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

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 characterrizes 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.

Keywords: international accounting, environmental determinism, IFRS, accounting system, convergence, accounting theory

For citation

Aksent’ev A. A. Convergence of accounting systems through the lens of accounting theory and harmonization paradigms. Perm University Herald. Economy, 2024, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 300–325. DOI 10.17072/1994-9960-2024-3-300-325. EDN MKZLVK.

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 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, v 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

Show full text