Accrual Accounting 2

Accounting History
http://ach.sagepub.com/ Accrual accounting in the public sector: the case of the New South Wales government
Mark Christensen Accounting History 2002 7: 93 DOI: 10.1177/103237320200700205 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ach.sagepub.com/content/7/2/93
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
The Accounting History Special Interest Group of the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand
Additional services and information for Accounting History can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ach.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ach.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> Version of Record - May 1, 2002 What is This?
Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013
Accrual accounting in the public sector: the case of the New South Wales government
Mark Christensen Southern Cross University Abstract Accounting technologies have dominated public sector management reforms and accrual based financial reporting has been significant amongst these technologies. This paper examines the process of change in the New South Wales Governments early adoption of accrual based financial reporting. The studys main objective is to present a history that identifies the agents of change promoting and facilitating an early adoption of public sector accrual accounting. The main primary data source for this research was interviews with three categories of participants who had some involvement in the decision that dates back to the late 1980s. Historical research methods were used within an analytical framework provided by a proposed variant of Luders (1994) Contingency Model. The paper finds that a revised Contingency Model is useful as a framework and that the major role played by management consultants was a significant aspect of the case study.
Keywords: public sector; accrual accounting; accounting history; New South Wales
93
Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002
Acknowledgements: The author gratefully acknowledges the participation and generous donation of time by each of the interviewees. The paper has also benefited from the comments of two anonymous reviewers, Professors Garry Carnegie and Don Scott and participants at the Third APIRA Conference held in Adelaide in July 2001 and the 9th World Congress of Accounting Historians held in Melbourne in July/August 2002. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Dr Barry Moore, chronicler of NSW administrative history and contributor to improvements and understanding of NSW public sector administration during the 1970s and 1980s. Dr Moore died in a self-administered euthanasia pact with his wife, Dr Erica Bates, in March 1989 after both had been diagnosed with terminal illnesses. Dr Moore chronicled developments in NSW administrative history and that history provides the context within which this paper needs to be understood.
Address for correspondence: Mark Christensen School of Commerce & Management Southern Cross University P.O. Box 157 Lismore NSW 2480 Australia Telephone: +61 2 6620 3787 Facsimile: +61 2 6621 3428 E-mail: mchriste@scu.edu.au
94
Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector
Introduction
The dramatic emergence of public sector accounting from a prolonged period of ossification represents a juncture in accounting history that demands some analysis. Such analysis could be an apt instance of where research of public sector accounting history has been identified as a fruitful area (Carnegie & Napier, 1996, p.27) even though it remains still grossly under-researched. Whilst there has been a rapidly growing literature on New Public Management (NPM), including contributions from authors debating the worth of the term itself, there is not a significant accounting history literature dealing with specific NPM accounting reforms such as the adoption of accrual accounting. Instead the literature has noted that accounting technologies have dominated NPM reforms (Guthrie et al., 1999; Hood, 1995; Lapsley, 1999; Olson et al., 1998) whilst some researchers have questioned whether the accounting changes have been a rhetorical support for other changes with hidden objectives (Guthrie, 1998a; Lapsley, 1999; Pollitt, 1995). Related to that literature is some evidence that the adoption of accrual accounting has not produced the gains originally expected of it (Jones & Puglisi, 1997; Miley & Read, 2000; Olson et al., 1998; Perrin, 1998; Potter, 1999; Robinson, 1998). A definitive assessment of the cost-benefit of adopting accrual accounting is an outstanding task. Although some argue that an assessment may not be possible (Funnell & Cooper, 1998), before such an assessment can be attempted it is useful to develop a literature on the history of public sector accrual accounting in Australia. It is the history of one early adopter of accrual based financial reporting that this study addresses. The New South Wales Government (NSWG) was the second government in the world and the first government in Australia to adopt accrual based financial reporting (ABFR). As such an early adopter, its story is useful in particular to researchers interested in the widespread adoption of public sector accrual accounting whilst also adding to the mosaic that is emerging on how New Public Management financial technologies came to dominate recent public administration. An additional motivation for this paper is that a history of the development of ABFR in NSW can form a base from which evaluations of ABFR may be developed. Currently, accounting history stands as a vibrant discipline, characterised by international interest, a breadth of scope that is near unique in academic accountancy, and a passion among its adherents that has driven its successes (Fleischman & Radcliffe, 2000, p.35). In the spirit of such vibrancy this paper uses an oral history approach as prompted by Carnegie and Napier (1996), Hammond and Sikka (1996), and Parker (1999) to derive some of its primary data. Individuals who were prominent in the decision to adopt ABFR are interviewed to generate much of the primary data. These individuals include the then NSW Premier and Treasurer, the Director-General of the Premiers Department and the Under-
95
Secretary of the NSW Treasury as well as others who formed a decision elite and an interested group of outsiders. Analysis of data is undertaken with the aid of an interpretational model derived from a contingency view of public sector accounting change (Luder, 1992, 1994). This paper is structured as follows. Firstly a review of the relevant literature is presented. Following this review a proposed model for interpretation of the historical data is briefly presented. An interpretational history of NSW ABFR is then presented in a manner that facilitates testing of five hypotheses developed from a model of public sector accounting change. Conclusions together with suggestions for further research are presented in the final section.
Relevant literature
With the exception of official-type advocacies on behalf of accrual accounting as well as various seminars, such as those organised by the NSW Public Accounts Committee in 1988 and 1994, the literature regarding public sector accrual accounting is relatively limited. One part of the literature has debated whether parts of the change have been worthwhile (Aiken, 1994; Brorstrom, 1998; Clark-Lewis, 1996; Conn, 1996; Guthrie, 1998; Jones & Puglisi, 1997; Lapsley, 1999; Monsen & Nasi, 1999; Olson et al., 1998; Rhodes, 1998; Robinson, 1998; Shand, 1990). Other elements of the literature have discussed technical aspects of public sector accrual accounting (Jones, 1998; Micallef, 1997; Ng & Shead, 1999; Pallot, 1992; Walker et al., 1999); whether public sector assets confound accrual accounting (see especially various contributions in Australian Accounting Review issues in the 1990s); whether the change is more than rhetoric (Guthrie, 1998a); and, whether the change will have unintended consequences (Potter, 1999; Robinson, 1999). Whilst this body of literature is important, in the absence of a history of public sector accrual accounting, it is built on an incomplete base. Only recently has attention turned in part to presenting an historical view of why and how the change to accrual accounting took place (Ryan, 1999; Ryan et al., 1999; Ryan, 1998). Ryans work (especially 1995) provides an indepth analysis of events between 1976 and 1993 that led to reforms of Australian public sector financial reporting. Ryans contribution is significant but it does not deal specifically with NSW nor does it apply a set of lenses that lead to the analysis of the type provided here. That there has been no substantive analysis of the NSW case is perhaps not surprising since there is generally a dearth of research on either the origins or the consequences of public sector accounting change (Guthrie, 1998a; Ryan, 1995). Further, with the exception of the work of Guthrie (1994), Ryan (1995) and Walker (1995a and 1995b), there remains a lack of detailed case studies of public sector accounting practices in the context of the prevailing organisational elements (Broadbent & Guthrie, 1992; Wildavsky, 1988, p.107). This study attempts to
96
partly redress that void. However, one element in the literature that has developed some cases of public sector accounting change is in the international comparative field where Luders work has been central. In the last decade, the most significant contribution to understanding public sector accounting change has been Luders Governmental Accounting Innovation Model (hereafter, known as the Contingency Model) (Luder, 1992). The Contingency Model was formulated to better understand factors affecting adoption of public sector accounting innovations. It posits that change is explained by interactions between four modules: stimuli, structural variables of information users, structural variables of information producers, and implementation barriers (Luder, 1992). The model has been widely applied (El-Batanoni and Jones, 1996; Godfrey, et al., 1996; Godfrey, et al., 2001; Khumawala, 1997; Likierman, 1996; Luder, 1992 and 1994; Monsen & Nasi, 1998; Montesinos & Bargues, 1996; Pallot, 1996; Yamamoto, 1999; ) such that it has proven to be robust and adaptable (Chan et al., 1996, p.9). As such Luders model offers itself as a suitable candidate to use in a theoretically informed history of the adoption of ABFR. Notwithstanding criticisms of efforts to use theoretically informed histories to determine causality (Oldroyd, 1999), this paper will use a variant of the Contingency Model as a framework from which the historical data can be sieved and analysed. The underlying goal is to present a coherent and probable picture (Fleischman et al., 1996b, p.62) of why ABFR was adopted by the NSWG. Additional methodology issues are discussed in the next section following an outline of the revised Contingency Model.
A revised contingency model of public sector accounting change

