Usefulness of consolidated government accounts: A comparative study

Abstract

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Recent UK Central Government Accounting Reforms: Claimed Benefits and Experienced Outcomes

“…Promoted upon technical considerations, such as facilitating departments in their capital planning and resource allocation (HMT, 1998), departmental interviewees were WGA's strongest critics, with all contending that it offers little or no benefit in achieving departmental outcomes. These findings are consistent with earlier studies which report that WGA has not delivered to the extent originally intended (Chow et al ., 2019). This suggests that, from a departmental perspective, the institutionalization of WGA has failed as it is deemed inappropriate from a technical and ceremonial perspective and continues to be legitimized through coercive pressure only.…”

“…Indeed, literature on the extent to which claimed benefits have been achieved is limited, with there being more focus on criticisms of the reforms, particularly in relation to the timeliness and cost of implementation (Connolly and Hyndman, 2006; Hyndman et al ., 2019). Government has been reproached for not using the ‘new’ information made available by the reforms to assess outcomes and it is contended that, in some cases, the changes have made parliamentary scrutiny of public spending more difficult (Wynne, 2008; Chow et al ., 2019). While international evidence is similar to that of the UK (Adhikari and Gårseth‐Nesbakk, 2016), notable exceptions documenting experienced benefits include a comparison with what existed before (Ball, 2012), along with improvements to accountability and transparency (Kober et al ., 2010; Nakmahachalasint and Narktabtee, 2019).…”

“…To conclude, the literature describing post‐implementation experiences typically focuses on a single reform, with calls for further research (Oulasvirta, 2014; Hepworth, 2015; Chow et al ., 2019). For many countries, the search for improved financial reporting mechanisms has been a complex, time‐consuming, and costly process, and there is evidence that the supposed benefits have not been realized to the extent originally suggested (Chan, 2003; Ellwood and Newberry, 2007; Brusca and Montestinos, 2009; Tagesson, 2009; Heald and Georgiou, 2011; Connolly and Wall, 2012; Heiling et al ., 2013).…”

“…Often set against a new public management (NPM) backdrop, many have questioned the extent to which reform decisions have been driven by institutional pressures and a desire to be perceived as legitimate rather than rational (Covalevski and Dirsmith, 1988, 1991; Lapsley and Pallot, 2000; Carpenter and Feroz, 2001; Brusca et al ., 2013). Research on NPM‐driven public sector accounting reforms has been substantial: for example, on accruals accounting (Connolly and Hyndman, 2006; Lapsley, 2008; Adhikari and Gårseth‐Nesbakk, 2016); on consolidated accounting (Chow et al ., 2007, 2008, 2019; Heald and Georgiou, 2009, 2011); on international accounting standards (Connolly and Wall, 2012; Brusca et al ., 2013; Christiaens et al ., 2015; Gomes et al ., 2015); and accounting change more broadly (Lapsley, 1999, 2009; Ezzamel et al ., 2013; Bracci et al ., 2015; Hyndman et al ., 2019). Prior research has typically concentrated on a single reform and the tensions or unintended negative consequences of its introduction, with little being known about the extent to which claimed benefits have been achieved post implementation (Hepworth, 2015; Narayan and Stittle, 2018).…”

“…Thus, in recognition of this debate, country‐specific research that investigates whether they continue to reflect NPM ideals is important (Oulasvirta, 2014; Hepworth, 2015). Furthermore, such research is relevant and opportune given the significant investment in time and cost associated with implementing change (Chow et al ., 2019). Moreover, as the four reforms examined in our study span 25 years, this can enable a broader understanding of the recursive interplay between institutional mechanisms as they unfold over time (Dillard et al ., 2004).…”