Knowledge that Transforms

Although public sector special audit and performance audit are frequently involved in blame, very few studies (save for Radcliffe 1997) provide detailed empirical accounts on how auditing participates in blame allocation. This study sets out to study one case of blame allocation by describing and characterizing the origins of failure and antecedents leading to the need for blame allocation, the institutional entities and arrangements that participate in the blame game, and how these entities, including the supreme audit institution, are mobilized in the processes of blame allocation. Applying a case methodology with Actor–Network Theory principles, the study extends Hood's (2002, 2007) research on blame and blame avoidance strategies by showing how a blame‐frame evaluates and allocates blame. The contribution of the paper is in four parts: first, it reveals the mechanisms that cause scapegoating of particular people and the role of auditors as experts in such mechanisms; second, it assists to develop an understanding of some factors at the core of the “accountability paradox” noted by Roberts (2009); third, it contributes to explanations as to why failing public sector reforms survive controversy and scandal since a scapegoating process can “reboot” reforms by erasing the reform's problems; and fourth, it demonstrates that an understanding of blame can be a useful addition to Actor–Network Theory.

The article discusses a study which examined the effect of fixed-price regulation on cost elasticity and cost asymmetry. The effect of ownership on firms' adjustments to cost elasticity and cost asymmetry in response to price regulation is explored. Aside from examining whether the change in regulation influences cost elasticity, analyses explored the effect of a change in regulation on the asymmetric behavior cost. The data used, provided by the German Federal Statistical Office, consist of a random sample of 70 percent of the entire population of German hospitals for the years 1993-2008. Results emphasizes the necessity to distinguish between upward and downward changes in cost elasticity when examining cost behavior..

We use a variance decomposition approach to examine why aggregate valuation ratios differ across countries. In a cross section of 22 developed countries from 1980 to 2009, we find that 50 percent of all cross‐country differences in the aggregate price‐to‐book ratio (P/B) can be explained by cross‐country differences in expected future five‐year profitability. In the second half of our sample period, this percentage exceeds that of the first half, rising to almost 64 percent. Although international differences in accounting standards and conventions may have made earnings from different countries more difficult to compare relative to dividends, we find that it is still cross‐country differences in expected future profitability, rather than dividend growth rates, that are more closely related to international differences in valuation ratios. Even among 25 emerging markets, we find that expected future profitability at the five‐year horizon can account for 29 percent of all cross‐country P/B variations. Our results show that international investors are able to identify substantial cross‐country differences in future‐earnings prospects and incorporate them into stock market valuations.

“Decision usefulness ” has been the organizing criterion for accounting policy and accounting scholarship for over forty years. Its authority however, was not gained over time through explicit theory development or argumentation, but was instead “born full grown ” (Staubus, 1999, p. 163)as a conceptual “takeover in the dead of night ” (p. 338). In essence, the concept of decision usefulness assumed a central place as the rationale for accounting choice by stealth rather than by careful argument or based on empirical evidence. The lack of an extended period of argumentation and debate over the meaning of decision usefulness meant its conceptual weaknesses were allowed to remain remarked upon but never resolved. In this paper we argue that as the central focus defining and guiding accounting policy, decision usefulness has not proven any more useful than earlier, allegedly normative theories of accounting did. The recent debates on IFRS versus GAAP provide vivid testament to the inadequacy of decision usefulness as a criterion for selecting among alternative accounting choices. We briefly examine the history of decision usefulness and its emergence as the chief criterion for selecting policy. We then argue that in light of recent developments in our

Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

We provide a list of points to consider ( PTC s) to help researchers self‐assess whether they have addressed certain common issues that arise frequently in accounting research seminars and in reviewers’ and editors’ comments on papers submitted to journals. Anticipating and addressing such issues can help accounting researchers, especially doctoral students and junior faculty members, convert an initial empirical accounting research idea into a thoughtful and carefully designed study. Doing this also allows outside readers to provide more beneficial feedback rather than commenting on the common issues that could have been dealt with in advance. The list, provided in the appendix, consists of five sections: Research Question; Theory; Contribution; Research Design and Analysis; and Interpretation of Results and Conclusions. In each section, we include critical items that readers, journal referees, and seminar participants are likely to raise and offer suggestions for how to address them. The text elaborates on some of the more challenging items, such as how to increase a study's contribution, and provides examples of how such issues have been effectively addressed in previous accounting studies.

This study examines the persistence and economic consequences of variations in reporting style across audit partners in individual engagements. Our results show that both aggressive and conservative audit reporting, measured by the pattern of prior Type 2 and Type 1 audit reporting error rates in auditor‐specific clienteles, persist over time and extend to other clients of the same partner. Analyses of abnormal accruals and persistence of client firms’ accrual estimates corroborate this finding, and hold both for private and publicly listed companies. Further, our results also show that the market penalizes client firms susceptible to aggressive audit partner reporting decisions. In particular, we find that our proxies for aggressive audit reporting are related to higher interest rates, worse credit ratings and less favorable forecasts of insolvency for private client companies, and a lower Tobin's Q for publicly listed client companies. Collectively, these results imply that audit partner aggressive or conservative reporting is a systematic audit partner attribute and not randomly distributed across engagements.

This is a published manuscript of an article published by Wiley.

We develop a data‐generated tool for distinguishing between fraudulent and truthful reports based on the language used in the management discussion and analysis section of annual and interim reports. Using this method, we are able to assign a probability of truth to each report which is then shown to be an effective indicator of fraud. Our work goes beyond the development of a tool alone, however, by conducting an extensive comparison of our probability‐of‐truth measure with eight alternative detection tools representing both quantitative and language‐based approaches. Comparisons are made across a variety of samples and show that our language‐based approach can be effective in both cross‐sectional and time‐series settings. It is useful both in distinguishing between fraudulent and truthful firms and in identifying fraudulent reports from a series of reports issued by a single firm. This second setting is one in which accounting‐based detection tools have frequently struggled. We establish that, not only is our probability‐of‐truth measure significantly associated with fraud, so too is the change in this measure from a firm's previous reports. Prior reports may serve an important benchmarking role in using language‐based tools to identify fraud.