The model proposed here is a variant of Luders Contingency Model developed after the benefit of discussions with Professor Luder (2000). Whilst the Contingency Model has been used without modification to inform a history of public sector accounting (Khumawala, 1997), a number of factors prompt modification of the model for this study. Firstly, empirical support cannot be found for Luders inclusion of the general public as an influential force on public sector accounting (Copley et al., 1997; Coy et al., 1997; Hay, 1994; Mayston, 1992; Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, 1999; Rowe, 1991; Rutherford, 1992; Ryan et al., 2000; Walker, 1995a). Secondly, it has been argued that the role of individuals needs to be incorporated in explanations of public sector accounting change (Godfrey et al., 2001, p.280) and so the Contingency Model could benefit from a behavioural orientation. Thirdly, Luders model focuses on the likelihood of change rather than the purpose of change. To better understand the latter it is necessary to consider how the accounting change has been harmonised with the management system (Yamamoto, 1999, p.296). As a result, there is worth in
97
considering the relationship between management accounting and financial accounting when examining public sector accounting change.1 Incorporating responses to these three difficulties of Luders model has resulted in development of a variant model. The proposed model consists of three groups of actors that respond in part to each other but also react to a stimuli for change whilst taking into account barriers which impede the change. The model thus has five parts: 1. External stimuli for change (an exogenous force): relatively wide discussion centred on a perceived problem and offering a philosophically based solution to that problem. 2. Promoters of change: people and organisations with a vested interest in wanting change. 3. Producers of information: public servants in central agencies and government agency managers (CEOs, accountants, line managers). 4. Users of information: politicians holding responsibility for individual portfolios or whole-of-government as well as Opposition politicians and Parliamentary adjuncts such as the Auditors-General, Public Accounts Committees and Parliamentary Committees. 5. Implementation barriers (an endogenous force): characteristics of the public sector and its accounting system that act to restrict the options available to implement change. The model is depicted in Figure 1 (see over) and each of the five parts of the model is briefly described below. For each of the models parts a hypothesis is proposed and subsequently considered in light of the data revealed in the history presented in this paper.
98
Figure 1: Process Model of Public Sector Accounting Change
Stimuli
Promotors of change: Consultants Commentators Academics Organisations representing professional interests
Users of information: Ministers Political advisors Opposition members Parliamentary adjuncts such as Auditors-General, Public Accountants Committees & Parliamentary Committees
Producers of information: Central agencies Managers of line agencies Public sector accountants
Implementation barriers
Implementation of a new public sector accounting system
Legend:
Determinant influence Significant influence Minor influence
99
Stimuli
External to the public sector is a context established by the prevailing political and social environment. This context is manifested in the collective debate that is observed in popular media (print and electronic) and tangential sources such as academic discourse, and comments of international bodies and professional representative organisations. The coherency of the debate is reflected in some level of repetitiveness in commentaries demonstrating, firstly, that there is a problem and, secondly, that there is a solution available to the problem. With respect to the adoption of ABFR, it is hypothesised (H1) that the ideas which have been characterised as New Public Management (Hood, 1995) and, consistent with a neo-liberal view of government in society (Funnell, 2001), were important stimuli. That is, hypothesis H1 is that the stimuli leading to the accounting change were arguments that public sector debt needed to be reduced and private sector technologies needed to be adopted by public sector managers.
Promoters of Change (PoC)
PoCs are identifiable people and/or organisations that promote recognition of the problem and promulgate a solution. Although these promoters are identifiable, they may not be publicly active nor necessarily known to the general public. However, they are known to the Users of Information (UoI) either through personal contact or through the office held by the Promoter. The motivation of PoC to use their access to a UoI is influenced by epistemic considerations (Laughlin & Pallot, 1998) or self-interest, including financial gain. With respect to the adoption of ABFR, it is hypothesised (H2) that global accounting firms acting as management consultants were prominent PoCs. In addition there was also a less important, but influential, reinforcing effect from the activities of both the accounting profession and public commentators.
Users of Information (UoI)
UoIs are political actors including Ministers, Opposition members and political advisors but also include the Auditors-General, Public Accounts Committees and Parliamentary Committees. In contrast to Luder (1992, 1994) but consistent with the evidence cited above regarding low or no usage of public sector accounting reports by citizens, the revised model does not attribute any significant role to the general public or citizens. The advantage of excluding the general public is that it avoids the uncertainty surrounding the usefulness of annual reports to the public (Ryan et al., 2000). Additionally, operationalising the general public as a concept and measuring the socio-structural variables suggested by Luder present difficulties that outweigh the benefit of considering this variable which, at best, is thought to be a background influence (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2000, p.33). Exclusion of the general public means the UoI category of actors consists of political and administrative operatives. Such a categorisation is similar to Luders Reconsidered
100
Contingency Model in an application designed to suit Non-American AngloSaxon countries (Luder, 1994, p.12). The rationale for this is that political actors are motivated by the pressure to remain politically competitive to use public sector accounting reports. Similarly, administrative actors with an accountability role (Auditors-General and Public Accounts Committees) will also turn to accounting information.2 This depiction of UoIs is consistent with Pollitt and Bouckaerts description of the role played by a political and administrative elite in public management reform (2000, pp.24-38). With respect to the adoption of ABFR, it is hypothesised (H3) that the UoIs responded to the NPM stimuli and pressure from PoCs; in turn the UoIs exerted pressure on the Producers of Information to implement ABFR.
Producers of Information (PoI)
PoIs are bureaucratic actors with some responsibility for accounting information. This responsibility can be exerted by a central agency (typically Treasury or Premiers Department) as well as by managers of line agencies where CEOs, financial controllers and accountants hold responsibility for accounting outputs. The PoIs are hypothesised (H4) as being largely responsive to the needs of UoIs, although they may in some instances be proactive (Ryan, 1995). Accordingly, there is a two-way relationship expected here since the PoIs are best placed to advise UoIs regarding the impact of a proposed accounting change. Part of the advice given by the PoIs will relate to barriers to implementation of the accounting change.
Implementation Barriers
Implementation Barriers are features of the political or bureaucratic environments that act to increase the cost or time required to implement accounting change. Implementation Barriers are changed through the efforts of UoIs and PoIs but there is also a two-way relationship with Promoters of Change since they must take Implementation Barriers into account in their arguments. Also, the Implementation Barriers may form part of the reason for subsequent actions by the Promoters as, for example, when a consulting firm subsequently provides services with respect to ways in which an Implementation Barrier may be overcome. With respect to the adoption of ABFR, it is hypothesised (H5) that the Implementation Barriers were inadequate public sector accounting expertise and also flawed accounting records, especially asset records.
Case study of public sector accounting change

