Usefulness of valuation model of the IPSAS for governmental accountability: The perspective of supreme audit institutions;Utilidad del modelo de valoración de las IPSAS para la rendición de cuentas de los gobiernos: La perspectiva de los OCEX

Revista Espanola de Financiacion y Contabilidad

Volumn 40, Issue 149, 2011, Pages 125-162

  Galera, Andrés Navarro ^a   Rodríguez Bolívar, Manuel P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Administrative reforms; Fair value; Ipsas; Sai

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955627467     PISSN: 02102412     EISSN: 02102412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02102412.2011.10779700     Document Type: Article

References (125)

1. AAA Fasc. 2000. Response to the FASB preliminary views: Reporting financial instruments and certain unrelated assets and liabilities at fair value. Accounting Horizons 14 (4): 501-508.
2. AAA Fasc. 2005. Response to the FASB's exposure draft on fair value measurements. Accounting Horizons 19 (3): 187-196.
3. th CIGAR Conference, Poitiers, France. Mayo.
4. Algemene R. 2003. Begroting en verantwoording in balans. Het baten-lastenstelsel voor de rijks-overheid, Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 2002-2003, 28 860, n.o 1-2, Sdu Uitgevers, Den Haag.
5. Allegretti G. y Herzberg C. 2004. Participatory budgets in Europe. Between efficiency and growing local democracy. Transnational Institute TNI Briefing Series n.o 2004/5. www.tni.org.
6. Ammons D. N.; Coe, C., y Lombardo, M. 2001. Performance-Comparison projects in local government: participants' perspective. Public Administration Review 61 (1): 100-110.
7. Arellano-Gault, D., y Castillo-Vega A del. 2004. Maturation of Public Administration in a Multicultural Environment: Lessons from the Anglo-American, Latin, and Scandinavian Political Traditions. International Journal of Public Administration 27 (7): 519-528.
8. Asociación Española de Contabilidad y Administración de Empresas (AECA). 1999. Marco conceptual para la información financiera. Documento de Principios Contables n.o 22, Madrid.
9. Asociación Española de Contabilidad y Administración de Empresas (AECA). 2001. Marco conceptual para la información financiera de las entidades públicas. Madrid: AECA.
10. Australian Accounting Research Foundation (AARF), 1990. Statement of Accounting n.o 2. Objective of general purpose financial reporting. Caulfield: AARF.
11. Baker, R. 1994. Democracy versus bureaucracy: Transforming the nature of the civil service in Bulgaria, en: Baker, R. ed. Comparative public management: Putting U.S. public policy and implementation in context, 53-65. Wespot, CT: Praeger Publishers.
12. Baker, R. 2002. Introduction: Transition and reform in post-authoritarian states, en Baker, R. ed. Transitions from authoritarianism: The role of bureaucracy, 1-13. Wespot, CT: Praeger Publishers.
13. Ball, R. 2006. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): pros and cons for investors. Accounting and Business Research. International Accounting Policy Forum: 5-27.
14. Barth, M. 2006. Including Estimates of the Future in Today's Financial Statements. Accounting Horizons 20 (3): 271-285.
15. Barth, M., y Landsman, W. R. 1995. Fundamental issues to using fair value accounting for financial reporting. Accounting Horizons 9 (4): 97-107.
16. Barzelay, M. 1992. Breaking through Bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17. Bastida, F., y Benito, B. 2007. Central Government budget practices and transparency: an international comparison. Public Administration 85 (3): 667-716.
18. Beck, T. 1996. From Continental Law to Anglo-American Behaviorism: Scandinavian Public Administration. Public Administration Review 56 (1): 94-103.
19. Benito, B., Brusca, I., y Montesinos, V. 2007. The harmonization of government financial information systems: the role of the IPSASs. International Review of Administrative Sciences 73 (2): 293-317.
20. Benston, G. J. 2008. The shortcomings of fair-value accounting described in SFAS 157. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 27 (2): 101-114.
