Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The state of public sector accounting research: The APIRA conference and some
personal reflections
Jane Broadbent
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jane Broadbent, (1999),"The state of public sector accounting research", Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 Iss 1 pp. 52 - 58
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513579910259915
Downloaded on: 23 September 2014, At: 22:51 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 6 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1877 times since 2006*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 559424 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
AAAJ
12,1
52
In 1992 James Guthrie and I reviewed the literature in the accounting journals
generated by research in public sector (Broadbent and Guthrie, 1992). We
concentrated on the more contextually based research that had been
undertaken and raised a number of issues. First, we highlighted the relative
paucity of critical research in the area[1]. Second, we highlighted the
international nature of the changes. Finally, we suggested some areas where
research could usefully be undertaken. Our suggestions included: the need for
international comparisons; work in different sites to those already studied; and
studies of different technologies. We were also concerned to see more
questioning of the achievements (or otherwise) of the changes. The invitation to
review the contributions at the second APIRA Conference and add some
personal reflections provides the opportunity to revisit this agenda and to
reflect more personally and idiosyncratically on where things have moved
more generally in the last six years and where they might go next.
The state of
public sector
accounting
53
AAAJ
12,1
54
this is a particular problem for sections of the public services where the proxy
of profit remains an irrelevant performance indicator and outputs may be
difficult to quantify.
Different accounting technologies
The Broadbent and Guthrie agenda called for attention to a wider range of
accounting technologies and this is happening to some extent. The conference
provides some evidence of this, for example, two papers (Yoshimi and Chong
and Dolley) looked at issues of audit. More importantly, I have a sense that
there is more work that is now concerned with the financial reporting aspects of
public sector accounting. This is perhaps a reflection of the increasing adoption
of accrual accounting and the provision of more corporate-style financial
statements. Hence, we are likely to see more papers like Coombs and Tayeb's
paper, which is centrally concerned with financial disclosure. More important,
in the context of my present discussion, are the papers of Stanton and Stanton
and Lye. Stanton and Stanton debate the seeming convergence of national and
government accounting in Australia, highlighting the problems of asset
valuation. Lye looks to the evolution of Crown Financial Statements in New
Zealand. Her claim is that the social forces that impinged upon public sector
management influenced the technical nature of accounting. She sees accrual
accounting as supporting a management system based on well defined
objectives and as a means to measure performance rather better than before.
I see the nature of financial reporting and of asset valuation as key issues
that will come increasingly to the fore. In the UK, the resource accounting
initiative in central government will quickly roll forward and already the
financial reports of hospital trusts are appearing in corporate format. Conflict
over the issue of accounting standard setting for the public services has already
emerged, in the UK, in the debate about the nature of the accounting for
schemes under the private finance initiative (Broadbent and Laughlin, 1998).
More generally there is a need for some rigorous and critical reflection on the
issues of regulation of the public sector. The papers in the conference represent
a start to addressing the problems but seem to fall short of any reflection on the
extent to which the nature of financial accounting is itself socially conditioning
as well as socially conditioned. We must move forward and develop a less
technical and descriptive approach to financial accounting issues. As the
boundaries between public and private mutate and dissolve and as the capacity
for internal management changes becomes satiated the new wave of
accounting change seems to be financial accounting led. Thus, this issue
becomes more urgent.
Evaluation: taking the agenda forward
Finally, three papers were concerned with the effects of the changes and
providing some level of evaluation, albeit in different ways. My own paper with
Kerry Jacobs and Richard Laughlin is concerned with the way in which change
is resisted in different ways. This should remind us that despite the great
The state of
public sector
accounting
55
AAAJ
12,1
56
efforts put into NPFM we cannot assume that the desired effects are achieved.
This raises the question of whether resistance is legitimate or not in any
particular location. Lawrence and Northcott have an answer and use the
metaphor of ``iatrogenesis'' (a term also used by Davies, (1997)) to suggest that
the medicine of accounting is proving harmful to the health services in New
Zealand. They suggest a need for democratic adjudication of the services. Hill,
Fraser and Cotton provide an interesting analysis which seeks to provide a way
to enable such an engagement using ideas of polyvocal citizenship which are
rooted in stakeholder approaches to the organisation and social audit. This
raises the key issue that of how we might have a way of controlling our public
services and particularly the professionals within them, in ways which allow
involvement and enfranchisement of all stakeholders, but which recognises the
expertise of certain individuals.
These papers, in my opinion, raise important issues that we have to address.
There is a need for work to address the issues of democratic involvement, the
role of the professional and the impingement on these of regulatory structures
and management controls such as accounting. If the services are public
services then how is it that the public can be involved in their direction and
governance? How can accounting information be constructed to support
democratic processes? Can accounting be used as a tool to control
professionals? Should the role of the professional provide privilege to their
views and if so how can we be sure that this will not be abused? We need to link
the exploration of these ideas to the on-going debate as to how we are to hold
organisations accountable in a democracy. Discussion on Humphrey and
Owen's appraisal of Power's ``Audit Society'' thesis (although not in the public
services stream) raised the point that the idea of the audit society was one that
was more easily associated with the public rather than the private sector. This
raises the question of whether we need different structures of accountability for
the public and the private sectors. At the very least, private sector models must
be scrutinised closely before decisions about their universal application are
made. We should also seek to discover what the private could learn from the
public sector.
Overall, while it is encouraging to see the diversity and quality of work that
is being undertaken in the literature and at conferences such as the second
APIRA, there still seems to be a paucity of work that is pushing the boundaries
of critical engagement with the public services. Given the crucial role of the
public services in respect to social welfare this is worrying. I would like to end
with a recommendation that accountants adapt and adopt the sentiments of the
Sociologist Mike Mulkay in a review of his own work over many years:
I have come to see sociology's ultimate task, not of that of reporting neutrally the facts about
an objective social world, but as that of engaging actively in the world in order to create the
possibility of alternative forms of social life (Mulkay, 1991, p. xix).
These views are neither unique nor very novel, nor are they specific to
sociologists; they are held and enacted each day by some colleagues.
The state of
public sector
accounting
57