The Jahangirnagar Journal of Business Studies, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2016 (ISSN: 2227 – 3484)

A Literature Review on Public Sector Accounting

Research

Md Salah Uddin Rajib1

Mahfuzul Hoque2

Abstract: This paper is aimed to review the public sector accounting research (PSAR).
Through the review of the papers published from 1992 to 2015, the nature, trends and
character of PSAR have been tried to identify. To do this a number of papers have been
reviewed including special issues of the renowned journal published on the public sector
accounting (PSA). To conduct the review, three justified aspects of PSA research have been
used – theory initiation of reforming the PSA, practice of reforming the PSA and standards
development for reforming the PSA. The review finds that over the time, the trends of PSAR
have been changed and have been enriched from different areas. While once the researches
used to concentrate more on the adoption of developed standards, a number of contemporary
researches concentrate on comparative adoption, innovation in practice and probable
integration with the new areas.

Keywords: Public Sector Accounting; Public Sector Accounting Research; Literature review;
Trends.
JEL classification: H72; H83; L32

1
Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting and Information Systems, Faculty of
Business Studies, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka -1342, Email: rajibais@juniv.edu
2
Professor, Department of Accounting and Information Systems, Faculty of Business Studies,
University of Dhaka, Dhaka – 1000, Bangladesh, Email: mhoque71@gmail.com
39

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2875995

 A Literature Review on Public Sector Accounting Research

1 Introduction

Public sector accounting (PSA) and PSAR drive from various views. The uniqueness, accused
of inefficiency, complexity of standard adoption and others drive the demand of PSA for a
long time. Reformation of PSA is demanded for the development of the nation by the
international organizations also. Since 1980 international organizations are raising concern to
implement public sector accounting reforms in the developing countries (Adhikari et al. 2013).
Not only developing countries, but also developed nations are giving concern for the
implementation of reformed public sector accounting. The European parliament has already
taken the initiatives to mandate the member states to apply accrual accounting in the public
sector (Ball & Pflugrath, 2012). Therefore, researches on PSA have been conducted from
various views. Apart from individual investigation of researchers, a number of special issues
on PSA have been issued by renowned publishers.

A number of researchers have investigated the nature of public sector accounting research
(PSAR) (e.g., Broadbent & Guthrie, 1992; Helden, 2005; Freeman & Allison, 2006;
Broadbent & Guthrie, 2008; Goddard, 2010; Roybark et al., 2012a,b). Helden (2005) analyses
55 public sector accounting research papers in the area of management accounting research.
Broadbent and Guthrie (2008) have found board variety of research in public sector
accounting after reviewing 452 papers. They have found three basic trends in public sector
accounting research. Goddard (2010) draws a comparison on the paper published in the area
of public sector accounting from various aspects. Broadbent and Guthrie (2008) analyze the
paper published on the PSA from 1992 to 2006.

The setting of this paper is a bit different than the previous researches (e.g., Broadbent &
Gothrie, 2008; Goddard, 2010) in the relevant area as the paper is aimed to review the trends
of researches in PSA. However, the foundation of the setting has been justified from the
previous researches. Researchers have mentioned that research interest in Performance
Measurement and Management (PMM) can partly be traced in the wake of New Public
Management (NPM) in the public sector (e.g., Hood, 1995; Modell, 2009). Accrual
accounting has been investigated under the concept of NPM also (e.g., Adhikari et al. 2012).
It has been claimed by the researchers that the rationale for adopting accrual accounting in the
public sector is grounded on neo-institutional theory (Pina, Torres, & Yetano, 2009; Pollanen
& Loiselle-Lapointe, 2012). However, from theoretical conception to implications,
differences and challenges are visible. It has been identified that there are heterogeneous
development paths and attitudes towards NPM reforms around the world regarding strategy
and content (e.g., Pina & Torres, 2003). As a result, in these years, an increased number of
researches are trying to reveal the implementation initiatives and scenario of accrual
accounting in the public sector (e.g., Carpenter & Feroz, 2001; Adhikari et al. 2012).
Therefore, a number of papers have been developed on practical experience regarding public
sector accounting. Apart from these two board areas– theory conception and practice revealer,
a number of researches are being devoted to the standards development scenario of PSA (e.g.,
Freeman & Allison. 2006; Benito et al., 2007; Attmore et al., 2008; Parry & Wynne 2009;
Roybark et al., 2012a,b).
40

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2875995

The Jahangirnagar Journal of Business Studies, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2016 (ISSN: 2227 – 3484)

Therefore, the aim of this paper is fourfold. First, it discusses the research scenario of PSA
that specially have been written from the perspective of new-institutional theory. The first part
investigated the opinions of researcher that has been used to describe the institutionalization
process in public sector accounting. Second, it discusses the implementation scenario of PSA
and researchers‟ investigation nature regarding the practice of PSA. Third, researchers‟
investigations nature on PSA standards has been discussed. Finally, a discussion has been
made on the nature, trends and future prospects of public sector accounting research.

