Constituent Participation in the Australian Public Sector Accounting Standard-Setting Process: the Case of ED 55
Ryan, Christine M., Dunstan, Keitha L., & Stanley, Trevor A. (1999) Constituent Participation in the Australian Public Sector Accounting Standard-Setting Process: the Case of ED 55. Financial Accountability and Management, 15(2), pp. 173-200.
The Australian public sector has recently undergone a period of intense reform including a comprehensive reform of financial reporting policies. A major aspect of this reform is the involvement of the Australian accounting profession in the formulation of financial reporting standards through the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (PSASB). Despite this extensive change, scant research has examined constituent participation in the Australian public sector accounting standard-setting 'due process'. This paper considers the regulatory model adopted for accounting standard-setting in the public sector in Australia and identifies the implications of this model for constituent access to the 'due process'. In particular, the co-operation between the PSASB and the various regulatory bodies in each Australian jurisdiction suggests that these bodies may have more direct influence over the standard-setters than other constituents. The submissions made on ED 55 Financial Reporting by Government Departments are examined as a case study of the ‘due process’ as it operates in the public sector. Different constituent groups were found to respond in varying proportions, to hold conflicting positions on some issues contained in ED 55 and to use different strategies to present these positions. The research identifies a lack of input by the major group affected by the proposed standard, the account preparers (government departments). In addition, account preparers which did respond to ED 55 were found to use less sophisticated lobbying strategies than other respondents who weighted their responses by commenting on a greater number of issues and by supporting their position with conceptual arguments. These results support the contention that some constituents have favourable access to the 'due process' and that standard-setters may not have received all pertinent information from affected and/or knowledgeable constituents.
Impact and interest:
Citation countsare sourced monthly fromand citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
Full-text downloadsdisplays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Keywords:||Public Sector Accounting Standards Board, Due process, Government department|
|Subjects:||Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > STUDIES IN HUMAN SOCIETY (160000) > POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION (160500) > Public Policy (160510)|
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > COMMERCE MANAGEMENT TOURISM AND SERVICES (150000) > ACCOUNTING AUDITING AND ACCOUNTABILITY (150100) > Accounting Auditing and Accountability not elsewhere classified (150199)
|Divisions:||Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > QUT Business School|
|Copyright Owner:||Copyright 1999 Blackwell Publishing|
|Copyright Statement:||The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com|
|Deposited On:||25 Nov 2005|
|Last Modified:||10 Aug 2011 23:56|
Repository Staff Only: item control page