The above description of the modified contingency model and identification of five hypotheses lays the foundation upon which a history of NSWs early adoption of ABFR, as a particular accounting change, may be undertaken. This section consists of three parts. It firstly describes the methodology used to develop that history. The
101
second part of this section presents a chronology and context of the events whilst the third part analyses the history by using the framework of the modified contingency model. The analysis reports findings with respect to each of the five hypotheses posed above.
Methodology
The case study has been constructed using an historical analysis (Previts et al., 1990a) of primary data gathered from interviews of elite decision-makers and reviews of documentary sources. The documentary sources included working party reports and minutes, annual reports, politicians and senior bureaucrats speeches, policy statements, and reports of and submissions to various bodies of enquiry. To develop a history, facts are necessarily selected and organised through a judgemental process constrained by time and are provisional according to the historians perception of the contextual variables of the period studied (Previts et al., 1990b, p.147). The revised contingency model was used to order the data gathering for development of the history. The use of a model in any history carries a number of risks, not the least being that the researcher may be prompted to interweave fact and opinion in a predisposition to find only confirming evidence (Tyson, 1993, p.13). However, it must be recognised that it is impossible to separate the past from our interpretations of it (Gaffikin, 1998, p.633) and the use of a model, such as the one proposed in this study, is a justifiable technique aimed at making the resulting interpretation coherent. This paper does not enter the debate around the relation of historical research and explanation (Keenan, 1998; Miller & Napier, 1993) but instead aims to clearly articulate its methodology as an aid to the reader (Fleischman et al., 1996b; Fleischman & Radcliffe, 2000; Parker, 1997). Further, it is hoped that calls for multi-paradigmatic histories (Fleischman et al., 1996a; Fleischman et al., 1996b; Parker, 1999) may prompt other researchers to consider the history of ABFR from another perspective and so demonstrate the important point that there are many plausible histories of the same events (Carnegie & Napier, 1996, p.17). The interview-based primary data was gathered from face-to-face interviews structured around a series of open-ended questions that were the same for each interviewee within a cohort (but different between cohorts). In one case a telephone interview was substituted where a face-to-face interview could not be arranged. Interviewees were grouped into three cohorts of elites (Coleman & Skogstad, 1990) on the basis of the revised contingency model: 1. 2. 3. Users of information: two interviewees Interviews Number 1 and 2. Producers of information: three interviewees Interviews Number 3, 4 and 5. Promoters of change: two interviewees Interviews Number 6 and 7.
Interviews were conducted between March and June 2000 and typically took one hour but ranged in length from 50 minutes to 2.5 hours. All interviewees agreed to
102
the audiotaping of their interview and whilst note-taking did take place during the interviews, this was kept to a minimum. Confidentiality of interviewees comments was promised and so attribution of comments here is by way of reference to a unique Interview Number linked to a cohort but not identifying the interviewee. Names and relevant roles of interviewees within each cohort are given in Table 1.
Table 1: Interviewees (note: order of mention does not equate to Interview Number)
Cohort User of Information (UoI) Producer of Information (PoI) Name of Interviewee Nick Greiner Peter Collins Percy Allan Richard Humphry Prior relevant role of Interviewee Premier and Treasurer Treasurer and Deputy Premier Under-Secretary, Treasury Director-General, Premiers Department; Victorian Auditor-General; Chairman, Public Sector Accounting Standards Board Deputy Secretary, Treasury; Executive Director, NSW Commission of Audit; Executive Member of Tasmanian and South Australian Commissions of Audit; Secretary, Victorian Treasury and author of An Independent Review of Victorias Finances Professor of Accounting and author of weekly commentary on public sector administration and finance Senior Partner, Coopers & Lybrand consulting firm; President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia; member of the Treasurers Accounting Advisory Panel
Don Nicholls
Promoter of Change (PoC)
Bob Walker
Michael Sharpe
Since the interview data is a significant part of the primary data for this research some comments on oral history techniques are warranted. Whilst oral evidence is rare in accounting histories it does have a long lineage of usage by historians (Douglas et al., 1988; Parker, 1999). The advantages of oral evidence are many (Carnegie & Napier, 1996; Hammond & Sikka, 1996) but the outstanding reason for its use in this history lies in the realisation that as a relatively recent event with some degree of commercial confidentiality, the adoption of ABFR lacks documentary evidence other than official pronouncements. Official documents are typically written with a narrow perspective and a sanitised rendition of events such that they are inadequate in highlighting problems, disagreements and the selfinterested manoeurvings of individuals and organisations. Therefore oral evidence
103
proves an invaluable resource to achieve a better understanding of the actions and motivations of the decision-makers in this case (Parker, 1997, p.142). Nevertheless, warnings about the dangers of oral evidence need to be heeded. It can be selfserving in the interests of the interviewees, contaminated by nostalgia, at the mercy of interviewees memories, censored by a reluctance to reveal potentially sensitive and controversial information, influenced by the researchers behaviour and diluted by the act of transcription (Hammond & Sikka, 1996; Parker, 1999). With these warnings in mind, the remainder of this section relates to the history of the NSWGs adoption of ABFR.
The events
Like all historical accounts, the history of the NSW Governments decision to implement ABFR should be considered in the context of its time. Overwhelmingly, that context was one of increasingly rapid change. Two major enquiries heralded the period of change: the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration reporting in 1976 (for a useful summary of this Royal Commissions accounting impacts refer to Parker and Guthrie, 1990, pp.116-7); and, the Review of NSW Government Administration conducted by Professor Wilenski and reporting in 1977 and 1978. Neither of these enquiries recommended ABFR but both set in train a series of changes that were to make ABFR appear to be consistent with the overall direction of change.3 ABFR should not be seen as an isolated event in an indeterminate sea of change. Instead it was consistent with, and reinforcing of, the general tide of movement reflecting adoption of private sector practices in the management of public sector organisations. Although the wave of that tide was only beginning to crest in the late 1980s, Dr Barry Moore, as an interested chronicler of public sector change, was able to identify the principles of corporatisation as being the essence of the sea change to that date. These principles are summarised as follows: (Moore, 1989, p.109-115): Demands for clear objectives, including explicit financial objectives, for all government bodies. Downstream autonomy as a means of diminishing the control of central agencies. Increased emphasis on performance monitoring which had been a pervasive feature of administrative life for at least 15 years (Moore, 1989, p.112). Changed management incentives including performance related pay, external advertising of vacancies, abolition of seniority-based promotions, and marketbased pay scales. Ensuring competitive neutrality through mechanisms like transfer pricing and competitive tendering.
104
The principles of corporatisation identified by Moore went beyond Government Trading Enterprises and were implemented in inner budget organisations. Among the consequences of these changes that have most relevance to the history of ABFR in NSW were: Expectations of increased accountability. Moves towards a smaller public sector in both functions delivered and assets controlled. Emphasis on productivity and economy. Moores analysis is confined to NSW but it is not contradicted by others with an Australia-wide perspective at the same time (see, for example, Parker & Guthrie, 1990). Two milestones assisted Moore in his understanding of the sea of change he was experiencing and chronicling. Firstly, the election of a government led by Mr Nick Greiner and secondly production of the Curran Report (NSW Commission of Audit, 1988) requested by Mr Greiner in the first months of his government. The election of the Greiner Government was important because of its espoused vision of NSW Incorporated and the attached importance of running the State like a business. The Curran Report was an explicit statement arguing the benefits of applying a corporate management framework which features many of the management tools widely employed in the private sector ... in tune with the approaches to public sector reform which are being quite widely proposed and adopted (Groom, 1990, p.144). The Curran Report tied together most of the sea of change in which the NSW public sector found itself in 1988. Further, the Curran Reports recommendation that accrual accounting be adopted by the NSW public sector has been described as its most innovative and radical (Groom, 1990, p.153). The above-mentioned context identifies the themes of change relevant to the NSWG decision in 1988 to adopt ABFR and its initial implementation in 1992 for the 1992/1993 financial statements. Appendix 1 provides a chronology of the events surrounding the history. The chronology can be roughly split into three phases: the pre-1987 discussion/agitation phase, when the case for accrual accounting was being put; the 1988 decision phase, when government made a commitment to adopt accrual accounting; and, the post-1988 implementation phase, when actions were taken at a Departmental level to enact the change. Within the discussion phase, pre-1988, the role of the Auditors-General, both State and Commonwealth, deserves special note. Ryan (1998, p.527) provides evidence of the activities of the Auditors-General in arguing for accrual accounting but there
105
is also evidence that these arguments were largely unsuccessful. Perhaps the most active Auditor-General, Mr Ken Robson of NSW, put it best when he stated: Everybody and I mean everybody was against me (about the need for accrual accounting). They thought I was an idiot or something. But I believed strongly that unless accrual accounting was used, there wouldnt be proper decisions made (Soh, 1992). Robson went on to explain that only when Greiner turned accrual accounting into an election issue did it achieve acceptance. As a result it is argued here that whilst the Auditors-General may have been active in their support for change, they were not able to exert enough influence to make any difference in the first phase of the history.4 The second phase of the history is marked by Greiners political commitment in early 1988 and the subsequent Curran Commission report endorsing accrual accounting in NSW. In the final phase the main activity is change of accounting systems and a series of reviews examining implementation progress. A notable feature of this phase was the inability of the accounting profession to match the speed of the NSW reforms and so accounting standards lagged behind. In effect NSW was forced to push ahead with its accounting reforms in the absence of agreed standards from the profession. Given this broad chronology and its context, the remainder of this section discusses the history as interpreted with the aid of the Revised Contingency Model.
Stimuli
