The Fatal Defect in the Federal Accounting System

Abstract

For many years, the federal accounting system has focused on obligations. Beginning in 1949, several blue-ribbon committees recommended changing the focus to expenses. Focusing on expenses provides more useful information than focusing on obligations for both planning and control purposes. Unfortunately, the House Appropriations Committee continues to make appropriations on an obligation basis. The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has developed a system that focuses on both expenses and obligations that was supposed to be operational in 1997 but in fact will not be operational until 2003 at the earliest. Even then, users will not pay much attention to the expense focus if funds continue to be appropriated on an obligation basis.

NPM Reforms in Napoleonic Countries: A Comparative Study of Management Accounting Innovations in Greek and Italian Municipalities

“…Greece has followed this path, introducing a compulsory parallel system. Some authors have argued that budgetary and accrual accounting can be usefully integrated (Monsen, 2002), but for other authors such coexistence seems to be problematic (Anthony, 2000;Guthrie, 1998;Paulsson, 2006).…”

“…It helps improve the quality and consistency of the information provided to decision makers, and holds managers accountable for the cost of resources and match with the results obtained (Anthony, 2000). According to Pollitt and Bouckaert (2004, p. 71), financial accounting innovations follow these steps: in the beginning there is a traditional cash-based accounting system, then a shift to a double-entry bookkeeping, sometimes with elements of cost analysis, then modified cash or modified accrual-basis, and finally the full accruals accounting (with a focus on providing performance-related information).…”

Public Sector Accounting Policy Reform in the Czech Republic: Experience from Local Governments (pilot)

“…Due to this, Tickell's (2010) research opened the discussion about the question of whether project leaders had not underestimated the amount of training for the personnel responsible for the implementation of accrual accounting on a daily basis. Guthrie (1998) and Anthony (2000) argued that some countries developed an accounting system in the public sector through a reform process into the coexistence of two different accounting systems, which may confuse information users (managers, public, representatives and parliamentarians) and influence the use of accruals data. Therefore, from this research's point of view, this could potentially be one of the factors responsible for reform process failure because of its goals.…”

Pursuing Private or Public Accountability in the Public Sector? Applying IPSASs to Define the Reporting Entity in Municipal Consolidation

“…The positive view is based on the assumption that accounting tools and related standards could be similar between private-and public-sector organizations (Anthony, 1978(Anthony, , 1983(Anthony, , 2000Micallef & Peirson, 1997). The negative view is based on the opposite assumption that some accounting tools are designed for the private-sector organizations and are not always useful to satisfy the specific needs of public-sector organizations (Broadbent & Laughlin, 1998;Broadbent et al, 2001;Carlin, 2006;Ezzamel, Hyndman, Johnsen, Lapsley, & Pallot, 2007;Lapsley, 1999;Nasi & Steccolini, 2008;Bogt & van Helden, 2000).…”