Financial Accountability & Management最新文献

The cover image is based on the article by Coexistence of Accrual Accounting and Commitment-Cash Budgeting: Evidence from European Union agenciesby Frans van Schaik et al., https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.70006

The emphasis on digitalization has significantly affected public sector organizations, including municipalities, as they strive to improve operational efficiency, transparency, and public value. Nevertheless, historical examples reveal high failure rates in digitalization projects, often resulting in delays, financial losses, and political repercussions. These failures underscore the importance of conducting value for money (VFM) audits to ensure digitalization projects are accountable and beneficial to the taxpaying citizens. This study critically examines the work of professional auditors in VFM audits related to digitalization projects within Swedish municipalities during the 2016–2023 period. The findings suggest that these audits primarily address organizational aspects, rather than improved economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. In this context, VFM audits appear to function as standardized and time-efficient procedures aimed at providing comfort to various stakeholders, without assessing the actual efficiency gains from digitalization initiatives. A possible reason for this is that the auditors seek to make digitalization initiatives auditable, given the acknowledged challenges of evaluating such projects. Future research is therefore encouraged to further explore this pattern in VFM audits of digitalization projects, ideally incorporating the perspectives of different actors.

As risk management (RM) becomes more prevalent and public sector reforms increasingly blur the lines between the public and private spheres, understanding RM in these potentially hybridized settings becomes ever more critical. Building on the four dimensions of hybridity proposed by Denis et al.—namely, governance structures, agency and practice, roles and identities, and institutional dynamics—we conduct a structured literature review (SLR) to understand how accounting literature on RM portrays its evolution and functioning within these hybridity dimensions of the public sector. In distinguishing between hybridity as a “static” state (the hybrid) and as a “dynamic” process (hybridization), each of the dimensions investigated provides a robust foundation for identifying theoretically sound future research avenues. Our findings show that although RM has been widely studied—above all, in relation to hybrid governance structures—there remains a need for further in-depth investigation into the implications of other dimensions of hybridity on RM. By offering a context-sensitive perspective on RM, this SLR therefore supports researchers in better capturing the essence of RM in their future research endeavors.

This article is about the hard and enduring task for managers within the school sector of selecting professional staff for promotion. The aim is to scrutinize how the promotion process emerges and is sustained. The research question is how the potentially conflict permeated process of selection is handled in practice? The empirical case is promotion of Swedish teachers into a new position: first teachers. The empirical study is qualitative and based on interviews and observations of meetings. In total, 111 interviews were conducted, and 53 meetings were observed. The study contributes in three ways. (1) We illuminate the process by describing three categories of activities: visualization, manipulation, and corroboration. (2) The process of rationalization meant silencing. By bringing up a variety of criteria, different concerns were considered and/or dismissed. The three categories of activities show how this was by no means an easy thing to do and how the heavy “investments” in a rational process also created space for judgment. (3) Furthermore, corroboration illuminates how the processes of selection had to be sustained after the selections had been made. The introduction of a rational model also facilitated the co-existence of mysticism as a practice in the selection process: The rational process was symbolic, yet functional.

Public sector accounting and audit are intrinsically related to the political environment in which they are situated. This study critically investigates the interactions between the political and public sector accountability with specific regard to political agenda and reputation management, politicians' use of accounting reports, and the political environment of performance auditing. Drawing on international public sector accounting research and informed by concepts of public, managerial and political accountability, the study reveals the significant impacts of political risk and reputation agendas on accountability discharge, the limited engagement of politicians with accounting reports, and politicians' perceptions of opportunities and threats posed by performance audit reports. The study accordingly presents revised concepts of managed public accountability, politico-managerial accountability, and internal political accountability that critically reflect political impacts on public sector accountability. This sets a foundation for future public sector research focus and design that takes greater account of political influence.

Many entities in the public sector reporting accounting information on an accrual basis continue to prepare budgets on a commitment-cash basis. In this article, we analyze the effects of this coexistence in European Union agencies by empirically testing four propositions put forward in the existing literature. Our study examined the impact of various factors on the variance between economic and budgetary results in EU agencies’ financial reporting. While previous research suggested a decreasing correlation between accrual and budgetary results over time, we find no clear trend. Our study confirmed that as accrual accounting experience increases, conceptual differences between accrual and budgetary results become more pronounced. However, our study does not support the idea that reconciliation between accrual and budgetary results becomes more difficult with increased experience. Additionally, we find no evidence that the coexistence of accrual and cash-based systems hinders the implementation of the new accrual system, as the EU agencies received unqualified audit opinions on the reliability of their accounts right from the start. We conclude that differences in institutional conditions and pressures between Italian municipalities and European institutions led to the differences in the findings of this study and existing literature.

The appointment of the new European Commission for the period 2024–2029 is a critical opportunity to establish a governance model that can address the Union's evolving challenges, ranging from fiscal sustainability and digital transformation to climate imperatives and democratic legitimacy. These notes reflect on the institutional levers available to enhance transparency, accountability, sustainability and citizen engagement, building on recent reforms, EU-wide initiatives and the experiences of member states. Rather than proposing new legal instruments or empirical models, the paper sets out a strategic roadmap for embedding modern governance principles within the operational fabric of EU administrations. It explores how adaptive fiscal frameworks, standardised public sector accounting, digital innovation, anti-corruption tools and participatory mechanisms can be scaled up and institutionalised within existing structures. The analysis contends that meaningful reform requires coherence between financial management, service delivery, environmental performance, and democratic participation. Aligning these areas within a flexible, inclusive and resilient governance architecture would enable the EU to strengthen public trust and ensure policy effectiveness in an increasingly complex global environment.

A perennial question repeatedly asked since the early Mercury (USA) and Salyut (then Soviet Union) space programs has been variations on the theme of “how can the cost of space exploration be justified?” This question—which in broad terms constitutes the research question considered in this paper—continues to be directed toward space agencies and their governing institutions around the world. As the title of this paper suggests, in addition to the obvious financial implications, the extent to which funds are directed to space programs directly engages with matters of accountability and public policy. We argue that attempts to justify the cost of space programs have typically been framed on the basis of cost-benefit analyses underpinned by rational choice thinking. We underscore the necessity of incorporating alternative theoretical perspectives to achieve a more meaningful evaluation of the value of space programs. The resulting analysis extends to other public policy decisions involving substantial resource allocations.