2 Research Methodology

The aim of this paper is to review the nature and trends of PSAR from 1992 to 2015. To get
contemporary and dominating research work on PSA, various renowned database of scholarly
work has been searched. ISI is considered as the most comprehensive database for scholarly
work. Therefore ISI web of science has been searched carefully. For searching the article, two
terms have been used – one is „public sector accounting‟ and another is „governmental
accounting‟. The search result of „public sector accounting‟ on ISI as a title shows that there
are 35 papers in ISI. However, the search results by „public sector accounting‟ as topic shows
that there are 2298 papers in ISI (On February 1, 2015). Search results of „governmental
accounting‟ on ISI show 45 (title) and 1186 (topic) papers. „PSA‟ and „IPSASs‟ has been used
as search words also. EBSCOhost and Google Scholar have been searched carefully.

Apart from using the search engine, previous researchers‟ approaches have been used. Helden
(2005) reviews the papers from five journals – AAAJ (Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal), AOS (Accounting, Organizations & Society), FAM (Financial Accountability &
Management), MAR (Management Accounting Research), and EAR (European Accounting
Review). Broadbent and Guthrie (2008) review the papers from eight journals– includes five
of Helden (2005) and Accounting Forum (AF), British Accounting Review (BAR), and
Critical Perspective of Accounting (CPA). Goddard (2010) reviews the papers from ten
journals – includes five of Helden (2005) and BAR, CPA, Journal of Accounting and Public
Policy (JAPP), Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management
(JPBAFM) and Research in Governmental and Non Profit Accounting (RGNPA).

To conduct this study, we investigate ten journals – all the journals used by Broadbent and
Guthrie (2008) and ABACUS and RGNPA. 356 articles (includes articles from mentioning 10
journals and others) were collected to read. Articles published in special issue of journal have
been collected also. The abstract of all the papers has been read. However, to review the
concept regarding the aim of paper, the concept de facto criteria has been set to select the
article by the authors considering some pragmatic virtue e.g., usefulness, interesting,
simplicity etc (e.g., Ketokivi & Mantere, 2010, p. 319). Therefore, it seems that this article
has reviewed the most important theoretical and empirical papers in the area of PSAR.

41

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2875995

 A Literature Review on Public Sector Accounting Research

3 New Public Management and Institutionalization

To cope with the situation, the concept of New Public Management (NPM) was initiated to
reform the public sector in the 1980s and 1990s (Lapsley, 1999). The term „New Public
Management‟ is introduced by Hood (1991). Broadly, NPM denotes the government polices
that aimed to modernize and ensure the efficiency of the public sector. A number of
researchers have investigated the public sector accounting practice within NPM. Special
issues have been published by the renowned journal on PSA within NPM (e.g., volume 15,
issue 3 and 4 of Financial Accountability & Management Journal).

Institutionalization has been started to take place in the public sector organizations since long
ago. It has been found that government organizations are in the vulnerable position by the
institutional forces till now (e.g. Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004). Researchers have
investigated the PSAR with the process of institutionalization. Both from the perspective of
managerial accounting (e.g., Modell 2001; Brignall & Modell, 2000; Modell, 2009) and
financial accounting (e.g., Adhikari et al. 2013, Harun et al., 2012; Carpenter & Feroz, 2001)
investigations have been executed.

For example, Brignall and Modell (2000) have investigated the implications of institutional
theory for implementation of multidimensional performance measurement in the public sector.
Modell (2009) has investigated an important aspect of performance measurement and
management of public sector regarding neo-institutionalization. Modell (2009) explains the
neo-institutionalization in the perspective of neo-institutional sociology (NIS). NIS is
assumed to have more than a technical or instrumental issue of devising systems to emphasize
the social and political aspects associated with the practice. Therefore, Modell (2009) reviews
the institutional research in the public sector accounting regarding broader NIS literature e.g.,
growing recognition of the role of embedded agency and others. Although numerous
researches and investigations are found in this area, researchers have mentioned that
institutional research on PMM is characterized by descriptive and prescriptive
overwhelmingly and it is suffering from the lack of cumulative theorizing (Yang and Hsieh,
2007). After reviewing 28 papers, Modell (2009) mentions that researches have been
developed from various institutional logics regarding the PMM in the public sector.
Researchers have investigated the accrual accounting under NPM as well. For example;
Harun et al. (2012) have investigated the institutionalization process of accrual accounting in
the Indonesian public sector. Adhikari et al. (2012) investigates an important aspect of
adapting of accrual accounting in the public sector. They investigate the accrual accounting
model in the central government in diverse institutional context.

