Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate accounting as first visible-sign statement form, and also as the first writing, and analyse its systematic differences, syntactic and semantic, from subsequent speech-following (glottographic) writing forms. The authors consider how accounting as non-glottographic (and so “unspeakable”) writing form renders “glottography” a “subsystem of writing” (Hyman, 2006), while initiating a mode of veridiction which always and only names and counts, silently and synoptically. The authors also consider the translation of this statement form into the graphs, charts, equations, etc., which are central to the making of modern scientific truth claims, and to remaking the boundaries of “languaging” and translatability.

As a historical–theoretical study, this draws on work reconceptualising writing vs speech (e.g. Harris, 1986; 2000), the statement vs the word (e.g. Foucault, 1972/2002) and the parameters of translation (e.g. Littau, 2016) to re-think the conceptual significance of accounting as constitutive of our “literate modes” of thinking, acting and “languaging in general”.

Specific reflections are offered on how the accounting statement, as mathematically regularised naming of what “ought” to be counted, is then evaluated against what is counted, thus generating a first discourse of the norm and a first accounting-based apparatus for governing the state. The authors analyse how the non-glottographic statement is constructed and read not as linear flow of signs but as simulacrum; and on how the accounting statement poses both the practical issue of how to translate non-linear flow statements, and the conceptual problem of how to think this statement form’s general translatability, given its irreducibility to the linear narrative statement form.

The paper pioneers in approaching accounting as statement form in a way that analyses the differences that flow from its non-glottographic status.

The paper aims to investigate the value-relevance of changes in fair values of investment property reported under International Accounting Standards (IAS) 40 and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 13.

Multivariate regression models are used to regress cumulative market-adjusted stock returns of real estate firms on changes in fair values, along with control variables and corporate governance variables, in order to examine the research question.

Using hand-collected data from the Australian Real Estate Industry (AREI), the authors find that changes in fair values of investment property are value-relevant for equity investors. The authors further find that using unobservable inputs in an active market (Level 3 inputs) does not diminish the information content of fair values. The authors document that properties valued exclusively by directors have a significantly reduced value-relevance, whereas property valuations made collectively by both directors and independent valuers have superior value-relevance, possibly owing to the combination of inside knowledge and externally imposed monitoring. Collectively, the findings suggest that in the real estate industry, where unobservable inputs are commonly used to determine fair values of properties, the fair values determined subjectively are perceived to be sufficiently informative and relevant.

The authors' findings have important implications for accounting standard-setters in considering whether an external valuation should be required and whether the extensive measurement-related fair value disclosure requirements are useful.

The study extends previous archival evidence and complements prior commentaries on experimental and analytical work in the Australian regulatory environment.

This paper aims to analyze early financial reporting practices and discuss the influence of fundraising infeasibility on accounting changes, focusing primarily on depreciation accounting practices.

London and Birmingham Railway Company (L&BR) is a representative railway company whose practices laid the foundation for nineteenth century British railway accounting. All reports prepared by L&BR after each annual general meeting were analyzed using text mining. Keywords were extracted and the changes were observed, thus facilitating the prediction of accounting issues. Furthermore, the keyword contexts were confirmed using a search engine.

This paper suggests that fundraising infeasibility might have influenced changes to the depreciation accounting practices at L&BR.

Being a historical study, it necessitates investigations into practices of other companies.

The findings suggest that not only the negative operating results that previous studies claim but also the infeasibility of raising funds by issuing new shares might have influenced changes to the accounting concepts and accounting practices in the early-nineteenth century British railway companies.

The accounting changes at L&BR could be important because they indicate that the management had reached the point at which it did not need to depend on fundraising via the issuance of new shares. This was an early sign of the development of self-financing.

