Knowledge that Transforms

level, the generalizations which emerge will have correspondingly great power as principles, predictors, or guides. The task is by no means simple, and Mattessich properly disclaims belief in the perfection of the result (p. 32). First of all, some comments on generality. Although he seeks to formulate the assumptions in the most general terms, all the illustrative and explanatory comment on the assumptions, with one or two minor exceptions, has reference to business entities. It would have been of interest to have some illustration of the counterparts of the examples given, or specific examples of the interpretation to be given to the assumptions and their component terms, in the case of service organizations and economies as wholes. One may well suspect that the absence of illustration is evidence that, after all, private accounting and national accounting may not be considered as of the same class. The generality of the statements of the assumptions is indicated in each case by the formula exists.. . or some equivalent indicative. Thus, the assumption of monetary values reads: There exists a set of additive values, expressed in a monetary unit; this set is isomorphic to the system of (positive and negative) integers plus the number zero (p. 32). And to take an example of the class of assumptions which are described as place-holders: There exists a set of hypotheses determining the value assigned to an accounting transaction (p. 42). A system built up on such pure postulates escapes many of the difficulties which arise if the postulates are to be tied to statements of function. A hypothesis is itself functional; we formulate hypotheses to serve our ends. It seems This content downloaded from 207.46.13.131 on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:11:45 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

On the occasion of a corporate merger or combination, the most important issue which arises is the restatement of assets from historical costs to current values. Whether to make such an adjustment is the primary decision to be made before any other major question is considered.' Thus far, the usual approach to this problem has been to base the decision upon whether the combination qualifies as a or a of interests. The first expression refers to situations in which assets of certain parties to the transaction are deemed, in effect, to have been purchased by the surviving entity or interests, with the implied conclusion that they should be restated to current market figures. In the second case, assets are conceived as being merged, without any inference of a transfer or thereof. The implication in this latter case is, of course, that the merged assets should retain the bases of accountability previously adopted by the constituent firms, and this normally means unamortized historical costs. Thus, the attention of accountants has been given primarily to the development of rational criteria for distinguishing between the purchase and the pooling situation, as those two terms have been defined. The continuity of individual stock ownership, management, business objectives, and the business enterprise have all been postulated as appropriate guidelines, together with such other considerations as the relative sizes

Defense spending, Fixed price contracts, Overhead costs, Bloodhound

Financial ratios, Solvability, Predictability

Agency conflicts, Theory of the firm, Reporting discretion

Controllers, Egypt, Governmental Influence

Investment credit, Taxation, Income tax

Lease accounting, Operating leases

Leverage, Valuation, Net income ratio, Capital gearing