Like the above researchers, many research works have been executed in the area of
institutionalization and public sector accounting by the researcher. Basically, the researches in
this area derive from the same way of the social theory of institutionalization. A number of
researchers use social theory of Bourdieu (e.g. Helco 2008; Malsch & Gendron 2013),
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) (e.g., Adhikari et al. 2012), Meyer and Rowan (1977), Max
42
The Jahangirnagar Journal of Business Studies, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2016 (ISSN: 2227 – 3484)

Weber (e.g., Becker et al. 2014) and others to explain the institutional forces and its
implementation scenario in PSA.

In general, it is agreed that Institutionalization may be drive from two drivers. Few rational
and powerful actors can lead institutionalization in the organization (Lawrence et al., 2009).
Alternatively, legitimacy of institutional perspective can lead new institutionalization in the
organization (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). The Role of the powerful actors to the
institutional process gives a research ground to the researchers. Alternatively, the mechanisms
that transfer the legitimated norms and practices to organization i.e., coercive, mimetic and
normative mechanism (Dimaggio & Powell, 1983) provides a theoretical settings for the
research in the area of PSA (Adhikari et al. 2013).

Institutionalization faces various challenges and bottleneck. The Public accounting that
demands changes because of institutionalization is not exceptional. The contemporary urge
of/for commercialization of public sector and the professionalism of the public sector has
been investigated by Malsch and Gendron (2013) under the perspective of new public
institutionalization. Malsch and Gendron (2013) have identified two key challenges that are
distinct and independent. The first challenge arises from the urge of combing the shift from
the traditional boundaries to new institutionalization and the intention of protecting the
professional barriers [p. 872]. And the second challenge arises from experts (who are
traditional in mind) and traditional disposition of auditors. Malsch and Gendron (2013) have
used the change theory and Bourdieusian sociology to explain the major institutional shift of
public accounting firms. Their investigation has found a complex form of institutionalization
of the public accounting firms. Therefore, they have used a term „institutionalization
experimentation‟ to represent the fragile and unpredictable nature of institutionalization. They
have mentioned that entire scenario of institutionalization is hardly possible to define in the
context of institutional experimentation and duality of institutional change and stability.
Therefore, the notion „organizational archetypes‟ is fall in challenges. Analysis of Becker et al.
(2014) finds also that reformation of accounting is not straightforward. Accountants face
particular challenges responding to several interessement devices that were used to enroll
them into the new practices (Becker et al. 2014).

Ultimately, the professional barriers, contradiction of traditional view points and

unpredictable nature of institutionalization makes the ground for the research on PSA.

4 Implementation Scenarios and the Demand for

Concern
Although, institutionalization is taken as the ground of implementation of accounting changes,
researchers have pointed out the limitations of neo institutionalization in explaining the
process where institutionalized ideas and practices are established at the intra-organizational
level already (Ezzamel et al., 2007; Liguori & Stecolini, 2012). It is argued that accounting
should be studied in the context in which it is enmeshed (Carnegie & Napier, 2002).
Implementation of public sector accounting has been discussed in a wider context.
43
 A Literature Review on Public Sector Accounting Research

The degrees of success of implementing the accounting are not the same in different countries.
Political and government power, administration level (local and central) and other factors
have received concentration from the researchers to investigate the implementation of PSA.
Therefore, researchers have conducted their investigation in different countries to reveal the
real scenario of public sector accounting reforms. The existing literature on PSA indicates that
the differences exist in the reforms of PSA across nations, and different attitudes to reform
have been seen regarding both the strategy and contents (Guthrie et al. 1999; Pina & Torres,
2003; Ellwood & Newberry, 2007; Benito, Brusca, & Montesinos, 2007; Broadbent &
Guthrie, 2008; Hyndman & Connolly, 2011; Caperchione & Lapsley, 2011, Adhikari et al,
2013).