After some introductory words about the preeminence of German accounting research during the first half of the 20th century, the paper offers a survey of the most important theories of accounts classes that still prevailed during the first two decades or longer. Following World War I, the issue of hyperinflation in Austria and Germany stimulated a considerable amount of original accounting research. After the inflationary period, a series of competing Bilanztheorien, discussed in the text, dominated the scene. Two figures emerged supremely from this struggle. The first was Eugen Schmalenbach, with his “dynamic accounting”, a series of further important contributions to inflation accounting, to the master chart of accounts, to cost accounting, and to other areas of business economics. The other scholar was Fritz Schmidt, with his organic accounting theory that promoted replacement values and his emphasis on the profit and loss account, no less than the balance sheet. The gamut of further eminent personalities, listed in chronological order, contains the following names: Schär, Penndorf, Leitner, Gomberg, Nicklisch, Rieger, Prion, Osbahr, Passow, Dörfel, Sganzini, Walb, Calmes, Kalveram, Meithner, Lion, Töndury, Mahlberg, le Coutre, Geldmacher, Max Lehmann, Leopold Mayer, Karl Seidel, Alfred Isaac, Mellerowicz, Seyffert, Beste, Gutenberg, Käfer, Seischab, Kosiol, Münstermann, and others. Separate Sections or Sub‐Sections are devoted to charts and master charts of accounts in German accounting theory, as well as to cost accounting and the writing of accounting history.

The received wisdom on classical accounting thought is that its early stages were methodologically vacuous, while, in its “golden” age, it espoused the methods and philosophical commitments of received-view hypothetico-deductivism but actually remained methodologically incoherent. The purpose of this paper is to argue, to the contrary, that classical accounting thought possesses a coherent constitutional structure that qualifies as a methodology and unifies it as a body of argument.

The paper draws on Cartwright’s metaphysical nomological pluralism, which holds that we should attend to the actual practices of successful inquiry and the methodologies and metaphysical presuppositions that support it.

The paper argues that accounting does achieve disciplinary success and that classical accounting thought, using the methodology of defeasible postulationism, provides the theoretical infrastructure that supports that success. The accounting domain is a world of “dappled realism”, in which theories are useful in the construction of reporting schemes and inform our understanding of the nature of the domain.

Applying metaphysical nomological pluralism rescues classical accounting thought from the charge of methodological incoherence and metaphysical naivety.

The paper justifies a place for classical accounting theorising in the endeavours of modern accounting scholarship and moves the analysis of classical accounting thought within a philosophy of science framework towards an approach with a contemporary resonance.

This study aims to explore the formation of municipal risk management (RM) and the reasons for the differences of RM practices between the seven biggest cities in Finland.

The empirical data of this comparative qualitative case study comprises 33 interviews conducted with municipal managers. Supplementary material includes documentary material on municipal rules governing RM as well as annual reports and risk tools used in the municipalities.

This study found differences in cities with respect to when, how and why RM practices had evolved. The results indicate that differences in RM practices and development paths between cities are largely explained by the differences in the original reason to initiate RM, time span since its introduction, professional and educational backgrounds of risk managers, local risk events and accounting infrastructure such as RM tools developed in a city. These findings also suggest that even within the same municipality, different functions can be at different phases regarding RM.

This study reports on RM as a new form of accounting in the field of Finnish municipalities. This highlights how fairly uniform considerations at the field level lead to variation in the elaboration of RM practices at the municipal level. The study finds that different paths in the development of local RM involve iterative evolution between the phases of emergence, largely explained by contextual differences. This study contributes to understanding the emergence of new accounting forms in a municipal RM context.

The purpose of this paper is to first empirically illustrate the construction of accounting for sustainable development tool (Bebbington and Gray, 2001) and, second, to discuss the operationalization of accounting for sustainable development (Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014).

This research is based on a unique intervention-research approach, the main author having worked part-time for four years on the development of the tool for a business organization in the organic food sector.

This paper proposes an operationalization of sustainable development within an accounting tool and presents the results of the calculations. It also touches briefly upon the organization’s decision not to adopt the tool. The research concludes on the difficulty of operationalizing the economic, social and environmental capitals while proposing results that demonstrate “unsustainability”.

This research in operationalizing sustainable development paves the way for future potential use of the tool described, and future developments to address the model’s current shortcomings, notably in interconnecting social and economic capitals with natural capital.

The non-adoption of the accounting tool raises questions about the acceptability among practitioners of visualizing the unsustainability of their own organization, in particular within “green” and “socially responsible” businesses. Moreover, it raises the question of growth and decoupling of the organization’s impact from its economic growth.

