Financial Accountability & Management最新文献

This paper studies grassroots organizations that provide various forms of support to vulnerable local communities in the United Kingdom in a context of increasing austerity, public sector drawbacks, a lack of funding and extensive monitoring, and evaluative requirements. We focus on the COVID-19 pandemic, which challenged traditional funding relationships. We analyze lived experiences of trust, emotion, and suffering to understand the politics of accountability across the diverse economy. We draw on Gibson-Graham's post-capitalist framework, which insists on the politics of language, the subject, and collective action. In the setting we study, the language of crisis reshaped funding, vulnerable subjectivities emerged to support vulnerable communities, and fragmenting accountabilities were met with attempts to promote collective action and solidarity. We, therefore, contribute to literature in critical accounting and literature focused on the voluntary and community sector by studying a landscape of diverse accountability practices to explore the possibilities that they offer in terms of accounting for non-capitalist organizing.

This paper delves into the discursive recontextualization of new public financial management (NPFM) in the context of peacebuilding, reshaping the dynamics among the donor community, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority. Utilizing Fairclough's dialectical relational version of Critical Discourse Analysis (2003, 2013) as a methodological framework, we extend the NPFM literature by broadening our understanding of how diverse discourses—particularly NPFM rooted in neoliberalism and peacebuilding—are brought together in a specific relationship for the purpose of transmission. In addition, this study advances our comprehension of the dialogic nature of NPFM, exploring the extent to which other voices are represented, excluded, or suppressed in the examined texts. The paper sheds light on the role of international agencies, exemplified by the World Bank, in transposing development discourses—a theme explored in previous research. Furthermore, we contribute to the literature by highlighting that the peacebuilding context serves as a space for influential actors, such as donor agencies, to exert their influence.

Charity regulation is increasing internationally, leading to divergent views on what might constitute “better regulation.” The purpose of a charity regulator and appropriate regulation may also be contested. Many modern charity regulators are required to maintain public trust and confidence in charities in order to bolster ongoing charity support from funders and the donating public. Nevertheless, public trust and confidence is precarious. At its nadir, in England and Wales “the person in the street” was deemed more trustworthy than charities, with donations diminishing in the current environment and the charity sector close to crisis. Further, charities contribute to crises when they incite negative media interest in their operations, fail to comply with regulatory filing deadlines, and/or manipulate their accounts. Charity regulators must maintain legitimacy within a changing regulatory space, despite often being resource-constrained themselves. Yet, some suggest regulators could “do more” to increase sector-wide resilience and to increase public trust and confidence. Hence, this raises the question of how charities should be regulated and whether (and how) a regulator could build resilience. We depict charity-sector crises as a vehicular incident and ponder: should the regulator act as a “Guardian Angel” to prevent crises through interventions to build and maintain sectoral resilience, or should it appear postincident as a “Tow Truck” to clear the road for other traffic through closely bounded regulatory action focused on sanctions and deregistration. We address this question by analyzing publicly available regulatory data from the Charity Commission of England and Wales and semistructured interviews, which provide additional “behind the scenes” depth to our analysis and findings. We contribute to literature on charity regulation and expected regulatory responsibilities within a confined but permeable regulatory space.

Digital technologies are changing the ways service users can cocreate value, thus rearranging relations between citizens and governments. However, research from a governance perspective is still in its infancy. Investigating 128 records, published until 2022, this article reviews and critiques the literature on digitalization and coproduction/co-creation in public administration, offers an overview of the state of research, and outlines a future research agenda. The findings reveal four areas of concern that require more attention by researchers: the generation of public value; the analysis of the entire public service cycle; comparative studies; the mitigation of the risks arising from the implementation of digital technologies.

This study examines the impact of governance on the efficiency of nonprofit organizations and the relationship among different governance mechanisms. Using a dataset of 3496 Chinese foundations from 2011 to 2015, we find that internal governance, external donor governance, and external governance environment are significantly and positively associated with foundations’ efficiency. Importantly, substitutional relationships exist among these governance mechanisms. Financial reporting quality is a major channel through which governance influences efficiency. Furthermore, the positive association between governance and efficiency is more pronounced for small foundations than for large ones and for noneducation-focused foundations than for education-focused ones. This study offers practical guidance for foundations to improve their efficiency by enhancing both internal and external governance and will be of interest to foundation leaders, donors, and policymakers.