21. Betts, J., y Wines, G. 2004. Application of the fair-value concept: evidence from Australian legal decisions. Australian Accounting Review 14 (1): 63-72.
22. Bies, S. 2005. Fair value accounting, Federal Reserve Bulletin 91 (1): 26-29.
23. Blanchard, O.; Dombush, D.; Krugman, P.; Layard, R., y Summers, L. 1991. Reform in Eastern Europe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Blöndal, J.; Jón R., y Ruffner, M. 2004. Issues in accrual budgeting. OECD Journal on Budgeting 4 (1): 49-79.
25. Bradbury, M. E. 2000. Issues in the drive to measure liabilities at fair value. Australian Accounting Review 10 (2): 19-25.
26. Broadbent, J., y Laughlin, R. 2002. Public service professionals and the new public management: control of the professions in the public services, en Mclaughlin, K.; Osborne, S. P., y Ferlie E. eds. New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects, 95-107. London y New York: Routledge.
27. Brusca, I., y Benito, B. 2002. Panorama Internacional de la Contabilidad Pública. Ponencia presen-tada a la VII Jornada de Trabajo sobre Contabilidad Pública, Ed. ASEPUC, Murcia, 151-215.
28. Brusca, I., y Montesinos, V. 2006. Are Citizens Significant Users of Government Financial Information. Public Money & Management 26 (4): 205-209.
29. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). 1985. Local Government Financial Reporting. CICA: Toronto.
30. CICA. 1990. Public Sector Accounting. Local Government Financial Statements. Toronto: Statement n.o 6. Objectives and General Principles, Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
31. Cañibano, L., y Gonzalo, J. A. 1997. Los programas de investigación en contabilidad. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review 0 (0): enero-diciembre, 57-95.
32. Chan, J. L. 2003. Government Accounting: an assessment of theory, purposes and standards. Public Money & Management 23 (1): 13-20.
33. Christensen, M., y Yoshimi, H. 2003. Public Sector Performance Reporting: New Public Management and Contingency Theory insights. Government Auditing Review 10: 72-83.
34. Christensen, T., y Laegreid, P. (eds.). 2007. Transcending New Public Management. The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms. Aldershot: Ashgate.
35. Christensen, T.; Laegreid, P., y Wise L. R. 2002. Transforming administrative policy. Public Administration 80 (1): 153-178.
36. Churchill M. 1992a. Asset valuation. Australian Accountant: Abril: 35-41.
37. Churchill M. 1992b. Asset valuation methods. Australian Accountant: Mayo: 30-34.
38. Collison, D.; Lorraine, N., y Power, D. 2003. An exploration of corporate attitudes to the signifi-cance of environmental information for stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 10 (4): 199-211.
39. Council of Europe. 2005. Draft Report on Accounting Rules and practice at local level, en www.coe.int
40. Dumontier, P., y Raffournier, B. 2002. Accounting and capital markets: A survey of the European evidence. The European Accounting Review 11 (1): 119-151.
41. Eccles, R. G.; Herz, R. H.; Keegan, E. M., y Phillips, D. M. H. 2001. The Value-Reporting Revolution. New York, NY: Wiley.
42. Elad, C. 2004. Fair value accounting in the agricultural sector: some implications for international accounting harmonization. European Accounting Review 13 (4): 621-641.
43. Emerson, T. L. N.; Conroy, S. J., y Stanley, C. W. 2007. Ethical Attitudes of Accountants: Recent Evidence from a Practitioners' Survey. Journal of Business Ethics 71 (1): 73-87.
44. FASB. 1984. Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts n.o 5. Recognition and measurement in financial statements of business enterprises, www.fasb.org.
45. FASB. 1980. Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts n.o 2. Quialitative Characteristics of Accounting Information. FASB Norwalk, Connecticut.
46. FASB. 2008. Preliminary Views. Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting: Objective of Financial Reporting and Qualitative Characteristics of Decision-Useful Financial Reporting Information. Preliminary Views. Financial Accounting Series n.o 1260-001.
