On the methodology of a conceptual framework for financial accounting Part 1: An historical and jurisprudential analysis

Simon Archer
{"title":"On the methodology of a conceptual framework for financial accounting Part 1: An historical and jurisprudential analysis","authors":"Simon Archer","doi":"10.1080/09585209200000040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is the first of a pair of papers which examine some important questions raised by the ‘conceptual framework’ (CF) project carried out by the FASB in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This project has not generally been considered a success, in spite of the magnitude of the resources at the FASB's disposal. The present paper provides a critique of the approach used by the FASB, by analysing the Board's methodology as it appears from key documents published by the Board in the course of the project, against a background of methodological insights available from studies of policy formulation (Lindblom, 1959) and of legal validity (Raz, 1979) - insights of which the FASB was apparently quite unaware. This analysis shows why the CF, insofar as it was intended to achieve its ostensible aim of conferring powers of standard setting on the FASB independent of those delegated to it by the SEC, was unsuccessful. The second paper extends the analysis based on jurisprudence into the field of ‘soft systems’ analysis...","PeriodicalId":252763,"journal":{"name":"Accounting, Business and Financial History","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting, Business and Financial History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09585209200000040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

This is the first of a pair of papers which examine some important questions raised by the ‘conceptual framework’ (CF) project carried out by the FASB in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This project has not generally been considered a success, in spite of the magnitude of the resources at the FASB's disposal. The present paper provides a critique of the approach used by the FASB, by analysing the Board's methodology as it appears from key documents published by the Board in the course of the project, against a background of methodological insights available from studies of policy formulation (Lindblom, 1959) and of legal validity (Raz, 1979) - insights of which the FASB was apparently quite unaware. This analysis shows why the CF, insofar as it was intended to achieve its ostensible aim of conferring powers of standard setting on the FASB independent of those delegated to it by the SEC, was unsuccessful. The second paper extends the analysis based on jurisprudence into the field of ‘soft systems’ analysis...
论财务会计概念框架的方法论第一部分:历史与法理分析
这是两篇论文中的第一篇,该论文研究了由FASB在20世纪70年代末和80年代初开展的“概念框架”(CF)项目提出的一些重要问题。尽管美国财务会计准则委员会拥有大量的资源,但这个项目通常不被认为是成功的。本论文对FASB使用的方法进行了批判,通过分析委员会在项目过程中发布的关键文件中出现的方法,以政策制定(Lindblom, 1959)和法律有效性(Raz, 1979)研究中可用的方法见解为背景,FASB显然没有意识到这些见解。这一分析表明,就CF旨在实现其表面上的目标而言,即赋予FASB独立于SEC授权的标准制定权力,为什么CF是不成功的。第二篇论文将基于法学的分析扩展到“软系统”分析领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信