After investigating 11 countries‟ PSA reforms, Guthrie et al. (1999) mentions that different
types of PSA reforms are promoted at different level of government. After reviewing 188
papers, Goddrad (2010) found that various topics has driven the PSAR, e.g.,
Accountability/governance, Performance management, Budgeting, Auditing, Accrual,
Revenue forecasting, New public management, General Accounting, General financial
accounting, General management accounting, Capital finance, Local taxation issue, Fraud and
corruption and others. This diverse practice arises from the political spectrum and from
different economic and social contexts of the countries‟. The researchers‟ investigation also
reveals that while some countries started the procedure of reforms at their local governments,
other nations initiated the reforms at the center of the government.

In PSAR, the problem of implementation has received concentration from the researchers also.
A number of countries face the problem in reforming the public sector accounting. Russia
targeted nine months as a transition period of reformation of accounting. During that time
they run both the old and proposed emerging systems. During the time, the authority gave
opportunity for the accounting staffs to get adapted with the proposed systems. However, this
period was recognized as a critical period for the accounting staffs and was identified as „real
hell‟ for the public accountants (Timoshenko & Adhikari, 2010; Adhikari et al. 2012). Nepal
also faces complexity in reforming the new PSA (Adhikari et al. 2012).

While researchers have investigated the reformation attempt from various stages of
government and from various topics, contemporary researches tempt have been found in the
comparison of reformation among different countries (e.g., Caperchione et al. 2011; Adhikari
et al. 2012; Adhikari et al. 2013; Jones et al. 2013). Adhikari et al. (2012) investigate and
compare the reforms of public sector accounting in three different countries: Nepal, Norway
and Russia which are distinct in various features also. While Nepal was influenced by the
national and international calls for government accounting reforms and securing legitimacy,
Norway was stimulated by the trends of other countries and curiosity (Adhikari et al. 2012).
Another comparative investigation of Adhikari et al. (2013) reveals that colonialism has a
mediating role in the implementation of reformed accounting.

Under the similar external pressures, organization responds in different ways that lead to
different results of the proposed changes (Ezzamel et al. 2012; Liguori & Steccolini, 2012). It
is natural that some uniqueness of responds shows the path to the others. Consisting with that,
in implementing the reforms of PSA, some innovation has been found by researchers also.
44
The Jahangirnagar Journal of Business Studies, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2016 (ISSN: 2227 – 3484)

The introduction and application of Resource allocation and budgeting (RAB) in the public
sector of the UK have been recognized as an innovation in the accounting by the researcher
(Ezzamel et al. 2014). Researchers are trying to integrate new areas in PSA as well (e.g.,
Guthrie & Dumay , 2015).

The investigation of different countries and the explored scenario by researchers ultimately
enriched the PSAR. Moreover, the findings of comparative studies in PSA have enabled the
transfer of good practices and have outlined the critical factors (Broadbent & Guthrie, 2008).

5 Reforming the Standard

This stream of PSA arises from the practice of GAAP and the demand for accrual accounting.
Researchers have investigated the various aspects of standards of public sector accounting,
e.g., historical ground of PSA standards, standard setting bodies and others (e.g., Flesher et al.
2003; Roybark et al. 2012a, 2012b).

It is assumed that PSA or Governmental accounting is originated in municipal accounting that

developed in the twentieth century (Littleton, 1966; Allen & Sanders, 1994; Freeman et al.
2006; Roybark et al. 2012a). It is mentioned by the researchers that first accrual model of
accounting for the governments was developed by Frederick Cleveland of New York
University in 1913 (Potts, 1978; Roybark et al. 2012a). Frederick Cleveland develops
accounting and reporting model for the municipal governments of the USA.

The developments of governmental accounting are not the same around the world. Apart from
the individual researchers, a large number of researches have been executed by the
governmental institution of different countries. Name of organizations that are involved with
the standards setting procedure for the public sector are Governmental Accounting Standard
Board (GASB), Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB), International Accounting
Standard Board (IASB), Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB),
International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), International Public Sector Accounting
Standard Board (IPSASB), Financial Stability Board (FSB), International Organization of
Securities Commissions (IOSCO), International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions
(INTOSAI) and others. Researchers have revealed the challenges and benefits of this attempt
also (e.g., Attmore et al., 2008).