47. Folz, D. H. 2004. Service quality and benchmarking the performance of municipal services. Public Administration Review 64 (2): 209-220.
48. García Meca, E.; Martínez Conesa, I., y Laffarga Briones, J. 2009. Normas internacionales de valoración: la opinión de los profesionales en España. Revista Española de Financiación y Conta-bilidad, XXXVIII (143), 479-504.
49. GASB. 1987. Objectives of Financial Reporting. Norwalk, USA: Concepts Statements n.o 11. www.gasb.org.
50. Guthrie J., y Humphrey, C. 1996. Public sector financial management developments in Australia and Britain: Trends and contradictions. Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting 9: 283-302.
51. Guthrie, J.; Olson, O., y Humphrey, C. 1999. Debating developments in the New Public Financial Management: The limits of Global Theorizing and some new way forward. Financial, Accountability and Management 15 (3): 209-228.
52. Haque M. S. 2006. Modernising government: The way forward-an analysis. International Review of Administrative Sciences 72 (3): 319-325.
53. Häusler, G. 2004. The insurance industry, systemic financial stability, and fair value accounting. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 29 (1): 63-70.
54. Hood, C. 1991. A Public Management For All Seasons? Public Administration 69 (1): 3-19.
55. Hood, C. 1995. Contemporary public management: A new global paradigm? Public Policy and Administration 10 (2): 104-117.
56. Hughes, O. 1994. Public Management and Administration, Londres: Macmillan Press Ltd.
57. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). 2006. Measurement in financial reporting, Information for better markets, 6. Octubre, Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales.
58. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). 2008. IAS n.o 39. Financial Instruments: Recognition and measurement. www.iasb.org.
59. International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC). 1989. Marco conceptual para la pre-paración y presentación de los estados financieros, en: International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (IASCF), Normas Internacionales de Contabilidad 2007. Madrid: CISS PRAXIS 43-83.
60. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 1995. Study n.5. Definitions and Recognition of Assets. www.ifac.org.
61. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 2002. Transition to the accrual basis of accounting: guidance for governments and government entities. New York: IFAC, Public Sector Committee.
62. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2008a): Handbook of International Public Sector Accounting. www.ifac.org.
63. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2008b). Handbook of International Auditing, Assurance, and Ethics pronouncements. www.ifac.org.
64. International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI), 2006. Auditing Standards, www.intosai.org.
65. International Value Standards Committee (IVSC), 2007. International Valuation Standards, Ed. International Valuation Standards Committee, Chicago, Illinois. www.ivsc.org.
66. Intervención General de la Administración del Estado (IGAE) 1994. Principios contables públi-cos. Documentos 1 a 8. Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda, Madrid.
67. Intervención General de la Administración del Estado (IGAE) 1998. Resolución de 1 de sep-tiembre de 1998 del Interventor General de la Administración del Estado por la que se ordena la publicación de la resolución que aprueba las Normas de Auditoría del Sector Público.
68. Intervención General de la Administración del Estado (IGAE) 2009. Borrador de la Orden por la que se aprueba el Nuevo Plan General de Contabilidad Pú-blica, www.igae.es.
69. Jackson, A., y Lapsley, I. 2003. The diffusion of accounting practices in the new managerial public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management 16 (5): 259-372.
70. Jacobs, C. 2004. The challenge of public sector reform in EC accession countries: refl ections from the Baltics, especially Latvia. Public Administration and Development 24 (4): 321-331.
71. Kettl, D. F. 2006. Modernising government: The way forward-a comment. International Review of Administrative Sciences 72: 313-317.
72. Khurana, I. K., y Kim, M. 2003. Relative value relevance of historical cost vs. fair value: Evidence from bank holding companies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 22 (1): 19-42.
73. Kickert, W. 1997. Public Management in the United States and Europe, en Kickert, W. ed. Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe, 15-38. Cheltenham, UK: Edward El-gar.
