Public Sector To Public Services 20 Years of "Contextual" Accounting Research PDF

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
Public sector to public services: 20 years of “contextual” accounting research

Jane Broadbent, James Guthrie,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jane Broadbent, James Guthrie, (2008) "Public sector to public services: 20 years of “contextual”
accounting research", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 Issue: 2, pp.129-169, https://
doi.org/10.1108/09513570810854383
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810854383
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 03:01 13 September 2018 (PT)
Downloaded on: 13 September 2018, At: 03:01 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 207 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8347 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2015),"Public sector accounting, accountability and austerity: more than balancing the books?",
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 28 Iss 6 pp. 878-908 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2015-2090">https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2015-2090</a>
(1992),"Elements of a Theoretical Framework for Public Sector Accounting", Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. - <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579210008244">https://
doi.org/10.1108/09513579210008244</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:273599 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm
Public sector to
Public sector to public services: public services
20 years of “contextual”
accounting research
129
Jane Broadbent
Roehampton University, London, UK, and Received July 2007
James Guthrie Revised September 2007
Accepted November 2007
The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review and critique the field of public sector accounting
research. Many nation states deliver essential public services. In recent times, many of these nations
have been involved in programmes of “modernisation”, which, in part, means that these public
services now are significantly managed, delivered and governed by private and third sector
organisations.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper employs a literature-based analysis and critique of
public sector accounting articles published in the selected journals from 1992 to 2006. From this, a
descriptive meta-analysis of the characteristics of the research will be discussed. Finally, a conceptual
analysis of the selected literature will be used to evaluate the field and address a possible future
research agenda.
Findings – The descriptive analysis highlights that among the research papers reviewed several
interesting patterns emerged concerning public service research. Also, the dominance of Australasia
and UK research was noted. The extent of research in different levels of government/jurisdiction
indicated that the majority of research was organisationally based. Finally, when the various
functional types of accounting are considered, management accounting remained the most researched
area of interest.
Research limitations/implications – The paper only considered research within eight selected
journals and over the period 1992 to 2006. Therefore, for instance, US mainstream public sector
accounting research has not been reviewed.
Originality/value – The main implications of the paper are that “contextual” public service
accounting research has a strong tradition and, through the process of reflection and critique of the
body of work, several important insights are provided in order to highlight areas for further research
and policy development.
Keywords Public sector accounting, Public sector organizations
Paper type Literature review
The authors are grateful for comments received from attendees at the 5th Asia Pacific
Interdisciplinary Research on Accounting Conference, Auckland, July 2007. The paper also
benefited from constructive comments by the two referees, and also Professor Lee Parker and Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal
Professor Richard Laughlin. The authors thank Carlos Sterling and Fiona Crawford of The Vol. 21 No. 2, 2008
University of Sydney and Mike Johnson at Roehampton University for their research and pp. 129-169
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
editorial assistance. They are grateful for research funding provided by the Faculty of 0951-3574
Economics and Business at The University of Sydney. DOI 10.1108/09513570810854383
AAAJ 1. Introduction
21,2 In 1992, we reviewed “alternative”[1] approaches to accounting research in the public
sector (Broadbent and Guthrie, 1992). We now return to this theme as part of a series of
reviews of aspects of accounting commissioned by Accounting Auditing and
Accountability Journal (AAAJ) to mark 20 years of the Journal’s publication[2]. The aim
of this paper is to contribute to the several thought pieces[3] within this special issue of
130 AAAJ, by focusing on the state of public sector accounting research and to provide a
discussion on its relevance to accounting and policy making and also explore avenues
for future research. Other authors have undertaken reviews of this nature over the past
25 years. For instance, Lapsley (1988) provided a seminal review of the overall field to
launch AAAJ and van Helden (2005) has reviewed management accounting
contributions[4]. However, this paper seeks to make a particular contribution; its
objective is to consider the state of what is more often now described as public services
accounting research (PSAR)[5], reviewing 20 years of published research from 1987 to
2006[6] and in doing so building on the insights developed in Broadbent and Guthrie
(1992). Simply stated we wish to ask two questions:
(1) What has been done?
(2) What could be done?
By addressing these questions, we will implicitly be considering what is “new” in

relation to the field of public services accounting research. This will inform an agenda
suggesting what should be done.
More explicitly, our paper signals a recognition of changes in context in the
perceived significance of the ownership of public services by nation states and
suggests that the delivery of public services is increasingly accepted as a focus by a
range of regulatory and government agencies. Equally, public services are
progressively seen by policy makers to be as significant as the commercial sector in
the context of wider economic and social development. This increasing recognition has
arguably consolidated the impetus, already in existence at the start of this period, that
demanded changes to ensure that the nation state “delivers”. A pertinent example is
provided by the World Bank (2007), in which it notes:
A well functioning public sector that delivers quality public services consistent with citizen
preferences and fosters private market-led growth while managing fiscal resources
prudently, is considered critical to the World Bank’s mission of poverty alleviation and the
achievement of millennium development goals[7].
This quotation indicates the importance that is placed on public services by significant
regulatory and policy bodies such as the World Bank, but raises in it many other
issues. For example, what constitutes “delivery”? This is a concept that is bound in
both context and ideological preference. “Delivery” as a concept is something we take
for granted and because it is not self evident; this review will explore it further.
Another issue we will examine is the nature of the relationship with the private sector.
The quotation hints at the assumptions of those who wish to develop a
transformational agenda, showing their belief in the importance of managing fiscal
resources. Accounting is an important technology in this respect – although what it
can do, and what it is perceived to do, are not necessarily the same thing.
Overall, the main objective of the paper is to consider what has been achieved in the Public sector to
past two decades and what remains to be achieved by public sector accounting public services
researchers in the early twenty-first century. We wish to move beyond understanding
and towards making a difference by engaging in critical public policy debates about
public services.
The paper has three corresponding aims. The first aim is to take the arguments of
Broadbent and Guthrie (1992) as a foundation from which to build. The second aim, in 131
light of an analysis of the published work that has been undertaken in the period
(1987-2006)[8], is to establish the relevance of the analysis in our earlier paper. This
paper will focus particularly on the nature of the research agenda rather than
emphasising the nature of the approaches to research that have been adopted, as was
the case in the previous paper. The third aim is to identify the diverse aspects that have
been studied, highlighting those areas we see as significant as well those areas that
have been overlooked or silenced.

The work that we review is from a significant set of accounting journals in the
area, and does not cover the public management and administration journals.
Although we recognise that the latter journals do not ignore the accounting
literature entirely – Public Money and Management for example deals with
accounting and management issues – the recognisable boundary provided by the
purely accounting focused journals is adopted despite the limitation this
produce[9]. The reason for this is simply to consolidate a concern with public
services accounting, auditing and accountability issues. Hence we review the
content of the following journals: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal
(AAAJ); Accounting Forum (AF); Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS);
British Accounting Review (BAR); Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA);
European Accounting Review (EAR); Financial Accountability and Management
(FAM); and Management Accounting Research (MAR). In making this choice we
are not considering the content of the “American mainstream”[10] and those
similar journals that concern themselves with more positivistic approaches in
which populations of data rather than the use of accounting in particular
organisational settings is considered. In this respect, the following analysis
respects the contextual and qualitative approaches explored in 1992 as
“Alternative” forms of understanding. So, as in 1992, the review is not
exhaustive but aims to give a “flavour” of the work in the field (Broadbent and
Guthrie, 1992). One of the limitations of such an analysis is that, although the
database[11] used is extensive, in one paper such as this only a general view of
the landscape is able to be provided.
In order to achieve this task the substantive arguments of the paper will be
structured in the following fashion. Section Two addresses the question of whether
our previously provided framework of the nature of the public sector is relevant in
light of the contemporary context. The relevance of the categorisation of the
approaches to research adopted in the literature will also be revisited. In Section
Three, the research methods adopted will be described and the descriptive
meta-analysis that falls out of this will be discussed in Section Four. Section Five
will undertake a conceptual analysis of the literature and provide insights into
significant trends and address a future research agenda. Section Six will provide our
conclusions.
AAAJ 2. Defining boundaries: what constitutes the public services and
21,2 “alternative” accounting research?
The domain of the public sector
In Broadbent and Guthrie (1992), we defined the public sector and its domain with a
focus on ownership and control. In this paper we argue that the changing nature of the
field has led to its re-naming to public services. Our guiding assumptions now follow
132 those outlined by Hutton (2006) on the role of public managers[12]. Based on this
definition, public services are those activities which are enshrined within the notion of
public good or service based on universality of access for the citizenry rather than the
private provision through a market. It is assumed these “public services” should be
available for all members of the given society, supplied in an equitable fashion. This is
a substantial shift in the definition and boundary of the nature of the subject of our
research. The paper will explore this issue in some detail as the analysis also gives the
opportunity to consider some recent literature.

The changes in the public sector that required a corresponding modification to our
definition – from public sector to public services – was already in existence in 1992. It
is illustrated by the difficulties that accompanied the task of constructing the domain
of the public sector in the earlier paper. Figure 1 illustrates the different sub-elements
seen as the domain of the public sector. In 1992 there was arguably an assumption that
the public sector comprised the organisations providing services to the public that
were publicly funded, owned and operated. Ownership and operation were crucial to
the concept of the public sector. However, the domain was already in flux in the wake
of privatisations and corporatisation (Guthrie, 1993) and these changes meant that
some assumptions about state ownership and operation were no longer valid, although
not affecting the assumption of some need for state funding, either directly or through
subsidy. There was in this respect some separation of purchaser and provider roles (i.e.
“steering” and “rowing” see, Osborne and Gaebler (1992) as well as some
reconsideration of what were essential universal services. State control of some
public services was seen as important to retain, particularly in the case of utilities, and
this was made possible through regulation of prices.
When framing our research in 1992, it was necessary to make decisions about what
organisations to include in the domain of the public sector. Because it was considered
that ownership and operation were no longer strictly essential to the concept of the
public sector, the domain went beyond local and central government departments.
However, Central and Local Government (or those similar units such as Federal and
State Government) were (and remain) key elements of the domain. This is because of
the bureaucratic relationship that links government to the universal provision[13] of
the service, and as such these elements can be relatively easily identified even though
their nature may be different in diverse jurisdictions[14]. Examples include the direct
Government Departments such as Defence or the provision of the audit services offered
by National Audit Offices, as well as environmental services or social services
provided by local (state) government or municipalities. Some of these elements have
since been floated.
In Broadbent and Guthrie (1992) two other elements were also identified as
important elements of the domain of the public sector. Public Institutional Systems
(PIS) and Public Business Enterprises (PBE) were also considered to be part of the
domain of the public sector because they provided public services albeit in different
Public sector to
public services
133
Figure 1.
Domain of the public
sector
ways. For instance, PIS were seen as part of the public sector because they provided
central public services such as healthcare and education. They were nevertheless
separated from central and local government, despite being funded through taxation,
because of their size and significant bureaucratic structures. The largest of these in the
UK was the National Health Service (NHS). Since 1992, it has separated further from
central government and operates with greater freedom from direct detailed
government control. In other jurisdictions, such as Australia, the involvement of
charities in the provision of health care services has also differentiated the health
service from the government sector.
AAAJ PBEs are mainly comprised of utilities, such as water electricity gas and telecoms.
21,2 Although in 1992 these utilities had been privatised they were still associated with the
public sector and the services they provided remained central to public life. In 1992,
there remained a strong rhetoric that there was public involvement in PBE, through
share ownership. Shares in PBE were marketed heavily to private investors with the
view that this retained public control while freeing them from public bureaucracy. In
134 all these cases there was a residual regulatory element ensuring some government
control remained. Thus, they were included in the domain of the public sector.
The domain of the public services

While changes have made in a variety of aspects of service provision over the past 20
years, we argue that the elements identified as the domain of the public sector in 1992
are still relevant in 2007. However, the justifications for their inclusion have been
reviewed and replaced by several different assumptions as Figure 2 illustrates. The
notion of a public sector that requires public funding, ownership and operation of
services is no longer appropriate. Instead the provision of public services may be
organised in a variety of ways and control is achieved through different organisational
and regulative mechanisms. Public services might have some element of government
funding, ownership, public direction or regulation, in different combinations but there
is no longer a need for direct government ownership for the involvement in provision of
these public services.
While the functions have not changed, there has been considerable change in
funding, governance and accountability for control and operation of these public
services, as well as the accounting and auditing of them. There have also been some
structural changes and more private sector involvement, as well as the introduction of
private sector approaches to service provision. We noted the existence of hybrid
organisations in 1992 (e.g. Mackintosh et al., 1994), in which private sector approaches
were used by the public sector and public service organisations (for example,
universities) were urged to be “more commercial”. This is still the case but even more
so, for instance, many universities now sell significant parts of their services (e.g.
Guthrie and Neumann, 2007; Parker, 2007)[15]. However, the direct involvement of the
private and third sectors in the ownership and provision of services noted above and
illustrated in Figure 2 is a phenomenon that has increased significantly. Hence while
the domain of the public services is similar to that of the domain of the public sector
described in Broadbent and Guthrie (1992), Figure 2 describes a more complex
situation in relation to funding, governance and accountability by regulation
arrangements.
Several changes have taken place since 1992 that have been recorded in the
accounting research literature[16]. PBE were created by transferring ownership to
shareholders, predominantly by central or federal government, and extended to other
shareholders through various privatisations (Guthrie, 1993; Arnold and Cooper, 1999).
A good deal of detailed sectoral work in this area has concentrated on the utilities, for
example in electricity (Thomson, 1993) or ports (Arnold and Cooper, 1999). This change
has been analysed by authors such as Ogden and Vass (Vass, 1993; Ogden, 1995a;
Ogden, 1995b; Ogden and Anderson, 1999) who explored the nature of the changes in
the water industry in the UK in some depth and Jupe and Crompton who have worked
on the rail industry in the UK (Crompton and Jupe, 2003; Jupe and Crompton, 2006).
Public sector to
public services
135
Figure 2.
The extent to which these regulatory attempts have been successful is open to question
(Cole and Cooper, 2006; Jupe and Crompton, 2006).
Privatisations were undertaken around the globe and promoted by international
financial and regulatory institutions (see, for example, the description in EAR Vol. 2,
No.1 in 1993 provided by the UN Secretary General (see, Un, 1993). Examples in
Australia are similar to those sectors privatised in the UK, demonstrating the close
policy links between Commonwealth nations, but privatisation was by no means
restricted to the Commonwealth and has been a worldwide phenomenon (e.g. Ruffing,
1993; Shaoul, 1997; Arnold and Cooper, 1999; Guthrie et al., 1999; Uddin and Hopper,
AAAJ 2001, 2003; Craig and Amernic, 2006). Interestingly, there is little evidence of these
21,2 international examples in the accounting journals analysed, reflecting the parochial
interest of published writers in the field, especially in the early days of privatisation.
International comparisons are important and there is some evidence of an emerging
literature in the area of PSAR covering a wider range of nation states.
In the context of privatisation, regulatory frameworks were, in many jurisdictions
136 and notably in the UK and Australasia, also created to control pricing and protect the
public interest. Regulators, like the UK Office for Water regulation (OFWAT), were
created to retain control over the pricing of utilities, demonstrating an intention to keep
some control over public, private or third sectors providing water services. Arguably it
is the perceived nature of the service and the residual public control that defines PBE
as part of the domain of the public sector. Over time, therefore, recognition of the
change in ownership of the providers of services has been a significant element

contributing to the change of title to public services, rather than public sector.
To use a definition of the domain of public services that relies on the perceived
nature of the services and the regulatory regime around it is nevertheless complex.
Two main issues impact on this. The first main issue concerns the nature of public
services and is determined largely by the context in which the public services are
provided, that is, the boundary of public services is not fixed, but varies from country
to country. Take, for example, the difference in the provision of health care in the USA
and Australia (e.g. Chua and Preston, 1994; Abernethy, 1996). As the comparative work
undertaken (e.g. Olson et al., 1998; Guthrie et al. 1999; Guthrie et al. 2005) in the field has
illustrated, the activities that comprise the public sector are bound by their context and
things that are seen as public services in one nations may not be judged as such in
others. This same comparative work also illustrates how the sectoral boundary
changes over time; a prime example is the way in which privatisations were used to
dispose of areas of public activity. Thus, if we use ownership as the basis of the
definition of public services, then the definition will be different in different
jurisdictions as well as over time even within the same jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, despite the complexity around its definition, the inclusion of the
category of PBE in the domain of public services arguably remains a valid one. It rests
on the recognition that in the particular jurisdiction and at that particular point in time
the services they provide are seen as essential public services. Organisations operating
in this way are regulated to ensure that the public interest is served and may be
provided with some element of public funding support. The regulatory framework is
intended to manage the nature of the various services and ensure that the suppliers of
these services do not abuse their power to provide services that citizens have little
option but to use. The extent of the control of these services remains contextual; they
are a social construct in a given society at a given point of time. A hypothetical
example of this is that as “global warming” affects climate and water availability,
privatised utilities may come under intensified control and greater government
intervention than previously. A specific example of this in Australia is the political
debate around federal control of water supply in the Murray Darling Basin, where
there is presently an extensive drought. This demonstrates the political tensions that
contextual elements can generate[17]. Accepting the dynamic nature of PBE, it remains
arguable that they are part of the domain of the public services.
Second, consider the case of PIS, which are public services according to the Public sector to
traditional definition in which the organisation is part of central or local government public services
infrastructure, such as Health, Education, Police or the Prison Service. They remain
significant enterprises in their own rights and different governance processes have
developed (in some cases to give qualified freedoms, for example the borrowing power
of Foundation Hospitals and the reduction of bureaucratic regulation of Academy
schools in the UK), as has accountability. These institutions remain an important part 137
of the public services in most nations, particularly in relation to health and education
which potentially have significant impact on the life chances of citizens. An interesting
phenomenon that has developed during the 20 year period is the introduction of the
private sector into the provision of these services – as well as to other elements of
government provision such as transport infrastructure – through Public Private
Partnerships (PPPs)[18]. This has expanded the involvement of the private sector in the
provision of public services in a different way to that exhibited in PBE. It is this