All three cohorts of interviewees identified two information seminars on public sector accrual accounting as being crucial milestones associated with a shift from discussion to commitment. Whilst these seminars were not the stimuli for change, they provide evidence as to the stimuli that were having an impact on the groups of actors considered in this case. These seminars were organised firstly by the Australian Society of Accountants (now CPA Australia) in conjunction with Arthur Andersen & Co. (1987) and secondly the NSW Public Accounts Committee (1988). Secondary sources written close to the events (Moore, 1988; Soh, 1992) and those with more time to introspect (Ryan, 1995 and 1998) also confirm this attribution. This finding is a crucial one since it begins the identification of the effective promoters5 behind the idea of adopting ABFR and it identifies the stimuli for change. Whilst this is consistent with Ryan (1995) an influential UoI also identified an earlier seminar that influenced his thinking: a Harvard Business School finance Professor (M Colyer Crum) argued for public sector accrual accounting whilst visiting Sydney perhaps as early as 1974 (UoI, Interview 1). The seminars concentrated on the need for government to constrain debt (the problem) and argued the benefits of applying private sector discipline on government (the solution). The arguments presented bore a strong consistency with a number of doctrines that Hood (1995) identifies as underlying NPM and the speakers propositions are firmly embedded in a neo-liberal concept of government in society. For example, one speaker cites public choice theory as the grounding for
106
public sector accrual accounting (Regan, 1987, pp.7-8). Following the seminars and the election of the Greiner Government in 1988, the issue of being seen to have robust and professional debt management was confirmed as being a goal sought by the government (UoI, Interviews 1 and 2) although there was confusion between debt and liabilities (PoC, Interview 6). Some PoIs recognised the opportunities for change presented by the stimuli: reform was in the air you know the Roger Douglas thing in a different era we wouldnt have been able to do it (introduce accrual accounting) (PoI, Interview 4). The evidence regarding stimuli for change supports Hypothesis H1. A number of stimuli for change are identified. The single most important one was the desire to bring the public sector and private sector closer together in their management because of the philosophy of the Greiner government. However, this was either initiated or legitimated by an espoused concern regarding better economic management and improved public sector debt control (Greiner, 1993). The stimuli for change were strong in motivating the PoCs and UoIs but of small influence on the PoIs as evidenced by the clear statement of priorities by the Treasury Secretary placing accrual accounting below other reforms (Allan, 1988, p.41).
Promoters of Change
Whilst the 1987 ASA and 1988 Public Accounts Committee seminars identify the stimuli, they also identity management consulting firms as being the important PoCs. Management consulting firm partners dominated both seminars and argued that ABFR was necessary for asset management and debt control (Egol, 1987; McGinniss, 1988; Plater, 1988; Regan, 1987). Amongst the arguments presented was the assertion that public sector accrual accounting had been implemented overseas (although this point was subsequently refuted by the NSW Treasury after a quickly arranged study tour of the USA in 1988; PoI, Interview 5; PoI, Interview 3; PoC, Interview 7). Indicative of their influence at this early stage was the consultants organising of overseas contacts for a bureaucrats study tour and one firm, Arthur Andersen, writing select parts of the Greiner Governments Audit Commission discussion of the desirability of implementing accrual accounting (NSW Commission of Audit, 1988, Appendix F). Further, at the urging of a major firm (PoC; Interview 7) a Treasurers Accounting Advisory Panel (the Panel) comprising senior partners from all the major accounting firms was instigated by the Premier and Treasurer. The Panel provided an independent source of advice to the Treasurer and Treasury on emerging accounting issues affecting the public sector (NSW Government, 1991, p.30). The Panel institutionalised the influence of consultants on accrual accounting issues and it followed an $83,250 consultancy competitively won by Coopers & Lybrand to advise on development of a Financial Reporting Code for Budget Sector agencies converting to accrual accounting (NSW Government, 1991, p.101). Recognition of the Panels importance has been
107
explicit: the Panel was very important and was very successful (PoI, Interview 4) and it was a group of experts saying this is the right thing to do (UoI, Interview 1). Further evidence of the importance of consultants is strong: I dont know how many consultants we employed but they were right through the place (PoI, Interview 4). I would like to acknowledge the contribution from the big six accounting firms (Mellor, 1995, p.18) and, a number of consultants approached Treasury promoting accrual accounting (prior to 1988) (PoI, Interview 3). The actions of the consulting firms during implementation of the change were particularly influential. The Premier arranged a meeting with the Managing Partners of KPMG Peat Marwick, Price Waterhouse, Coopers & Lybrand, Arthur Andersens, Deloittes and Ernst & Young (and that meeting resulted in) the secondment of a manager from each firm into a department for approximately six months to act as project manager (Scullion, 1991, p.30-1) for the implementation of accrual accounting in select departments. The importance of consultants is confirmed in interviews with all three cohorts of interviewees. For example, they were supportive of it and it was helpful to them it would be too cynical a view to say that public sector work was previously a whole area that their firms did not have available to them and that they were only looking for work but they were certainly supportive of a convergence of public and private accounting standards because it was in the interests of the good management of the State (UoI, Interview 1). Further, it was expected, and I think it is now realised, that such skill transfer and such exchange (with consultants) is beneficial to NSW agencies as much as it is to the firms themselves (Mellor, 1995, p.18). It is hypothesised in the Revised Contingency Model that there are PoCs in addition to the consulting firms. However, the data from this case does not support an argument that the other PoCs were influential in the adoption of ABFR. Although a number of other academic and commentator PoCs were urging caution (Groom, 1990; Moore, 1989; Painter, 1990; Walker, 1989; Walker, 1988) they do not appear to have had an influence (UoI, Interview 1; PoI, Interview 3). In consideration of Hypothesis H2, it is concluded that the most important PoCs were the management consulting firms since they initiated discussion of accrual accounting and then provided the necessary wherewithal to achieve its implementation. The ability of the firms to provide the wherewithal in terms of computing systems and technical accounting advice meant that the consultants were not simply used to legitimate philosophical change: they were at the core of implementing real accounting change. There was a sense of epistemic strength (Laughlin & Pallot, 1998) behind this since it was initially consistent with professional body support and there was a sense that it was right (PoC, Interview 7). However, it would be naive to believe that participation in the reform process, including representation on the important Treasurers Accounting Advisory Panel, would not lead to economic gain as the public sector opened up for advisory work
108
(PoC, Interview 6; PoC, Interview 7). Whatever their motives, the consultants dominated the process of change and controlled the discourse and were institutionalised at the centre of the executive machinery (Saint-Martin, 1998, p.346). However, this domination of the changes encouraged little critical reflection or a full appreciation of several practical difficulties associated with their implementation (Potter, 1999, p.46). In this regard, two PoIs commented on the resultant frustration with the accounting profession in not resolving technical accounting issues related, in most part, to asset measurement quandaries (PoI, Interview 4; PoI Interview 3).
Users of Information
The most dominant player in the entire case study was Mr Nick Greiner, Premier and Treasurer, as a UoI. Each interviewee acknowledged this and some even argued that he may have been the only politician who understood the difference between cash and accrual accounting. His demand for different information was insistent and determinant. As a result, Treasury priorities were changed (PoI, Interview 3), resources were devoted to the task (PoI, Interview 4), private sector advisors were used (PoC, Interview 7), and impediments such as inadequate skills or prior accounting records were not allowed to divert the change (UoI, Interview 2). Indeed, Greiners role in this historical account provides a strong example of Oldroyds (1999) accident and personality as being at the core of why causal theories of history are undermined. Other UoIs such as the Public Accounts Committees and Auditors-General had a minor influence limited only to early stages in the history. The arguments presented by the PoCs captured the attention of political actors (Ryan, 1995) since they were based around depictions of the stimuli for change. These arguments were in accord with the philosophical bases of an incoming new government even though they were not vote winners. Even in 12 years retrospect it would be kidding to suggest that it (accrual accounting) was a basic part of the election plank the basic plank was NSW Inc and it was consistent with that (UoI, Interview 1). Some non-political UoIs also argued for ABFR. The most important of these were external to the responsible central agencies of Treasury, Public Service Board or Premiers Department: the Auditors-General (Harris, 1995; Robson, 1987). However, as noted above, the Auditors-General activism was limited to the early part of the history and it was not successful. Indeed, the most active AuditorGeneral, Mr Ken Robson, retired early before the first accrual based reports were prepared. Additional evidence of the lack of influence Auditors-General was the exclusion of Audit Office representation on the Premiers Accounting Advisory Panel until its influence had declined under the next Premier, Mr Fahey (PoC, Interview 7).
109
Some individuals wore a number of hats such that they were influential over the full process of change. A notable instance of this was the role of Mr Richard Humphry in three pivotal positions: Chairman and Member of the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (1983 to 1993), Victorian Auditor-General (1986 to 1988) and Director-General, NSW Premiers Department (1988 to 1994). His progression through these positions meant that ultimately he was at the centre of the implementation of ABFR in NSW (Ryan, 1998, p.527). A synergy developed between the UoIs and the PoIs as soon as the UoIs had signaled their support for change. For example, If the politician shows an interest in something the public servants will become enthused about it and there was a sense in Treasury of a desire to be at the forefront (UoI, Interview 1). The sense that Treasury was at the cutting edge of public financial reform was publicly expressed with pride in the form of gratitude for the Treasurers encouragement and support in changing the States financial management, accounting and reporting systems to amongst the most advanced in the world (NSW Government, 1991, p.i). There is strong evidence to support Hypothesis H3 since the UoIs noted that they were following an agenda set by NPM ideas (the stimuli for change) and that they demanded change from the PoIs to implement ABFR (UoI, Interviews 1 and 2).
Producers of Information
