Measuring Country Differences in Enforcement of Accounting Standards: An Audit and Enforcement Proxy

P. Brown, John Preiato, A. Tarca
{"title":"Measuring Country Differences in Enforcement of Accounting Standards: An Audit and Enforcement Proxy","authors":"P. Brown, John Preiato, A. Tarca","doi":"10.1111/jbfa.12066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we present an index designed to capture differences between countries in relation to the institutional setting for financial reporting, specifically the auditing of financial statements and the enforcement of compliance with each country's accounting standards. The use of a common set of standards such as International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) aims, in broad terms, to promote the comparability and transparency of financial statements and to improve the quality of financial reporting. However, the effectiveness of IFRS adoption may be hampered by differences, across countries, in the institutional setting in which financial reporting occurs. Studies of outcomes from adopting IFRS use a range of legal system proxies to capture these country differences, but the proxies are deficient in that they seldom focus explicitly on factors that affect how compliance with accounting standards is promoted through external audit and the activities of independent enforcement bodies. To address this deficiency, we calculate measures of the quality of the public company auditors’ working environment (AUDIT) and the degree of accounting enforcement activity (ENFORCE) by independent enforcement bodies. We do this for 51 countries for each of the years 2002, 2005 and 2008, using publicly available data provided by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), the World Bank and the national securities regulators. Preliminary tests suggest our indices have additional explanatory power (over more general legal proxies) for country-level measures of economic and market activity, financial transparency and earnings management. We expect they will prove useful to researchers and other interested parties who require country-level measures that focus on the degree of enforcement of financial reporting practices.","PeriodicalId":23644,"journal":{"name":"Wiley-Blackwell: Journal of Business Finance & Accounting","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"354","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley-Blackwell: Journal of Business Finance & Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 354

Abstract

In this paper we present an index designed to capture differences between countries in relation to the institutional setting for financial reporting, specifically the auditing of financial statements and the enforcement of compliance with each country's accounting standards. The use of a common set of standards such as International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) aims, in broad terms, to promote the comparability and transparency of financial statements and to improve the quality of financial reporting. However, the effectiveness of IFRS adoption may be hampered by differences, across countries, in the institutional setting in which financial reporting occurs. Studies of outcomes from adopting IFRS use a range of legal system proxies to capture these country differences, but the proxies are deficient in that they seldom focus explicitly on factors that affect how compliance with accounting standards is promoted through external audit and the activities of independent enforcement bodies. To address this deficiency, we calculate measures of the quality of the public company auditors’ working environment (AUDIT) and the degree of accounting enforcement activity (ENFORCE) by independent enforcement bodies. We do this for 51 countries for each of the years 2002, 2005 and 2008, using publicly available data provided by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), the World Bank and the national securities regulators. Preliminary tests suggest our indices have additional explanatory power (over more general legal proxies) for country-level measures of economic and market activity, financial transparency and earnings management. We expect they will prove useful to researchers and other interested parties who require country-level measures that focus on the degree of enforcement of financial reporting practices.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
衡量会计准则执行的国家差异:审计和执行代理
在本文中,我们提出了一个指数,旨在捕捉各国之间在财务报告制度设置方面的差异,特别是财务报表的审计和遵守每个国家会计准则的执行。使用一套通用的标准,如国际财务报告准则(IFRS),从广义上讲,旨在促进财务报表的可比性和透明度,并提高财务报告的质量。然而,采用国际财务报告准则的有效性可能会受到各国之间财务报告发生的制度环境差异的阻碍。采用国际财务报告准则的结果研究使用一系列法律制度代理来捕捉这些国家差异,但代理的不足之处是,它们很少明确关注影响如何通过外部审计和独立执法机构的活动促进遵守会计准则的因素。为了解决这一缺陷,我们计算了独立执法机构对上市公司审计师工作环境(AUDIT)质量和会计执法活动(enforcement)程度的衡量标准。我们利用国际会计师联合会(IFAC)、世界银行和各国证券监管机构提供的公开数据,对2002年、2005年和2008年的51个国家进行了上述分析。初步测试表明,我们的指数对国家层面的经济和市场活动、财务透明度和盈余管理指标具有额外的解释力(相对于更一般的法律代理)。我们预计,这些报告将对研究人员和其他需要国家级措施的利益相关方有用,这些措施侧重于财务报告实践的执行程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sustainability of the Accounting and Finance Academic Profession: Students’ and Supervisors’ Views About the Phd Supervision Process Transforming Accounting Curricula to Enhance Integrative Learning IASB's Independence in the Due Process: An Examination of Interest Groups’ Influence on the Development of IFRS 9 Structural Holes and Hedge Fund Return Comovement: Evidence from Network‐Connected Stock Hedge Funds in China The Pricing of Accruals Quality in Credit Default Swap Spreads
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1