Suchergebnisse

An overview is presented of the discourse during the past 25 years about governmental accounting and auditing. To discuss the nature of discourse, 975 abstracts were reviewed from applied and scholarly publications. To gain insight into the discourse, these abstracts are classified in various ways. And to foster future research, works with a high potential for informing future research are identified from this discourse of the past.

In 1994, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) adopted and published Concepts Statement No. 2, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting} Although service efforts and accomplishments (SEA) is not a common term, this statement establishes the foundation for the subsequent adoption of reporting requirements that may expand the boundaries of reporting to significantly increase the amount of non‐financial information that states and municipalities will report, as well as the cost of external reporting Budget analysts are among prospective users of SEA information. A study of comment letters filed in response to the exposure draft, which preceded Concepts Statement No. 2, shows two divergent views of SEA reporting requirements.2 Support for SEA reporting requirements is grounded in a vision of the potential benefits of SEA reporting;3 opposition to SEA standards is grounded in concerns about potential consequences of instituting reporting requirements.4 The strength of opposition to SEA reporting requirements suggests that consideration of the rationale for standards setting is appropriate. In this article, commonly expressed concerns about reporting requirements are incorporated into five questions. Analysis of these questions evidences the weakness of the rationale for SEA standards as distinguished from the rationale for voluntary SEA reporting.Two proposals are advanced to address concerns about SEA reporting requirements. First, adoption of models of information use from the disciplines of public administration and political science is encouraged. Second, modification of the standard setting process to reflect the non‐financial domain of SEA is advocated. Thus, it is proposed that standard setters adopt approaches that emphasize cross‐disciplinary research, cooperation with other organizations, and active extension of due process to new stakeholders.