For the last 100 years, the standard for the PSA has been developed nationally and
internationally. Roybark et al. (2012a, 2012b) have investigated the standard setting scenario
of governmental accounting for USA. Newberry (2011) investigates the development of
governmental accounting in New Zealand. Governmental Accounting Standard Board (GASB)
is the authoritative standard setting body for the state and local governmental entities in the
United States which is established in April, 1984 (Roybark et al. 2012a,b). The objective of
the GASB is to provide and ensure quality accounting standards for state and local
government. Roybark et al. (2012a,b) find that after the establishment of GASB in 1984, it
faces challenges from various aspects. One bold conflict emerges with the FASB (Financial

45
 A Literature Review on Public Sector Accounting Research

Accounting Standard Board). Basically jurisdictional conflicts arise between the GASB and
FASB, as FASB issued some standard that are related to the non-business organizations. For
example; Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 4 which states reporting by
non-business Organizations (GASB, 1984). Although, GASB faces challenges, early
investigation of researcher shows that governmental entities were benefited with the standards
provided by GASB (e.g., Harris, 1989).

GASB, AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), FASB, FASAB, IPSASB
are cooperating, consulting and collaborating with each other for standard setting perspectives.
Researchers have mentioned that standards setters will be benefited by cooperating,
consulting and by collaborating the efforts (e.g., Attmore et al. 2008; Roybark et al. 2012a). It
has been agreed that combined efforts will maximize the impacts of limited resources. It‟s
expected also that working together of standard setters will enhance the innovation and solve
the problems of implementing the standards.

GASB has taken initiatives to work with IPSASB also. Like the collaboration with other
standard, GASB participates in IPSASs setting (Attmore et al. 2008).

However, researchers notice on the challenges and obstacles that standard setters may face in
working together. Differences in governmental environment and differences in governmental
philosophy of different countries may rise as problems of working together of standard setters.
Researchers have mentioned that GASB should take the charge of setting the standard. Patton
and Freeman (2009) mention that „as long as governments are innovative in their efforts to
finance services provided to their constituents, an independent standard-setting body will be
needed to develop financial reporting guidance. Thus, there will continue to be a role for the
GASB into the foreseeable future (p. 26).

International Public Sector Accounting Standard Board (IPSASB), the name of which is
already been mentioned, is another pioneer PSA standard setter that initiated their project
„International Public Sector Accounting Standard (IPSAS)‟ in late 1996. Basically, IPSASB is
a specialized organization that established in May, 1986 as an independent standard setting
body under the backing of IFAC. The objective of IPSASB is to develop high-quality
accounting standards for the use by the public sector entities around the world in the
preparation of general purpose financial statements and to facilitate the convergence of
internal and national standards to ensure uniform financial report throughout the world (IFAC,
2009). The standards of IPSASB are reviewed by a group, namely, Financial Stability Board
(FSB), IOSCO, and INTOSAI. The review group is chaired by representatives of the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the Organization, for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) (IPSASB (2014)).

A number of researchers have investigated the standard setting procedures, prospects and
challenges of IPSASB (e.g., Parry & Wynne, 2009; Caperchione & Rocher, 2012). It has been
claimed by the International Public Sector Accounting Board (IPSASB) that more than 70
countries have adopted the IPSASs or planning to adapt or in process of adaptation
(Caperchione & Rocher, 2012). IPSASs have attracted a great deal of attention in the
reformation of public sector accounting in less developed countries (Parry & Wynne, 2009).
46
The Jahangirnagar Journal of Business Studies, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2016 (ISSN: 2227 – 3484)

As mentioned earlier, apart from individual researchers and international organizations,

national organizations of different countries are taking steps for ensuring the sound standard
for PSA. For example, External Reporting Board (ERB) of New Zealand has attempted to
issue two different sets of standard; one for entities with a for-profit objective, and another for
entities with a not-for-profit objective (XRB, 2012). Culture, political, legal and other
environmental consideration argue for some difference from nation to nation (Attmore et al.
2008).

6 Discussions
This paper focuses on the three different streams of research in the PSA– the
institutionalization of PSA, Implementation of reformed PSA and standards of PSA. The
origin, ground and trends of these streams has been discussed in this paper. It seems that this
paper has added utility regarding the discussion on the trends, i.e., origin, ground and flow of
PSAR. Instead of classifying the paper simply, it discusses the origin and concept of area and
trends of PSAR. It is expected that the discussion in details rather than simple classification
has added utility in the area of the review of PSAR.

The introduction of new public management (NPM) enhances the trends of global public
sector reformation including accounting. The introduction and continuing importance of NPM
of the last century urge the primacy of accounting in government (Caperchione et al. 2013).
Therefore, scope and opportunity arises for the researches regarding the embedment of NPM
in the public sector. The complexity of institutionalization makes the ground for the
researchers. The application of social theory in this area has enriched the researches on PSA
regarding institutionalization. Ultimately, it has been found that the professional barriers of
accountants and conflicts of experts (who are traditional in mind) make the institutional
procedures difficult. And this area is being found for the researches regarding public sector
accounting.

