Convergence of accounting systems through the lens of accounting theory and harmonization paradigms

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Introduction. Contemporary research in international accounting lacks a thread linking the fundamental principles of accounting science to the key purpose of the accounting system - to promote the efficient allocation of capital by providing reliable and relevant information. This has led to the fact that accounting infrastructure focuses more on the interests of transnational companies, accounting standard makers and, in general, regional zones, which took advantage of the idea of global convergence for the sake of personal benefits, rather than on public purposes. Purpose. The aim is to show that the existing notions of global convergence of accounting systems are untenable and should be revised. To achieve the latter, the paper characterizes the nature of convergence with accounting theory and harmonization paradigms. Materials and Methods. The work is theoretical; traditional scientific methods are used: a dialectical method of scientific cognition, a method of collecting theoretical and regulatory-legal information, a method of formalization, as well as analysis, synthesis, observation, and comparison. Results. The standards are perceived to be the benchmark of quality with no deductively-derived regulatory grounds in accounting science. This automatically gives rise to many contradictions and inconsistencies in understanding and applying existing accounting rules/principles. IFRS or US GAAP regimes in no way solve this problem, since there is no other benchmark. To solve this problem, it is necessary to resume the development of regulation-determined accounting, while empirical studies should focus on confirming or refuting regulation-driven theories and hypotheses. By now, there is no clear understanding of how the accounting infrastructure should function within the boundaries of the global and regional paradigm. Regional areas, such as the European Union, use the established system for their own personal interests and fight for the dominance of their own paradigm. Conclusions. The cause-and-effect mechanism for the accounting determinants still remains unresolved. This defines the prospects for future research on the institutional design of the accounting system within the boundaries of macro and mega levels.

About the authors

Andrei A. Aksent’ev

Kuban State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: anacondaz7@rambler.ru
ResearcherId: AAT-9852-2021

postgraduate student at the Department of Accounting, Auditing and Automated Data Processing; accountant

