دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله ارتباط نظریه حسابداری انتقادی به اثربخشی حسابدهی مالی – Cscanada 2015
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی ارتباط نظریه حسابداری انتقادی (CAT) به اثربخشی حسابدهی مالی عمومی در اقتصادهای نوپا به همراه ترجمه فارسی
عنوان فارسی مقاله: | ارتباط نظریه حسابداری انتقادی (CAT) به اثربخشی حسابدهی مالی عمومی در اقتصادهای نوپا |
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: | The Relevance of Critical Accounting Theory (CAT) to Effectiveness of Public Financial Accountability in Emerging Economies |
رشته های مرتبط: | حسابداری و علوم اقتصادی، حسابداری مالی، اقتصاد مالی و برنامه ریزی سیستم های اقتصادی |
فرمت مقالات رایگان | مقالات انگلیسی و ترجمه های فارسی رایگان با فرمت PDF میباشند |
کیفیت ترجمه | کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله پایین میباشد |
توضیحات | ترجمه این مقاله به صورت خلاصه انجام شده است. |
نشریه | Cscanada |
کد محصول | f282 |
مقاله انگلیسی رایگان (PDF) |
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی |
ترجمه فارسی رایگان (PDF) |
دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله |
خرید ترجمه با فرمت ورد |
خرید ترجمه مقاله با فرمت ورد |
جستجوی ترجمه مقالات | جستجوی ترجمه مقالات |
بخشی از ترجمه فارسی مقاله: مقدمه |
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی: Introduction As research in public sector accounting developed, the issue of the most appropriate theoretical framework to adopt remained open (Jacobs, 2012). It is the view of researchers of accounting theory that the present is not satisfactory, “that reality could be better than it is” (Laughlin, 1987, p.482), and it is this position that so clearly distinguishes critical accounting research from traditional agency and stewardship research.In the past, researchers of accountability have relied on Agency and Stewardship theories to explain the phenomena that may hinder the exchange of financial information in the accountability process (Greiling & Spraul, 2010; Caers et al., 2006; Davis et al., 1997a) .Investigating the sociopolitical context and implications of accounting and accountability systems (AAS) has been the central focus of critical accounting (Brown & Dillard, 2013). In view of the current limitations of accounting research Lehman (2006, p.761) ask that ‘how does accounting and accounting research contribute to the derivation of good decisions?”– Or the avoidance of bad decisions? The answer according to Gray (1992) lies in communitarianism, engagement and a move from processual accountability towards the development of more personal and organic accounting that involved closer personal and spiritual contact and less distance and formality that have characterized traditional accounting research. According to Rahaman (2010), there is paucity of critical accounting research that focused on Africa: Today, three major research outlets; Accounting, Organizations and Society (first issue in 1976), Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal (first issue in 1988), and Critical Perspectives on Accounting (first issue, 1990) are flagship journals for this genre of research. Together these three journals have published approximately 2,374 papers, as of February 2009, averaging almost 100 papers annually, only 24 articles relate to Africa. However, a careful content analysis reveals that the advanced Western capitalist countries constitute the prominent empirical realm of the current critical accounting literature. For example, since its inception in 1990, Critical Perspectives on Accounting has published 651 articles in 108 issues, of which only nine articles are focused specifically on African issues. (Rahaman, 2010, p. 420) ۱٫۱ Financial Accountability Financial accountability is about stewardship of public money; a mean of ensuring that public money has been used in a responsible and productive way, it is about verification of legality and regularity of financial accounts and also ensuring that value for money has been achieved in the use of resources (Rabrenovic, 2009). This relates to the control and elimination of waste and corruption and involves compliance with legal procedures, as well as the use of external audit mechanisms (Davies & Polverari, 2011). It is the obligation of any one handling resources, public office or any other positions of trust, to report on the intended and actual use of the resources or of the designated office (Adegbite, 2010). According to Rabrenovic (2009), the financial accountability relationship established between the government and the citizens is in many ways problematic, the reason for this is the practical impossibility of close and detailed scrutiny of the government’s actions by the citizens. This situation has brought about a need for the introduction of third actors in the accountability relationship – representatives or/and professional bodies, which would, on behalf of the citizens’ provide indirect supervision of the executive. According to Sahgal and Chakrapani (2000) manifesting financial accountability is therefore much more than building and maintaining accounting and auditing systems. It represents more than just the technical capability of financial managers. Financial accountability is not complete until it encompasses the wide-ranging activities, attitudes, and reporting relationships between all stakeholders. ۱٫۲ Culture The significance of culture in influencing and explaining behaviour in social systems has been recognized and explored in a wide range of literatures (Choi, 2002; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005; House et al., 2004). An organization’s culture consists of a set of shared values, goals, and ideals, norms for behaviour, and cultural “symbols” that govern the behaviour of individuals. Hofstede et al. (2010) postulates that the environment within which accounting is practised will determine the structure of the resulting accounting system. Culture is an important variable affecting a country’s accounting environment and research in different countries have enhance the awareness of the important of environmental factors in moulding a country’s accounting and accountability system (Choi, 2002). Goddard (1997) research provided empirical evidence that when a financial control system is incompatible with organisational culture, it will meet resistance and eventually fail. He also found correlation between organisational culture and budgetrelated behaviour, particularly with respect to budgetary participation and the usefulness of budgets to support the managerial role. Licht et al. (2007, quoted in Daniel et al., 2012) also demonstrated that institutional norms related to law, corruption, and democratic accountability correlate strongly with national cultural dimensions. A conceptual framework showing the relationships that exist between financial accountability, culture and accounting infrastructure is presented in Figure 1. a. Financial Accountability – its effectiveness enhances good governance. b. National Culture – culture of openness or secrecy; uniformity or flexibility and professionalism or statutory control influences the effectiveness of financial accountability. c. Accounting Infrastructure – nature of accounting personnel, financial management information system and public sector accounting and auditing standard influences the effectiveness of financial accountability The effectiveness of financial accountability will depend on the effectiveness of the budget process, financial reporting system and audit process. Where there is effective financial accountability characterized by an effective and transparent budget process, accurate and timely financial reporting and effective external oversight, there will be transparency and openness on the part of elected officials and the managers. On the other hand if there is poor budget process, financial reporting and ineffective external oversight, there will be corruption and mismanagement which will leads to poor performance. According to Rahaman (2010) accounting does have a critical role in Nigeria and other emerging countries because of the widespread documented instances of corruption and financial mismanagement both in the government and private sectors. In the next section the theories of financial accountability is discussed. The development of theories over the decades plays an important role in the development of financial accountability framework for public sector. |