Political interests and governmental accounting disclosure

Why do some municipalities apply accrual-based rules more than others? Evidence from Turkey

“…In addition, many studies have shown that the failure in accounting standards is caused by numerous problems in the implementation process (Christiaens & Rommel, 2008). Accordingly, several hypotheses have been formulated to determine the reasons for the level of compliance in the public sector (Evans & Patton, 1983;Ingram, 1984;Robins & Austin, 1986;Evans & Patton, 1987;Giroux, 1989;Dixon et al, 1991;Cheng, 1992;Allen & Sanders, 1994;Pina & Torres, 1996;Coy et al, 1994;Coy & Dixon, 2002;Christiaens, 1999;Weets & Jegers, 2000;Giroux & McLelland, 2003;Christiaens & Vanhee, 2003;Da Costa Carvalho, et al, 2007;Verbruggen, 2011). Although these studies' investigations have resulted in valuable insights and interesting hypotheses, little has been produced with respect to emerging-country characteristics.…”

“…The results showed a higher level of disclosure in states with voter coalitions, administrative monitoring and evidence of administrative ability. Ingram's study is a milestone in governmental accounting research, and several studies have used the same approach (Disclosure index: Robins & Austin, 1986;Giroux, 1989;Cheng, 1992;Allen & Sanders, 1994;Tooley & Guthrie, 2007;Stanley, Jennings & Mack, 2008 Christiaens and Van Peteghem (2007) have turned their attention to the implementation of business-like accounting principles in their public-sector compliance index. Christiaens (1999) has included in the compliance index not only transparency and technical issues but also other features related to compliance with newly introduced accounting and reporting standards.…”

Disclosure Quality Measurement in the Public Sector: A Structured Literature Review

“…Some of the most recent articles are those of Abu Bakar and Saleh (2015), Allini, Manes Rossi, and Hussainey (2016) and Araújo and Tejedo-Romero (2016). Some of the oldest are Robbins and Austin (1986), Giroux (1989) and Herzlinger (1996). No.…”

“…Interestingly, the 10 most cited articles are both in the list of the papers with the highest CPY and CI; therefore, there is a strong interest among scholars to cite the oldest research that represents strong pillars for DQ measurement within the public sector. Four (40%) of these papers focused on the United States (US) context (Robbins & Austin, 1986;Giroux, 1989;Gordon, Fischer, Malone, & Tower, 2002;Herzlinger, 1996), three (30%) on New Zealand (Coy & Dixon, 2004;Coy, Tower, & Dixon, 1993;Schneider & Samkin, 2008) and two (20%) on the Malaysia (Abd Rahman, Mohamed Zain, & Yahaya Al-Haj, 2011;Joseph & Taplin, 2011). Only one paper (10%) focused on the Australian context (Lynch, 2010).…”

“…Analysing the specific topic of these studies, it is worth noting that three papers focus on accounting disclosure (Robbins & Austin, 1986;Giroux, 1989;Herzlinger, 1996); three articles focus on the quality of service performance reporting in higher education reports (Coy & Dixon, 2004;Coy et al, 1993;Gordon et al, 2002); three papers focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental reporting issues within state government departments (Lynch, 2010), local governments (Joseph & Taplin, 2011) and government business enterprise (Abd Rahman et al, 2011). Therefore, the research covers a wide range regarding the topic developed; in particular, the oldest articles deal with financial disclosure or the quality of service performance reporting, while the most recent papers focus on CSR and environmental reporting issues.…”