Although the PoIs were content to implement government policy on accrual accounting, they were initially unenthusiastic: for the moment (other reforms) have a higher administrative priority than accrual accounting (Allan, 1988, p.41). Their later enthusiasm for accrual accounting has been described as turning adversity into triumph (PoC, Interview 6). One reason advanced as to why adoption of ABFR was later favoured by the PoIs was to avoid problems associated with updating accounting systems and recruiting staff. It was considered that accrual accounting would mean standard accounting software could be used and accounting graduates recruited with greater success (PoI, Interview 5). However, more importantly, the PoIs enthusiasm seems to emanate from a desire to meet the needs of the forceful UoIs. It is also worth noting that the PoIs outside of the central agencies were not of any significant positive or negative influence in the change. These PoIs were reluctant to use accrual based reports and did not demonstrate a complete acceptance and internal use of accrual information (Public Accounts Committee, 1996, p.80). Nevertheless, this reluctance did not impede implementation of ABFR which has since been characterised as having taken on a crash-through approach (Funnell & Cooper, 1998, p.202). Accounting staff in Treasury and the Premiers Department were happy to respond to the demands of the UoIs and to use this influence to bring themselves to
110
the forefront of their profession. In the case of the head of Premiers Department this response was consistent with his earlier work as a UoI in the Commonwealth Department of Finance and the Victorian Auditor-General Office whereas in the case of Treasury it involved realigned priorities. There is data to support Hypothesis H4 by demonstrating responsiveness from some PoIs to pressure from the UoIs. But there is not sufficient data to argue that a truly two-way relationship existed. That is, the PoIs were not successful in modifying the manner of implementing ABFR so as to minimise the impact of the implementation barriers as discussed next.
Implementation barriers
There were varying levels of concern with impediments to a smooth implementation of accrual accounting. The PoIs noted the lack of accounting skills in the public sector as an impediment; for example, many of the accountants in government were not accountants as you would think of them in the private sector for many of them it was a nightmare for them to move across to an accrual system (PoI, Interview 4). This was confirmed in 1994 by the Public Accounts Committee arguing that there was still a need to improve the skills and training for accounting and finance officers (Public Accounts Committee, 1995, p.i). However, the UoIs paid less attention to the impact of this impediment. For example, I dont think that the cost of conversion from cash accounting to accrual would have been any reason to delay its implementation whether it was fairly costly or not costly it would not have made any difference (UoI, Interview 2). Another impediment that worried PoIs was the inadequate state of asset records: We had things (assets) we didnt even know about! (PoI, Interview 4). However, the UoIs were only interested in this problem as a reason to push accrual accounting faster rather than to become more cautious: how could we manage if we didnt know what assets we owned? (so) our general approach to government was to push on all fronts if you take a very careful, measured approach all it means is that nothing ever happens (UoI, Interview 1). Again, consistent with NPM, the government was explicit in trying to use accrual accounting to force departments to recognise and value assets in their control (Greiner, 1993, p.54). Two PoIs noted that the absence of public sector accounting standards was a problem. However, given that this was not an issue to other actors, it is not examined here as a barrier to implementation. The apparently resigned acceptance of this problem probably results from another accident of history: the Head of Premiers Department had been a Chairman of the PSASB and so was not prepared to allow technical accounting debates to interfere with the pace of reform. With respect to Hypothesis H5, barriers to implementation were of less importance than expected. Explicit statements from both UoIs noted that cost of implementation was not important (and not even estimated). Since higher implementation barriers impose higher implementation costs it is apparent that they
111
were not important in the decision to proceed or not. However, both barriers mentioned by almost all interviewees (low level of accounting skill in the public sector and poor asset records) provided the promoters of change with the opportunity to sell their wares. That is, significant expense was incurred on consultancies to advise on accrual accounting, train staff and review asset records. As an aside, it is interesting that information on the cost of implementing a new accounting system designed to provide improved information is unlikely ever to be reached as agency records in this respect are unreliable (Public Accounts Committee, 1996, p.59).
Conclusion
Implementation of ABFR has been a reform that has been promulgated widely at a significant cost (Public Accounts Committee, 1996). The fact that NSW was amongst the first implementing jurisdictions in the world makes the case study worthwhile since it can throw light on the process of change. So as to order the data gathered in this case study a Revised Contingency Model was proposed and from this five hypotheses were developed. These hypotheses were examined in light of oral evidence gathered from individuals who were central in the events surrounding the decision to adopt ABFR. The history identifies stimuli that made certain pro-active political Users of Information receptive to the arguments presented by consulting firms in the role of Promoters of Change. These arguments were solidly based within the management doctrines described by Hood (1995) as characterising NPM. The Users subsequently exerted significant force on central agencies in their role as Producers of Information. This force was designed to achieve the adoption of ABFR with little concern for any associated problems. As a consequence the central agencies of Treasury and Premiers Department responded with enthusiasm to implement ABFR. The subsequent implementation of ABFR was heavily dependent on the services of management consultants of whom some had been very vocal in the arguments advanced for the change to accrual accounting. Thus, the prime actors in the NSWG decision to adopt ABFR were the Premier and private sector consultants. To this team were added central agency PoIs at the implementation of the decision. A significant aspect of the history presented in this study is the explicit acknowledgment that implementation cost was not considered as a barrier to change. Indeed, increased cost in the form of significant usage of external consultants was seen as a necessary strategy to overcome the acknowledged implementation barriers of inadequate accounting skills and poor asset records. Whilst this strategy resulted in more speedy change it probably was the genesis of subsequent criticisms. Two main criticisms of the (probable) high cost and rushed approach stand out. Firstly that the cost of implementation is not known (Public
112
Accounts Committee, 1996). Secondly, that insufficient planning and development work was done initially in linking accrual accounting back to the budgeting process, in exploring and defining the likely problems and in developing options and solutions (Hickling Corporation, 1997, pp.iv-v). These criticisms and the finding that implementation cost was not important in the decision to undertake the change point increasingly to the usefulness of researching whether ABFR has been worthwhile. Two other significant aspects of the history relate to the promoters of ABFR: the Auditors-General, whilst being active, were not effective in their advocacy but the Big Six accounting firms were successful in their calls for ABFR. This contrast raises questions now of whether the accountability rationale for ABFR, as advanced by the Auditors-General, has been delivered in the private sector version of public sector ABFR, as implemented by a large number of consultants. The Auditors-General and Public Accounts Committees are now in a position to investigate this outstanding question. The longstanding and continuing debate about the appropriate degree of fit of commercial accounting and reporting practices for public sector organisations increasingly calls for further research of these issues (Barton, 1999; Carnegie & Wolnizer, 1999; Guthrie, 1998a; Potter, 2002; Walker, 1989). The data of the case study confirms Hypotheses H1, H2 and H3 whilst offering mixed support for H4 and rejecting H5. Collectively these results demonstrate the usefulness of the Revised Contingency Model. However, the Implementation Barrier module deserves modification to incorporate the possibility, as in this case, that implementation problems, such as high implementation costs, may not be perceived as impedients to change, especially where such implementation costs are not readily ascertainable and/or are perceived to not outweigh the anticipated benefits of the change. It is acknowledged that in its approach and in its evidence this historical account presents foci of potential conflict, just as Carnegie and Napier (1996, pp.14-5) aptly warn are features of most accounting histories. Whilst these conflicts may stand as legitimate limitations to the research they are also pointers to areas where additional research should be fruitful. This research has a number of limitations. These limitations result from the case study being an interpretational history and as such it cannot promise to present a definitive view of events (Previts et al., 1990a). The interpretation of this history provided by way of applying the revised contingency model may be criticised as being a doctrinaire approach (Tyson, 1993). However, it is not argued that it precludes alternative interpretations. Were the facts or the personalities to be different there is no guarantee that the cases outcome would substantially differ. Although an interesting dinner party conversation amusement, the second guessing of history is the unattainable test of the analysis presented in interpretational
113
histories (for example, would accrual accounting have been implemented if Nick Greiner was not elected in 1988?). Such second guessing is especially fraught in cases such as this where the history is relatively recent and is shrouded in commercially confidential practices. It is appropriate to note that it should not surprise us in the least that histories will be written and rewritten as layers of narrative, interpretation and explanation are developed with the lapse of time and the revisiting of archives by successive generations of scholars (Parker, 1999, p.24). Other limitations to the research emerge from the model that has been used to inform the history. For example, more finely detailed differentiation of the models groups of actors could have been developed. This is perhaps most important with respect to the Users of Information where there are substantive differences between government and opposition political users as well as lobbyists. Further, the model only allows an individual to be in one category of actors at a particular point of time and this proves to be a limitation in understanding this history since some significant individuals moved between roles as the history progressed. For example, Mr Richard Humphry held three pivotal positions; Mr Don Nicholls moved from being at the centre of NSWs adoption of accrual accounting to being the author of four States audit commissions for incoming governments. Further research justified by the issues considered here probably needs to address the outstanding question of costs and benefits from accrual accounting; that is, whether ABFR and accrual budgeting, have delivered the benefits as promised by its vocal advocates in the 1980s. Such research would do well to work from the most important conclusion of this history: the role of management consultants in the promotion, design and execution of public sector accrual accounting has been one of the most significant exercises of epistemic influence over the internal workings of government in the last two decades.
114
Appendix 1: Chronology of events