Social enterprises (SEs) are claimed to be able to address “wicked social problems¹” in various policy instruments and governance models. However, doubts have been raised about whether the hybrid nature results in fundamental challenges that could prevent SEs from becoming ideal and sustainable public service organizations. Drawing upon organizational resilience literature, this article reveals two trade-offs between social and business service qualities when SEs seek long-term solutions to the challenges in delivering public services. This article argues that SEs—employing different hybrid models, emphasizing social or business service quality—jointly can overcome the trade-offs to deliver sustainable and accountable public services at the public service contract level and the individual user's level.

During the era of New Public Management from the 1970s to the 1990s, government accountability in Australia underwent a significant transformation from compliance to performance evaluation. This change underscores a Machiavellian interpretation presented in this paper, emphasizing the politicized and power-driven nature of public sector accounting reforms. The Australian Government employed a commercial accounting model to legitimize these reforms, leveraging Machiavellian principles to strengthen political power. Despite the accounting profession's role in legitimizing public sector financial reporting, its control over Australian accounting standard setting diminished. The new public sector accountability framework allowed the shifting of blame to the profession when problems arose. An analysis of the New South Wales Government's journey through the reform, from embracing accrual accounting to rejecting heritage assets measurement and applauding fair value, illustrates the complex interplay between self-interest and the protection of public interest. The Australian Government strategically enlisted the support of the outer fringe accounting profession and successfully instituted reforms premised on the principle of public accountability and liberty for Australian society. Once the reformer's goals were achieved, the facilitating elites found themselves marginalized from the bureaucratic group and power reclaimed deftly to the Government with CLERP reforms paving the way for the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards. This shift exemplifies Machiavelli's perspective, where liberty is used as a means to garner public support and ultimately attain power, a strategy that continues to hold validity in contemporary political contexts.

Understanding how charities have survived, and sometimes thrived, in the face of crisis has given rise to an increased interest in the resilience of these organizations. Research on dealing with uncertainty and crisis situations notes the ability to adapt as a critical resilience component (Siders, 2019). However, resilience and adaptive capacity in the charity sector are under-researched areas. This paper contributes to filling this gap by investigating two midsized Scottish charitable organizations that have weathered two significant crises: austerity as a result of the financial crisis of 2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic. The study findings enhance resilience research by shedding light on the processes, actions and collaborations that facilitate resilience, and the importance of adaptive capacity in response to crisis. Two distinct approaches to resilience were identified: (1) a strategic approach to resilience, where the charity thrived in the face of crisis and demonstrated high levels of adaptive capacity, and (2) a pragmatic approach, where resilience equated to survival, adaptive capacity was low and, as a result, growth was limited.

Using Giddens (1984) structuration theory (ST), in this paper we illustrate how the efficiency-driven approaches adopted by a large stated-owned public company in Latin America (Latin American Multiutility Conglomerate [LAMC]) implicitly resulted in triggering a dam disaster with far-reaching socio-economic, environmental, and human consequences. Data for the study were derived through document analysis and conducting unstructured, semi-structured, and email interviews. Our findings show that the internalization of efficiency as a corporate value at LAMC was further rationalized through the adoption of new public management (NPM)-based management accounting practices (MAPs) embedded within the market-led development approach. These MAPs connected agencies and structures in a dialectic way and continued reproducing efficiency through day-to-day operations and by enabling the company to champion itself as a successful NPM adopter. However, throughout this process, the socio-environmental and human costs relating to “the dam project” were overlooked, making the disaster inevitable. The paper questions the market-led development approach, and NPM-based MAPs, and calls for further empirical work delineating how MAPs can be implicated in public value creation and promoting publicness in emerging economies. Such work is of paramount importance not only to prevent the “unexpected and unwanted effects of public sector accounting” under NPM and market-led development but also to save the lives and livelihoods of poor and vulnerable community members in emerging economies.

By utilizing the concepts of field, habitus, and capital inherited from Bourdieu, this study explores publicness as a social practice. In doing this, the paper problematizes publicness concerning accountability and public value and empirically explores the organization of social support delivery in Istanbul. We posit our research question: In what manners does publicness open up a space for collaboration and convergence in relation to accountability? The data gathering and analysis follow a qualitative methodology. We found different forms of publicness under three different conditionalities: (1) publicness as political authority based on hierarchization and centralization; (2) publicness as competing positions produced by diverse actors and their diverse positions taken beyond hierarchical relations; (3) publicness as social inclusion and diversity that is all-embracing by employing more inclusive practices. Publicness relationally unfolds public value with and among formal rules, voluntary practices, and networks. By delving into constitutive elements of practice—symbolic capital and habitus—engaging in the field struggles of redefining and owning publicness, the paper goes beyond the conventional dichotomy of normative versus empirical conceptualizations of publicness and instead differentiates among distinct forms of publicness in different conditionalities and contributes to the literature by bridging publicness and accountability habitus.