expansion of private sector involvement that has changed the emphasis from public
sector provision to the provision of public services.
Our argument is that increasing private involvement has had a significant impact
during this 20 year period of PSAR. Privatisation is inextricably linked with
“modernisation”, according to the state, and has been implemented throughout the
1990s (Broadbent and Laughlin, 2005). In the early 1990s, the foundation of these
changes was starting to emerge. Governments were giving consideration to different
institutional structures but, despite the ascendancy of a right leaning ideology that
favoured markets and competition, citizen involvement was still seen as important in
gaining legitimacy for change. Thus, in 1992 we saw private sector involvement in the
sector growing through the privatisation of service, particularly the utilities and
telecoms in Australia and the UK, but also infrastructure, such as the rail system in the
UK. These were promoted as retaining public involvement through share ownership in
PBE. The PIS, unlike PBE, saw more limited direct private involvement in running the
services, usually through the tendering out of elements of service provision, and
private sector involvement did not at that stage extend to ownership.
Governance structures have also developed in significance. On privatisation, many
PBE became subject to the different disciplines of shareholders and external financial
reporting, and also a regulatory framework to protect the social good (Guthrie, 1993).
The failures of governance in the private sector, characterised by the collapse of
companies such as Enron, means that governance has become a more important
concern, and greater emphasis has been placed on this issue in the public services as
well as the private (including the PBE). Governance arrangements in PIS have also
changed and in 1992 the foundations of these changes were well in place. A key
element of early “modernisation”[19] had been to give greater delegated involvement to
managers at the level of the provision of service and to involve users more in governing
these organisations (Broadbent and Guthrie, 1992). This delegation of responsibility
has meant that there is even greater impetus to external and user involvement in
governance processes in both the private and public sector and that citizen
involvement in the governance of PIS is important. In addition, risk management is
also now an important aspect of governance in both public and private fields of
operation. In order to enable external parties to monitor risk and achievement in the
public services[20], new systems of accountability have been institutionalised through
AAAJ the use of performance indicators and performance management systems. Thus, users
21,2 and citizens are integrated into governance structures and accountability to
organisational governors as well as to central government has been cemented by the
use of performance measurement.
Significantly, at the end of the period under consideration, there is little in the
literature to suggest that the justification of privatisation by the argument that citizen
138 shareholding provides a means of public involvement is valid. Rather the focus of
“modernisation” has become ensuring the provision of services; their source is not
considered important and private delivery is justified if it is value for money (v-f-m).
For instance, this is illustrated in the involvement of the private sector through the
vehicle of partnership, in the context of Public Private Partnerships and the Private
Finance Initiative (Broadbent and Laughlin, 2005)[21].
Thus, a significant difference in private sector involvement over the period is that
PBE have floated off functions in their entirety, whereas PPP/PFIs can be undertaken
in particular projects within local, central government or PIS. PPP/PFIs do not take
over the whole of the operation of a sector but can operate at a particular organisational
level while, in other operational units, provision is delivered in full by the public
provider. For this reason, PPP/PFIs do not represent a change of ownership from the
domain of the public services, but a change to the provision of services[22].
Figure 2 illustrates that both PBE and PIS remain in the domain of what we now
call the public services, but without the rhetoric of public involvement in the services
through share ownership or through governance processes as was seen in the early
1990s. The PBEs are gradually migrating towards the private sector. Globally, it is
now taken for granted that it is the provision of services that matters, rather than who
provides them, and that what is in question is accountability and regulation for the
nature of that provision. Thus, Figure 2 highlights the accountability relationships
between the providers (both public and private) and the government at different levels.
PBE remain within the domain of the public services, but are moving more towards the
private sector as citizens become accustomed to private involvement in these areas.
While PBEs are subject to state regulation as a means of control and the services they
provide are seen as public goods that should be universally and equitably available
PBEs still however remain in the domain of public services. In the context of PIS,
private sector involvement is increasing through the use of PPP/PFI, but the services
are still more firmly located in the domain of public services. They remain a public
good and control is more direct than is the case with the PBE regulatory schemes,
private providers’ obligations being contractually determined. In turn those who are
managing the contracts are held accountable to the state through different systems of
performance management.
At the same time as provision of public services is moved to private sector
providers, there is pressure on those elements that remain more firmly in the direct
control of government at both central and local levels to adopt a business approach to
accounting and management. In these different ways we move from the concept of
“public sector” to the concept of provision of “public services” that, as Hutton (2006)
argues, provides the services a society assumes are available in an equitable fashion
and be funded from taxation revenue (Hutton, 2006). Hence, our key argument is that
PSAR should be concerned with the delivery of public services rather than with the
ownership and organisational structure of the public sector.
“Alternative” approaches to accounting research Public sector to
Broadbent and Guthrie (1992) recognised that, in exploring PSAR, several research public services
approaches can be taken. The categorisation of the research approaches that we offered
in 1992 are now briefly revisited in this paper. The three original categories identified
remain robust. Thus the present paper will differentiate technical accounting, that
work which considers accounting techniques as a set of a-contextual practices (see for
example, Solà and Prior, 2001), from the body of more contextual work. Technical 139
contextual accounting and contextually technical accounting are differentiated thus:
the former looks at techniques in context, seeing the context as having implications for
the construction of techniques (Jones, 2000), while the latter is interested in the
interaction of accounting and context (Cole and Cooper, 2006; Kurunmäki and Miller,
2006). There seems, on reflection, to be no reason to change our original
categorisation[23].
Thus, it remains the case that only a small number of the research papers reviewed
seek to take a purely technical accounting approach; these also see accounting
technologies as drivers of change, for instance, in that by changing the technology it is
assumed better information can be produced. The small representation of this category
is a product of the journals reviewed. The selected journals recognise the context of the
public services, seeing accounting technologies as mediated by their context and
implicated in change, although perhaps not in the way that was intended. Some of the
reviewed literature remains contextually technical in that it wishes to understand the
context and recognises that accounting technologies are relevant as a contextual
element. In this latter category, the interest is in how accounting is used or implicated
in processes of change. As noted above, the current paper reviews a particular set of
journals that by their nature either tend to concentrate on contextual and qualitative
research, or are receptive to it. While the bulk of the research therefore tends to have
some contextual element, nevertheless, a small number of papers are more technically
focused and all three types of alternative research are represented in the body of work
considered. The method used to analyse this research will be explored in the next
section.
3. The nature of the analysis undertaken

This section documents our methods for selecting and reviewing the papers (see,
Parker, 2005). It includes the selection of journals, and papers within those journals,
and the classification scheme used and procedures for data collection and analysis. Six
steps were identified for our review process.
First, we formulated our main research objective and corresponding aims and
established several boundaries for defining and limiting PSAR papers. The second step
was the selection of journals from the accounting discipline which would reflect
interdisciplinary research. The following eight journals were included: Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal; Accounting Forum; Accounting, Organizations
and Society; British Accounting Review; Critical Perspectives on Accounting; European
Accounting Review; Financial Accountability and Management; and Management
Accounting Research (AAAJ, AF, AOS, BAR, CPA, EAR, FAM, MAR).
Third, we considered the number of papers dedicated to PSAR in the selected
journals. This led to a grouping of papers from each journal for which the number is
identified in Table I. As indicated previously this was limited to the time period 1992 to
AAAJ 2006. For all papers a PDF of the entire paper was obtained and entered in the database
21,2 and full referencing details established in Endnote.
The fourth step was to pilot test the classification criteria on a sample of papers.
During this stage both authors read the papers based on abstracts and full text of the
articles and preliminary classifications were made and discussed. From this a slightly
modified coding scheme was established and then one of the authors of this paper
140 undertook the reading and coding for all the articles.
During the fifth step all papers were classified based on the coding classification
(see, Table II). In instances where ambiguity as to coding was identified, the
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 87

Accounting Forum 24
Accounting Organizations and Society 13
British Accounting Review 5
Critical Perspectives on Accounting 24
Table I. European Accounting Review 34
Number of PSAR papers Financial Accountability and Management 228
in selected accounting Management Accounting Review 37
journals Total 452
A. Location A1. North America

A2. Australasia
A3. United Kingdom
A4. Continental Europe
A5. Other
B. Government jurisdiction B1. Supra-National/International/Comparative
B2. National
B3. State/Territory/Province
B4. Local/Municipal
B5. Organisation/Industry-specific (Police, Education, University,
Health, Water, etc.)
C. Accounting type C1. Management/Accounting/Budgeting/Financial Management
C2. External Reporting (Financial, Social, Environmental, Intellectual
Capital, etc.)
C3. Finance/Capital Budgeting
C4. Auditing/Evaluation
C5. Accountability/Governance
C6. Privatisation/ Public Private Partnerships/Private Finance
Initiative
C7. Other (including General)
D. Research methodology D1. Case/Field Study
D2. Content/Historical Analysis
D3. Survey/Questionnaire/Other Empirical
Table II. D4. Commentary/Normative
Criteria for the PSAR D5. Theoretical/Literature Review
papers D6 Theoretical/Empirical
second-named author retrieved the full PDF and discussion ensued until agreement Public sector to
was reached. public services
Finally, in step six the database was established and used to construct a range of
descriptive statistics that allowed extensive discussion of the patterns that emerged
from the reviewed articles and provided the basis for analysis of the field over the
period in question.
The classification process considered four different descriptive criteria, as 141
highlighted in Table II. First, the location of the work was considered and this was
divided into five geographic regions:
(1) North America;
(2) Australasia;
(3) United Kingdom;
(4) Rest of Europe; and

(5) Other.
An important aspect here is that where the location of the work is indeterminable or
multifarious, the default for this code is the first-mentioned author’s location. The
second classification criterion was the level of government jurisdiction. This included a
supranational/international element, which covered comparative work or a
cross-national boundary organisation (e.g. United Nations) as well as the various
tiers of government within a national setting: national, state/territory/province, and
local government. The final element in this categorisation, labelled
organisation/industry specific, included the government agencies or industries (such
as police, education, university, health, water, etc). Excluded from this categorisation
was anything to do with private sector companies, not for profit organisations, such as
charities, and the like.
The third classification was by accounting type and this involved analysing the
publication for various functional types of accounting related specifically to the public
sector. These included seven main accounting categories: management accounting and
control/ budgeting and performance management; external reporting (financial, SE, IC,
etc); finance/capital budgeting; auditing/evaluation; accountability and governance;
Privatisation/PPP/PFI; and a final “other” category to include more general work.
Our fourth categorisation was of the research approach used in the work. We
differentiated between case and field work, historical or content analysis, survey work
and interview work that sought to use questionnaires and provide more statistical
analysis rather than cases, commentaries and normative work, theoretical or literature
review approaches, and finally, combined approaches. This categorisation proved to be
most problematic as often aspects of different elements were combined not in an
explicit manner to provide a formal combination of research approaches, but in the
context of, for example, using case based approaches to lead to commentary.
4. Descriptive analysis
Once the selected papers were obtained from the eight selected accounting journals, a
meta-analytical review of PSAR was undertaken to provide a descriptive patterning.
This section answers, in an analytical way, the first question: what has been done?
AAAJ The first issue to highlight is that, as illustrated in Table I, apart from the journal
21,2 dedicated to the public services and the charities/voluntary sector (Financial
Accountability and Management) and the generalist journal (Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal ), there is a paucity of published public services research in
other journals. The specialised journal FAM accounts for 50 per cent of the
publications in the field. It should be recognised that some of the PSAR work is also
142 submitted to public administration journals, but nevertheless given the size and
importance of the public services, it is disappointing not to see it represented rather
more substantially in more of the other accounting journals. It should also be
recognised that this may well be the result of author submission practices as much as
journal policy. Given the evidence that the acceptance of PSAR in the generalist
accounting journals is patchy, those with a track record of acceptances in the field
provide a signal to potential submitters, so a concentration of contributions develops. It
is encouraging to note that, over time, the body of published public services research is
growing and the area is becoming more established.
Figure 3 illustrates the geographic location of the work that has been undertaken.
This shows the area with the greatest number of publications in PSAR to be the UK
followed by Australasia. This may be a result of the fact that public sector financial
management reform in these regions led the world. This is perhaps partly the result of
fact that the journals that have been chosen are English language publications.
European nations other than the UK are nevertheless well represented and this
contribution is growing more recently. It must be acknowledged that there is a
tradition of public sector research in other European languages in both accounting and
public administration. Indeed, Europe has followed the North American tradition and
developed prestigious specialist institutions that are focused on the field. This perhaps
means that there is a tradition of publication in public administration journals rather
than in the areas of economics and accounting, as might be the case in the UK and
Australia where PSAR has always been a sub-discipline of the generic accounting
discipline. In addition to the limitations presented by restricting journals to those in
Figure 3.
Public service articles by
location
English there is also the matter of cultural bias. For example, there is a very different Public sector to
approach to public service delivery in the USA. public services
It is perhaps also significant to note that the pattern of publication reflects the reach
of the Westminster system of government. This reflects the policy links that are
embedded in communities of practice such as the Auditors-General of the various
jurisdictions. One Australian federal Auditor-General described the link between the
audit offices of Australia and UK as “like being part of a family”. The point is that 143
while there remain significant differences in the execution of policies, there is
nevertheless a great deal of sharing of ideas between particular jurisdictions. This has
enabled comparative research and may have led to more research related to these
geographic locations.
It remains rare to find work related to emerging economies – a problem addressed
by the work Trevor Hopper[24] has undertaken with doctoral students in the area
(Uddin and Hopper, 2001, 2003; Wickramasinghe et al., 2004). Work from the former
Soviet Union and from the Asia Pacific region is also now emerging (Jaruga and
Nowak, 1995; Xavier, 1996; Bourmistrov and Mellemvik, 1999).
The extent of research in different levels of government/jurisdictions reflects the
distribution of nations studied and the structures within them. Figure 4 demonstrates
that the majority of research considers two arenas; the most popular area of interest is
organisationally based studies and the second most popular area of research interest
focuses on national level analysis. Because all jurisdictions have national governments
and all have many different organisations this is perhaps unsurprising. Given that the
research is mainly contextual, organisations provide the bulk of research sites because
of their availability and ease of access.
Analysis of the organisational sites shows that there is still a great deal of interest in
the Health Services (e.g. Pettersen, 1995; Lapsley, 1996; Llewellyn, 1997; Broadbent
et al., 2001; Lowe, 2001; Arai, 2006; Scarparo, 2006). Schools and universities are also
popular sites for study (e.g. Cameron and Guthrie, 1993; Laughlin et al., 1994;
Broadbent et al., 1999; Montondon and Fischer, 1999; Yamamoto, 2004; Modell, 2005).
Figure 4.
level of government or
jurisdiction
AAAJ However, the call made in 1992 (Broadbent and Guthrie, 1992) for wider study sites has
21,2 been addressed and a variety of other areas have been studied including the utilities
(Vass, 1993), scientific organisations (Boden et al., 1998), national theatres (Skaerbaek,
1992), social housing (Collier, 2005), the police (Hoque et al., 2004) and museums
(Carnegie and Wolnizer, 1996). The range of interest is broad, but the extent to which
there is a body of in depth research in these areas is limited, meaning there are still
144 ample research opportunities.
National Government provides an accessible site. While engagement with
organisational actors may not be straightforward, it is easy to retrieve policy and
contextual documentation, especially given the ubiquitous nature of the information on
government web sites (Luder, 1993, 2000; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2005). This
provides the opportunity for commentary and normative discussion.
Work in Local Government and Municipalities is a continuing theme and research
has been undertaken in the context of significant changes to the structures of delivery
of service from these authorities in various countries (e.g. Mussari, 1995; Seal, 1999;
Gill-McLure et al., 2003; Monsen, 2006).
When the various functional types of accounting are considered, management
accounting remains the most researched area of interest. The extent of interest in
management accounting is illustrated in Figure 5. Management accounting (C1)
accounts for 188 articles, while financial accounting and external reporting (C2)
Figure 5.
accounting type
accounts for 83 articles. Other (C7) has 58 articles and the rest of the public service Public sector to
articles by accounting type are accountability and governance (C5), auditing and public services
evaluation (C4), Finance (C3) and PPP (C6) with 23 identified research articles. The
technologies of NPM still fascinate researchers (e.g. Heald and Geaughan, 1994;
Bellamy and Kluvers, 1995; Llewellyn and Grant, 1996; Jacobs, 1997; Doolin, 1999;
Groot, 1999; Bowerman et al., 2001; Percy, 2001). Thus research about the nature of the
raft of accounting technologies concerned with budgets or costs of a particular type of 145
organisation (see for example Llewellyn, 1993, 1997, 1998; Llewellyn and Northcott,
2005) remains an important theme. The same is true of the interest in the processes and
structures in place to enable the new technologies (e.g. McSweeney and Duncan, 1998;
O’Connor et al., 2004). Performance management and indicators provoked much
interest in the years up to 1992 and this remains an important area of concern (e.g. Mol,
1996; Modell, 2001, 2004; Siverbo and Johansson, 2006).