Date 1983 1985 Event March: Nick Greiner becomes Leader of Opposition Public Sector Accounting Standards Board publishes Research Monograph (no.5) raising, amongst other matters, whether accrual or cash accounting is best for the public sector Victorian A-G (Richard Humphry) argues for AA SA PAC recommends AA for agencies with operating expenses greater than $5m. Tony Harris (later to become NSW A-G) supports AA for all government in his commentary on ASA Annual Research in Government Accounting Lecture The NSW and Victorian As-G present papers to the PACs Biennial Conference Government A Big Business advocating AA SA PAC repeats recommendation of AA for major asset holding agencies November: ASA convenes Sydney seminar on AA with New York Comptroller (Edward Regan) and Arthur Andersen US Partner & Director of Government Services Industry Program (Morton Egol) as keynote speakers February: NSW PAC convenes Accrual Accounting Seminar (200 attendees) A few days after the PAC Seminar (Moore 1988, p.166), Opposition Leader Greiner outlines his management strategy including AA and a week later Labor Treasurer Booth indicates he is thinking about AA March: Greiner Government elected July: Curran Report published. One term of reference was to advise on the impact of, and procedures involved in, applying full AA (NSW Commission of Audit 1988). Arthur Andersen commissioned to prepare an appendix on AA for the final report. SA PAC recommends AA for all government agencies in its 1988 Annual Report PSASB issues Exposure Draft ED50 Financial Reporting by Local Government May: Premiers Conference: NSWG requests a Working party on financial information harmonisation; Premiers establish the Working Party on Government Financial Information (WPonGFI) December: PSASB issues AAS27 Financial Reporting by Local Government February: Treasury Heads set up the Working Party on AA May: Premiers Conference: receives WponGFI report recommending a Working Party on Accrual Accounting July: Special Premiers Conference: sets up Steering Committee for National Performance Monitoring of GTEs and asks it to refine national accounting standards including asset valuation 1991/92 NSW Budget Paper No. 2 notes 3 year strategy to adopt AA AARF, PSASB issues Discussion Paper No.16, Financial Reporting by Government Departments Special Premiers Conference agrees that the States will move towards uniformity in budget presentation and show a reconciliation of budget results and data on a Government Finance Statistics (GFS) basis (Walker 1995a, p.4) October: Victorian Government commits to implementing AA ... continued
115
1986
1987
1988
1989 1990
1991
1992
January: All Treasuries decide to fund the PSASB to produce a standard on Departments (Ryan, 1999, p.176) May: Heads of Treasuries Working Party on Accrual Accounting produce unpublished Commonwealth report Accounting and Financial Reporting in the Public Sector; recommendations appear lukewarm and allow adoption or not; Percy Allan later says its recommendations were not as averse to AA as most of its members were at the outset of the exercise (Ryan, 1995, p.208) June: AARF issues Exposure Draft ED55 Financial Reporting by Government Departments 1992/93 NSW Budget Papers present 1st whole of government financial report on an accrual basis called comprehensive accounting November: Commonwealth Government commits to implementing AA Public Finance & Audit (Budget) Amendment Act empowers NSWG Treasurer to depart from ABS standards on reporting by changing definition of GFS Report of the Victorian Commission of Audit Vol 1 argues that the Victorian Government should introduce a system of full accrual accounting (p.iv) June: Independent Commission to Review State Finances in Western Australia reports on the benefits of comprehensive financial reporting on an accrual basis but notes that NSW has had to move ahead of the accounting profession and with a lack of consensus on conceptual issues (Walker, 1995b, p.10) December: AARF issues AAS29 Financial Reporting by Government Departments (to have effect 31.12.96) First NSW Public Accounts (1993-94) prepared on an accrual basis for the budget sector (Walker, 1995b, p.5) April: Treasurer requests PAC enquiry into accrual accounting implementation in NSW Commonwealth Government presents trial basis whole of government financial report on an accrual basis December: PAC holds seminar on AA implementation progress March: ED62 Financial Reporting by Governments June: PAC concludes NSW can be proud of its achievement as the 1st jurisdiction to implement AA; estimates minimum implementation cost at $52m. (Public Accounts Committee, 1996) November: PSASB issues AAS31 Financial Reporting by Governments (to have effect 30.6.99)
Accrual Accounting Australian Accounting Research Foundation Australian Bureau of Statistics Auditor-General Australian Society of Accountants (later Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants and later CPA Australia) Government Finance Statistics Government Trading Enterprise Public Accounts Committee Public Sector Accounting Standards Board South Australia Working Party on Government Financial Information
1993
1994
1995 1996
Abbreviations:
AA: AARF: ABS: A-G: ASA: GFS: GTE: PAC: PASAB: SA: WPonGFI:
116
Notes
1. This is notwithstanding Balls point that in the public sector the predominance of the accounting imperative suggests that management accounting never has been distinct from financial accounting (2001, p.297). 2. There may be some scepticism that users as defined in this study would necessarily rely on ABFR as their primary data source. Such scepticism points to an unfulfilled research area which is outside the ambit of this paper and has been highlighted by others as an important future research question (Guthrie, 1998a; Potter, 2002). 3. I am grateful to Professor Allan Barton for the insight that draws a lineage from Wilenskis work to NSW ABFR. Wilenskis two reports now stand as a forceful argument for breaking the inertia of NSW public administration in many fields. 4. One contributor to the Victorian Congress of the Australian Society of Accountants noted in November 1987 I am well aware that the majority of the accounting profession is disinterested in the topic (of public sector accrual accounting) and many government accountants are hostile at any suggestion of accrual accounting (Walker, 1987, p.1). He went on however to acknowledge the efforts of the then Victorian Auditor-General in attempting to overcome this negative attitude to public sector accrual accounting. 5. These seminars were dominated by management consultants from the Big Six accounting firms and their activity signposts the failure of prior promoters such as the Auditors-General in contrast to the Big Six promoters. Support for the assessment that the Auditors-General and some interested public servants had failed to achieve change to this point (1988) is provided by Ryan (1995, p.195) in which she cites a PSASB Chairperson: Humphry and Shand who were both high profile did not make any progress (Richard Humphry then being the Victorian AuditorGeneral and David Shand then being a senior Commonwealth public servant). In additional support of this observation it can be noted that David Shand had been advocating public sector accrual accounting, without any success, from as early as 1983 when employed in the Victorian public sector.
References
Aiken, M., (1994), Parliamentary Sovereignty and Valuation Accruals: Uncongenial Conventions, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol.10, No.1, pp.17-32. Allan, P., (1988), Accrual Accounting To Be Or Not To Be?, Accrual Accounting Seminar, Sydney: NSW Parliament, pp.33-41. Ball, A., (2001), Discovering Its Own Relevance? Reflections on the New Management Accounting in the Public Sector, Accounting Forum, Vol.25, No.3, pp.283-99. Barton, A., (1999), Public and Private Sector Accounting The Non-Identical Twins, Australian Accounting Review, Vol.9, No.2, pp.22-31.
117
