Convergence of accounting systems through the lens of accounting theory and harmonization paradigms
- Authors: Aksent’ev A.A.1
-
Affiliations:
- Kuban State University
- Issue: Vol 19, No 3 (2024)
- Pages: 300-325
- Section: Regional and Industrial Economics
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/1994-9960/article/view/292315
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/1994-9960-2024-3-300-325
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/MKZLVK
- ID: 292315
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, KrasnodarReferences
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Tret'yakova O. D. Konstruktsiya yuridicheskoi konvergentsii. Yuridicheskaya tekhnika, 2013, no. 7-2, pp. 777–781. (In Russ.). EDN RBRTPP
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Zeff S. A. The rise of “economic consequences”. The Journal of Accountancy, 1978, vol. 146, no. 6, pp. 56–63.
- 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).
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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
- 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).
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
