This research note uses a city directory to identify and contextualize early practitioners in what later became the first organized professional community of public accountants in the English-speaking world. It comments more generally on the use of such a directory as an archival source for accounting history research.
{"title":"USING A CITY DIRECTORY TO IDENTIFY AND CONTEXTUALIZE AN EARLY COMMUNITY OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS","authors":"Thomas Lee","doi":"10.2308/aahj-2022-006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/aahj-2022-006","url":null,"abstract":"This research note uses a city directory to identify and contextualize early practitioners in what later became the first organized professional community of public accountants in the English-speaking world. It comments more generally on the use of such a directory as an archival source for accounting history research.","PeriodicalId":43735,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Historians Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42829776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The aim of this paper is to investigate the administration of the Duchy of Parma under Maria Louise and analyze, based on Foucault’s concept of governmentality, the development of accounting documents and rules, providing insights into how accounting may have facilitated the rationalities of government in a critical period for public, administrative and financial organizations due to the new administration enforced in Parma by Duchess Maria Louise after the period of French occupation. The research considers primary sources, such as the Comprehensive Framework of Parma State Laws (regarding accounting laws) and documentation in the Parma State Archive (regarding accounting reports), as well as secondary sources to form a detailed picture of the duchy’s income and expenditure in the period.
{"title":"The Art of Government in Maria Louise’s Duchy of Parma (1814–1847): Some Insight into Accounting Disclosure Practices.","authors":"Federica Balluchi, Balluchi Federica, Furlotti Katia","doi":"10.2308/aahj-2021-011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/aahj-2021-011","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to investigate the administration of the Duchy of Parma under Maria Louise and analyze, based on Foucault’s concept of governmentality, the development of accounting documents and rules, providing insights into how accounting may have facilitated the rationalities of government in a critical period for public, administrative and financial organizations due to the new administration enforced in Parma by Duchess Maria Louise after the period of French occupation. The research considers primary sources, such as the Comprehensive Framework of Parma State Laws (regarding accounting laws) and documentation in the Parma State Archive (regarding accounting reports), as well as secondary sources to form a detailed picture of the duchy’s income and expenditure in the period.","PeriodicalId":43735,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Historians Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48089990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines two bookkeeping handbooks from the Czech Lands written by Jan Brtvín of Ploskovice and Mikuláš Artemisius Černobýl, both published in the sixteenth century. The main principles of the bookkeeping process are described, and the relationship between the handbooks and contemporary accounting practices in the Czech Lands is explained. These handbooks are also compared with similar handbooks written by Heinrich Schreiber Grammateus, Johann Gottlieb, and Anzelm Gostomski from Leżenic that were issued in neighboring countries with close economic and political connections to the area under research. The results demonstrate a different character from the early bookkeeping handbooks published at the time in Germany, while there are a great deal of similarities with the handbooks from Poland. This article argues that the style of bookkeeping presented in the Czech and Polish handbooks was designed to organize internal estate affairs and its purpose was primarily to control, not to measure.
{"title":"Early Bookkeeping Handbooks from Central Europe: A Case Study of the Czech Lands","authors":"Pavla Slavickova","doi":"10.2308/aahj-19-021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/aahj-19-021","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines two bookkeeping handbooks from the Czech Lands written by Jan Brtvín of Ploskovice and Mikuláš Artemisius Černobýl, both published in the sixteenth century. The main principles of the bookkeeping process are described, and the relationship between the handbooks and contemporary accounting practices in the Czech Lands is explained. These handbooks are also compared with similar handbooks written by Heinrich Schreiber Grammateus, Johann Gottlieb, and Anzelm Gostomski from Leżenic that were issued in neighboring countries with close economic and political connections to the area under research. The results demonstrate a different character from the early bookkeeping handbooks published at the time in Germany, while there are a great deal of similarities with the handbooks from Poland. This article argues that the style of bookkeeping presented in the Czech and Polish handbooks was designed to organize internal estate affairs and its purpose was primarily to control, not to measure.","PeriodicalId":43735,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Historians Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44408036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After 30 years of orthodox socialism, in 1979 China opened the door to a market economy. The unleashed entrepreneurial spirit and rapid accumulation of savings and investment led to an unparalleled economic growth. Remarkably, investment, companies and even stock exchanges proceeded without accounting standards as known in the rest of the world. It would be another quarter century before Chinese accounting standards incorporated the fundamental accounting principles needed for guidance in the context of a modern flexible, and ever evolving, market economy. The paper attributes the lag to a combination of government control over accounting standards and the legacy of socialist concepts that equated accounting with bookkeeping rather than the modern accounting goal of accurately valuing measuring both receipts and outgoings and the value of entitlements and obligations to reveal to current and prospective owners, investors and lenders the true worth of an enterprise.