This paper makes three contributions to the current literature. First, it furthers the discussion on how to operationalize accounting for sustainable development, notably by trying to implement capital as a liability (a debt), placing its “maintenance” at the very heart of the design. Second, it offers an initial operationalization of “system thinking” within a tool to account for sustainable development. Finally, it contributes to the literature on “engagement research” through a four-year intervention-research project.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the 2004 AAAJ special issue (SI): “Accounting and theology, an introduction: Initiating a dialogue between immediacy and eternity,” the relative immediate impact of the call for papers and the relevance of the theme to address issues in accounting today and in the future.

The paper is a reflection and is framed around three different modes of engagement with new perspectives as identified by Orlikowski (2015). These are religion as phenomenon, as perspective and as a worldview. The authors draw on Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) framework in order to explore the ontological and epistemological blinkers that have limited the attempts to explore accounting from a theological perspective.

The paper argues that historical and current structures can limit the manner in which accounting research uses theological perspectives. Indeed, the concerns of the initial SI remain – that the contemporary economic and knowledge system is in crisis and alternative ways of questioning are required to understand and respond to this system.

As a reflection, this paper is subject to limitations of author bias relating to our beliefs, ethnicities and culture. The authors have sought to reduce these by drawing on a wide range of sources, critical analysis and the input of feedback from other scholars. Nevertheless, the narrative of impact remains a continuing story.

In drawing on both an original SI guest editor and a scholar for whom the 2004 SI has become a touchstone and springboard, this paper provides multiple viewpoints on the issue of accounting and theology.

There are two main alternative explanations in the literature for the patterns of financial reporting during the period of the British Industrial Revolution (BIR). Rob Bryer sees the new social relations of production in which manufacturing entrepreneurs strove to increase the productivity of wage‐labour as leading to a distinct capitalist “calculative mentality”, focused on the return on capital employed; Dick Edwards argues from agency precepts that financial reporting emerged with the transition from “industrial” to “financial capitalism”. This paper aims to reappraise these theorisations using new archival evidence.

Canals, the crucial transport network during the BIR, were owned by limited liability companies financed by outside investors, with clear separation of ownership and control, yet were not capitalist in Bryer's sense because their profits came from a form of rent (tolls on freight) not from the exploitation of wage‐labour. The paper reviews the financial statements of seven major English canals from the 1770s to the 1850s, and uses these findings as a basis for appraising the above‐mentioned theories.

The financial statements of English canal companies do not distinguish profit or enable users to calculate rates of return on capital employed and so assess the performance of management. This sharply conflicts with agency theory but is consistent with Bryer's thesis.

The paper contributes to the authors' understanding of how and why corporate financial reporting emerged, and the relationship between this process and the transition to the capitalist mode of production.

This paper aims to examine the role of the Japanese state in the development of budgets within “special companies” in the transportation sector between 1928 and 1945.

Using evidence contained in the archives of “closedown institutions” this paper examines the role of the state in determining the use of budgets within Japan Air Transport (1928‐1938) and Japan Airways (1938‐1945). The paper adopts the lens of new institutional sociology to examine the changes in the use of budgets effected when Japan Airways succeeded Japan Air Transport.

Prior to 1938, although subject to the need to provide budget statements to the government, the budget systems operated by special companies within the Japanese transportation sector were largely utilised for the purpose of legitimising receipt of government subsidies. Following the establishment of Japan Airways in 1938, however, an increasing use of the budget system as a control mechanism is observed. It is found that a key role in this coercive process was played by the Aviation Bureau of the Ministry of Communications, reflecting changes not only in its own status but also the financial pressures exerted on the Japanese government during the Second Sino‐Japanese War from 1937 and the Pacific War from 1941.

This paper examines the development of the use of budgets at a time, the interwar period, which is considered critical to the development of budgets for purposes of control. By doing this within a context (special companies) and within a geographical space (Japan) which has not previously been analyzed by accounting historians, this study helps to add to the material available for conducting comparative international accounting research. Furthermore, by using the lens of new institutional sociology, this study provides an in‐depth insight into how, and under what conditions, the degree of decoupling between formal policies and actual practices can vary over time depending on the extent of coercive pressures.