Broadbent, J., and Guthrie, J., (1992), Changes in the Public Sector: A Review of Recent Alternative Accounting Research, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.5, No.2, pp.3-31. Brorstrom, B., (1998), Accrual Accounting, Politics and Politicians, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol.14, No.4, pp.319-33. Carnegie, G. and Napier, C., (1996), Critical and Interpretive Histories: Insights into Accountings Present and Future Through its Past, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.9, No.3, pp.7-39. Carnegie, G. and Wolnizer, P., (1999), Unravelling the Rhetoric about the Financial Reporting of Public Collections as Assets, Australian Accounting Review, Vol.9, No.1, pp.16-21. Chan, J., Jones, R. and Luder, K., (1996), Modeling Governmental Accounting Innovations: An Assessment and Future Research Directions, Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, Vol.9, pp.1-20. Clark-Lewis, M., (1996), Government Accrual Reports: Are They Better Than Cash?, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol.55, No.1, pp.86-7. Coleman, W. and Skogstad, G., (1990), Introduction and Policy Communities and Policy Networks: A Structural Approach, in Coleman, W. and Skogstad, G., (eds.), Policy Communities and Public Policy in Canada, Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman, pp.1-33. Conn, N., (1996), Reservations about Governments Producing Balance Sheets, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol.55, No.1, pp.82-5. Copley, P., Cheng, R., Harris, J., Icerman, R., Johnson, W., Smith, G., Smith, K., Wrege, W. and Yaahr, R., (1997), The New Governmental Reporting Model: is a Field of Dreams?, Accounting Horizons, Vol.11, No.3, pp.91-101. Coy, D., Dixon, K., Buchanan, J. and Tower, G., (1997), Recipients of Public Sector Annual Reports: Theory and an Empirical Study Compared, British Accounting Review, Vol.29, No.2, pp.103-27. Douglas, L., Roberts, A. and Thompson, R., (1988), Oral History: A Handbook, Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Egol, M., (1987), Can Accrual Accounting Work in Government?, Can Accrual Accounting Work in Government, Sydney, Canberra & Melbourne: Australian Society of Accountants. El-Batanoni, K. and Jones, R., (1996), Governmental Accounting in The Sudan, Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, Vol.9, pp.209-18. Fleischman, R., Kalbers, L. and Parker, L., (1996a), Expanding the Dialogue: Industrial Revolution Costing Historiography, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol.7, No.3, pp.315-37. Fleischman, R., Mills, P. and Tyson, T., (1996b), A Theoretical Primer for Evaluating and Conducting Historical Research in Accounting, Accounting History, NS Vol.1, No.1, pp.55-75.
118
Fleischman, R. and Radcliffe, V., (2000), Divergent Streams of Accounting History: A Review and Call for Confluence, Sixth Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting Conference, Manchester. Funnell, W., (2001), Government by Fiat: The Retreat from Responsibility, Sydney: UNSW Press. Funnell, W. and Cooper, K., (1998), Public Sector Accounting and Accountability in Australia, Sydney: UNSW Press. Gaffikin, M., (1998), History is Dead, Long Live History, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol.9, No.6, pp.631-9. Godfrey, A., Devlin, P. and Merrouche, M., (2001), A Diffusion-Contingency Model for Governmental Accounting Innovations, in Bac, A. (ed.), International Comparative Issues in Government Accounting, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.279-96. Godfrey, A., Devlin, P. and Merrouche, C., (1996), Governmental Accounting in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, Vol.9, pp.193-208. Greiner, N., (1993), Keeping New South Wales a Triple-A State, in James, C., Jones, C. and Norton, A., (eds.), A Defense of Economic Rationalism, St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, pp.51-61. Groom, E., (1990), The Curran Report and the Role of the State, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol.49, No.2, pp.144-54. Guthrie, J., (1994), Understanding Australian Federal Public Sector Accounting Developments in their Context, Unpublished PhD, Kensington: University of New South Wales. Guthrie, J., (1998), Australian Experiences of Output Based Budgeting: A Critical Reflection, Australasian Evaluation Society International Conference, Melbourne. Guthrie, J., (1998a), Application of Accrual Accounting in the Public Sector Rhetoric or Reality?, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol.14, No.1, pp.1-19. Guthrie, J., Olson, O. and Humphrey, C., (1999), Debating Developments in New Public Financial Management: The Limits of Global Theorising and Some New Ways Forward, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol.15 No.3&4, pp.209-28. Hammond, T. and Sikka, P., (1996), Radicalizing Accounting History: The Potential of Oral History, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.9, No.3, pp.79-97. Harris, T., (1995), Your Friendly Auditor Wants to Say ..., Proceedings of the Seminar on Accrual Accounting the Scorecard to Date, NSW Public Accounts Committee, Sydney: NSW Parliament, pp.53-57. Hay, D., (1994), Who Uses Public Sector External Reports? An Exploration, Accounting Forum, Vol.17, No.4, pp.47-65.
119
Hickling Corporation, (1997), Financial Information Strategy: Study of the Implementation of Full Accrual Accounting in Government Organizations Lessons Learned, on-line: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fin/FIS-SIF/sigs/fis_Discussion_Papers/
LESSONS_e.html
Hood, C., (1995), The New Public Management in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.20, No.2/3, pp.93-109. Jones, R., (1998), The Conceptual Framework of Resource Accounting, Public Money and Management, April-June, pp.11-6. Jones, S. and Puglisi, N., (1997), The Relevance of AAS29 to the Australian Public Sector: A Cause for Doubt?, Abacus, Vol.33, No.1, pp.115-32. Keenan, M., (1998), A Defence of Traditional Accounting History Research Methodology, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 9, No.6, pp.641-66. Khumawala, S., (1997), Public Sector Accounting in India: A Historical Review and an Analysis Since Independence to the Economic Reforms of the Nineties, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, Vol.9, No.2, pp.30530. Lapsley, I., (1999), Accounting and the New Public Management: Instruments of Substantive Efficiency or a Rationalising Modernity?, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol.15, No.3&4, pp.201-7. Laughlin, R. and Pallot, J., (1998), Trends, Patterns and Influencing Factors: Some Reflections, in Olson, O., Guthrie, J. and Humphrey, C., (eds.), Global Warning: International Financial Management Changes, Bergen, Norway: Cappelan Akademisk Forlag, pp.376-99. Likierman, A., (1996), The UK Governments Accounting and Budgeting Revolution, Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, Vol.9, pp.30322. Luder, K., (1992), A Contingency Model of Governmental Accounting Innovations in the Political-Administrative Environment, Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, Vol.7, pp.77-129. Luder, K., (1994), The Contingency Model Reconsidered: Experiences from Italy, Japan and Spain, Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, Vol.8, pp.1-15. Luder, K., (2000), Personal Discussion, 8 March, Sydney. McGinniss, M., (1988), Commentary, Accrual Accounting Seminar, NSW Public Accounts Committee, Sydney: NSW Parliament, pp.100-14. Mayston, D., (1992), Capital Accounting, User Needs and the Foundations of a Conceptual Framework for Public Sector Financial Reporting, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol.8, No.4, pp.227-48. Mellor, T., (1995), The View of the Treasury as the Regulator, Proceedings of the Seminar on Accrual Accounting the Scorecard to Date, NSW Public Accounts Committee, Sydney: NSW Parliament, pp.15-21.
120
Micallef, F., (1997), AAS31 Drawing the Big Picture, Australian Accountant, Vol.67, No.2, pp.38-9. Miley, F. and Read, A., (2000), Comparing Government Reporting: Looking for Accountability, Australian CPA, Vol.70 No.1, pp.26-7. Miller, P. and Napier, C., (1993), Genealogies of Calculation, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.18, No.7/8, pp.631-47. Monsen, N. and Nasi, S., (1998), The Contingency Model of Governmental Accounting Innovations: A Discussion, The European Accounting Review, Vol.7, No.2, pp.275-88. Monsen, N. and Nasi, S., (1999), Comparing Cameral and Accrual Accounting in Local Governments, in Bac, A. (ed.), International Comparative Issues in Government Accounting, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp.135-58. Montesinos, V. and Bargues, J., (1996), Governmental Accounting in Spain: Evolution and Reforms, Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, Vol.9, pp.219-38. Moore, B., (1988), Administrative Chronicle New South Wales, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol.47, No.2, pp.164-70. Moore, B., (1989), Developments in New South Wales Public Administration, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol.48, No.2, pp.109-22. Ng, C. and Shead, B., (1999), Major Issues Associated with the Reporting of Government Net Worth, Australian Accounting Review, Vol.9, No.3, pp.61-8. NSW Commission of Audit, (1988), Focus on Reform: Report on the States Finances, Sydney: NSW Government Printer. NSW Government, (1991), Office of Financial Management Annual Report, Sydney: NSW Government Printer. Oldroyd, D., (1999), Historiography, Causality and Positioning: An Unsystematic View of Accounting History, Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.26, No.1, pp.83102. Olson, O., Guthrie, J. and Humphrey, C. (eds.), (1998), Global Warning: International Financial Management Changes, Bergen, Norway: Cappelan Akademisk Forlag. Painter, M., (1990), Commentary (The Curran Report and the Role of the State), Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol.49, No.2, pp.154-6. Pallot, J., (1992), Elements of a Theoretical Framework for Public Sector Accounting, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol.5, No.1, pp.38-59. Pallot, J., (1996), Innovations in National Government Accounting and Budgeting in New Zealand, Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, Vol.9, pp.323-48. Parker, L., (1997), Informing Historical Research in Accounting and Management: Traditions, Philosophies and Opportunities, The Accounting Historians Journal, Vol.24, No.2, pp.111-49.