{"title":"The Evolution of Accounting Standards in Modern China as a Reflection of the Country’s Challenging Shift to a Market Economy","authors":"Yue Guo, R. Krever","doi":"10.2308/aahj-2020-019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/aahj-2020-019","url":null,"abstract":"After 30 years of orthodox socialism, in 1979 China opened the door to a market economy. The unleashed entrepreneurial spirit and rapid accumulation of savings and investment led to an unparalleled economic growth. Remarkably, investment, companies and even stock exchanges proceeded without accounting standards as known in the rest of the world. It would be another quarter century before Chinese accounting standards incorporated the fundamental accounting principles needed for guidance in the context of a modern flexible, and ever evolving, market economy. The paper attributes the lag to a combination of government control over accounting standards and the legacy of socialist concepts that equated accounting with bookkeeping rather than the modern accounting goal of accurately valuing measuring both receipts and outgoings and the value of entitlements and obligations to reveal to current and prospective owners, investors and lenders the true worth of an enterprise.","PeriodicalId":43735,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Historians Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41770916","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract: The aim of this historical account is to set forth the background behind the three petitions that Arthur Andersen & Co. submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) between 1954 and 1965 – two rejected and one accepted – to reform GAAP for SEC registrants. This is the first time that the two petitions that have survived have been published in the literature.
{"title":"Arthur Andersen & Co. Thrice Petitioned the SEC to Reform GAAP, 1954-1965","authors":"S. Zeff","doi":"10.2308/aahj-2021-025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/aahj-2021-025","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: The aim of this historical account is to set forth the background behind the three petitions that Arthur Andersen & Co. submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) between 1954 and 1965 – two rejected and one accepted – to reform GAAP for SEC registrants. This is the first time that the two petitions that have survived have been published in the literature.","PeriodicalId":43735,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Historians Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43787605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Auditing standards promulgated by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) outline four alternatives for auditors’ reports: unqualified, qualified, adverse, and disclaimer. However, at the present time, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) generally accepts only one of these alternatives: an unqualified opinion. Prior to the elimination of “subject to” qualified opinions in 1988, the SEC allowed such opinions in the case of material uncertainties. However, the SEC has not, as a general rule, accepted opinions qualified for departures from generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) since it issued Accounting Series Release (ASR) No. 4 on April 25, 1938. This paper describes an instance where the SEC agreed to accept opinions qualified for a departure from compliance with GAAP.
{"title":"Has the SEC ever been Willing to Accept Qualified Audit Opinions for a GAAP Departure?","authors":"J. D. Keyser","doi":"10.2308/aahj-2021-012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/aahj-2021-012","url":null,"abstract":"Auditing standards promulgated by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) outline four alternatives for auditors’ reports: unqualified, qualified, adverse, and disclaimer. However, at the present time, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) generally accepts only one of these alternatives: an unqualified opinion. Prior to the elimination of “subject to” qualified opinions in 1988, the SEC allowed such opinions in the case of material uncertainties. However, the SEC has not, as a general rule, accepted opinions qualified for departures from generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) since it issued Accounting Series Release (ASR) No. 4 on April 25, 1938. This paper describes an instance where the SEC agreed to accept opinions qualified for a departure from compliance with GAAP.","PeriodicalId":43735,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Historians Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44358978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Being able to understand how double entry works is a critically important skill of an accountant but, few accounting graduates either understand or perform double entry at the level desired. It has always been taught using rules, never by principles. This paper responds to and rejects criticisms published in this journal by Richard Macve. They concern a paper I published in 2018 presenting Luca Pacioli’s approach to teaching double entry using a principles-based approach. My response also uses grounded theory to reject Professor Macve’s theory concerning the development of double entry by generating an opposing new theory to explain what motivated its emergence. Furthermore, it highlights problems in the use of literature in accounting history; and uses theories of pedagogy and studies on teaching DEB to reject his insistence that it should be taught using a balance sheet equation approach. Several other comments/suggestions in his wide-ranging article are addressed.