Although, there is a huge support for reforming public sector accounting, the implementation
faces challenges and ultimately has taken different paths. Apart from the countries that have
adopted reform already, a number of countries are applying modified accrual basis system or
cash basis systems, or just thinking to reform the PSA. The technical, political, and
conceptual questions rise also to the adoption of PSA and these factors are making the
adoption critical. While the previous research works investigate the bottleneck, challenges
and complexity of implementations of PSA of a country, in these years some research works
are devoted to the comparisons of the implementations of PSA among different countries.
Another trend that has been found, while the previous research works were devoted to the
implementation of PSA, some contemporary researches are tempted to identify the innovation
in implementations (e.g., Ezzamel et al. 2014) and extension of grounds (e.g., Guthrie and
Dumay, 2015). The investigation of researchers has revealed the ground for future research
also. Comparative study on the USA, the UK, France and Germany of Jones et al. (2013)
reveals that there is no consensus among the four countries about the set of technical reform

47
 A Literature Review on Public Sector Accounting Research

possibilities till after the 25 years of accrual-based budgeting and accounting reforms
initiation. Absence of harmonization in the implementation of accrual accounting systems is
still visible. Very often standards are controversial and often contested and changed (Jones et
al. 2013).
The standards of reforming public sector accounting have gained concentrations from the
researchers. Researchers dealt in the area of standards of PSA from the financial accounting
perspective, especially from accrual accounting. Investigation of this paper finds that from the
initiation of PSA, a number of researchers, national and international organizations are
involved in the research on PSA standards. While the PSA started with the initiation of
municipal accounting in the USA, different national and international organization play
important role in the development of PSA standards. A number of researchers have worked on
the bottleneck, challenges and the worldwide development of PSA standards also. To explain
the trends of research simply, some focal points of PSAR and the years have been presented
in the following table –

Table 1. Trends of Public Sector Accounting Research (As Example)

Example of contributors Journal Published/ Year Central issues
Publisher/
Organization
Broadbent, J., and Guthrie, J. Accounting, Auditing 1992 Concentrating on the
and Accountability identification of domain of
Journal public sector accounting
Allen, A., Sanders, G.D Financial Accountability 1994 Implementing factors and
and Management scenario
IPSASB IFAC 1996 Initiatives of developing the
international public sector
accounting standard
Barton, Allan Australian Accounting 1999 Need for different accounting
Review (Financial) in public sector
Carpenter, V.L., and Feroz, E.H Accounting, 2001 Theory initiation for the
Organization and adoption of reformed public
Society sector accounting
Paulsson, G Financial Accountability 2006 Adoption scenario of modified
& Management PSA at individual countries
Timoshenko, K., and Adhikari, Journal of Public 2010 Comparison of adoption of
P. Budgeting, Accounting modified public sector
& Financial accounting
Management
Ezzamel, M., Hyndman, N., Critical Perspective on 2014 Innovation in reforming PSA
Johnsen, A., and Lapsley Accounting practice
James Guthrie , John Dumay Journal of Intellectual 2015 Probable integration of
Capital Intellectual capital in public
sector

48
The Jahangirnagar Journal of Business Studies, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2016 (ISSN: 2227 – 3484)

7 Conclusions

The history of PSA is long that started with municipal accounting. Public sector accounting
research has undergone significant theoretical development and investigation researches over
the last decades and it is hardly possible to review all the papers within the remits of this
paper. This paper focuses on the three streams of PSAR that are visible and supported by the
researchers of PSA. A wide variety of areas are found in PSAR. Because of this wide variety,
the compilation of research has become difficult. However, it should be accepted that this
various areas have enriched the research on PSA. Contributions from various research
grounds, like the use of social theories by the researchers have enriched the PSAR also.
Ultimately, the practice of accounting provides the ground for understanding of PSA
regarding the surrounding environment. The contribution of various areas and the practice
under different surrounding environment make the scope for research exploration. The policy
makers and the standard setters have given efforts to develop a framework that will be widely
accepted and will be useful for different environment or community. It seems plausible to say
that the emerging interest in the worldwide accounting community, various topics, combined
theories, methods and methodologies will explore the PSAR in future.

