Evaluating National Capacity for Direct Participation in International Accounting Harmonization: France as a Test Case

Abstract

This article evaluates national capacity for direct participation in international accounting harmonization through its principal current formal institutional forum, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), with France as a test case. The objective is to derive propositions by which individual nation states, their indigenous accounting professions and other significant elements of their institutional framework might: (a) evaluate their present national capacity to contribute to international accounting harmonization; and (b) address policy issues relevant to development and deployment of capacity for effective engagement. The objective of the framework of analysis employed is to infer essential or desirable attributes for direct participation in international accounting harmonization by reference to the observed attributes of the initial IASB appointments. The likelihood and sustainability of direct French participation in the process is then assessed in relation to those attributes.

Does the IASB know the needs of SMEs? A comparative analysis between the IFRS for SMEs and full IFRS due processes

“…Geographical diversity in the development of IFRS is desirable since it reduces criticism and improves consistency in subsequent applications of the standards (Larson and Herz, 2013;Jorissen et al, 2013). Standish (2003) points out that the traditional influence of English speakers on the Council and in the technical staff of the IASB may condition the participation of other countries in the due process. Burlaud and Colasse (2011) also point out how language can constitute a barrier for participating in the due process.…”

Constituents’ Participation in the IASC/IASB’s due Process of International Accounting Standard Setting: A Longitudinal Analysis

“…In addition, many constituents from Western European countries take part in the due process of standard setting. Potential explanations for the dominance of English speaking countries in the process of standard setting are the constituents' familiarity with private accounting standard setting (most of the constituents are from G4+1 countries) and the familiarity with the language employed (Standish 2003). …”

Accounting and Regulation

“…In addition, many constituents from Western European countries take part in the due process of standard setting. Potential explanations for the dominance of English speaking countries in the process of standard setting are the constituents' familiarity with private accounting standard setting (most of the constituents are from G4+1 countries) and the familiarity with the language employed (Standish 2003). If we focus on those geographical differences and classify the writers of the comment letters according to the per capita GDP in their country or the development status of their domestic stock market, we observe that most comment letters originate from countries with a high GDP per capita and more developed stock markets.…”