121
Parker, L., (1999), Historiography for the New Millennium: Adventures in Accounting and Management, Accounting History, NS Vol.4, No.2, pp.11-42. Parker, L. and Guthrie, J., (1990), Public Sector Accounting and the Challenge of Managerialism, in Forster, J. and Wanna, J. (eds.), Budgetary Management and Control: the Public Sector in Australasia, Melbourne: Macmillan, pp.114-27. Perrin, J., (1998), From Cash to Accruals in 25 Years, Public Money and Management, April-June, pp.7-10. Plater, I., (1988), The United States Experience, Accrual Accounting Seminar, NSW Public Accounts Committee, Sydney: NSW Parliament, pp.52-63. Pollitt, C., (1995), Justification by Works or by Faith: Evaluating the New Public Management, Evaluation, Vol.1, No.2, pp.133-54. Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G., (2000), Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Potter, B., (1999), The Power of Words: Explaining Recent Accounting Reforms in the Australian Public Sector, Accounting History, NS Vol.4, No.2, pp.43-72. Potter, B., (2002), Financial Accounting Reforms in the Australian Public Sector: An Episode in Institutional Thinking, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.15, No.1, pp.69-93. Previts, G., Parker, L. and Coffman, E., (1990a), Accounting History: Definition and Relevance, Abacus, Vol.26, No.1, pp.1-16. Previts, G., Parker, L. and Coffman, E., (1990b), An Accounting Historiography: Subject Matter and Methodology, Abacus, Vol.26, No.2, pp.136-58. Public Accounts Committee, (1995), Proceedings of the Seminar on Accrual Accounting the Scorecard to Date, Report 89, Sydney: NSW Parliament. Public Accounts Committee, (1996), Pioneers Progress But at a Price: Implementation of Accrual Accounting in the NSW Public Sector, Report 100 (10/51), Sydney: NSW Parliament. Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, (1999), Report on the Inquiry into Annual Reporting in the Victorian Public Sector, 26th Session 1998-99, Melbourne: Government Printer for the State of Victoria. Regan, E., (1987), Accrual Accounting in Government, Can Accrual Accounting Work in Government, Sydney: Australian Society of Accountants. Rhodes, R., (1998), Different Roads to Unfamiliar Places: UK Experience in Comparative Perspective, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol.57, No.4, pp.19-31. Robinson, M., (1998), Accrual Accounting and the Efficiency of the Core Public Sector, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol.14, No.1, pp.21-37. Robinson, M., (1999), Accrual Financial Reporting in the Australian Public Sector: An Economic Perspective, Discussion Paper 65, Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.
122
Robson, K., (1987), Should Accrual Accounting Apply to the Public Sector?, Can Accrual Accounting Work in Government, Sydney: Australian Society of Accountants. Rowe, S., (1991), Public Sector Annual Reporting: a Comparison of Australian Legislative Requirements, Master of Arts in Accountancy Thesis, Adelaide: University of South Australia. Rutherford, B., (1992), Developing a Conceptual Framework for Central Government Financial Reporting, Intermediate Users and Indirect Control, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol.8, No.4, pp.265-80. Ryan, C., (1995), Australian Public Sector Financial Reporting 1976 to 1993: Reforming Policy Agendas, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Griffith University. Ryan, C., (1998), The Introduction of Accrual Reporting Policy in the Australian Public Sector: An Agenda Setting Explanation, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.11, No.5, pp.518-39. Ryan, C., (1999), Australian Public Sector Financial Reporting: A Case of Cooperative Policy Formation, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.12, No.5, pp.561-82. Ryan, C., Dunstan, K. and Stanley, T., (1999), Constituent Participation in the Australian Public Sector Accounting Standard-Setting Process: The Case of ED55, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol.15, No.2, pp.173-200. Ryan, C., Dunstan, K. and Brown, J., (2000), The Value of Public Sector Annual Reports and the Contribution of Annual Reporting Awards, International Conference on Accounting, Auditing and Management in Public Sector Reforms, Zaragoza. Saint-Martin, D., (1998), The New Managerialism and the Policy Influence of Consultants in Government: An Historical-Institutionalist Analysis of Britain, Canada and France, Governance, Vol.11, No.3, pp.319-56. Scullion, B., (1991), Accrual Accounting, National Accountants in Government Convention, Gold Coast: Australian Society of Accountants. Shand, D., (1990), Australia Moves to Accrual Accounting: Problems and Prospects, in Forster, J. and Wanna, J. (eds.), Budgetary Management and Control: the Public Sector in Australasia, Melbourne: Macmillan, pp.142-50. Sharpe, M., (1992), A Private Sector View, Report on the Proceedings of the Seminar to Review Progress of Financial Reform in the New South Wales Public Sector, Sydney: NSW Parliament, pp.1-8. Soh, D., (1992), After Seven Years at the Helm, Robson Decides to Hit the Road, New Accountant, Vol.5, No.8, p.12. Tyson, T., (1993), Keeping the Record Straight: Foucauldian Revisionism and Nineteenth Century US Cost Accounting History, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.6, No.2, pp.4-16.
123
Walker, N., (1987), Accrual Accounting for the Government Sector, Australian Society of Accountants Victorian State Congress, Melbourne: Australian Society of Accountants. Walker, R., (1988), Accrual Accounting: Necessary But Not Sufficient, Accrual Accounting Seminar, NSW Public Accounts Committee, Sydney: NSW Parliament, pp.20-32. Walker, R., (1989), Should There be Common Standards for the Public and Private Sectors? Research Lecture in Government Accounting, Melbourne: Australian Society of Accountants, pp.1-20. Walker, R., (1995a), Public Sector Consolidated Financial Statements, UNSW Working Paper Series, Kensington: University of NSW. Walker, R., (1995b), State Finances An Assessment of the NSW Coalition Government' Record in Financial Management 1988-1995, UNSW Working Paper Series, Kensington: University of NSW. Walker, R., Clarke, F. and Dean, G., (1999), Reporting on the State of Infrastructure by Local Government, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.12, No.4, pp.441-58. Wildavsky, A., (1988), Understanding Organizational Change OMB and GAO A Review, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.13, No.1, pp.107-9. Yamamoto, K., (1999), Accounting System Reform in Japanese Local Governments, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol.15, No.3&4, pp.291-307.
124

Accrual Accounting 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accrual Accounting 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accounting History

>> Version of Record - May 1, 2002 What is This?

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector

A revised contingency model of public sector accounting change

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector

Figure 1: Process Model of Public Sector Accounting Change

Promotors of change: Consultants Commentators Academics Organisations representing professional interests

Implementation of a new public sector accounting system

Determinant influence Significant influence Minor influence

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector

Case study of public sector accounting change

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector

Promoter of Change (PoC)

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector

Appendix 1: Chronology of events

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Accounting History NS Vol 7, No 2 - 2002

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013

Christensen: Accrual accounting in the public sector

Downloaded from ach.sagepub.com at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on May 10, 2013