References

Adhikari, P., Timoshenko, K. & Garseth-Nesbakk, L. (2012). Reforming central government

accounting in diverse contexts: A three-country comparison. International Journal of
Public Sector Performance Management, 2(1), 44 – 60
Adhikari, P., Kuruppu, C. & Matilal, S. (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
Allen, A & Sanders, G.D. (1994). Financial disclosures in US municipalities: Has the
governmental accounting standard board made a difference? Financial Accountability &
Management, 10(3), 175 – 193
Attmore, R.H., Mead, D.M. & Betz, K. (2008). Benefits and challenges of working with other
standards-setters. Journal of Government Financial Management, 57(1),11 – 13
Ball, I & Pflugrath, G. (2012). Government Accounting: Making Enron look good. World
Economics, 13(1), 1 – 18
Barton, Allan. (1999). Public and Private Sector Accounting – The Non-Identical twins.
Australian Accounting Review, 9(2), 22 – 31
Becker, S.D., Jagalla, T. & Skaerbaek, P. (2014). The translation of accrual accounting and
budgeting and the reconfiguration of public sector accounts‟ identities. Critical
Perspective on Accounting, 25, 324 – 338
Benito, B., Brusca, I. & Montesinos, V. (2007). The harmonization of government financial

49
 A Literature Review on Public Sector Accounting Research

information systems: The role of the IPSASs. International Reviews of Administrative

Sciences, 73(2), 293 – 317
Brignall, S & Modell, S. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement
and management in the „new public sector. Management Accounting Research, 11, 281 –
306
Broadbent, J & Guthrie, J. (1992). Changes in public sector: A review of recent “alternative”
accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 5(2), 3 – 31
Broadbent, J & Guthrie, J. (2008). Public sector to public services: 20 years of “contextual”
accounting research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21(2), 129 – 169
Carnegie, G & Napier, C. (2002). Exploring comparative international accounting history.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(5), 689 – 718
Caperchione, E & Lapsley, I. (2011). Making comparison in government accounting.
Financial Accountability & Management, 27(2), 103 – 106
Caperchione, E & Rocher, S. (2012). Introduction: Public sector accounting, IPSAS and
performance management. Int. J. Public Sector Performance Management, 2(1), 1 – 4
Caperchione, E., Christianes, J. & Lapsley, I. (2013). The primacy of, and complexity of,
accounting for government. Financial Accounting & Management, 29(4), 349 – 353
Carpenter, V.L & Feroz, E.H. (2001). Institutional theory and accounting rule choice: An
analysis of four US state governments‟ decisions to adopt generally accepted accounting
principles. Accounting, Organization and Society, 26(7/8), 565 – 596
DiMaggio, P & Powell, W. (1983). The iron case revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147
– 160
Ellwood, S & Newberry, S. (2007). Public sector accrual accounting: Institutionalizing
neo-liberal principles? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20 (4), 549 – 573
Ezzamel, M., Hyndman, N., Johnsen, A., Lapsley, I. & Pallot, J. (2007). Experiencing
institutionalization: The development of new budgets in the UK developed bodies.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(1), 11 – 40
Ezzamel, M., Robson, K. & Stapleton, P. (2012). The logic of budgeting: Theorization and
practice variation in the educational field. Accounting, Organization and Society, 37(5),
281 – 303.
External Reporting Board (XRB) (2012). Standard framework,
http://xrb.govt.nz/Site/Accounting_Standards/Current_Standards/default.aspx
Ezzamel, M., Hyndman, N., Johnsen, A. & Lapsley (2014). Reforming central government:
An evaluation of an accounting innovation. Critical Perspective on Accounting, 25, 409
– 422
Flesher, D.L., Samson, W.D. & Previts, G.J. (2003). Accounting, economic development and
financial reporting: The case of three pre-civil war US railroads. Accounting History,
8(2), 61 – 77
Freeman, R.J. & G.S. Allison. (2006). Century of governmental accounting and financial
reporting leadership. Government Finance Review, 22(2)
Frumkin, P & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector
organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 283 – 307
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), (1984, December). Governmental

50
The Jahangirnagar Journal of Business Studies, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2016 (ISSN: 2227 – 3484)

