Rules and accounting: Vagueness in conceptual frameworks

Accounting Horizons

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 339-351

  Penno, Mark C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 52649125360     PISSN: 08887993     EISSN: 15587975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/acch.2008.22.3.339     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Ackerman, F. 1995. The concept of manipulativeness. Philosophical Perspectives 9: 335-340.
2. Alston, W. 1964. Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Altamuro, J. 2005. The economic, financial and governance determinants of synthetic leasing. Working paper, MIT Sloan School of Management.
4. Benston, G., D. Carmichael, J. Demski, B. Dharan, K. Jamal, R. Laux, S. Rajgopal, and G. Vrana (The American Accounting Association's Financial Accounting Standards Committee). 2007. The FASB's conceptual framework for financial reporting: A critical analysis. Accounting Horizons 21: 229-238.
5. Brennan, G., and J. Buchanan. 1985. The Reason of Rules. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6. Churchill, R. 1990. Logic: An Introduction. New York, NY: St. Martin's.
7. Cuccia, A., K. Hackenbrack, and M. Nelson. 1995. The ability of professional standards to mitigate aggressive reporting. The Accounting Review 70: 227-248.
8. Davis, T. 2007. Leasing changes afoot. National Real Estate Investor 49 (May): 120.
9. Dupree, H. 1980. John Quincy Adams and the Uniformity of Weights and Measures in the United States. Forward to Report of the Secretary of the United States upon Weights and Measures New York, NY: Arno Press.
10. Dye, R. 2002. Classifications manipulation and Nash accounting standards. Journal of Accounting Research 40: 1125-1162.
11. Endicott, T. 2000. Vagueness in Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12. _. 2001. Law is necessarily vague. Legal Theory 7: 379-385.
13. Gewirtz, P. 1996. On "I know it when I see it." The Yale Law Journal 105: 1023-1047.
14. Green, E. 1968. The reasonable man: Legal fiction or psychosocial reality? Law & Society Review 2: 241-258.
15. Haack, S. 1996. Deviant Logic, Fuzzy Logic: Beyond the Formalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16. Hyde, D. 1995. Vagueness: By Timothy Williamson. Mind 416: 919-925.
17. Keefe, R., and P. Smith. 1997. Vagueness: A Reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Klein, H. 1974. The Science of Measurement: A Historical History. Toronto, Canada: General Publishing. Reprinted 1988. New York, NY: Dover Publications.
19. Kosko, B. 1993. Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic. New York, NY: Hyperion.
20. Krantz, D., R. Luce, P. Suppes, and A. Tversky. 1971. Foundations of Measurement, Vol. I. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Reprinted 2006. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
21. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22. Lipman, B. 2006. Why is language vague? Working paper, Boston University.
23. Luce, R. D. 1956. Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica 24: 178-191.
24. More, D. 2003. Boundaries of negligence. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 4: 1-27.
25. Murphy, G. 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Schipper, K. 2003. Principles-based accounting standards. Accounting Horizons 17: 61-72.
27. Schuetze, W. 1993. The liability crisis: Audit failures or accounting principles failures? Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 2: 411-417.
28. St. Pierre, K., and J. Anderson. 1984. An analysis of the factors associated with lawsuits against public accountants. The Accounting Review 59: 242-263.
29. Sunstein, C. 1996. Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30. Ullmann-Margalit, E. 1990. Revision of norms. Ethics 100: 756-767.
31. Weinberg, J. 1993. Broadcasting and speech. California Law Review 81: 1101, 1103-1206.
32. Weinberger, D. 2007. Everything is Miscellaneous. New York, NY: New York Times Press.
33. Williamson, T. 1994. Vagueness. New York, NY: Routledge.
34. Wittgenstein, L. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. New York, NY: Macmillan.