Financial accounting is the second most popular area of interest and this is perhaps
the result of some specific structural changes[25]. Connolly and Hyndman (2006)
provide a taste of the debates that concern themselves with the appropriateness of the
use of this approach in the public services.
Accountability and governance has provided a topic of study for several
researchers, reflecting the changes to the structure of the domain (e.g. Gray and
Jenkins, 1993; Goddard and Powell, 1994; Johnsen et al., 2004; Collier, 2005). Work in
this area is diverse but a common theme is that of seeking to understand the extent to
which changes in the approaches to management or to the accounting information
provided enables or restricts accountability in different situations (e.g. Humphrey et al.,
1993; Hodges and Wright, 1995; Levaggi, 1995; Burritt and Welch, 1997; Coy et al.,
2001; Gendron et al., 2001; English, 2003; Carnegie and West, 2005; Barton, 2006).
Auditing and evaluation is a significant area represented in the body of research
undertaken and a range of different sites or initiatives are of interest (e.g. Humphrey
et al., 1995; Jacobs, 2000; Johnsen et al., 2001; Broadbent et al., 2003). The extent to
which evaluation, in the processes set up to seek to make such evaluations, simply
undermines its own intent was of particular interest to Olson et al. (2001). This theme of
the dysfunctional consequences of evaluation or control systems is one that is also
reflected in other sub-areas of the field in general, for example, in work that questions
the measurement systems operated in the context of the development of reference costs
as measures by which to evaluate performance of hospitals in relation to their costs
(e.g. Northcott and Llewellyn, 2003; Llewellyn and Northcott, 2005).
Auditing is important, both on the national stage with the work of the National
Auditors-General, and at the local level in municipalities; evaluation of outcomes is
part of the work auditors are expected to undertake (e.g. Bowerman, 1994, 1995;
Hodges and Wright, 1995; Olson et al., 2001; Pallot, 2003; Pollitt, 2003; Johnsen et al.,
2004; Johnson, 2006). Given the importance of the sub-themes that could emerge from
this area, particularly in relation to questions of v-f-m and evaluation there would
arguably be a case for more scholarly interest in the area.
This analysis also demonstrates the emergence of some new areas of interest
extending existing themes. As well as the work on PPP/PFI (e.g. Shaoul, 1997;
Broadbent and Laughlin, 1999; Torres and Pina, 2001; English and Guthrie, 2003;
Froud, 2003; Shaoul, 2005) there is an interest in social and environmental matters (e.g.
AAAJ Burritt and Welch, 1997; Ball, 2004, 2005), devolution to different jurisdictions
21,2 (Midwinter, 2005), and intellectual capital (Habersam and Piber, 2003).
Figure 6 considers methods used within the selected articles and shows the spread
of research methods that have been adopted in the study of PSAR.
Figure 6 shows that historical work (D2) is becoming more common (e.g. Funnell,
1998), combined with content analysis it is as popular as field or case study work (D1).
146 Survey/questionnaire/interview studies (D3) are less popular. Many of the papers
provide commentaries or normative studies (D4) – this is the largest body of work
represented. Aligned to this category are the literature reviews (D5) which like the
commentaries and normative work do not directly engage empirically. The final
category of work, combined theoretical and empirical studies (D6) remedies the
omission of empirical insights.
The analysis is interesting particularly given there has been some discussion
among the academic community about the dearth of theoretical underpinnings. This
analysis demonstrates that there is more fieldwork and case work than theoretically
informed work in the area (e.g. Barton, 2005) and supports this perception. However, a
more significant finding is that there is a danger that there may be an over-reliance on
normative theorising and theoretical reviews of the existing literature – represented in
categories D4 and D5. It should be recognised that the problem of disembedded theory
is as great as that of under theorised empirics. The role of “armchair theorising” is
important in raising normative debate, but remains limited if academics are to engage
Figure 6.
research method
in policy especially in a context where there are call for more evidence based policy. Public sector to
Practical solutions must at some stage be rooted in practice and context and there must public services
therefore be a move beyond theorising to theory in practice. Given the great
preponderance of work that is not engaging with empirics it would seem as if the
balance is not being achieved. On the other hand it should also be noted that there were
a number of significant papers that were theoretically and empirically informed (e.g.
Dillard and Smith, 1999; Humphrey et al., 1995; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2002; English 147
and Guthrie, 2003).
In summary, the descriptive perspective on the accumulated PSAR is important as
it helps identify who published, what was published and the focus of the selected
research. By analysing the patterning of the PSAR body of knowledge via the
classification criteria, we are able to provide a foundation on which to ground our
conceptual analysis, as well as form some tentative conclusions as to the gaps in the
body of current PSAR research.
5. Discussion
This section reflects on our aims. The first aim was to take the earlier paper as a
foundation on which to build and the second aim sought to consider the contemporary
relevance of the previous analysis. The arguments in Broadbent and Guthrie (1992)
have been re-visited and refined in the discussions in section 2 of this paper. The nature
of the domain has been redefined and illustrated in Figure 2. As a result we argue that
during the period the changing context has moved the focus beyond the public sector
to an emphasis on public services. The relevance of the approaches to research has
been considered and is still seen as relevant. The rest of this section seeks to address
the third aim, that of the content of the body of research and those areas we see as both
significant and those that have been forgotten or silenced.
Significant trends
Thus, the first task in this section will be to consider the significant contemporary
trends within PSAR, noting that changes in the contextual environment have moved
the research agenda within the field over the period in question. Three aspects will be
considered[26]: External financial reporting; governance and risk; and performance
measurement and management. The consideration of these three areas of PSAR
demonstrates the importance of the reflexive consideration of context and accounting
practice. The examples illustrate the extent to which accounting practice is both
constituted by, and is constitutive of, the social context.
The move to external reporting issues and the concern with public infrastructure
A significant change in contemporary PSAR is the increase in work in the area of
external reporting. In 1992, the majority of the research in the field was concerned with
management accounting techniques of various types. At that stage the concerns in
policy and practice were with how to manage the organisation more efficiently and
how to control what those managing the sector were doing (Dunleavy and Hood, 1994).
The overall field of research is dynamic and mutable and there has been a greater
interest in researching financial aspects of PSAR as the period has progressed.
Australia and New Zealand were perhaps the earliest jurisdictions to signal an
interest in moving governmental accounting to cohere with private sector models (e.g.
AAAJ Pallot, 1997; Guthrie, 1998). In New Zealand, this interest aligned with the change
21,2 agenda introduced into the public sector as a whole. New Zealand was seen as a leader
in the adoption of new public management (NPM) approaches and was particularly
attracted to the private sector approach to public service delivery, seeking to impose
this framework on its public sector in all aspects (Pallot, 2001). For some time this
approach was less evident in other nations (Broadbent et al., 1999). However, there has
148 been an increasing interest in using private sector accounting approaches and this has
been evidenced by the interest in using accrual accounting in the public services across
the globe (e.g. Brorstrom, 1998; Robinson, 1998; Christiaens, 2004; Monsen, 2006;
Carlin, 2003; Heald, 2005; Lye et al., 2005) and looking to the matter of “Whole of
government accounting”.
Not all of the research has been complimentary about the adoption of private sector
approaches to reporting of public services, seeing the differences between the sectors
as significant. The interest in financial accounting reporting and concerns about the
applicability of private sector approaches in the public services – which are seen to be
driven by different assumptions – has been accompanied by commentaries on
approaches to the setting of standards in the area of public services (e.g. Pallot, 1992;
Rutherford, 1992; Scheid, 1993; Guthrie, 1998; Walker and Clarke, 2000; Price and
Wallace, 2002). The debate as to whether generic approaches are relevant and possible
and thus how to regulate financial reporting in the public services remains alive and
some consideration of both conceptual frameworks and implementation is evident (e.g.
Mayston, 1992; Lye et al., 2005; Mack and Ryan, 2006) In the world of practice, the
standard setting bodies also continue to debate the matter.
The growing interest in financial accounting issues has led to a particular interest in
issues relating to the treatment of infrastructure assets. The desire to produce financial
accounts compatible with those of the private sector has raised issues of introducing
capital charging (e.g. Coombs and Edwards, 1992; Heald and Scott, 1995; 1996; Heald
and Dowdall, 1999; Carlin, 2003; Christiaens, 2004). When cash accounting was used in
the sector then there was no overt mechanism for capital charges or for asset
depreciation to be recorded. It has been argued that this should be remedied so as to
reflect the cost of Treasury support and make the cost of asset usage more visible in
order to ensure efficiency of use. The debate links into the management accounting
changes of NPM that were directly geared to efficiency, and for that reason
practitioners and regulators have introduced such charges (e.g. Christiaens, 2004;
Goddard, 2005; Paulsson, 2006). Arguments have been made that this is inappropriate,
given the distinct nature of some elements of the sector, which leads to claims of
incompatibility with business approaches. One such example is the debate
surrounding the inclusion and valuation of heritage assets such as Ancient
Monuments or Works of Art. The concern with their valuation and a debate as to
whether they should indeed form part of the National Account is reflected in the
literature (e.g. Barton, 2000; Christiaens, 2004). The value and the nature of the
ownership of the national infrastructure has come to the fore in the discussion of
PPP/PFI that follows.
The general question of why there has been more interest in applying private sector
approaches to external financial reporting is significant. Arguably one element in a
tentative explanation of this phenomenon lies in the context of the introduction of more
private sector involvement in the public services. For example, in the implementation
of markets or quasi-markets with their attendant price competition, there is a need to Public sector to
develop costing and pricing information through the development of accounting public services
technologies (e.g. Chua and Preston, 1994; Guthrie, 1998). Where competition is
between public and private sector organisations there is some incentive to have
comparable financial information sets (e.g. Ellwood, 1996) in order to have comparable
information for decision making. The contracting out of services or pricing for market
situations (e.g. Aiken and McCrae, 1992; Arai, 2006) has led to a need to develop 149
comparative information. This is one element creating the impetus for the adoption of
private sector approaches to financial reporting.
This impetus has been consolidated by a recent and important contributory factor,
the impact of “third way” thinking (Giddens, 1998). Third way thinking has introduced
the notion of partnership between public and private organisations. Structural changes
in the provision of services that have emerged have required accounting, auditing and
accountability changes. Third way thinking has sought to dissipate the need to make
stark choices between public and private sectors. As such it has been influential in the
development of the notion of the government’s role in funding public services as
opposed to maintaining a public sector. Third way thinking introduced the logic that
the private sector could be used to provide public services in the context of partnership
and, in doing so, legitimated the involvement of the private sector for some elements of
the political left. This, of course, is an approach that has not been problematic for the
political right who have long espoused the use of the private sector as a more efficient
means of operation. The political right of course have used the market mechanism as
justification for private sector involvement. In “partnership thinking” the motivation
for the use of the private sector is different but the outcome is similar – there is more
private sector involvement in the provision of public services.
For instance, the ideas of PPP/PFI have spread across the OECD (e.g. Mayston,
1999; English and Guthrie, 2003; Froud, 2003; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2005). PPP/PFI
has promoted public service delivery by the private sector and while it is said to be in
partnership, the essence of the approach in practical terms is that the private sector is
contracted and funded by taxation revenue to deliver a public service. The partnership
element is represented in the extent to which there is claimed to be a sharing of the risk
of the project with allocations of risk to those who are best able to manage it. The
partnerships have particularly been used to solve the problems of the provision and
updating of infrastructure. Backlog maintenance of public assets has been seen as
significant, public borrowing as restricted and hence the renewal of infrastructure has
been a problem for a variety of nation states. The use of the private sector to provide
funding for the infrastructure of public services has therefore had great appeal (e.g.
Hodges and Mellett, 1999; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2003a, b; Edwards and Shaoul,
2003; Shaoul, 2005).
The use of the private sector to provide public services has been criticised as the
private sector makes profit from services such as health, education, police or justice
(e.g. Froud et al., 1998; Froud and Shaoul, 2001; Froud, 2003; Newberry and Pallot,
2003; Shaoul, 2005). Calls for a broad evaluation of the initiative have been made, with
a particular emphasis on an assessment of the implications of long contracts which are
integral to PPP initiatives and where it remains difficult to know what the final
outcome of PPP/PFI might be (Broadbent et al., 2003). Calls to consider the way in
which these initiatives are accounted for, both financially and in general economic
AAAJ terms, have also been made (e.g. Hodges and Mellett, 1999; Mayston, 1999; Broadbent
21,2 et al., 2003; Rutherford, 2003; Shaoul, 2005).
The adoption of PPP/PFI has raised questions about the nature of management
accounting approaches to capital investment decision making and to the question of
how to deal with risk (e.g. Froud et al., 1998; Shaoul, 1998; Froud and Shaoul, 2001;
Froud, 2003; Newberry and Pallot, 2003). It has raised questions about how the state
150 legitimises its decisions (e.g. Broadbent and Laughlin, 2003a) and the logic of PPP as a
policy (Edwards and Shaoul, 2003).
PPP/PFI is significant in financial accounting research because it both emerges from
and consolidates the ideological drift to private sector approaches to the management
and provision of public services. This has led to increased attention being paid to
external financial reporting for public services and has impacted particularly on those
organisations that were previously seen as residing in a different sphere – that of the
public sector. Hence the structural and ideological changes have created the “space” for
new approaches to service provision and the need for new accountings. The accountings
themselves have created some of the arguments for the adoption of the new structures of
provision (for example through the arguments that PPP/PFI provides value-for money
(see, Heald, 2003). PPP/PFI is both the driver of and driven by change and this provides
an example of the constitutive nature of accounting, and shows how accounting itself is
also constituted by wider practice (Broadbent and Guthrie, 1992).
The more general point of significance that emerges from the research in the area of
external financial reporting is the demonstration of the unresolved tensions that
remain in relation to the nature of external financial reports and the conceptual basis
informing their construction. The fundamental question of whether there are
significant and inherent differences in the nature of organisations within the domain of
the public services and those in the private sector remains. Whether the financial
reports for the different organisations can be constructed using the same conceptual
frames and practical rubrics is still a point of debate. In that respect there is still a need
to explore whether the different elements that comprise the domain of the public
services described in Figure 2 can be accounted for in the same manner. Questions
about the differences between the provision of public services and the ownership of
public assets might be raised, for example.
The outcome of this, ironically in a paper that has concerned itself with “alternative”
PSAR, is the signal that there remains a need for more technical accounting research,
albeit technically contextual accounting research. One conclusion of this paper must
therefore be that there remains a gap in our shared understandings of this area.
Whereas there is already significant work in the area, there is still insufficient
contextually rooted consideration of the technical and conceptual nature of the
accounts produced.
The technical work that has been undertaken in relation to external reporting
demonstrates a concentration of this interest, it being the interest of a limited number
of scholars (for instance, Lapsley, 1992; Mayston, 1992; Barton, 2000, 2005; Heald,
2005). In this respect it is interesting to note that the links through to practice are
considerable within this group[27]. This raises a second point that requires attention.
This is the need to address the policy agenda and the means by which to engage with
this. Before developing this point, the paper turns first to other areas that have grown
in significance.
Governance and risk Public sector to
Another impact of private sector thinking impacting on the provision of public services public services
has been the emphasis on governance. The emergence of this significant aspect of
practice is related again to contextual pressures, this time a series of financial scandals
in the private sector that have affected thinking and practice in the public services.
The various problems of governance within the private sector, characterised by the
case of Enron, has led to the variety of regulation in nations around the world, such as 151
Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX, 2002) in the USA, or the Combined Code in the UK (FRC,
2003). This has, in turn, led to a concern with the issue of governance in the public
services and the issuing of codes that mirror the practices laid down for the private
sector (see for example, Langlands, 2004)[28]. However, we found little evidence that
researchers had published on these important issues.
These regulatory changes are starting to lead researchers to consider the nature of
governance (e.g. Ezzamel and Willmott, 1993; Craven and Stewart, 1995; Collier, 2005)
and question the extent to which governance of the public services using a framework
drawn from private sector principles is applicable. The basic question for research is
whether the needs of shareholders in the private sector and stakeholders in public
services are the same. Some attention is also being paid to the more specific aspect of
risk (Froud, 2003), although there is not yet a body of published PSAR work that looks
at risk in the context of governance Work in this area is important – given the extent of
the impact of regulation on practice there remains an important gap in our
understanding of the area. In essence, in this field the perceived need for practitioner
action has led to the development of frameworks for practice and research seems to lag
somewhat behind. This is a serious omission on the part of the academic community.
The relative invisibility of academics in the development of practice contrasts with the
pragmatic need for practitioners to develop their practice. This can lead to a view from
practitioners that academics simply develop critique retrospectively, while they in
contrast have to engage[29]. The nature of the relationship between academics and
practitioners that this raises will be discussed later in this section.
There is, however, some academic interest that relates to the field of governance.
For instance, the work of Ezzamel and Willmott (1993) is of particular interest in that it
draws together the issues of governance and accountability, highlighting the linkages
in their concerns. Accountability is concerned with overview and outcomes – what is
being achieved in organisations and this in turn relates to the third area of significance,
performance measurement and management.
Performance measurement and management