74. Kickert, W. 2007. Distinctive characteristics of State and Administrative Reform in Southern Europe, en H. Hill, ed. Modernizing Government in Europe, 191-212. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.
75. Kim, P.; Halligan, J.; Cho, H.; Oh, C., y Eikenberry, A. M. 2005. Toward participatory and transparent governance: Report on Six Global Forum on Reinventing Government. Public Administration Review 65 (6): 646-654.
76. Kopits, G., y Craig, J. 1998. Transparency in Government Operations, Occasional Paper 158, International Monetary Fund.
77. Kuuttiniemi, K., y Virtanen, P. 1998. Citizens Charters and Compensation Mechanisms, Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Finance, Public Management Department.
78. Lapsley, I., y Pallot, J. 2000. Accounting and the new public management: A comparative study of local government. Management Accounting Research 11: 213-229.
79. rd edic. Springer, New York.
80. Littrell, E., y Thompson, F. 1998. Fixed assets reporting: a research note, Public Budgeting & Finance, spring.
81. Llewellyn, S., y Northcott, D. 2005. The average hospital. Accounting, Organizations & Society 30 (6): 555-583.
82. Lüder, K. 2002. Government budgeting and accounting reform in Germany. In OECD, Models of Public Budgeting and Accounting Reform. OECD Journal on Budgeting 2 (Supplement 1): 224-242.
83. Mack, J., y Ryan, C. 2006. Refl ections on the theoretical underpinnings of the general-purpose financial reports of Australian government departments. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 19 (4): 592-612.
84. Martí, C. 2006. Accrual budgeting: Accounting treatment of key public sector items and implications for fiscal policy. Public Budgeting & Finance 26 (2): 45-65.
85. Martin, R. D.; Rich, J. S., y Wilks, T. J. 2006. Auditing Fair Value Measurements: A synthesis of Relevant Research. Accounting Horizons 20 (3): 287-303.
86. Matheson, A. y Kwon, H. S. 2003. Public Sector Modernisation: a New Agenda. OECD Journal on Budgeting 3 (1): 7-24.
87. Montesinos, V. et al. 2001. Análisis contable de las infraestructuras públicas y su financiación privada, Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, Madrid.
88. Morely, E. S.; Bryant, S. P., y Hatry, H. P. 2001. Comparative performance measurement, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
89. Naranjo, D. 2006. Salvando las dificultades del uso de la encuesta en la investigación contable de gestión: Una aplicación empírica. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad XXXV (129): 361-385.
90. Navarro, A. 2005. Una propuesta para la aplicación de los modelos de valoración de las normas internacionales a los activos de las entidades públicas españolas. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad XXXIV (126): 637-661.
91. Navarro, A., y Pérez, M.C. 2009. La repercusión del valor razonable de los bienes inmuebles en la utilidad de los estados financieros. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review 12 (1): 141-162.
92. Navarro, A., y Rodríguez, M. P. 2004. Análisis de la utilidad del fair value para la valoración de activos de las administraciones públicas españolas. Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review 7 (3): 245-273.
93. Navarro, A., y Rodríguez, M. P. 2007. The contribution of International accounting standards to implementing NPM in developing and developed countries. Public Administration and Development 27 (5): 413-425.
94. Navarro, A.; Rodríguez, M. P., y Ortiz, D. 2007. La repercusión de la adopción de normas interna-cionales de contabilidad pública sobre la función fiscalizadora de los OCEX. Revista Española de Control Externo IX (25): 131-158.
95. Olson, O.; Humphrey C., y Guthrie, J. 1998. Global Warning. Debating International Developments in New Public Financial Management. Capellen Adademisk Forlag.
96. Ortiz, D.; Navarro, A., y López, A. 2006. Consensus among public managers as strategy for standardization of performance indicators. International Public Management Journal 9 (4): 371-398.
