Reflections on the theoretical underpinnings of the general‐purpose financial reports of Australian government departments

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to determine the appropriateness of a general‐purpose financial reporting model derived from a “decision‐useful” framework for government departments.Design/methodology/approachThis research in this paper uses a survey methodology to access users of government department general purpose financial reports and is innovative because it has directly studied actual users across the entire public sector.FindingsThe findings of this paper indicate that general‐purpose financial reports are used to satisfy financial accountability and public accountability rather than decision making – indicative of users having an accountability focus rather than a “decision‐useful” focus. This provides systematic empirical evidence against the current financial reporting model used internationally in the public sector.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper has important implications for policy makers since the choice of an accounting framework has the capacity to affect the information content of reports – what is reported and how it is measured, and thus have a direct impact on the operations of government. The paper argues that it is crucial that public policy regulators re‐examine the financial reports provided to stakeholders.Originality/valueThe research in this paper is original in that it has, for the first time, systematically reviewed all of the three elements of the public sector general‐purpose financial reporting model as well as directly accessing users. The authors can categorically argue for the abandonment of the model in favour of one, which is better suited to the public sector.

The Imperfect Match of Public Accountability of State-Owned Enterprises and Private-Sector-Type Financial Reporting: The Case of Italy

“…674-677;Catturi 2003). 8 Generally speaking, the people to whom public-sector reporting is addressed are not interested in weighing different ways of allocating their resources; rather, they feel a need to judge the performance of managers who are responsible for productive operations that cannot be abandoned (Lennard 2007;Australian Accounting Standards Board et al 2006;Mack & Ryan 2006). Consistently, the IPSASB (2010), in its proposal for a conceptual-framework, placed decidedly more emphasis on the evaluation of directors (stewardship) than did FASB and IASB in their framework for the private sector.…”

Indexing financial reporting information for heritage management

“…Even though, a plethora of literature (Davidson, 1977;Jones et al, 1985;Coy et al, 1997;Steccolini, 2004;Walker et al, 2004;Mack and Ryan, 2006;Aversano and Christiaens, 2014) has affi rmed that internal users (internal-management and elected offi cials) are undeniably the most important users of governmental FR information. To the author best knowledge only one study has investigated FR user-needs of HA.…”

Consolidated financial reports in local government: a comparative analysis of IPSASB and SCMA

“…We argue that an accountability approach (e.g. Ijiri 1975Ijiri , 1983 would much better serve the objectives and needs of public sector accounting (Pallot, 1992;Mack and Ryan, 2006). This will be an important theme as we proceed to analyse the approach of consolidated financial statements in standards issued by the IPSASB and the Swedish Council for Municipal Accounting (SCMA).…”

“…A resident in a municipality is not only an 'owner' but also a 'customer' (Grönlund, Tagesson and Öhman, 2005). Besides residents and voters, there are other principals such as central government, creditors/investors (GASB, 1999), sister organizations such as other municipalities (Coy et al, 1997;Mack and Ryan, 2006) and internal users such as officials and politicians (Mack and Ryan, 2006).…”

“…However, investors are not the only possible stakeholders and accounting is more than an instrument for decision making. In the public sector, accounting plays a crucial role in demonstrating accountability (Pallot, 1992;Coy et al, 2001;Chan, 2003;Mack and Ryan, 2006). According to the accountability approach (e.g.…”