2006
DOI: 10.1017/s0007680500080971
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diverging Paths: Accounting for Corporate Governance in America and Germany

Abstract: American and German accountancy took different paths in the early part of the twentieth century. In Germany, a persistent disconnect arose between relatively sophisticated managerial accounting practices for insiders and the methods used in public financial accounting. The “equity revolution” America experienced—an enormous shift in the number and expectations of shareholders—prompted new demands for financial statements designed to help evaluate the future earning power of companies. In contrast, the effects … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Lloyds-Jones et al (2005), in a longitudinal study from 1906 to 1933, show that a dominant group of directors emerged at the Birmingham Small Arms Corporation, but that this group were eventually forced to concede control after sustained criticism from shareholders and in response to a changing legal and business environment. Fear and Kobrak (2006) show that American and German accountancy took different paths in the early part of the twentieth century. In Germany, a persistent disconnect arose between relatively sophisticated managerial accounting practices for insiders and the methods used in public financial accounting.…”
Section: Research Methods and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Lloyds-Jones et al (2005), in a longitudinal study from 1906 to 1933, show that a dominant group of directors emerged at the Birmingham Small Arms Corporation, but that this group were eventually forced to concede control after sustained criticism from shareholders and in response to a changing legal and business environment. Fear and Kobrak (2006) show that American and German accountancy took different paths in the early part of the twentieth century. In Germany, a persistent disconnect arose between relatively sophisticated managerial accounting practices for insiders and the methods used in public financial accounting.…”
Section: Research Methods and Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The publication of an annual profit-and-loss statement was prescribed from 1884 onwards, but many corporations published profit-and-loss statements before that date. Moreover, accounting standards were clear and undisputed and nearly of the same level as accounting standards in modern Germany (Fear and Kobrak, 2006). The general acceptance of accounting standards may, for example, be judged by the number of court cases regarding accounts.…”
Section: Data Qualitymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Instead, company supervision was handed over to a shareholder body, the supervisory board (Aufsichtsrat), see, e.g., Renaud (1875) or Gareis (1880) for textbook treatments of Germany's corporate law in this period. Thus, the 1870 reform established the German system of corporate control of today, which differs from the UK and US systems (see Fohlin, 2007, andFear andKobrak, 2006, for details).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As both contemporary and current research suggest for the late nineteenth century, accounting literature was mainly produced by practitioners who described problems within their companies and tried to generalise their best-practice solutions. An institutionalised scientific examination of the problems of accounting, on the other hand, can only be observed with the founding of the first German business schools around 1900 (Fear and Kobrak 2006, pp. 21–2).…”
Section: IIImentioning
confidence: 99%