Accounting Standard Series, GASB Action report, No. 005

Goddard, Andrew. (2010). Contemporary public sector accounting research – An international
comparison of journal papers. The British Accounting Review, 42, 75 – 87
Guthrie, J., Olson, O. & Humphrey, C. (1999). Debating developments in new public
financial management: The limits of global theorizing and some new ways forward.
Financial Accountability & Management, 15(3-4), 209 – 228
Harris, L. & Associates, Inc. (Harries), (1989). A Study on the Attitudes toward and an
Assessment of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Financial Accounting
Foundation
Harun, H., Van Peursem, K. & Eggleton, I. (2012). Institutionalization of accrual accounting
in the Indonesian public sector. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 8(3),
257 – 285
Helden, G.J.V. (2005). Researching public sector transformation: The role of management
accounting. Financial Accountability & Management, 21(1), 99 – 133
Heclo, H. (2008). On thinking institutionally, Paradigm Publishers
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(Spring), 3 –
19
Hood, C. (1995). The „New Public Management‟ in the 1980s: Variations on a theme.
Accounting, Organization and Society, 20(1), 93 – 109
Hyndman, N. & Connolly, C. (2011). Accruals accounting in the public sector: A road not
always taken. Management Accounting Research, 22(1), 36 – 45
International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), (2009). IFAC handbook of international
public sector accounting pronouncements.
IPSASB (2014). The future governance of the International public sector accounting
standards board (IPSASB), pp.1 –25
James G., & John D. (2015). New frontiers in the use of intellectual capital in the public
sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 258 – 266
Jones, R., Lande, E., Luder, K. & Portal, M. (2013). A comparison of budgeting and
accounting reforms in the national governments of France, Germany, the UK and the US.
Financial Accountability & Management, 29(4), 419 – 441
Ketokivi, M & Mantere, S. (2010). Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational
research. Academy of Management Review, 35, 515 – 333
Lapsley, I. (1999). Accounting and the new public management: Instruments of substantive
efficiency or a rationalizing Modernity? Financial Accountability and Management,
15(3-4), 201 – 207
Lawrence, T.B. & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institution and institutional work‟, in, Clegg, S., Hardy,
C., Lawrence, T.B. and Nord, W.R., (eds), Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage,
London, pp.214 – 254
Lawrence, T.B., Suddaby, R. & Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Liguori, M. & Steccolini, I. (2012). Accounting change: Explaining the outcomes, interpreting
the process. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(1), 27 – 70
Littleton, A.C. (1966). Accounting evolution to 1900, 2nd Edition, New York: Russell & Resell
Malsch, B. & Gendron, Y. (2013). Re-Theorizing Change: Institutional experimentation and

51
 A Literature Review on Public Sector Accounting Research

the struggle for domination in the field of public accounting. Journal of Management
Studies, 50(5), 870 – 899
Meyer, J & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340 – 363
Modell, S. (2001). Performance measurement and institutional process: A study of managerial
responses to public sector reform. Management Accounting Research, 12, 437- 464
Modell, S. (2009). Institutional research on the performance measurement and management in
the public sector accounting literature: A review and assessment. Financial
Accountability & Management, 25(3), 277 – 303
Newberry, S. (2011). Whole of government accounting in New Zealand: A review of WGA
financial reports from 1993 to 2010. ABACUS, 47(4), 501 – 524
Parry, M. & Wynne, A. (2009). The cash basis IPSAS: An alternative view. International
Journal of Governmental Financial Management, 9(2), 23 – 29
Patton, T.K. & Freeman, R.J. (2009). The GASB turns 25: A retrospective. Government
Finance Review, 25(2), 20 – 26
Paulsson, G. (2006). Accrual accounting in the public sector: Experiences from the central
government in Sweden. Financial Accountability & Management, 22(1), 47 – 62
Pina, Vicente. & Torres, Lourdes. (2003). Reshaping public sector accounting: An
international comparative view. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 20(4), 334
– 350
Pina, V., Torres, L. & Yetano, A. (2009). Accrual accounting in EU local governments: One
Method, several approaches. European Accounting Review, 18(4), 765 – 804
Pollanen, R. & Loiselle-Lapointe, K. (2012). Accounting reforms in the government of
Canada: Exploratory evidence on accrual accounting adoption and impact. Financial
Accountability and Management, 28(4), 359 – 377
Potts, J. (1978). An evolution of municipal accounting in the United States: 1900 – 1935.
Business History Review, 52(4), 518 – 536
Roybark, H.M., Coffman, E.N. & Previts, G.J. (2012a). The first quarter of century of the
GASB (1984 – 2009): A perspective on standard setting (Part One). ABACUS, 48(1), 1 –
30
Roybark, H.M., Coffman, E.N. & Previts, G.J. (2012b). The first quarter of century of the
GASB (1984 – 2009): A perspective on standard setting (Part Two). ABACUS, 48(2),
147– 198
Timoshenko, K. & Adhikari, P. (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
Yang, K. & Hsieh, J.Y. (2007). Managerial effectiveness of governmental performance
measurement: Testing a middle-range model. Public Administration Review, 67, 861 –
879

52