A striking aspect of this review of PSAR is the extent of interest in accountability as a
topic over the period. Arguably concerns raised in accountability research are closely
linked to some of the concerns of governance. In particular, there is a common concern
that organisations operate in ways that are not corrupt and that serve the needs of
those they should benefit. Many scholars have considered the nature of accountability
(e.g. Fowles, 1993; Gray and Jenkins, 1993; Humphrey et al., 1993; Gendron et al., 2001)
and its role in a variety of organisational situations (e.g. Carnegie and Wolnizer, 1996;
Burritt and Welch, 1997; Angluin and Scapens, 2000; Coy et al., 2001; English, 2003).
That work has been undertaken in a range of nation states (e.g. Laughlin et al., 1992;
Lawrence et al., 1997; Jacobs, 2000). A common theme is that of understanding how
AAAJ different stakeholders can be reassured that the organisations in question are doing
21,2 what is expected of them. Another matter of concern is whether the accounting
systems imposed or adopted help to make transparent or obscure the actions of the
organisations in question.
In light of the need to ensure organisations use their resources to achieve the ends
required of them, particularly in the context of delegation of day to day management
152 and the contracting out of services, accountability systems that are closely concerned
with performance have been developed. This can be seen as part of a neo-liberalist
agenda (Rose and Miller, 1992) where the attempts of the State to delegate
responsibility are accompanied by strong central control. In this way, political
accountability for the government becomes managerial accountability for managers of
organisations in the public service (Broadbent and Laughlin, 2003). There has been a
good deal of change in the systems that have been employed over the period in
question, with moves to more comprehensive performance management systems over

time (e.g. Leeuw, 1996; Hyndman and Anderson, 1997; Ballantine et al., 1998; Jacobs
et al., 2004; Modell, 2004; Carlin, 2006; Kurunmäki and Miller, 2006). The performance
management systems themselves emerged from a tradition of budgetary control over
the organisations within the sector (Rea, 1994; Jacobs, 1995; Xavier, 1996; Llewellyn,
1998; Mayston, 1998; Lowe, 2000; Serritzlew, 2005), a tradition that endures in some
jurisdictions that have not yet moved so far down the route of what has been called
modernisation (e.g. Lapsley and Pong, 2001; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2005; van
Helden, 2005).
“Modernisation” in government policies has, in the UK, led to the development of
extensive regimes of targets and performance measures (HMSO, 1998; Cabinet Office,
1999). Thompson’s (1995, 1999) earlier work, had already reviewed targets and
performance measures in museums and art galleries illustrating the extent of the impact
of such approaches. The impact of this is now under consideration (Broadbent and
Laughlin, 2007). The work of the ESRC Public Services Programme[30] has some
published work reflecting on the extent of this approach and the degree to which this
approach is useful or otherwise (Hood, 2007; McLean et al., 2007). In the PSAR literature,
the more general significance of budgets and targets on behavioural outcomes is well
researched (e.g. Orford, 1992; Jacobs, 1995; Pettersen, 1995; Northcott and Llewellyn,
2003; Llewellyn and Northcott, 2005; Serritzlew, 2005). The extent to which these targets
are as likely to cause dysfunctions as to ensure intended outcomes remains problematic
more generally and is a significant issue in relation to public services.
What can be seen is that over time there has been a mutation of the management
accounting technologies used to control organisational activity, with a move away
form controlling budget performance based on a concern with the inputs and towards
performance management which is concerned with achieving the desired outputs and
outcomes. The latter performance management approaches are used to monitor service
delivery in the private sector, which cannot be controlled directly. They are also
applicable within the organisations where the state nation has more direct control. The
change in structure of the provision of services can again be demonstrated to be both
enabled by technologies of accounting (those that enable devolved or privatised
delivery of services) and enabling of that structural change.
In summary, therefore, the extent to which public accounting technologies are both
constituted by the context and are constitutive of the context is demonstrated above.
Arguably, the root of these areas of interest can be traced to the growing interest in Public sector to
using business approaches and the introduction of the private sector as providers of public services
public services. This has challenged the very concept of the public sector, replacing it
with the notion of public services. The change in language is significant as it is itself
constituted by changes in ideological views as well as being constitutive of the
situation. This body of work – taken together – potentially comprises a particularly
significant contribution to our understanding of PSAR and to societal changes over the 153
last 20 years[31]. The enhanced contribution could be achieved by the recognition of
the common roots and by a more active attempt to build this work as a body of
scholarship. This will require for it to be brought together much more actively than is
presently the case. One particular element of that research agenda has been highlighted
and that is the need to look carefully at the technical aspects in context and particularly
in the context of developing PSAR policy.
Other aspects and some omissions

Scholars have of course studied aspects that go way beyond the three interconnected
areas that have been highlighted above as part of a significant conceptual shift. The
second task of this final section will be to provide some further overview of areas of
interest in order to highlight areas for further research and in some ways this offers a
reprise on the agendas we highlighted in Broadbent and Guthrie (1992). The following
sub-sections therefore address the second question: what could be done?
Content of PSAR
The issues highlighted below are concerned with research in particular topic areas and
demonstrate the extent of technically contextual accounting.
First, there is good evidence of attempts to broaden the remit of PSAR in order to
consider a wider range of organisations (e.g. Skaerbaek, 1992; Montondon and Fischer,
1999; Poletti, 2004; Rouse and Putterill, 2005; Jupe and Crompton, 2006) although, as
noted, earlier scholars are still attracted to studies of healthcare (Järvinen, 2006).
International comparative work is also in evidence – although not abundantly (e.g.
Torres and Pina, 2001; Jacobs et al., 2004; Wickramasinghe et al., 2004). The
opportunity to diversify location and undertake comparisons should be grasped when
possible as it provides the basis for contrast and comparison that facilitates our
learning and allows both a transfer of good practice and prevents mistakes being
repeated elsewhere.
Second, the body of work also shows that scholars remain interested in particular
technologies. Studies of benchmarking and approaches to costing (e.g. Bowerman et al.,
2001; Jones, 2002; Trenchard and Dixon, 2003; Smark, 2006) demonstrate that a concern
with computing and judging the costs of services is still seen as relevant. An interest in
accounting technologies as they come in and out of fashion is also likely to form a part
of the research agenda and again this forms the basis for learning and should be
encouraged.
Third, the same claims can be made about topical contextual pressures (such as
legislative change, technological advances or interest group concerns) that promote
interest in more specialist themes. Examples include devolution (e.g. Ezzamel et al.,
2005; Midwinter, 2005), or privatisation (e.g. Lapsley, 1993; Ogden, 1995a, b; Stittle,
2004) which was widely covered when the privatisation agenda was at its height, only
AAAJ to re-emerge when problems in the privatised rail industry occurred in the UK. New
21,2 topics that are now emerging include an interest in intellectual capital (e.g.
Garcı́a-Meca et al., 2005; Mouritsen et al., 2005) and sustainability and environmental
matters (e.g. Burritt and Welch, 1997; Ball, 2004, 2005). Hopefully a more specialist
than topical interest is that in the armed forces and war (e.g. Catasús and Grönlund,
2005; Funnell, 2006). These all provide the possibility of growing into a much more
154 significant theme – or indeed are specialist off-shoots of a wider body of scholarship
(as is the case with environmental and sustainability issues). Alternatively they may
simply fade away as context changes.
All these topic areas are ones that remain an important element of the agenda of the
accounting research community and demonstrate that PSAR is in good health,
particularly in the production of technically contextual studies. Arguably, while these
studies are important, and necessary, it is not sufficient simply to understand
techniques in context and hence the exhortation above to think more systematically
about their place in the development of a field of knowledge.
Research approaches in PSAR

As in 1992, we continue to call for more “alternative” accounting research to be
undertaken. Some significant contextually technical accounting research is being
produced, although this is still under-represented in the population of publications.
Examples of this work include the studies undertaken by Neu who has looked at the
issue of the “birth of a nation” (Neu and Graham, 2006), considering Canada’s first
nations, and has also explored the notions of public space in the context of public
discussions about educational reform in Canada (Neu, 2006). Townley’s (2001)
consideration of models of strategic management as elements of modernity is another
example. Arguably this area of work is also worthy of more attention. In addressing
the field with a contextually technical research approach it is more likely that the body
of knowledge called for above will develop. If this endeavour were to be addressed,
then some of the questions we left at the end of the previous review might be answered
(Broadbent and Guthrie, 1992, p. 25). Thus we still have little understanding of the
reasons for the changes in the field of PSAR and how the changes are maintained and
enhanced. In this paper we note simply the reflexivity that surrounds the social
construction of accounting and its constitutive nature. This goes some way to
suggesting how we might study the linkage of technologies of accounting into other
technologies and how these might all be theorised. This provides an enduring and
extensive academic agenda that remains to be addressed. Nevertheless it signals the
contribution of an extensive body of work that has already been achieved.
Omissions: empirically informed theorising

The analysis for the research methods used demonstrates that there is an imbalance
between work that provides commentaries, normative theorising and reviews and that
which is engaging with practice. As argued earlier this has implications for
engagement with practitioners and for the legitimacy of academics in the development
of practice. This should not be taken as a critique of the individual published papers in
the categories mentioned, the problem instead is in the nature of the aggregated
scholarship. It says something about the nature of the research efforts of the academy
as a whole and perhaps is a reflection of the difficulty that is often encountered in
engagement with organisations and in bringing theory and emprics together. This is Public sector to
something that must be addressed in the context of research training. It is a significant public services
issue for the development of a body of scholarship in the discipline.
Omissions: theory and practice

Throughout this paper we have signalled an issue of importance to which we now
return, namely the matter of engagement with practice. If PSAR is to make a 155
significant impact in society, then academics must impact on policy. This requires
academics to engage with policy makers and to engage in matters of governance on a
practical level. PSAR must move beyond the pages of academic journals and
researchers must consider diverse audiences when researching and writing. For
instance, students are easy to reach and well positioned to offer a longer-term solution;
we need to educate them to understand the complexity of PSAR and the solutions
technologies offer. Politicians and policy makers are struggling to find solutions to
problems, albeit in the shorter term. They are interested in pragmatic solutions that are
not mired in complexity. It is possible for researchers to build such bridges with
practitioners, as noted earlier in our discussing of accounting regulation. Engagement
with the political sphere may be difficult, as politicians and policy makers can be
selective and undermine carefully thought out solutions. This means we must also
communicate with the general public and engage with the media more to ensure our
views are well represented and widely so. The relationship between academics and
practice has long been fragile and fraught with difficulty and this remains a challenge
to be addressed. Comparative studies of how this issue is worked out in different nation
states therefore provide a future area of research.
6. Conclusions
The previous section provides an agenda for PSAR. It is a policy agenda as well as an
academic one and the two are intertwined.
The academic agenda highlights some significant omissions. As we suggested in
1992, the range of locations studied could be more extensive. More significantly the
agenda requires us to look quite specifically at the policy aspects of the technical
agenda especially in relation to financial reporting, although these considerations must
take due consideration of context. Technically contextual work is necessary for these
matters to be addressed but is not sufficient to complete the agenda. Contextually
technical work remains important but under-represented. There is a real gap to fill in
the consideration of matters of governance. We need more balance between normative
and empirical work. All these aspects require us as an academic community to try to
build the links in our work to construct a body of developing knowledge, rather than
simply produce a set of interesting and disparate ideas.
If we do not succeed in building a more coherent body of knowledge and
understanding rooted in empirical understandings then the policy agenda will not be
addressed effectively and academia will be left on the fringes, unable to influence the
world we live in. This is the result of not being able to provide systematic evidence and
understanding of practice that can convince policy makers and practitioners of the
legitimacy of our concerns. To this extent addressing the policy agenda is perhaps
more significant and here there is a significant deficit. In crude terms it could be argued
that over the past twenty years a range of extensive changes have swept through
AAAJ public services across the globe; that academics have written extensive critiques of
21,2 these changes; and that the changes have still been implemented. In 1992 our call was
for greater understanding of the role of accounting in public sector change. Our current
prescription is more robust in that we wish to emphasise the need to go beyond
understanding. To paraphrase Marx, we must go beyond understanding and try to
change the world.
156
Notes
1. “Alternative” accounting research was defined in detail in Broadbent and Guthrie (1992,
pp. 3-31). As indicated in the body of this paper, there have been a substantial number of
articles since 1992 and “contextual” accounting research is well established.
2. See, various other papers in this special issue that review “contextual” accounting research,
AAAJ, Vol. 21 No. 2, 2008.
3. The request was to review and critique the subject area allocated, in this case public sector
accounting. Each review and critique was to engage a range of literature, not just AAAJ. We
chose to include a range of “contextual” accounting journals. Commissioned papers were
asked to outline the state of the sub-discipline, a discussion of its relevance to accounting and
policy-making and exploration of avenues for future research.
4. Particular topics have been explored, for example in Financial Accountability and
Management’s special edition on the Modernisation of the Public Sector in November 2001.
5. Public service accounting research (PSAR) is the term used in our review to describe this
area.
6. In undertaking this analysis we were strongly influenced by Parker’s (2005) approach to a
literature review and are grateful for his support in adopting this approach.
7. See, for more details http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/WBIPROGRAM/
PSGLP/0,menuPK:461646 , pagePK:64156143 , piPK:64154155 , theSitePK:461606,00.html
(accessed 10 May 2007).
8. This study reviews papers up to December 2006, which when considered with those
reviewed in Broadbent and Guthrie (1992), means that at least 20 years of accounting
research has been reviewed.
9. Other journals, such as Australian Accounting Review (AAR), were excluded because they
are not available in public electronic form and therefore would have been very difficult to
analyse.
10. American Mainstream is that research which has become mainstream in the US, but which
we would see as providing a very narrow view of accounting. Hence the label here of
“American Mainstream” to signify the American-centricity of the approach. In 1992, we used
the label “alternative” to indicate the contextual and critical emphasis of the work we
reviewed at that time and we retain that label. Now in using the labels “mainstream” and
“contextual”, we recognise the extent to which this might signify relative rankings and do
not wish to concede a primacy to the notion of mainstream. Instead we simply wish to note
the strength of this approach in the USA while highlighting the strength of the “contextual”
approach in other parts of the scholarly world.
11. The database was constructed from a review of the selected journals and is populated with
nearly 500 journal articles. The full list of journal articles reviewed and the coding criteria
and worksheets are available from the authors. The reference list to this paper includes
illustrations from the literature review used in the paper.
12. See, Hutton (2006), executive summary report of The Work Foundation’s public value
consortium November 2006. “Deliberative democracy and the role of public managers.” The
full report is to be found at www.theworkfoundtion.com/publicvalue/research/index.aspx Public sector to
(accessed 20 April 2007).
public services
13. Because the authors have focused their own research interests in the UK (Broadbent) and
Australia (Guthrie), these are the two countries from which illustrations are drawn, however
many other nation states could equally be used as examples.
14. In retrospect different structures of administration in different nations make this bounding
more complex (see, for instance, Olson et al., 1998; Guthrie et al., 2005; Jones, 2002). 157
15. The use of the words “private” and “third” sectors indicates a different ownership, control
and legal governance structure for organisations located in these sectors. For instance, in the
private sector, characterised by private ownership of capital, we have private companies,
listed companies, trusts, etc. While in the third sector we have charities, churches, non-profit
organisations and other bodies, which are characterised not by state ownership but by
community bodies, whether these are motivated by religion, politics or other beliefs, and a
not-for-profit objective. However, we use the word private to indicate both private ownership
and third sector involvement.
16. Not only individual reviews of the literature have been produced, but also aspects of PSAR
have been explore in special editions of various journals. For instance, “special themed”
editions of AAAJ on public private partnerships and FAM on modernisation (2001) and
performance audit (2007).
17. See, for example, see the Sydney Morning Herald who have produced an extensive press
report www.smh.com.au/pdf/waterreport.pdf (accessed 1 May 2007).
18. PPPs are partnerships of public and private providers working together usually in a
contractual relationship to provide services (English and Guthrie, 2003). A significant
element of this is where private contractors build and service infrastructure that provide
public services for a contractual fee. In the UK a significant sub-set of these are called Private
Finance Initiative schemes. They have been used to build infrastructure such as roads and
hospitals. This is also the case in Australia. It is argued that costs are reduced as risk is
handed to those best able to manage it thus reducing overall cost. The failure of schemes
such as the Cross City Tunnel link in Sydney and the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds in
the UK demonstrates that risk is not necessarily transferred (English, 2007).
19. The modernisation of the public sector was early characterised as New Public Management
(Hood, 1995) and later accounting technologies as New Public Financial Management (Olson
et al., 1998).
20. As well as ensure that agents do what the nation state requires.
21. As will be discussed in some detail in section 5.
22. Also they have different accountability and governance arrangements and are regulated
through contractual relationships rather than share ownership or an independent regulatory
body. PPPs are now an established means of service provision and, like PBE, they introduce
an element of private sector involvement into the provision of public services. PPP/PFIs
nevertheless remain part of the public services and are, in many nations, a significant means
of service delivery.
23. A further discussion of the differences between technical accounting, technical contextual
accounting and contextually technical accounting can be found in Broadbent and Guthrie
(1992).
24. Illustrations from the reviewed literature only are provided. It would be impracticable to list
all authors and articles within the text and references.
AAAJ 26. These will be discussed at some length in section 5 and will not be detailed here but comprise
the introduction of accrual accounting and the use of partnership working in the context of
21,2 PPP/PFI.
26. The articles were also coded for various fields and from these the three dominant trends are
reported here. Full details of this analysis are available from the authors.
27. For instance, Laughlin, who has looked more widely at accounting regulation as well as
158 having researched in the public services more generally, now sits on the UK’s Accounting
Standards Board’s Committee for Accounting for Public-Benefit Entities (CAPE) looking at
the development of Statements of Recommended Accounting Practices (SORPs) for public
service organisations. Lapsley was a previous holder of this position, while Heald sits on the
Financial Reporting Advisory Board (FRAB) advising the Treasury on public sector
accounting. David Mayston has also acted as an advisor to government. Allan Barton is
active in the policy circles in Australia.
28. The Langlands (2004) “good practice” guide emerged from the work of a commission chaired
by Sir Alan Langlands and sought to set out generic guidelines for the range of organisations
providing public services. The thrust of the approach to governance is founded on the
importance of outside membership at Board level – in order to provide a more detached view
along with particular expertise – and on the issue of risk management.
29. A themed issue of Public Money and Management (Volume 7 Number 4, September 2007)
provides a set of papers illustrating a range of views from academics as well as practitioners
that illustrate the variety of positions that are taken in this respect.
30. Started in 2004 and running for five years, directed by Professor Christopher Hood, see
www.publicservices.ac.uk (accessed 1 September 2007).
31. The work is indeed individually significant.
References
Abernethy, M.A. (1996), “Physicians and resource management: the role of accounting and
non-accounting controls”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 141-56.
Aiken, M. and McCrae, M. (1992), “Full cost pricing and public sector reporting: alleviating
undisclosed short-run measurement biases of ‘user to pay’ policies”, Financial
Accountability & Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 13-34.
Angluin, D. and Scapens, R.W. (2000), “Transparency, accounting knowledge and perceived
fairness in UK universities’ resource allocation: results from a survey of accounting and
finance”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-42.
Arai, K. (2006), “Reforming hospital costing practices in Japan: an implementation study”,
Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 425-51.
Arnold, P.J. and Cooper, C. (1999), “A tale of two classes: the privatisation of Medway Ports”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 127-52.
Ball, A. (2004), “A sustainability accounting project for the UK local government sector? Testing
the social theory mapping process and locating a frame of reference”, Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 1009-35.
Ball, A. (2005), “Environmental accounting and change in UK local government”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 346-73.
Ballantine, J., Brignall, S. and Modell, S. (1998), “Performance measurement and management in
public health services: a comparison of UK and Swedish practice”, Management
Accounting Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 71-94.
Barton, A. (2000), “Accounting for public heritage facilities – assets or liabilities of the Public sector to
government?”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 219-36.
public services
Barton, A. (2005), “The conceptual arguments concerning accounting for public heritage assets:
a note”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 434-40.
Barton, A. (2006), “Public sector accountability and commercial-in-confidence outsourcing
contracts”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 256-71.
Bellamy, S. and Kluvers, R. (1995), “Program budgeting in Australian local government: a study 159
of implementation and outcomes”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 39-56.
Boden, R., Gummett, P., Cox, D. and Barker, K. (1998), “Men in white coats . . . men in grey suits:
new public management and the funding of science and technology services to the UK
Government”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 267-91.
Bourmistrov, A.L. and Mellemvik, F. (1999), “Russian local governmental reforms: autonomy for
accounting development?”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 675-700.
Bowerman, M. (1994), “The National Audit Office and the Audit Commission: co-operation in areas
where their VFM responsibilities interface”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 47-63.
Bowerman, M. (1995), “Auditing performance indicators: the role of the Audit Commission in the
Citizen’s Charter Initiative”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 171-83.
Bowerman, M., Ball, A. and Francis, G. (2001), “Benchmarking as a tool for the modernisation of
local government”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 321-9.
Broadbent, J. and Guthrie, J. (1992), “Changes in the public sector: a review of recent ‘alternative’
accounting research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 3-31.
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (1999), “The Private Finance Initiative: clarification of a future
research agenda”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 95-114.
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (2002), “Accounting choices: technical and political trade-offs and
the UK’s private finance initiative”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15
No. 5, pp. 622-54.
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (2003a), “Control and legitimation in government accountability
processes: the private finance initiative in the UK”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
Vol. 14 Nos 1-2, pp. 23-48.
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (2003b), “Public private partnerships: an introduction”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 332-41.
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (2005), “The role of PFI in the UK Government’s modernisation
agenda”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 75-97.
Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (2007), “Performance management systems: a conceptual model
and analysis of the development and intensification of ‘new public management’ in the
UK”, paper presented at the 5th Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting,
Auckland, New Zealand, 8-10 July.
Broadbent, J., Gill, J. and Laughlin, R. (2003), “Evaluating the private finance initiative in the
national health service in the UK”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 422-45.
Broadbent, J., Jacobs, K. and Laughlin, R. (1999), “Comparing schools in the UK and New
Zealand: individualizing and socializing accountabilities and some implications for
management control”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 339-61.
AAAJ Broadbent, J., Jacobs, K. and Laughlin, R. (2001), “Organisational resistance strategies to
unwanted accounting and finance changes: the case of general medical practice in the UK”,
21,2 Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 565-86.
Brorstrom, B. (1998), “Accrual accounting politics and politicians”, Financial Accountability
& Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 319-33.
Burritt, R.L. and Welch, S. (1997), “Accountability for environmental performance of the
160 Australian Commonwealth public sector”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 532-61.
Cabinet Office (1999), Modernising Govenrment, The Stationery Office, London.
Cameron, J. and Guthrie, J. (1993), “External annual reporting by an Australian university:
changing patterns”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Carlin, T.M. (2003), “Unravelling the capital charging riddle – some empirical evidence from
Victoria”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 73-92.