Russian Federation, Krasnodar

References

  1. Ball R. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): pros and cons for investors. Accounting and Business Research, 2006, vol. 36, iss. sup1, pp. 5–27. doi: 10.1080/00014788.2006.9730040
  2. Kothari S. P., Ramanna K., Skinner D. J. Implications for GAAP from an analysis of positive research in accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2010, vol. 50, iss. 1–2, pp. 246–286. doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2010.09.003
  3. Lambert R. Discussion of ‘‘Implications for GAAP from an analysis of positive research in accounting’’. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2010, vol. 50, iss. 2–3, pp. 287–295. doi: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2010.09.006
  4. Ahmed K., Chalmers K., Khlif H. A Meta-analysis of IFRS Adoption Effects. The International Journal of Accounting, 2013, vol. 48, iss. 2, pp. 173–217. doi: 10.1016/j.intacc.2013.04.002
  5. Brown P. International Financial Reporting Standards: What are the benefits? Accounting and Business Research, 2011, vol. 41, iss. 3, pp. 269–285. doi: 10.1080/00014788.2011.569054
  6. Jamal K., Sunder S. Monopoly versus competition in setting accounting standards. ABACUS, 2014, vol. 50, iss. 4, pp. 369–385. doi: 10.1111/abac.12034
  7. Dye R. A., Sunder S. Why not allow FASB and IASB Standards to compete in the U.S.? Accounting Horizons, 2001, vol. 15, iss. 3, pp. 257–271. doi: 10.2308/acch.2001.15.3.257
  8. Malofeeva Т. N. The emergence and development of the convergence process of the two types of standards: IFRS and US GAAP. Journal of Corporate Finance Research, 2016, vol. 10, no. 3 (39), pp. 70–83. (In Russ.). EDN XAKQKZ
  9. Burke Q. L. Why haven’t U.S. GAAP and IFRS on insurance contracts converged? Evidence from an unsuccessful joint project. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 2019, vol. 15, iss. 2, pp. 131–144. doi: 10.1016/j.jcae.2019.04.001
  10. Hoarau C. International accounting harmonization: American hegemony or mutual recognition with benchmarks? European Accounting Review, 1995, vol. 4, iss. 2, pp. 217–233. 10.1080/09638189500000012
  11. Saudagaran S. M., Joselito G. D. Accounting regulation in ASEAN: A choice between the global and regional paradigms of harmonization. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 1997, vol. 8, iss. 1, pp. 1–32. doi: 10.1111/1467-646X.00015
  12. Bezborodov Yu. S. Harmonization as method of convergence in international law. Public International and Private International Law, 2017, no. 4, pp. 7–10. (In Russ.). EDN ZBQPBV
  13. Tret'yakova O. D. Konstruktsiya yuridicheskoi konvergentsii. Yuridicheskaya tekhnika, 2013, no. 7-2, pp. 777–781. (In Russ.). EDN RBRTPP
  14. Tolchenkin D. А., Tolchenkina M. E. Legal freedom and legal convergence: The relationships of paradigms. Theory of State and Law, 2019, no. 2 (14), pp. 107–111. (In Russ.). EDN ZECFBS
  15. Doupnik T. S., Salter S. B. An empirical test of a judgmental international classification of financial reporting practices. Journal of International Business Studies, 1993, vol. 24, pp. 41–60. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490224
  16. Chand P., Patel C. Convergence and harmonization of accounting standards in the South Pacific region. Advances in Accounting, 2008, vol. 24, iss. 1, pp. 83–92. doi: 10.1016/j.adiac.2008.05.002
  17. Jaafar A., Mcleay S. Country effects and sector effects on the harmonization of accounting policy choice. ABACUS, 2007, vol. 43, iss. 2, pp. 156–189. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2007.00224.x
  18. Taylor S. L. International accounting standards: An alternative rationale. ABACUS, 1987, vol. 23, iss. 2, pp. 157–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.1987.tb00147.x
  19. Van der Tas L. G. Measuring harmonisation of financial reporting practice. Accounting and Business Research, 1988, vol. 18, iss. 70, pp. 157–169. doi: 10.1080/00014788.1988.9729361
  20. Tay J. S. W., Parker R. H. Measuring international harmonization and standardization. ABACUS, 1990, vol. 26, iss. 1, pp. 71–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.1990.tb00233.x
  21. Chen C., Lee E., Lobo G. J., Zhu J. Who benefits from IFRS convergence in China? Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 2019, vol. 34, iss. 1, pp. 99–124. doi: 10.1177/0148558X16688115
  22. Sutton V. Harmonization of international accounting standards: Is it possible? Journal of Accounting Education, 1993, vol. 11, iss. 1, pp. 177–184. doi: 10.1016/0748-5751(93)90025-E
  23. Das B., Shil N. C., Pramanik A. K. Convergence of accounting standards: Internationalization of accounting. International Journal of Business and Management, 2009, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 78–84. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v4n1p78
  24. Van der Tas L. G. Harmonization of financial reporting – with a special focus on the European Community. European Accounting Review, 1992, vol. 1, iss. 2, pp. 469–473. doi: 10.1080/09638189200000044
  25. Aksent’ev А. А. The environmental determinism theory in international accounting: The need to reconceptualise it. International Accounting, 2024, vol. 27, no. 3 (513), pp. 278–303. (In Russ.). doi: 10.24891/ia.27.3.278. EDN HBMPUF
  26. Böckem H., d’Arcy A. Evolution of (International) accounting systems critical assessment of the environmental determinism theory with an application to tax influences. Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 1999, vol. 51, pp. 60–76. doi: 10.1007/BF03371559
  27. Li S. Does mandatory adoption of international financial reporting standards in the European Union reduce the cost of equity capital? The Accounting Review, 2010, vol. 85, iss. 2, pp. 607–636. doi: 10.2308/accr.2010.85.2.607
