Legitimacy of Global Accounting Standards: A New Analytical Framework

Masatsugu Sanada
{"title":"Legitimacy of Global Accounting Standards: A New Analytical Framework","authors":"Masatsugu Sanada","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1990796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper is a conceptual examination of global expansion of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and perceives its expansion as gaining legitimacy in the global financial regulatory field. From this stance, this paper assumes a pragmatic definition of legitimacy, which originally had many definitions that had become ‘motivation for acceptance among multi-stakeholders,’ and sets up a Legitimacy model that constitutionally analyzes legitimacy of global accounting standards. Drawing upon institutional theory, this study intends to provide a new perspective to accounting literature. The Legitimacy model constitutionally analyzes legitimacy of the global accounting regulatory system, which we can assume is a multilayer network, and separates legitimacy of IFRS and IASB, which have not necessarily been separated in previous studies. By employing the concept of reflexivity, this model clarifies the mechanism in which both the legitimacies of accounting standards and of the standard setters interact to convey legitimacy of global accounting standards as a system. The main contributions of this paper are analyzing accounting standards as global standards and/or a global institution and providing a new analytical framework to legitimacy of global accounting standards.","PeriodicalId":206472,"journal":{"name":"INTL: Political & Legal Issues (Topic)","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTL: Political & Legal Issues (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1990796","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

This paper is a conceptual examination of global expansion of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and perceives its expansion as gaining legitimacy in the global financial regulatory field. From this stance, this paper assumes a pragmatic definition of legitimacy, which originally had many definitions that had become ‘motivation for acceptance among multi-stakeholders,’ and sets up a Legitimacy model that constitutionally analyzes legitimacy of global accounting standards. Drawing upon institutional theory, this study intends to provide a new perspective to accounting literature. The Legitimacy model constitutionally analyzes legitimacy of the global accounting regulatory system, which we can assume is a multilayer network, and separates legitimacy of IFRS and IASB, which have not necessarily been separated in previous studies. By employing the concept of reflexivity, this model clarifies the mechanism in which both the legitimacies of accounting standards and of the standard setters interact to convey legitimacy of global accounting standards as a system. The main contributions of this paper are analyzing accounting standards as global standards and/or a global institution and providing a new analytical framework to legitimacy of global accounting standards.
全球会计准则的合法性:一个新的分析框架
本文对国际财务报告准则(IFRS)的全球扩张进行了概念性考察,并认为其扩张在全球金融监管领域获得了合法性。从这一立场出发,本文假设了合法性的实用主义定义,该定义最初有许多定义,已成为“多方利益相关者接受的动机”,并建立了一个合法性模型,从宪法上分析全球会计准则的合法性。本研究旨在借鉴制度理论,为会计文献提供一个新的视角。合法性模型从宪法上分析全球会计监管体系的合法性,我们可以假设这是一个多层网络,并将IFRS和IASB的合法性分开,这在以前的研究中不一定是分开的。通过采用反身性的概念,该模型阐明了会计准则的合法性和准则制定者的合法性相互作用的机制,以传达全球会计准则作为一个系统的合法性。本文的主要贡献是分析会计准则作为全球标准和/或全球制度,并为全球会计准则的合法性提供了一个新的分析框架。
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