Carlin, T.M. (2006), “Victoria’s accrual output based budgeting system – delivering as promised?
Some empirical evidence”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Carnegie, G.D. and West, B.P. (2005), “Making accounting accountable in the public sector”,
Carnegie, G.D. and Wolnizer, P.W. (1996), “Enabling accountability in museums”, Accounting,
Catasús, B. and Grönlund, A. (2005), “More peace for less money: measurement and
accountability in the Swedish Armed Forces”, Financial Accountability & Management,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 467-84.
Christiaens, J. (2004), “Capital assets in governmental accounting reforms: comparing Flemish
technical issues with international standards”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 743-70.
Chua, W.F. and Preston, A. (1994), “Worrying about accounting in health care”, Accounting,
Cole, B. and Cooper, C. (2006), “Deskilling in the 21st century: the case of rail privatisation”,
Collier, P.M. (2005), “Governance and the quasi-public organization: a case study of social
housing”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 929-49.
Connolly, C. and Hyndman, N. (2006), “The actual implementation of accruals accounting:
caveats from a case within the UK public sector”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 272-90.
Coombs, H.M. and Edwards, J.R. (1992), “Capital accounting in municipal corporations
1884-1914: theory and practice”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 181-201.
Coy, D., Fischer, M. and Gordon, T. (2001), “Public accountability: a new paradigm for college
and university annual reports”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-31.
Craig, R. and Amernic, J. (2006), “The mobilization of accounting in preening for privatization”,
Craven, B.M. and Stewart, G.T. (1995), “Corporate governance, financial reporting, and the cost of
containing the AIDS threat in Scotland”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 11
No. 3, pp. 223-40.
Crompton, G. and Jupe, R. (2003), “Such a silly scheme: the privatisation of Britain’s railways
1992-2002”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 617-45.
Dillard, J.F. and Smith, H.L. (1999), “The effect of the prospective payment system on rural health Public sector to
care”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 327-58.
Doolin, B. (1999), “Casemix management in a New Zealand hospital: rationalisation and
public services
resistance”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 15 Nos 3-4, pp. 397-417.
Dunleavy, P. and Hood, C. (1994), “From old public administration to new public management”,
Public Money and Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 9-16.
Edwards, P. and Shaoul, J. (2003), “Partnerships: for better, for worse?”, Accounting, Auditing & 161
Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 397-421.
Ellwood, S. (1996), “Pricing services in the UK National Health Service”, Financial Accountability
English, L. (2003), “Emasculating public accountability in the name of competition:
transformation of state audit in Victoria”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 14
Nos 1-2, pp. 51-76.

English, L. (2007), “Performance audit of Australian public private partnerships: legitimizing
government policies or providing independent oversight?”, Financial Accountability
English, L.M. and Guthrie, J. (2003), “Driving privately financed projects in Australia: what
makes them tick?”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 493-511.
Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H. (1993), “Corporate governance and financial accountability: recent
reforms in the UK public sector”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 109-32.
Ezzamel, M., Hyndman, N., Johnson, A., Lapsley, I. and Pallot, J. (2005), “Conflict and rationality:
accounting in Northern Ireland’s devolved assembly”, Financial Accountability
Financial Reporting Council (FRC) (2003), The Combined Code on Corporate Governance,
Financial Reporting Council, London.
Fowles, A.J. (1993), “Changing notions of accountability: a social policy view”, Accounting,
Froud, J. (2003), “The Private Finance Initiative: risk, uncertainty and the state”, Accounting,
Organizations & Society, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 567-89.
Froud, J. and Shaoul, J. (2001), “Appraising and evaluating PFI for NHS hospitals”, Financial
Froud, J., Haslam, C., Johal, S., Shaoul, J. and Williams, K. (1998), “Persuasion without numbers?
Public policy and the justification of capital charging in NHS trust hospitals”, Accounting,
Funnell, W. (1998), “Executive coercion and state audit: a processual analysis of the responses of
the Australian audit office to the dilemmas of efficiency auditing 1978-84”, Accounting,
Funnell, W. (2006), “National efficiency, military accounting and the business of war”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 719-51.
Garcı́a-Meca, E., Parra, I., Martı́nez Conesa, I. and Larrán Jorge, M. (2005), “The explanatory
factors of intellectual capital disclosure to financial analysts”, European Accounting
Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 63-94.
Gendron, Y., Cooper, D.J. and Townly, B. (2001), “In the name of accountability – state auditing,
independence and new public management”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 278-310.
AAAJ Giddens, A. (1998), The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Polity Press, Cambridge.
21,2 Gill-McLure, W., Ironside, M. and Seifert, R. (2003), “The consequences for the management of
conflict of the reform of English local government finance and structure”, Critical
Goddard, A. (2005), “Accounting and NPM in UK Local Government – contributions towards
governance and accountability”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 21 No. 2,
162 pp. 191-218.
Goddard, A. and Powell, J. (1994), “Accountability and accounting: using naturalistic
methodology to enhance organizational control – a case study”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 50-69.
Gray, A. and Jenkins, B. (1993), “Codes of accountability in the new public sector”, Accounting,
Groot, T. (1999), “Budgetary reforms in the non-profit sector: a comparative analysis of

experiences in health care”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 15 Nos 3-4,
pp. 353-76.
Guthrie, J. (1993), “Australian public business enterprises: analysis of changing accounting,
auditing and accountability regimes”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 101-14.
Guthrie, J. (1998), “Application of accrual accounting in the Australian public sector – rhetoric or
reality?”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Guthrie, J. and Neumann, R. (2007), “Economic and non-financial performance indicators in
universities: the case of the Australian university system and the establishment of a
performance driven university system”, Public Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 231-52.
Guthrie, J., Humphrey, C. and Olson, O. (1999), “Debating developments in new public financial
management: the limits of global theorising”, Financial Accountability & Management,
Vol. 15 Nos 3-4, pp. 209-28.
Guthrie, J., Humphrey, C., Olson, O. and Jones, L. (Eds) (2005), International Public Financial
Management Reform: Progress, Contradictions and Challenges, InformationAge Press,
Greenwich, CT.
Habersam, M. and Piber, M. (2003), “Exploring intellectual capital in hospitals: two qualitative
case studies in Italy and Austria”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 753-79.
Heald, D. (2003), “Value for money tests and accounting treatment in PFI schemes”, Accounting,
Heald, D. (2005), “The implementation of resource accounting in UK central government”,
Heald, D. and Dowdall, A. (1999), “Capital charging as a VFM tool in public services”, Financial
Accountability & Management, Vol. 15 Nos 3-4, pp. 229-47.
Heald, D. and Geaughan, N. (1994), “Formula funding of UK higher education: rationales, design
and probable consequences”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 267-89.
Heald, D. and Scott, D.A. (1995), “Charging for capital in the National Health Service in Scotland”,
Heald, D. and Scott, D.A. (1996), “Assessing capital charging in the National Health Service”,
HMSO (1998), Comprehensive Spending Review. Modern Public Services for Britain: Investing in
Reform, HMSO, London.
Hodges, R. and Mellett, H. (1999), “Accounting for the Private Finance Initiative in the United Public sector to
Kingdom National Health Service”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 15
Nos 3-4, pp. 275-90. public services
Hodges, R. and Wright, M. (1995), “Audit and accountability in the privatisation process: the role
of the National Audit Office”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 153-70.
Hood, C. (1995), “The ‘new public management’ in the 1980s: variations on a theme”, Accounting, 163
Organizations & Society, Vol. 20 Nos 2-3, pp. 93-109.
Hood, C. (2007), “Public service management by numbers. Why does it vary? Where has it come
from? What are the gaps and puzzles?”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 95-102.
Hoque, Z., Arends, S. and Alexander, R. (2004), “Policing the police service: a case study of the
rise of ‘new public management’ within an Australian police service”, Accounting,

Humphrey, C., Miller, P. and Scapens, R.W. (1993), “Accountability and accountable management
in the UK public sector”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 7-29.
Humphrey, C., Moizer, P. and Owen, D. (1995), “Questioning the value of the research selectivity
process in British university accounting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 141-64.
Hutton, W. (2006), Deliberative Democracy and the Role of Public Managers, available at: www.
theworkfoundation.com/publicvalue/research/index.aspx (accessed 20 April 2007).
Hyndman, N.S. and Anderson, R. (1997), “A study of the use of targets in the planning documents
of executive agencies”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 139-64.
Jacobs, K. (1995), “Budgets: a medium of organizational transformation”, Management
Jacobs, K. (1997), “The decentralisation debate and accounting controls in the New Zealand
public sector”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 331-43.
Jacobs, K. (2000), “Evaluating accountability: finding a place for the Treaty of Waitangi in the
New Zealand public sector”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 360-80.
Jacobs, K., Marcon, G. and Wit, D. (2004), “Cost and performance information for doctors:
an international comparison”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 337-54.
Jaruga, A. and Nowak, W.A. (1995), “Governmental accounting in transition: the Polish
experience”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 75-94.
Järvinen, J. (2006), “Institutional pressures for adopting new cost accounting systems in Finnish
hospitals: two longitudinal case studies”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 21-46.
Johnsen, Å., Meklin, P., Oulasvirta, L. and Vakkuri, J. (2001), “Performance auditing in local
government: an exploratory study of perceived efficiency of municipal value for money
auditing in Finland and Norway”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 583-99.
Johnsen, Å., Meklin, P., Oulasvirta, L. and Vakkuri, J. (2004), “Governance structures and
contracting out municipal auditing in Finland and Norway”, Financial Accountability
Johnson, L.A. (2006), “The effect of audit scope and auditor tenure on resource allocation
decisions in local government audit engagements”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 105-19.
AAAJ Jones, C.S. (2002), “The attitudes of British National Health Service managers and clinicians
towards the introduction of benchmarking”, Financial Accountability & Management,
21,2 Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 163-88.
Jones, R. (2000), “National accounting, government budgeting and the accounting discipline”,
Jupe, R. and Crompton, G. (2006), “A deficient performance: the regulation of the train operating
164 companies in Britain’s privatised railway system”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 1035-65.
Kurunmäki, L. and Miller, P. (2006), “Modernising government: the calculating self, hybridisation
and performance measurement”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 87-106.
Langlands, A. (2004), The Good Governance Standard for Public Services, Office for Public
Management and The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, London.
Lapsley, I. (1988), “Research in public sector accounting: an appraisal”, Accounting Auditing