  28. Kim J.-B., Shi H., Zhou J. International Financial Reporting Standards, institutional infrastructures, and implied cost of equity capital around the world. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 2014, vol. 42, pp. 469–507. doi: 10.1007/s11156-013-0350-3
  29. Collett P. Standard setting and economic consequences: An ethical issue. ABACUS, 1995, vol. 31, iss. 1, pp. 10–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.1995.tb00352.x
  30. Königsgruber R. A political economy of accounting standard setting. Journal of Management & Governance, 2010, vol. 14, pp. 277–295. doi: 10.1007/s10997-009-9101-1
  31. Dewing I., Russell P. Financial integration in the EU: The first phase of EU endorsement of international accounting standards. Journal of Common Market Studies, 2008, vol. 46, iss. 2, pp. 243–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00776.x
  32. Zeff S. A. The rise of “economic consequences”. The Journal of Accountancy, 1978, vol. 146, no. 6, pp. 56–63.
  33. Littleton A. C. Value and price in accounting. The Accounting Review, 1929, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 147–154. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/238948 (access date 12.04.2024).
  34. Zeff S. A. Some historical reflections on “Have academics and the standard setters traded places?” Accounting, Economics and Law, 2014, vol. 4, iss. 1, pp. 41–48. doi: 10.1515/ael-2013-0028
  35. Zeff S. A. Independence and standard setting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1998, vol. 9, iss. 5, pp. 535–543. doi: 10.1006/cpac.1998.0259
  36. Zeff S. A. How the U.S. accounting profession got where it is today: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 2003, vol. 17, iss. 3, pp. 189–205. doi: 10.2308/acch.2003.17.3.189
  37. Zeff S. A. How the U.S. accounting profession got where it is today: Part II. Accounting Horizons, 2003, vol. 17, iss. 4, pp. 267–286. doi: 10.2308/ACCH.2003.17.4.267
  38. Dyckman T. R., Zeff S. A. Accounting research: Past, present, and future. ABACUS, 2015, vol. 51, iss. 4, pp. 511–524. doi: 10.1111/abac.12058
  39. Barker R., McGeachin A. Why is there inconsistency in accounting for liabilities in IFRS? An analysis of recognition, measurement, estimation and conservatism. Accounting and Business Research, 2013, vol. 43, iss. 6, pp. 579–604. doi: 10.1080/00014788.2013.834811
  40. Forker J., Green S. Corporate governance and accounting models of the reporting entity. British Accounting Review, 2000, vol. 32, iss. 4, pp. 375–396. doi: 10.1006/bare.2000.0144
  41. Stadler C., Nobes C. Accounting for government grants: Standard-setting and accounting choice. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 2018, vol. 37, iss. 2, pp. 113–129. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2018.02.004
  42. Nelson M. W. Behavioral evidence on the effects of principles- and rules-based standards [Working Paper]. SSRN, 2003. 27 p. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.360441
  43. Nobes C. Rules-based standards and the lack of principles in accounting. Accounting Horizons, 2005, vol. 19, iss. 1, pp. 25–34. doi: 10.2308/acch.2005.19.1.25
  44. Schipper K. Commentary principles-based accounting standards. Accounting Horizons, 2003, vol. 17, iss. 1, pp. 61–72. doi: 10.2308/acch.2003.17.1.61
  45. Benston G. J., Bromwich M., Wagenhofer A. Principles- versus rules-based accounting standards: The FASB’s standard setting strategy. ABACUS, 2006, vol. 42, iss. 2, pp. 165–188. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4497.2006.00196.x
  46. Moonitz M. Basic postulates of accounting; Accounting research study no. 01. New York, AICPA, 1961. 61 p. Available at: https://clck.ru/3CqQVj (access date 09.01.2024).
  47. Sprouse R. T., Moonitz M. Tentative set of broad accounting principles for business enterprises; Accounting research study no. 03. New York, AICPA, 1962. 87 p. Available at: https://clck.ru/3CqQYd (access date 09.01.2024).
  48. Wojdak J. F. Levels of objectivity in the accounting process. The Accounting Review, 1970, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 88–97. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/244298 (access date 09.01.2024).
  49. Arnett H. E. The concept of fairness. The Accounting Review, 1967, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 291–297. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/243934 (access date 09.01.2024).
  50. Black H. A. Interperiod allocation of corporate income taxes; Accounting research study no. 09. New York, AICPA, 1966. 123 p. Available at: https://clck.ru/3CqQgp (access date 09.01.2024).
  51. Sterling R. R. Conservatism: The fundamental principle of valuation in traditional accounting. ABACUS, 1967, vol. 3, iss. 2, pp. 109–132. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.1967.tb00375.x
  52. Gray S. J., Shaw J. C., McSweeney L. B. Accounting standards and multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 1981, vol. 12, no. 1: Tenth Anniversary Special Issue, pp. 121–136. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/154422 (access date 09.01.2024).
  53. Alon A., Dwyer P. D. Early adoption of IFRS as a strategic response to transnational and local influences. The International Journal of Accounting, 2014, vol. 49, iss. 3, pp. 348–370. doi: 10.1016/j.intacc.2014.07.003
  54. Fang V. W., Maffett M., Zhang B. Foreign institutional ownership and the global convergence of financial reporting practices. Journal of Accounting Research, 2015, vol. 53, iss. 3, pp. 593–631. doi: 10.1111/1475-679X.12076
  55. Herman L. Neither takers nor makers: The Big-4 auditing firms as regulatory intermediaries. Accounting History, 2020, vol. 25, iss. 3, pp. 349–374. doi: 10.1177/1032373219875219
  56. Joshi M., Yapa P. W. S., Kraal D. IFRS adoption in ASEAN countries: Perceptions of professional accountants from Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 2016, vol. 12, iss. 2, pp. 211–240. doi: 10.1108/IJMF-04-2014-0040

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».