{"title":"The business needs that drove the emergence of double entry In defense of Pacioli, again… it is time to remove those dark glasses","authors":"A. Sangster","doi":"10.2308/aahj-2021-022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/aahj-2021-022","url":null,"abstract":"Being able to understand how double entry works is a critically important skill of an accountant but, few accounting graduates either understand or perform double entry at the level desired. It has always been taught using rules, never by principles. This paper responds to and rejects criticisms published in this journal by Richard Macve. They concern a paper I published in 2018 presenting Luca Pacioli’s approach to teaching double entry using a principles-based approach. My response also uses grounded theory to reject Professor Macve’s theory concerning the development of double entry by generating an opposing new theory to explain what motivated its emergence. Furthermore, it highlights problems in the use of literature in accounting history; and uses theories of pedagogy and studies on teaching DEB to reject his insistence that it should be taught using a balance sheet equation approach. Several other comments/suggestions in his wide-ranging article are addressed.","PeriodicalId":43735,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Historians Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49446759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It has long been argued that double-entry bookkeeping (‘DEB’) was important for enabling capitalism’s development in the West and heralded the beginning of ‘modern accounting’. However, these claims remain contested so it is important to understand the history of DEB’s emergence about 700 years ago and its underlying rationale. Sangster (2018a) [Pacioli's Lens: God, Humanism, Euclid, and the Rhetoric of Double Entry. The Accounting Review, 93(2): 299-314] argues that, in the first printed manual on DEB in 1494, Pacioli presented a novel ‘axiomatic’ approach to explaining DEB that requires a corresponding ‘paradigmatic shift’ in our appreciation of his contribution. This paper challenges Sangster’s interpretation of Pacioli’s mathematical contribution and calls for deeper understanding of the historical development of DEB in the West by comparison with accounting developments in the East.
长期以来，人们一直认为复式记账法对西方资本主义的发展很重要，并预示着“现代会计”的开始。然而，这些说法仍然存在争议，因此了解大约700年前DEB出现的历史及其基本原理很重要。Sangster（2018a）[Pacioli's Lens:God，Humanism，Euclid，and the Rheoric of Double Entry。the Accounting Review，93（2）：299-314]认为，在1494年第一本关于DEB的印刷手册中，Pacioli提出了一种新颖的“公理化”方法来解释DEB，这需要我们对他的贡献进行相应的“范式转换”。本文挑战了桑斯特对帕西奥利数学贡献的解释，并呼吁通过与东方会计发展的比较，更深入地理解西方DEB的历史发展。
{"title":"Pacioli’s Lens: Through a Glass, Darkly","authors":"R. Macve","doi":"10.2308/aahj-2021-004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/aahj-2021-004","url":null,"abstract":"It has long been argued that double-entry bookkeeping (‘DEB’) was important for enabling capitalism’s development in the West and heralded the beginning of ‘modern accounting’. However, these claims remain contested so it is important to understand the history of DEB’s emergence about 700 years ago and its underlying rationale. Sangster (2018a) [Pacioli's Lens: God, Humanism, Euclid, and the Rhetoric of Double Entry. The Accounting Review, 93(2): 299-314] argues that, in the first printed manual on DEB in 1494, Pacioli presented a novel ‘axiomatic’ approach to explaining DEB that requires a corresponding ‘paradigmatic shift’ in our appreciation of his contribution. This paper challenges Sangster’s interpretation of Pacioli’s mathematical contribution and calls for deeper understanding of the historical development of DEB in the West by comparison with accounting developments in the East.","PeriodicalId":43735,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Historians Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41334952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examines a Scottish public accountant’s association with West India slavery during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It provides a hitherto unresearched perspective on the association of accounting and accountants with slavery and contributes to an ongoing debate about Scotland’s association with slavery.
{"title":"AN EARLY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT’S ASSOCIATION WITH WEST INDIA SLAVERY","authors":"Thomas Lee","doi":"10.2308/aahj-2021-016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/aahj-2021-016","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines a Scottish public accountant’s association with West India slavery during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It provides a hitherto unresearched perspective on the association of accounting and accountants with slavery and contributes to an ongoing debate about Scotland’s association with slavery.","PeriodicalId":43735,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Historians Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48523664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The aim of this article is to display, for the first time in the literature, the letters written in November 1970 by the senior partners of three of the Big 8 audit firms, notifying the AICPA of their lack of confidence in the Accounting Principles Board (APB). The letters were provoked by the “embarrassing” and much criticized Opinions 16 and 17 on accounting for pooling of interests and intangible assets.
{"title":"Three Big 8 Audit Firms Notify the AICPA in 1970 of Their Lack of Confidence in the Accounting Principles Board","authors":"S. Zeff","doi":"10.2308/aahj-2021-014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/aahj-2021-014","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article is to display, for the first time in the literature, the letters written in November 1970 by the senior partners of three of the Big 8 audit firms, notifying the AICPA of their lack of confidence in the Accounting Principles Board (APB). The letters were provoked by the “embarrassing” and much criticized Opinions 16 and 17 on accounting for pooling of interests and intangible assets.","PeriodicalId":43735,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Historians Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41679387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：