Lapsley, I. (1992), “User needs and financial reporting – a comparative study of local authorities
and the National Health Service”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 281-98.
Lapsley, I. (1993), “The accounting and organisational consequences of pivatisation and
regulation”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 69-73.
Lapsley, I. (1996), “Health care reforms: solutions or problems?”, Financial Accountability
Lapsley, I. and Pong, C.K.M. (2001), “Modernization versus problematization: value-for-money
audit in public services”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 541-67.
Laughlin, R., Broadbent, J. and Shearn, D. (1992), “Recent financial and accountability changes in
general practice: An unhealthy intrusion into medical autonomy?”, Financial
Laughlin, R., Broadbent, J., Shearn, D. and Willig-Atherton, H. (1994), “Absorbing LMS:
the coping mechanism of a small group”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 59-85.
Lawrence, S., Alam, M., Northcott, D. and Lowe, T. (1997), “Accounting systems and systems of
accountability in the New Zealand health sector”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 665-83.
Leeuw, F.L. (1996), “Performance auditing, new public management and performance
improvement: questions and answers”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 92-102.
Levaggi, R. (1995), “Accountability and the international market”, Financial Accountability
Llewellyn, S. (1993), “Linking costs with quality in health and social care: new challenges for
management accounting”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 177-94.
Llewellyn, S. (1997), “Purchasing power and polarized professionalism in British medicine”,
Llewellyn, S. (1998), “Pushing budgets down the line: ascribing financial responsibility in the UK
social services”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 292-308.
Llewellyn, S. and Grant, J. (1996), “The impact of fundholding on primary health care:
Accountants from Scottish GPs”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 125-40.
Llewellyn, S. and Northcott, D. (2005), “The average hospital”, Accounting, Organizations Public sector to
& Society, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 555-83.
public services
Lowe, A. (2000), “The construction of a network at Health Waikato: the ‘towards clinical
budgeting’ project”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 84-114.
Lowe, A. (2001), “Action at a distance: accounting inscriptions and the reporting of episodes of
clinical care”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 31-55. 165
Luder, K. (1993), “Governmental accounting in Germany: state and need for reform”, Financial
Luder, K. (2000), “National accounting, governmental accounting and cross-country comparisons
of government”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 117-28.
Lye, J., Perera, H. and Rahman, A. (2005), “The evolution of accruals-based Crown (government)
financial statements in New Zealand”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,

Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 784-815.
McLean, I., Haubrich, D. and Gutierrez-Romero, R. (2007), “The perils and pitfalls of performance
measurement: the CPA regime for local authorities in England”, Public Money and
Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 111-17.
McSweeney, B. and Duncan, S. (1998), “Structure or agency? Discourse or meta-narrative?
Explaining the emergence of the financial management initiative”, Accounting, Auditing
Mack, J. and Ryan, C. (2006), “Reflections on the theoretical underpinnings of the general-purpose
financial reports of Australian government departments”, Accounting, Auditing
Mackintosh, M., Jarvis, R. and Heery, E. (1994), “On managing hybrids: some dilemmas in higher
education management”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 339-53.
Mayston, D. (1992), “Developing a conceptual framework for public sector financial reporting”,
Mayston, D.J. (1998), “Devolved budgeting, formula funding and equity”, Management
Mayston, D.J. (1999), “The private finance initiative in the national health service: an unhealthy
development in new public management”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 15
Nos 3-4, pp. 249-74.
Midwinter, A. (2005), “Budgetary scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament: an adviser’s view”,
Modell, S. (2001), “Performance measurement and institutional processes: a study of managerial
responses to public sector reform”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 437-64.
Modell, S. (2004), “Performance measurement myths in the public sector: a research note”,
Modell, S. (2005), “Students as consumers? An institutional field-level analysis of the construction
of performance measurement practices”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 537-63.
Mol, N.P. (1996), “Performance indicators in the Dutch Department of Defence”, Financial
Monsen, N. (2006), “Historical development of local governmental accounting in Norway”,
AAAJ Montondon, L.G. and Fischer, M. (1999), “University audit departments in the United States”,
21,2
Mouritsen, J., Thorbjørnsen, S., Bukh, P. and Johansen, M. (2005), “Intellectual capital and the
discourses of love and entrepreneurship in new public management”, Financial
Mussari, R. (1995), “Italian municipal audit: half a reform?”, Financial Accountability & Management,
166 Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 127-40.
Neu, D. (2006), “Accounting for public space”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31
Nos 4-5, pp. 391-414.
Neu, D. and Graham, C. (2006), “The birth of a nation: accounting and Canada’s first nations,
1860-1900”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 47-76.
Newberry, S. and Pallot, J. (2003), “Fiscal (ir)responsibility: privileging PPPs in New Zealand”,

Northcott, D. and Llewellyn, S. (2003), “The ‘ladder of success’ in healthcare: the UK national
reference costing index”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 51-66.
O’Connor, N.G., Chow, C.W. and Wu, A. (2004), “The increased adoption of formal/explicit
management controls in Chinese enterprises in a transitional economy”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 29 Nos 3-4, pp. 349-75.
Ogden, S.G. (1995a), “Profit sharing and organizational change: attempts to promote employee
commitment in the newly privatized water industry in England and Wales”, Accounting,
Ogden, S.G. (1995b), “Transforming frameworks of accountability: the case of water
privatization”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 20 Nos 2-3, pp. 193-218.
Ogden, S.G. and Anderson, F. (1999), “The role of accounting in organisational change:
promoting performance improvements in the privatised UK water industry”, Critical
Olson, O., Guthrie, J. and Humphrey, C. (1998), Global Warning: Debating New Developments in
New Public Management, Cappelen Akademisk Forlag, Oslo.
Olson, O., Humphrey, C. and Guthrie, J. (2001), “Caught in an evaluatory trap: a dilemma for
public services under NPFM”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 505-22.
Orford, R.J. (1992), “Negative political feedback: an examination of the problem of modelling
political responses in public sector effectiveness auditing – a comment”, Accounting,
Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992), Reinventing Government, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Pallot, J. (1992), “Elements of a theoretical framework for public sector accounting”, Accounting,
Pallot, J. (1997), “Infrastructure accounting for local authorities: technical management and
political context”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 225-42.
Pallot, J. (2001), “A decade in review: New Zealand’s experience with resource accounting and
budgeting”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 383-400.
Pallot, J. (2003), “A wider accountability? The audit office and New Zealand’s bureaucratic
revolution”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 14 Nos 1-2, pp. 133-55.
Parker, L.D. (2005), “Social and environmental accountability: a view from the commentary box”,
Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 842-60.
Parker, L.D. (2007), “Interpreting interpretive accounting research”, Critical Perspectives on
Accounting.
Paulsson, G. (2006), “Accrual accounting in the public sector: experiences from the central Public sector to
government in Sweden”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 47-62.
public services
Percy, I. (2001), “The best value agenda for auditing”, Financial Accountability & Management,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 351-61.
Pettersen, I.J. (1995), “Budgetary control of hospitals – ritual rhetorics and rationalized myths?”,
Poletti, E.J. (2004), “The gold in the heads of scientists: metaphor and public sector reform”, 167
Pollitt, C. (2003), “Performance audit in Western Europe: trends and choices”, Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, Vol. 14 Nos 1-2, pp. 157-70.
Price, R. and Wallace, W.A. (2002), “An international comparison of materiality guidance for
governments, public services and charities”, Financial Accountability & Management,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 291-308.

Rea, D.M. (1994), “Better informed judgements: resource management in the NHS”, Accounting,
Robinson, M. (1998), “Accrual accounting and the efficiency of the core public sector”, Financial
Rose, N. and Miller, P. (1992), “Political power beyond the state: problematics of Government”,
British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 173-205.
Rouse, P. and Putterill, M. (2005), “Local government amalgamation policy: a highway
maintenance evaluation”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 438-63.
Ruffing, L. (1993), “ISAR’s work on privatization”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 17-18.
Rutherford, B.A. (1992), “Developing a conceptual framework for central government financial
reporting: intermediate users and indirect control”, Financial Accountability & Management,
Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 265-80.
Rutherford, B.A. (2003), “The social construction of financial statement elements under Private
Finance Initiative schemes”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 372-96.
Scarparo, S. (2006), “The integration of clinical and costing information: a comparative study
between Scotland and Sweden”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 133-55.
Scheid, J.-C. (1993), “Public sector accounting”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 453-9.
Seal, W. (1999), “Accounting and competitive tendering in UK local government: an institutionalist
interpretation”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 15 Nos 3-4, pp. 309-27.
Serritzlew, S. (2005), “Breaking budgets: an empirical examination of Danish municipalities”,
Shaoul, J. (1997), “A critical financial analysis of the performance of privatised insustries: the case
of the water industry in England and Wales”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 8
No. 5, pp. 479-505.
Shaoul, J. (1998), “Charging for capital in the NHS trusts: to improve efficiency?”, Management
Shaoul, J. (2005), “A critical financial analysis of the Private Finance Initiative: selecting a
financing method or allocating economic wealth?”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 441-71.
AAAJ Siverbo, S. and Johansson, T. (2006), “Relative performance evaluation in Swedish local
government”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 271-90.
21,2
Skaerbaek, P. (1992), “Accounting for a theatre: implementing a management accounting system
in a cultural institution”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 465-9.
Smark, C. (2006), “Costing schizophrenia”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 341-58.
Solà, M. and Prior, D. (2001), “Measuring productivity and quality changes using data
168 envelopment analysis: an application to Catalan hospitals”, Financial Accountability
SOX (2002), Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, US Senate(HR 3763-2).
Stittle, J. (2004), “Accounting for UK rail freight track charges: privatisation, politics and the
pursuit of private sector vested interests”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 403-25.
Thompson, G.D. (1995), ““Problems with service performance reporting: the case of public art
galleries”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 337-50.

Thompson, G.D. (1999), “The impact of New Zealand’s public sector accounting reform on
performance control in museums”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 5-21.
Thomson, L. (1993), “Reporting changes in the electricity supply industry and privatisation”,
Torres, L. and Pina, V. (2001), “Public-private partnership and private finance initiatives in the
EU and Spanish local governments”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 601-19.
Townley, B. (2001), “The cult of modernity”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 303-10.
Trenchard, P.M. and Dixon, R. (2003), “The clinical allocation of joint blood product costs”,
Management Accounting Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 165-76.
Uddin, S. and Hopper, T. (2001), “A Bangladesh soap opera: privatisation, accounting, and
regimes of control in a less developed country”, Accounting, Organizations & Society,
Vol. 26 Nos 7-8, pp. 643-72.
Uddin, S. and Hopper, T. (2003), “Accounting for privatisation in Bangladesh: testing World
Bank claims”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 739-74.
Un, S.G. (1993), “Identification of accounting problems arising during privatization and their
solution”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 19-46.
van Helden, G.J. (2005), “Researching public sector transformation: the role of management
accounting”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 99-133.
Vass, P. (1993), “Water privatisation and the first periodic review”, Financial Accountability
Walker, R.G. and Clarke, F.L. (2000), “Use of CCA in the public sector: lessons from Australia’s
experience with public utilities”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 1-32.
Wickramasinghe, D., Hopper, T. and Rathnasiri, C. (2004), “Japanese cost management meets Sri
Lankan politics: disappearance and reappearance of bureaucratic management controls in
a privatised utility”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 85-120.
World Bank (2007), Governance and Anti-corruption, available at: http://web.worldbank.org/
WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/WBIPROGRAMS/PSGLP/0,menuPK:461646 , pagePK:
64156143 , piPK:64154155 , theSitePK:461606,00.html (accessed 10 May 2007).
Xavier, J.A. (1996), “Budgetary control and management at the Malaysian central budget process Public sector to
– principles and practice”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 303-21. public services
Yamamoto, K. (2004), “Corporatization of national universities in Japan: revolution for
governance or rhetoric for downsizing?”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 153-81.
169
Further reading
Humphrey, C. (2005), “The questionable nature of third hand public sector accounting solutions:
a case for change?”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 475-85.
Jones, L.R., Guthrie, J. and Steane, P. (Eds) (2001a), New Public Management: Learning from
International Public Management Reform, Vol. 1, InformationAge Press, Greenwich, CT.
Jones, L.R., Guthrie, J. and Steane, P. (Eds) (2001b), New Public Management: Learning from
International Public Management Reform, Vol. 2, InformationAge Press, Greenwich, CT.
Lapsley, I. (2001), “The changing public sector: from transition to transformation”, European
Accounting Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 501-4.
Corresponding author
Jane Broadbent can be contacted at: jane.broadbent@roehampton.ac.uk
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Russ Glennon, Laurence Ferry, Peter Murphy, Kirsten Greenhalgh. But What Is Accountability? 1-25.
[Crossref]
2. Ann Martin-Sardesai, James Guthrie. Chapter 9 Accounting for the Construction of Research Quality in
Australia’s Research Assessment Exercise 221-241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
3. Margit Malmmose. 2018. Accounting research on health care - Trends and gaps. Financial Accountability
& Management 22. . [Crossref]
4. Lucia Biondi, Enrico Bracci. 2018. Sustainability, Popular and Integrated Reporting in the Public Sector:
A Fad and Fashion Perspective. Sustainability 10:9, 3112. [Crossref]
5. Joe Christopher, Gerrit Sarens. 2018. Diffusion of Corporate Risk-Management Characteristics:
Perspectives of Chief Audit Executives through a Survey Approach. Australian Journal of Public
Administration 77:3, 427-441. [Crossref]
6. Amr Kotb, Hussein Halabi, Hany Elbardan. 2018. The auditor-to-client revolving door: A structured
literature review. International Journal of Auditing 28. . [Crossref]
7. AhrensThomas, Thomas Ahrens, FerryLaurence, Laurence Ferry, KhalifaRihab, Rihab Khalifa. 2018.
The hybridising of financial and service expertise in English local authority budget control. Qualitative
Research in Accounting & Management 15:3, 341-357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. MorlandCharlotte, Charlotte Morland, PettersenInger Johanne, Inger Johanne Pettersen. 2018.
Translating technological change – implementing technology into a hospital. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 67:6, 1000-1015. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Sulu-GambariWaziri, Waziri Sulu-Gambari, StaffordAnne, Anne Stafford, StapletonPamela, Pamela
Stapleton. Public accountability reform in a Nigerian ministry. Qualitative Research in Accounting &
Management, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Frank Conaty, Geraldine Robbins. 2018. A stakeholder salience perspective on performance and
management control systems in non-profit organisations. Critical Perspectives on Accounting . [Crossref]
11. DumayJohn, John Dumay, de VilliersCharl, Charl de Villiers, GuthrieJames, James Guthrie, HsiaoPei-
Chi, Pei-Chi Hsiao. 2018. Thirty years of Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal 31:5, 1510-1541. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. FuscoFloriana, Floriana Fusco, RicciPaolo, Paolo Ricci. What is the stock of the situation? A bibliometric
analysis on social and environmental accounting research in public sector. International Journal of Public
Sector Management, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. SantisSerena, Serena Santis, GrossiGiuseppe, Giuseppe Grossi, BisognoMarco, Marco Bisogno. 2018.
Public sector consolidated financial statements: a structured literature review. Journal of Public Budgeting,
Accounting & Financial Management 30:2, 230-251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Robert Czernkowski, Stephen Lim. 2018. Community Asset Valuations by Non-profit Government
Entities. Australian Accounting Review 30. . [Crossref]
15. ChristensenMark, Mark Christensen, GreilingDorothea, Dorothea Greiling, ChristiaensJohan, Johan
Christiaens. 2018. Governmental accounting practitioners: cardigan removed, research agenda revealed.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 31:4, 1026-1044. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Wei Qian, Roger L. Burritt, Gary S. Monroe. 2018. Environmental management accounting in local
government: Functional and institutional imperatives. Financial Accountability & Management 34:2,
148-165. [Crossref]
17. Mark Christensen, Susan Newberry, Bradley N. Potter. 2018. Enabling global accounting change:
Epistemic communities and the creation of a ‘more business-like’ public sector. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting . [Crossref]
18. Ann Martin-Sardesai, James Guthrie, Stuart Tooley, Sally Chaplin. 2018. History of research performance
measurement systems in the Australian higher education sector. Accounting History 63, 103237321876855.
[Crossref]
19. Laura Maran, Enrico Bracci, Robert Inglis. 2018. Performance management systems' stability: Unfolding
the human factor – A case from the Italian public sector. The British Accounting Review 50:3, 324-339.
[Crossref]
20. AlsharariNizar Mohammad, Nizar Mohammad Alsharari. 2018. Multilevel institutional analysis of
accounting change in public management. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 26:1, 91-106.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Marco Tieghi, Rebecca L. Orelli, Emanuele Padovani. 2018. Accounting Reform in Italian Universities.
Internal Response to Accounting Change. MANAGEMENT CONTROL :1, 117-138. [Crossref]

