会计能从反垄断法中自救吗?

IF 2.5 4区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Abacus-A Journal of Accounting Finance and Business Studies Pub Date : 2023-03-06 DOI:10.1111/abac.12284
Michael E. Doron
{"title":"会计能从反垄断法中自救吗?","authors":"Michael E. Doron","doi":"10.1111/abac.12284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While the role of lobbying in the US public accounting profession has been the subject of several studies, what has not been addressed is the profession's historic reluctance to lobby and the impact this may have had on the profession. This paper provides a case study of public accounting's interaction with government and the need for the profession to articulate the impact of government policies on the practice of accounting. It reviews and assesses the antitrust investigations by the US Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission that led to the repeal of the profession's anticompetitive ethics rules, rules that had governed American public accounting for most of the 20th century. These investigations are often blamed for an increased competitive atmosphere in public accounting that prioritized growth and profitability over quality in attest services. Using records obtained from Freedom of Information Act requests and archival sources, I attempt to reconstruct the US Government's motivations and the efforts of the American Institute of CPAs. I find a troubling lack of understanding of the audit profession by executive branch regulators and Congress and a reticence by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants to advocate for the profession that led to what many observers see as a profound misapplication of the antitrust laws. While this study deals only with the US, similar regulatory changes took place in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.","PeriodicalId":47285,"journal":{"name":"Abacus-A Journal of Accounting Finance and Business Studies","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Could Accounting Have Saved Itself from the Antitrust Laws?\",\"authors\":\"Michael E. Doron\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/abac.12284\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While the role of lobbying in the US public accounting profession has been the subject of several studies, what has not been addressed is the profession's historic reluctance to lobby and the impact this may have had on the profession. This paper provides a case study of public accounting's interaction with government and the need for the profession to articulate the impact of government policies on the practice of accounting. It reviews and assesses the antitrust investigations by the US Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission that led to the repeal of the profession's anticompetitive ethics rules, rules that had governed American public accounting for most of the 20th century. These investigations are often blamed for an increased competitive atmosphere in public accounting that prioritized growth and profitability over quality in attest services. Using records obtained from Freedom of Information Act requests and archival sources, I attempt to reconstruct the US Government's motivations and the efforts of the American Institute of CPAs. I find a troubling lack of understanding of the audit profession by executive branch regulators and Congress and a reticence by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants to advocate for the profession that led to what many observers see as a profound misapplication of the antitrust laws. While this study deals only with the US, similar regulatory changes took place in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47285,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Abacus-A Journal of Accounting Finance and Business Studies\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Abacus-A Journal of Accounting Finance and Business Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12284\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abacus-A Journal of Accounting Finance and Business Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12284","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然游说在美国公共会计行业中的作用一直是几项研究的主题,但尚未解决的问题是,该行业历来不愿游说,以及这可能对该行业产生的影响。本文提供了一个公共会计与政府互动的案例研究,以及该行业需要阐明政府政策对会计实践的影响。它回顾和评估了美国司法部(Justice Department)和联邦贸易委员会(Federal Trade Commission)的反垄断调查,这些调查导致了该行业反竞争道德规则的废除,这些规则在20世纪的大部分时间里统治着美国的公共会计。这些调查经常被指责为导致公共会计竞争气氛加剧的原因,这种气氛将增长和盈利置于认证服务质量之上。利用从《信息自由法》中获得的记录和档案来源,我试图重构美国政府的动机和美国注册会计师协会的努力。我发现,令人不安的是,行政部门监管机构和国会对审计职业缺乏了解,美国注册会计师协会(American Institute of Certified Public Accountants)也不愿为审计职业辩护,这导致了许多观察人士认为的对反垄断法的严重误用。虽然这项研究只涉及美国,但加拿大、英国、澳大利亚和新西兰也发生了类似的监管变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Could Accounting Have Saved Itself from the Antitrust Laws?
While the role of lobbying in the US public accounting profession has been the subject of several studies, what has not been addressed is the profession's historic reluctance to lobby and the impact this may have had on the profession. This paper provides a case study of public accounting's interaction with government and the need for the profession to articulate the impact of government policies on the practice of accounting. It reviews and assesses the antitrust investigations by the US Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission that led to the repeal of the profession's anticompetitive ethics rules, rules that had governed American public accounting for most of the 20th century. These investigations are often blamed for an increased competitive atmosphere in public accounting that prioritized growth and profitability over quality in attest services. Using records obtained from Freedom of Information Act requests and archival sources, I attempt to reconstruct the US Government's motivations and the efforts of the American Institute of CPAs. I find a troubling lack of understanding of the audit profession by executive branch regulators and Congress and a reticence by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants to advocate for the profession that led to what many observers see as a profound misapplication of the antitrust laws. While this study deals only with the US, similar regulatory changes took place in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Since 1965 Abacus has consistently provided a vehicle for the expression of independent and critical thought on matters of current academic and professional interest in accounting, finance and business. The journal reports current research; critically evaluates current developments in theory and practice; analyses the effects of the regulatory framework of accounting, finance and business; and explores alternatives to, and explanations of, past and current practices.
期刊最新文献
Boosting Government Assets as A Revenue Center: Risk and Treatment The Effect of Organizational Climate on Sell‐side Analyst Turnover and Performance Ex‐military Top Executives and Corporate Violations: Evidence from China Corporate Governance Reforms and Analyst Forecasts: International Evidence Analysts’ Earnings per Share Forecasts: The Effects of Forecast Uncertainty and Forecast Precision on Investor Judgements
×
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