97. Osborne, S. P. 2006. The new public governance? Public Management Review 8: 377-387.
98. Palubinskas, G. T. 2002. Economic Transformation - The full societal transformation thesis. Virginia, USA: A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the School of Public Policy, George Mason University.
99. Pina, V.; Torres, L., y Royo, S. 2007. Are ICTs improving transparency and accountability in the EU regional and local governments? An empirical Study. Public Administration 85 (2): 449-472.
100. Pina, V.; Torres, L., y Royo, S. 2009. E-government evolution in EU local governments: a comparative perspective, Fifth Transatlantic Dialogue, Washington, D.C. 11-13 junio.
101. Pollitt, C., y Bouckaert, G. 2004. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
102. Pollitt, C., y Summa, H. 1997. Trajectories of reform: public management change in four countries. Public Money & Management 17 (1): 7-18.
103. Pollitt, C.; Van Thiel, S., y Holmburg, V. (eds.). 2007. New Public Management in Europe: Adaptation and Alternatives, London: Palgrave.
104. Premchand, A. 1993. Public Expense Management, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
105. Rayman, R. A. 2007. Fair value accounting and the present value fallacy: The need for an alternative conceptual framework. The British Accounting Review 39 (3): 211-225.
106. Rivenbark, W. C., y Carter, K. L. 2000. Benchmarking and cost accounting: the North Carolina approach. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management 12 (1): 125-138.
107. Rodríguez, M. P., y Navarro, A. 2007. Could fair value accounting be useful, under NPM models, for users of financial information? International Review of Administrative Sciences 73 (3): 473-502.
108. Rohatgi, V. K. 1976. Theory and Mathematical Statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
109. Rouban, L. 1997. The Administrative Modernisation Policy in France, en Walter Kickert, ed. Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK: 141-156.
110. Sanderson, I., y Foreman A. 1996. Towards pluralism and partnership in management development in local government. Local Government Studies 22 (1): 59-77.
111. Sanderson, I. 2001, Performance management, evaluation and learning in «modern» local government. Public Administration 79 (2): 297-313.
112. Straussman, J. 2001. Technical assistance to local governments in Hungary: The limits of best practice. International Journal of Public Sector Management 14 (6): 500-521.
113. Sutcliffe, P. 2003. The Standards Programme of IFAC's Public Sector Committee. Public Money and Management 23 (1): 29-36.
114. Torres, L. 2004. Accounting and accountability: recent developments in governmental financial information systems. Public Administration and Development 24 (5): 447-456.
115. Torres, L. 2006. Service Charters in Spain: Transparency and Citizen Empowerment or Government Marketing? Public Money & Management 26 (3): 159-164.
116. Torres, L., y Pina, V. 2004. Reshaping public administration: the Spanish experience compared to the UK. Public Administration 82 (2): 445-464.
117. Turley, S. 2008. Discussion of Ronen. Abacus 44 (2): 209-218.
118. Van Helden G. J., y Tillema, S. 2005. In Search of a Benchmarking Theory for the Public Sector. Financial Accountability & Management 21 (3): 337-361.
119. VVAA, 2004. La Contabilidad Pública en algunos países de la OCDE, Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, Madrid.
120. Victorian Government, 2008. Asset Valuations of Government. Financial Reporting valuations under the Financial Management Act 1994 (FMA), www.land.vic.gov.au
121. Wang, X. 2002. Assesing Administrative Accountability. Results from National Survey. American Review of Public Administration 32 (3): 350-370.
122. Whittington, G. 2008. Fair Value and the IASB/FASB Conceptual Framework Project: An Alternative View. Abacus 44 (2): 139-168.
123. Wiarda, H. J. 2002a. The politics of European enlargement: NATO, the EU, and the US-European relationship. World Affairs 164 (4): 178-197.
124. Wiarda, H. J. 2002b. Southern Europe, Eastern Europe and comparative politics: Transitology and the need for new theory. World Politics 15 (3): 485-501.
125. Wilks, S. S. 1962. Mathematical Statistics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.