22. Noel Hyndman, Donal McKillop. 2018. Public services and charities: Accounting, accountability and
governance at a time of change. The British Accounting Review 50:2, 143-148. [Crossref]
23. Martin-SardesaiAnn, Ann Martin-Sardesai, GuthrieJames, James Guthrie. 2018. Human capital loss in
an academic performance measurement system. Journal of Intellectual Capital 19:1, 53-70. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
24. Tarek Rana, Zahirul Hoque, Kerry Jacobs. 2018. Public sector reform implications for performance
measurement and risk management practice: insights from Australia. Public Money & Management 1.
[Crossref]
25. Maria A. Wimmer, Sabrina Scherer. 2018. Supporting Communities through Social Government in Co-
Creation and Co-Production of Public Services. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital
Age 5:1, 18-35. [Crossref]
26. Enrico Bracci. Accounting of Hybrid Organizations 113-119. [Crossref]
27. Ian Kirkpatrick, Ali Altanlar, Gianluca Veronesi. 2017. Corporatisation and the Emergence of (Under-
Managered) Managed Organisations: The Case of English Public Hospitals. Organization Studies 38:12,
1687-1708. [Crossref]
28. AhrensThomas, Thomas Ahrens, Al-SereidiAishah A.K., Aishah A.K. Al-Sereidi, Al-ShaebiHalimah
F., Halimah F. Al-Shaebi, RahmdelAsra H., Asra H. Rahmdel. 2017. Contextualising the antecedents of
organisational innovativeness. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences 33:2, 178-194. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
29. Ann Martin-Sardesai, Helen Irvine, Stuart Tooley, James Guthrie. 2017. Accounting for Research:
Academic Responses to Research Performance Demands in an Australian University. Australian Accounting
Review 27:3, 329-343. [Crossref]
30. Ian Kirkpatrick, Francesco Vallascas, Gianluca Veronesi. 2017. Business Experts on Public Sector Boards:
What Do They Contribute?. Public Administration Review 77:5, 754-765. [Crossref]
31. NyamoriRobert Ochoki, Robert Ochoki Nyamori, Abdul-RahamanAbu Shiraz, Abu Shiraz Abdul-
Rahaman, SamkinGrant, Grant Samkin. 2017. Accounting, auditing and accountability research in Africa.
32. Sara Giovanna Mauro, Lino Cinquini, Giuseppe Grossi. 2017. Insights into performance-based budgeting
in the public sector: a literature review and a research agenda. Public Management Review 19:7, 911-931.
[Crossref]
33. Ann Martin-Sardesai, Helen Irvine, Stuart Tooley, James Guthrie. 2017. Organizational change in an
Australian university: Responses to a research assessment exercise. The British Accounting Review 49:4,
399-412. [Crossref]
34. Vincenzo Sforza, Riccardo Cimini. 2017. Central government accounting harmonization in EU member
states: will EPSAS be enough?. Public Money & Management 37:4, 301-308. [Crossref]
35. Cristian Carini, Laura Rocca, Claudio Teodori, Monica Veneziani. 2017. The Reporting Entity in Private-
Public Accounting Harmonisation. Is Control Enough for the Local Government Consolidated Financial
Statements?. FINANCIAL REPORTING :1, 5-29. [Crossref]
36. Michael Opara, Fathi Elloumi, Oliver Okafor, Hussein Warsame. 2017. Effects of the institutional
environment on public-private partnership (P3) projects: Evidence from Canada. Accounting Forum 41:2,
77-95. [Crossref]
37. Jane Andrew, Damien Cahill. 2017. Rationalising and resisting neoliberalism: The uneven geography of
costs. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 45, 12-28. [Crossref]
38. Richard Burke, Istemi Demirag. 2017. Risk transfer and stakeholder relationships in Public Private
Partnerships. Accounting Forum 41:1, 28-43. [Crossref]
39. Agyenim-BoatengCletus, Cletus Agyenim-Boateng, StaffordAnne, Anne Stafford, StapletonPamela,
Pamela Stapleton. 2017. The role of structure in manipulating PPP accountability. Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal 30:1, 119-144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Giovanna Lucianelli, Francesca Citro. Financial Conditions and Financial in : A Literature Review 23-53.
[Crossref]
41. Daniela Sangiorgi, Luca Mazzara, Benedetta Siboni. 2017. Do European recommendations impact on
sustainability policies by Italian local governments?. Public Money & Management 37:7, 491. [Crossref]
42. Alessia Patuelli, Jonida Carungu. 2017. Accounting research trends during the last 20 years: evidence from
Italy. CONTABILITÀ E CULTURA AZIENDALE :2, 65-85. [Crossref]
43. Francesca Manes-Rossi, Rebecca Levy Orelli, Emanuele Padovani. for Financial . Different Local Choices
in Different Governance Settings 109-138. [Crossref]
44. Tobias Polzer, Renate E. Meyer, Markus A. Höllerer, Johann Seiwald. Institutional Hybridity in Public
Sector Reform: Replacement, Blending, or Layering of Administrative Paradigms 69-99. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
45. Jan van Helden, Shahzad Uddin. 2016. Public sector management accounting in emerging economies: A
literature review. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 41, 34-62. [Crossref]
46. Ulrike Schmidt, Thomas Günther. 2016. Public sector accounting research in the higher education sector:
a systematic literature review. Management Review Quarterly 66:4, 235-265. [Crossref]
47. Junaid Ashraf, Shahzad Uddin. 2016. New public management, cost savings and regressive effects: A case
from a less developed country. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 41, 18-33. [Crossref]
48. Kerry Jacobs. 2016. Theorising Interdisciplinary Public Sector Accounting Research. Financial
Accountability & Management 32:4, 469-488. [Crossref]
49. Thomas Schillemans, Mark van Twist. 2016. Coping with Complexity: Internal Audit and Complex
Governance. Public Performance & Management Review 40:2, 257-280. [Crossref]
50. Christine Cooper, Cameron Graham, Darlene Himick. 2016. Social impact bonds: The securitization of
the homeless. Accounting, Organizations and Society 55, 63-82. [Crossref]
51. Manes RossiFrancesca, Francesca Manes Rossi, CitroFrancesca, Francesca Citro, BisognoMarco, Marco
Bisogno. 2016. Intellectual capital in action: evidence from Italian local governments. Journal of Intellectual
Capital 17:4, 696-713. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. MooreDavid R.J., David R.J. Moore, McPhailKen, Ken McPhail. 2016. Strong structuration and carbon
accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 29:7, 1204-1233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. HegazyKarim, Karim Hegazy, StaffordAnne, Anne Stafford. 2016. Audit committee roles and
responsibilities in two English public sector settings. Managerial Auditing Journal 31:8/9, 848-870.
54. Jan van Helden, Christoph Reichard. Commonalities and Differences in Public and Private Sector
Performance Management Practices: A Literature Review 309-351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
55. Maurizio Massaro, John Dumay, James Guthrie. 2016. On the shoulders of giants: undertaking a
structured literature review in accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 29:5, 767-801.
56. Florian Gebreiter. 2016. “Comparing the incomparable”: Hospital costing and the art of medicine in post-
war Britain. The British Accounting Review 48:2, 257-268. [Crossref]
57. Pawan Adhikari, Levi Gårseth-Nesbakk. 2016. Implementing public sector accruals in OECD member
states: Major issues and challenges. Accounting Forum 40:2, 125-142. [Crossref]
58. Jonathan Langton, Brian West. 2016. One hundred years of annual reporting by the Australian Red Cross:
Building public trust and approbation through emotive disclosures. Accounting History 21:2-3, 185-207.
[Crossref]
59. Giustina Secundo, John Dumay, Giovanni Schiuma, Giuseppina Passiante. 2016. Managing intellectual
capital through a collective intelligence approach. Journal of Intellectual Capital 17:2, 298-319. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
60. Nuraddeen Abubakar Nuhu, Kevin Baird, Ranjith Appuhami. The Association between the Use of
Management Accounting Practices with Organizational Change and Organizational Performance 67-98.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
61. Eugenio Anessi-Pessina, Carmela Barbera, Mariafrancesca Sicilia, Ileana Steccolini. 2016. Public sector
budgeting: a European review of accounting and public management journals. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal 29:3, 491-519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. Anthony Wall, Ciaran Connolly. 2016. Implementing IFRSs in the UK devolved administrations.
63. Gustaf Kastberg. 2016. Trust and Control in Network Relations: A Study of a Public Sector Setting.
Financial Accountability & Management 32:1, 33-56. [Crossref]
64. Maria Antónia Jesus, Susana Jorge. 2016. Accounting basis adjustments and deficit reliability: Evidence
from southern European countries. Revista de Contabilidad 19:1, 77-88. [Crossref]
65. Enrico Bracci. Accounting of Hybrid Organizations 1-7. [Crossref]
66. Anup Chowdhury, Nikhil Chandra Shil. 2016. Innovation in Public Sector Management Control Systems
in the Context of New Public Management: A Case of an Australian Public Sector Organization. Journal
of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation 12:4, 99-125. [Crossref]
67. Andrew Goddard, John Malagila. Public Sector External Auditing in Tanzania: A Theory of Managing
Colonising Tendencies 179-222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
68. Pawan Adhikari, Chamara Kuruppu, Andy Wynne, Dayananda Ambalangodage. Diffusion of the Cash
Basis International Public Sector Accounting Standard (IPSAS) in Less Developed Countries (LDCs) –
The Case of the Nepali Central Government 85-108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
69. Latifa Mbelwa. Factors Influencing the Use of Accounting Information in Tanzanian Local Government
Authorities (LGAs): An Institutional Theory Approach 143-177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
70. Andrew Goddard, Siasa Issa Mzenzi. Accounting Practices in Tanzanian Local Government Authorities:
Towards a Grounded Theory of Manipulating Legitimacy 109-142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
71. P. W. Senarath Yapa, Sarath Ukwatte. The New Public Financial Management (NPFM) and Accrual
Accounting in Sri Lanka 7-50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
72. Yi An, Umesh Sharma. 2015. Challenges of new public management (NPM) in Fiji's public sector. Did
an employee share-ownership plan work?. Public Money & Management 35:5, 377-382. [Crossref]
73. Per Christian Ahlgren, Inger Johanne Pettersen. 2015. Local government and management control in
inter-organizational settings. Public Money & Management 35:5, 383-389. [Crossref]
74. Margit Malmmose. 2015. National hospital development, 1948–2000: The WHO as an international
propagator. Accounting History Review 25:3, 239-259. [Crossref]
75. Rhoda Brown, Michael Jones. 2015. Mapping and exploring the topography of contemporary financial
accounting research. The British Accounting Review 47:3, 237-261. [Crossref]
76. Enrico Bracci, Christopher Humphrey, Jodie Moll, Ileana Steccolini. 2015. Public sector accounting,
accountability and austerity: more than balancing the books?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
28:6, 878-908. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
77. Berend van der Kolk, Henk J. ter Bogt, Paula M.G. van Veen-Dirks. 2015. Constraining and facilitating
management control in times of austerity. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 28:6, 934-965.
78. Tommaso Agasisti, Giuseppe Catalano, Ferdinando Di Carlo, Angelo Erbacci. 2015. Accrual accounting
in Italian universities: a technical perspective. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28:6,
494-508. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. Caridad Martí, Yulia Kasperskaya. 2015. Public Financial Management Systems and Countries'
Governance: A Cross-Country Study. Public Administration and Development 35:3, 165-178. [Crossref]
80. Siasa Issa Mzenzi, Abeid Francis Gaspar. 2015. External auditing and accountability in the Tanzanian local
government authorities. Managerial Auditing Journal 30:6/7, 681-702. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
81. Harun Harun, Karen Van-Peursem, Ian R.C Eggleton. 2015. Indonesian public sector accounting reforms:
dialogic aspirations a step too far?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 28:5, 706-738. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
82. Maurizio Massaro, John Dumay, Andrea Garlatti. 2015. Public sector knowledge management: a
structured literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management 19:3, 530-558. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
83. Laurence Ferry, Peter Eckersley. 2015. Budgeting and governing for deficit reduction in the UK public
sector: act three ‘accountability and audit arrangements’. Public Money & Management 35:3, 203-210.
[Crossref]
84. Joe Christopher, Philomena Leung. 2015. Tensions Arising from Imposing NPM in Australian
Public Universities: A Management Perspective. Financial Accountability & Management 31:2, 171-191.
[Crossref]
85. Sean Tunney, Jane Thomas. 2015. Public access to NHS financial information: From a freedom of
information regime to full open-book governance?. Social Theory & Health 13:2, 116-140. [Crossref]
86. Rusdi Akbar, Robyn Ann Pilcher, Brian Perrin. 2015. Implementing performance measurement systems.
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 12:1, 3-33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
87. Lyn Murphy, William Maguire. 2015. Twenty-one years of publishing Meditari Accountancy Research:
a coming of age. Meditari Accountancy Research 23:1, 2-27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
88. James Guthrie, John Dumay. 2015. New frontiers in the use of intellectual capital in the public sector.
Journal of Intellectual Capital 16:2, 258-266. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
89. John Dumay, James Guthrie, Pina Puntillo. 2015. IC and public sector: a structured literature review.
Journal of Intellectual Capital 16:2, 267-284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
90. Giuseppe Grossi, Ileana Steccolini. 2015. Pursuing Private or Public Accountability in the Public Sector?
Applying IPSASs to Define the Reporting Entity in Municipal Consolidation. International Journal of
Public Administration 38:4, 325-334. [Crossref]
91. Geraldine Robbins, Irvine Lapsley. 2015. From secrecy to transparency: Accounting and the transition
from religious charity to publicly-owned hospital. The British Accounting Review 47:1, 19-32. [Crossref]
92. Margit Malmmose. 2015. Management accounting versus medical profession discourse: Hegemony in
a public health care debate – A case from Denmark. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 27, 144-159.
[Crossref]
93. Susan Newberry. 2015. Public sector reforms and sovereign debt management: Capital market
development as strategy?. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 27, 101-117. [Crossref]
94. Inger Johanne Pettersen. 2015. From Metrics to Knowledge? Quality Assessment in Higher Education.
95. Michela Arnaboldi, Irvine Lapsley, Ileana Steccolini. 2015. Performance Management in the Public Sector:
The Ultimate Challenge. Financial Accountability & Management 31:1, 1-22. [Crossref]
96. Jane Broadbent, Richard Laughlin. Researching Accounting in the Public Services 1-9. [Crossref]
97. Sven Modell. Performance Measurement in the Public Sector 1-5. [Crossref]
98. Jan van Helden, Ron Hodges. Public sector financial management reforms 205-226. [Crossref]
99. James Guthrie, Salvatore Russo. Public Value Management: Challenge of Defining, Measuring and
Reporting for Public Services 3-17. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF]
100. Mariannunziata Liguori, Mariafrancesca Sicilia, Ileana Steccolini. Public Value as Performance: Politicians’
and Managers’ Perspectives on the Importance of Budgetary, Accruals and Non-Financial Information
101. Enrico Bracci, Enrico Deidda Gagliardo, Michele Bigoni. Performance Management Systems and Public
Value Strategy: A Case Study 129-157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
102. Paolo Esposito, Paolo Ricci. Public (dis)Value: A Case Study 291-300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
103. Muhammad Azizul Islam. 2014. Bribery and corruption in Australian local councils. Public Money &
Management 34:6, 441-446. [Crossref]
104. Maria Antónia Jorge de Jesus, Susana Margarida Jorge. 2014. From Governmental Accounting into
National Accounts: Adjustments Diversity and Materiality with Evidence from the Iberian Countries’
Central Governments. Innovar 24:54, 121-138. [Crossref]
105. Isabel Brusca Alijarde, Vicente Montesinos Julve. 2014. Accrual financial reporting in the Public Sector:
Is it a reality?. Innovar 24:54, 107-120. [Crossref]
106. Kerry Jacobs, Suresh Cuganesan. 2014. Interdisciplinary accounting research in the Public Sector.
107. Peter Eckersley, Laurence Ferry, Zamzulaila Zakaria. 2014. A ‘panoptical’ or ‘synoptical’ approach to
monitoring performance? Local public services in England and the widening accountability gap. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting 25:6, 529-538. [Crossref]
108. Pierluigi Catalfo. 2014. Measuring and visualizing Local Authorities Relational Capital for internal control.
MANAGEMENT CONTROL :2, 23-43. [Crossref]
109. Mattias Haraldsson, Torbjörn Tagesson. 2014. Compromise and avoidance: the response to new
legislation. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 10:3, 288-313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
110. Ian Thomson, Suzana Grubnic, Georgios Georgakopoulos. 2014. Exploring accounting-sustainability
hybridisation in the UK public sector. Accounting, Organizations and Society 39:6, 453-476. [Crossref]
111. Manuela S. Macinati, Marco G. Rizzo. 2014. Budget goal commitment, clinical managers’ use of budget
information and performance. Health Policy 117:2, 228-238. [Crossref]
112. Francesco Capalbo, Alex Frino, Vito Mollica, Riccardo Palumbo. 2014. Accrual-based earnings
management in state owned companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 27:6, 1026-1040.
113. James Guthrie, Elaine Evans, Roger Burritt. 2014. Australian accounting academics: challenges and
possibilities. Meditari Accountancy Research 22:1, 20-37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
114. Sebastian D. Becker, Tobias Jagalla, Peter Skærbæk. 2014. The translation of accrual accounting
and budgeting and the reconfiguration of public sector accountants’ identities. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting 25:4-5, 324-338. [Crossref]
115. Hans-Jürgen Bruns. 2014. Accounting change and value creation in public services—Do relational
archetypes make a difference in improving public service performance?. Critical Perspectives on Accounting
25:4-5, 339-367. [Crossref]
116. Manuela S. Macinati, E. Anessi-Pessina. 2014. Management accounting use and financial performance in
public health-care organisations: Evidence from the Italian National Health Service. Health Policy 117:1,
98-111. [Crossref]
117. Enrico Bracci. 2014. Accountability and governance in social care: the impact of personalisation.
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 11:2, 111-128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
118. Khalil Abushamsieh, Antonio M. López-Hernández, David Ortiz-Rodríguez. 2014. The development of
public accounting transparency in selected Arab countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences
80:2, 421-442. [Crossref]
119. Sven Modell. 2014. The societal relevance of management accounting: An introduction to the special
issue. Accounting and Business Research 44:2, 83-103. [Crossref]
120. Nirmala Nath, Umesh Sharma. 2014. Performance Management Systems in the Public Housing Sector:
Dissemination to Diffusion. Australian Accounting Review 24:1, 2-20. [Crossref]
121. Dumay John. 2014. 15 years of the Journal of Intellectual Capital and counting. Journal of Intellectual
Capital 15:1, 2-37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
122. James Guthrie, Lee D. Parker. 2014. The global accounting academic: what counts!. Accounting, Auditing
123. Laura Maran, Monia Castellini, Jayne Bisman. 2014. Peter Leopold's Reform of Tuscany (1774):
management, organization and regulation at the local level. Management & Organizational History 9:1,
26-44. [Crossref]
124. Adriana Bruno. 2014. Harmonizing Budgeting and Accounting: The Case of Italy. Open Journal of
Accounting 03:01, 38-44. [Crossref]
125. David R.J. Moore. 2013. Sustainability, institutionalization and the duality of structure: Contradiction and
unintended consequences in the political context of an Australian water business. Management Accounting
Research 24:4, 366-386. [Crossref]
126. Kiyoshi Yamamoto, Masayoshi Noguchi. 2013. Different scenarios for accounting reform in non-
Anglophone contexts: The case of Japanese local governments since the 1990s. Accounting History 18:4,
529-549. [Crossref]
127. Alessandro Lombrano, Luca Zanin. 2013. IPSAS and local government consolidated financial statements
—proposal for a territorial consolidation method. Public Money & Management 33:6, 429-436. [Crossref]
128. Roland Almquist, Giuseppe Grossi, G. Jan van Helden, Christoph Reichard. 2013. Public sector
governance and accountability. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 24:7-8, 479-487. [Crossref]
129. Jane Broadbent. 2013. Reclaiming the ideal of public service. Public Money & Management 33:6, 391-394.
[Crossref]
130. Alexander Serenko, Nick Bontis. 2013. Investigating the current state and impact of the intellectual capital
academic discipline. Journal of Intellectual Capital 14:4, 476-500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
131. Eija Vinnari, Matias Laine. 2013. Just a passing fad?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26:7,
132. Pawan Adhikari, Chamara Kuruppu, Sumohon Matilal. 2013. Dissemination and institutionalization of
public sector accounting reforms in less developed countries: A comparative study of the Nepalese and Sri
Lankan central governments. Accounting Forum 37:3, 213-230. [Crossref]
133. Aapo Länsiluoto, Marko Järvenpää, Kip Krumwiede. 2013. Conflicting interests but filtered key targets:
Stakeholder and resource-dependency analyses at a University of Applied Sciences. Management Accounting
Research 24:3, 228-245. [Crossref]
134. Nava Subramaniam, Jenny Stewart, Chew Ng, Art Shulman. 2013. Understanding corporate governance
in the Australian public sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26:6, 946-977. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
135. Serena Aureli, Federica Salvatori. 2013. Investigation of risk management and risk disclosure practices of
Italian listed local utilities. FINANCIAL REPORTING :1, 121-167. [Crossref]
136. Marie Boitier, Anne Rivière. 2013. Freedom and responsibility for French universities: from global steering
to local management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26:4, 616-649. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
137. Andrea Mennicken. 2013. ‘Too Big to Fail and Too Big to Succeed': Accounting and Privatisation in the
Prison Service of England and Wales. Financial Accountability & Management 29:2, 206-226. [Crossref]
138. Carolyn Cordery. 2013. Does public services accounting belong in the curriculum?. Pacific Accounting
Review 25:1, 101-116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
139. Marie Boitier, Anne Rivière. 2013. Are French universities under control?. Public Money & Management
33:2, 105-110. [Crossref]
140. Sven Modell. 2013. Making Sense of Social Practice: Theoretical Pluralism in Public Sector Accounting
Research: A Comment. Financial Accountability & Management 29:1, 99-110. [Crossref]
141. Lee D. Parker. 2013. Contemporary University Strategising: The Financial Imperative. Financial
Accountability & Management 29:1, 1-25. [Crossref]
142. Ni Putu S. H. Mimba, G. Jan van Helden, Sandra Tillema. 2013. THE DESIGN AND USE
OF PERFORMANCE INFORMATION IN INDONESIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS UNDER
DIVERGING STAKEHOLDER PRESSURES. Public Administration and Development 33:1, 15-28.
[Crossref]
143. Xian Zhong, Yan-Sheng Lu, Lin Li. Video Key Frame Extraction for Semantic Retrieval 531-540.
[Crossref]
144. Inger Johanne Pettersen. 2013. Diverse management practices— a study of clinical managers. Public
Money & Management 33:1, 39-46. [Crossref]
145. Jian Liu, Baojuan Li, Baohong Liu, Qi Li. Topic-Centric Candidate Priors for Expert Finding Models
253-262. [Crossref]
146. Lee D. Parker, James Guthrie. 2012. Accounting scholars and journals rating and benchmarking.
147. Sarah Appleton-Dyer, Janet Clinton, Peter Carswell, Rob McNeill. 2012. Understanding Evaluation
Influence Within Public Sector Partnerships. American Journal of Evaluation 33:4, 532-546. [Crossref]
148. Marie-Soleil Tremblay. 2012. Illusions of Control? The Extension of New Public Management Through
Corporate Governance Regulation. Financial Accountability & Management 28:4, 395-416. [Crossref]
149. Mariannunziata Liguori, Mariafrancesca Sicilia, Ileana Steccolini. 2012. Some Like it Non-Financial ….
Public Management Review 14:7, 903-922. [Crossref]
150. Marcel Van Rinsum, Frank H.M. Verbeeten. 2012. The impact of subjectivity in performance evaluation
practices on public sector managers’ motivation. Accounting and Business Research 42:4, 377-396. [Crossref]
151. Lee D. Parker. 2012. From Privatised to Hybrid Corporatised Higher Education: A Global Financial
Management Discourse. Financial Accountability & Management 28:3, 247-268. [Crossref]
152. Patrícia Siqueira Varela, Regina Silvia Viotto Monteiro Pacheco. 2012. Federalismo e gastos em saúde:
competição e cooperação nos municípios da região metropolitana de São Paulo. Revista Contabilidade &
Finanças 23:59, 116-127. [Crossref]
153. Nola Buhr. 2012. Accrual accounting by Anglo-American governments: Motivations, developments, and
some tensions over the last 30 years. Accounting History 17:3-4, 287-309. [Crossref]
154. Juan Baños Sánchez-Matamoros, Fernando Gutiérrez Hidalgo. 2012. Accounting for the production of
coins: The enactment and implementation of the Spanish Ordinances of the Mints, 1730. Accounting
History 17:3-4, 351-367. [Crossref]
155. Paul Andon. 2012. Accounting‐related research in PPPs/PFIs: present contributions and future
opportunities. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 25:5, 876-924. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
156. James Guthrie, Federica Ricceri, John Dumay. 2012. Reflections and projections: A decade of Intellectual
Capital Accounting Research. The British Accounting Review 44:2, 68-82. [Crossref]
157. Amanda Ball, Vernon Soare, Joanna Brewis. 2012. Engagement Research in Public Sector Accounting.
158. Henk J. Ter Bogt, Robert W. Scapens. 2012. Performance Management in Universities: Effects of the
Transition to More Quantitative Measurement Systems. European Accounting Review 1-47. [Crossref]
159. Roger L. Burritt. 2012. Environmental performance accountability: planet, people, profits. Accounting,
160. Christopher Humphrey, Peter Miller. 2012. Rethinking impact and redefining responsibility. Accounting,
161. Kerry Jacobs. 2012. Making Sense of Social Practice: Theoretical Pluralism in Public Sector Accounting
Research. Financial Accountability & Management 28:1, 1-25. [Crossref]
162. Samuel Nana Yaw Simpson. Developments in Public Sector Accounting Practices: The Ghanaian
Experience 209-226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
163. Suresh Cuganesan, Julie Foreman. Performance Measurement in the Public Sector: Evaluating
Performance Measurement and Reporting in Health 220-231. [Crossref]

