy making by boards of semipublic organizations. This includes the identification, raising awareness and analysis of various interests and their implications.

The authors use a literature review and their own experience.

Based on our literature review and experience converging in a case study design, we hold that a semipublic organization’s exposure to public interests and how it deals with that will remain a critical issue.

We develop a research approach for dealing with stakeholders’ and the public interest and conclude that a governance perspective grounded in team production theory allows for a much better focused incorporation of possibly conflicting stakeholder interests, including public stakeholder interests and stakeholder commitment and cooperation than the dominant control perspective that is currently prevailing.

We contribute to the literature by arguing that the combined MSTP approach offers a pre-eminent approach to influence and shape board behaviour, an increased awareness of interests of different stakeholders coalescing in the public interest and an alternative, complementary view on decision-making by boards viewed as a team.

In this paper, we investigate how digital technology disruptors and the incumbents who stand to be disrupted by them frame their arguments to transform or sustain existing institutional frameworks to enable or deter the market entry of these technologies. Using a longitudinal, comparative case analysis of three digital technologies – namely, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), cloud antenna, and over-the-top (OTT) technologies – we explore how stakeholders use public interest frames for this purpose. We find that entrepreneurs use three specific frames to drive institutional change for the successful adoption of digital technologies in the presence of established incumbents and powerful regulators: frames that emphasize the broad public appeal of the new digital technology; frames that emphasize efficiency, democracy, and technological advancement; and frames that emphasize present as well as future benefits to the public. We find that constructing interpretations of what serves the public interest is the primary tactic used by disruptors to gain market entry, and an equally popular weapon for incumbents to block the entry of new digital technologies. These interpretations lead to a framing contest aimed at influencing regulators and obtaining a more favorable institutional environment. Our empirical findings illustrate that new digital technologies themselves are not the sole contributors to institutional change. Rather, institutional outcomes associated with the introduction of new digital technologies are shaped by how disruptors and incumbents use public interest frames and how regulators react to these frames.