164. G. GROSSI, M. SOVERCHIA. 2011. European Commission Adoption of IPSAS to Reform Financial
Reporting. Abacus 47:4, 525-552. [Crossref]
165. Jane Broadbent. 2011. Discourses of control, managing the boundaries. The British Accounting Review
43:4, 264-277. [Crossref]
166. Mikael Cäker, Sven Siverbo. 2011. Management control in public sector Joint Ventures. Management
Accounting Research 22:4, 330-348. [Crossref]
167. Antonio Barretta, Cristiano Busco. 2011. Technologies of government in public sector's networks: In
search of cooperation through management control innovations. Management Accounting Research 22:4,
211-219. [Crossref]
168. Tobias Johansson, Sven Siverbo. 2011. Governing cooperation hazards of outsourced municipal low
contractibility transactions: An exploratory configuration approach. Management Accounting Research
22:4, 292-312. [Crossref]
169. Chia Yie Tan, Beverley R. Lord, Russell Craig, Amanda Ball. 2011. Exploring a local council's change to
an outcome measurement regime. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change 7:4, 391-407. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
170. Suresh Cuganesan, David Lacey. 2011. DEVELOPMENTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT: A PROJECT ON PRODUCING RETURN ON INVESTMENT METRICS
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. Financial Accountability & Management 27:4, 458-479. [Crossref]
171. Stuart Cooper, Graham Pearce. 2011. Climate change performance measurement, control and
accountability in English local authority areas. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 24:8,
172. Malcolm Anderson. 2011. Accounting History publications 2008/09. Accounting History Review 21:2,
227-235. [Crossref]
173. Tobias Jagalla, Sebastian D. Becker, Jürgen Weber. 2011. A TAXONOMY OF THE PERCEIVED
BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING: EVIDENCE FROM GERMAN
STATES. Financial Accountability & Management 27:2, 134-165. [Crossref]
174. Pat Mahony, Ian Hextall, Malcolm Richardson. 2011. ‘Building Schools for the Future’: reflections on a
new social architecture. Journal of Education Policy 26:3, 341-360. [Crossref]
175. Jonathan Farrar. 2011. Tax fairness in Canadian government budgets: How fair is ‘fair’?. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting 22:4, 365-375. [Crossref]
176. Robert H. Chenhall, David Smith. 2011. A review of Australian management accounting research:
1980-2009. Accounting & Finance 51:1, 173-206. [Crossref]
177. Robert Jupe. 2011. THE MODERNISATION AND FRAGMENTATION OF THE UK'S
TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE. Financial Accountability & Management 27:1, 43-62. [Crossref]
178. Junaid Ashraf, Shahzad Uddin. Review of Management Control hange Research with Special Reference
to the Public Sector and Less Developed Countries: A Critical Evaluation 415-449. [Crossref]
179. Carolyn Cordery, Rachel Baskerville, Brenda Porter. 2010. Control or collaboration?. Accounting, Auditing
180. Mark Christensen, Lee Parker. 2010. USING IDEAS TO ADVANCE PROFESSIONS: PUBLIC
SECTOR ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING. Financial Accountability & Management 26:3, 246-266.
[Crossref]
181. James Guthrie, Amanda Ball, Federica Farneti. 2010. Advancing Sustainable Management of Public and
Not For Profit Organizations. Public Management Review 12:4, 449-459. [Crossref]
182. Isabel Brusca. 2010. Treinta Años de Investigación en Contabilidad y Gestión Pública en España. Revista
de Contabilidad 13:2, 175-209. [Crossref]
183. Andrew Goddard. 2010. Contemporary public sector accounting research – An international comparison
of journal papers. The British Accounting Review 42:2, 75-87. [Crossref]
184. Jane Broadbent, Carolyn Gallop, Richard Laughlin. 2010. Analysing societal regulatory control systems
with specific reference to higher education in England. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 23:4,
185. Konstantin Timoshenko, Pawan Adhikari. 2010. A two-country comparison of public sector accounting
reforms: Same ideas, different paths?. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management
22:4, 449-486. [Abstract] [PDF]
186. 2010. Editorial Board. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management 22:4, 1-4.
[Citation] [PDF]
187. Chris Carter, Steve Toms. 2010. The contours of critical accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting
21:3, 171-182. [Crossref]
188. Pawan Adhikari, Frode Mellemvik. The adoption of IPSASs in South Asia: A comparative study of seven
countries 169-199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
189. Jane Broadbent. 2010. Editorial: Achieving efficiency and effectiveness in challenging times. Public Money
& Management 30:1, 3-4. [Crossref]
190. Sheila Ellwood. 2009. ACCOUNTING FOR (A) PUBLIC GOOD: PUBLIC HEALTHCARE IN
ENGLAND. Financial Accountability & Management 25:4, 411-433. [Crossref]
191. James Guthrie, Peter Steane, Federica Farneti. 2009. IC reporting in the Australian Red Cross blood
service. Journal of Intellectual Capital 10:4, 504-519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
192. Amanda Ball, Ian Mason, Suzana Grubnic, Phil Hughes. 2009. The Carbon Neutral Public Sector. Public
Management Review 11:5, 575-600. [Crossref]
193. Sven Modell. 2009. INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ON PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND
MANAGEMENT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR ACCOUNTING LITERATURE: A REVIEW AND
ASSESSMENT. Financial Accountability & Management 25:3, 277-303. [Crossref]
194. Isabel Brusca, Vicente Montesinos. 2009. International experiences in whole of government financial
reporting: lesson-drawing for Spain. Public Money & Management 29:4, 243-250. [Crossref]
195. Giuseppe Grossi, Francesca Pepe. 2009. Consolidation in the public sector: a cross-country comparison.
Public Money & Management 29:4, 251-256. [Crossref]
196. Giuseppe Grossi, Susan Newberry, Andreas Bergmann, Daniel Bietenhader, Torbjörn Tagesson, Johan
Christiaens, Philippe Van Cauwenberge, Jan Rommel. 2009. Theme: Whole of government accounting
— international trends. Public Money & Management 29:4, 209-218. [Crossref]
197. Giuseppe Grossi. 2009. New development: Consolidated financial reporting as a stimulus for change in
Italian local government. Public Money & Management 29:4, 261-264. [Crossref]
198. James Guthrie, Vijaya Murthy. 2009. Past, present and possible future developments in human capital
accounting. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting 13:2, 125-142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
199. Suzanne Ryan, James Guthrie. 2009. Collegial Entrepreneurialism. Public Management Review 11:3,
317-344. [Crossref]
200. Konstantin Timoshenko, Pawan Adhikari. Implementing public sector accounting reform in Russia:
Evidence from one university 169-192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
201. Melina M. Manochin, Lisa Jack, Claire Howell. 2008. The Boundaries of Reporting Sustainable
Development in Social Housing. Public Money & Management 28:6, 345-352. [Crossref]
202. Amanda Ball, Jan Bebbington. 2008. Editorial: Accounting and Reporting for Sustainable Development
in Public Service Organizations. Public Money & Management 28:6, 323-326. [Crossref]
203. Carlos Larrinaga-Gonzélez, Vincente Pérez-Chamorro. 2008. Sustainability Accounting and
Accountability in Public Water Companies. Public Money & Management 28:6, 337-343. [Crossref]
204. Richard Laughlin. 2008. A Conceptual Framework for Accounting for Public-Benefit Entities. Public
Money & Management 28:4, 247-254. [Crossref]
205. Markus Milne, James Guthrie, Lee Parker. 2008. Into the light and engagement. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal 21:2, 117-128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
206. Francesca Citro, Giovanna Lucianelli, Serena Santis. Financial Conditions, Financial Sustainability, and
Intergenerational Equity in Local Governments 101-124. [Crossref]
207. Tarek Rana. New Public Management Reforms and Modernization Changes in Australia 1-17. [Crossref]
208. Radiah Othman, Nirmala Nath, Fawzi Laswad. Environmental Reporting and Accounting 130-158.
[Crossref]

Public Sector To Public Services 20 Years of "Contextual" Accounting Research PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Public Sector To Public Services 20 Years of "Contextual" Accounting Research PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

Public sector to public services: 20 years of “contextual” accounting research

Downloaded on: 13 September 2018, At: 03:01 (PT)

By addressing these questions, we will implicitly be considering what is “new” in

have been overlooked or silenced.

opportunity to consider some recent literature.

The domain of the public services

change in ownership of the providers of services has been a significant element

provision of public services in a different way to that exhibited in PBE. It is this

3. The nature of the analysis undertaken

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 87

A. Location A1. North America

(4) Rest of Europe; and

1996; Modell, 2001, 2004; Siverbo and Johansson, 2006).

body of current PSAR research.

Performance measurement and management

question, with moves to more comprehensive performance management systems over

Other aspects and some omissions

Research approaches in PSAR

Omissions: empirically informed theorising

Omissions: theory and practice

Victoria”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 73-92.

Nos 1-2, pp. 51-76.

Groot, T. (1999), “Budgetary reforms in the non-profit sector: a comparative analysis of

Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 59-84.

Lapsley, I. (1988), “Research in public sector accounting: an appraisal”, Accounting Auditing

financial statements in New Zealand”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 467-92.

Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 291-308.

galleries”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 337-50.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Internal Response to Accounting Change. MANAGEMENT CONTROL :1, 117-138. [Crossref]

Performance Measurement and Reporting in Health 220-231. [Crossref]

Вам также может понравиться