正当程序作为合法化机制:参与和响应《国际财务报告准则第17号:保险合同》的制定

IF 3.3 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Miguel Arce, Begoña Giner, Mohammed Amin Taleb
{"title":"正当程序作为合法化机制:参与和响应《国际财务报告准则第17号:保险合同》的制定","authors":"Miguel Arce,&nbsp;Begoña Giner,&nbsp;Mohammed Amin Taleb","doi":"10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2023.107150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper investigates the role of due process in legitimizing the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and uses the development of IFRS 17-Insurance Contracts (IASB, 2017a) as a case study. It examines stakeholders’ participation and assesses the IASB’s responsiveness to the views expressed in the comment letters. It focuses on changes in recognition, valuation, and disclosure during the 10-year process, in which the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) played a relevant role. For input and through-put legitimacy analysis, we conduct content analysis of comment letters and consult additional sources to understand key concerns in insurance accounting. The IASB received substantial feedback from diverse stakeholders and geographical regions, primarily preparers and European constituents. Our findings indicate that decisions throughout the standard-setting process align with stakeholders’ interests, without preferential treatment for any groups, affirming the institution’s legitimacy was preserved. This confirms that the IASB’s due process can be seen as a shield against political and constituent pressures. Nevertheless, this study cannot definitively attribute identified changes solely to comment letters, as other channels may have been equally influential.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278425423001102/pdfft?md5=437fbd8d70c1824496e7b07c13124fb4&pid=1-s2.0-S0278425423001102-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Due process as a legitimating mechanism: Participation and responsiveness in the development of IFRS 17: Insurance contracts\",\"authors\":\"Miguel Arce,&nbsp;Begoña Giner,&nbsp;Mohammed Amin Taleb\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2023.107150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This paper investigates the role of due process in legitimizing the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and uses the development of IFRS 17-Insurance Contracts (IASB, 2017a) as a case study. It examines stakeholders’ participation and assesses the IASB’s responsiveness to the views expressed in the comment letters. It focuses on changes in recognition, valuation, and disclosure during the 10-year process, in which the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) played a relevant role. For input and through-put legitimacy analysis, we conduct content analysis of comment letters and consult additional sources to understand key concerns in insurance accounting. The IASB received substantial feedback from diverse stakeholders and geographical regions, primarily preparers and European constituents. Our findings indicate that decisions throughout the standard-setting process align with stakeholders’ interests, without preferential treatment for any groups, affirming the institution’s legitimacy was preserved. This confirms that the IASB’s due process can be seen as a shield against political and constituent pressures. Nevertheless, this study cannot definitively attribute identified changes solely to comment letters, as other channels may have been equally influential.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Accounting and Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278425423001102/pdfft?md5=437fbd8d70c1824496e7b07c13124fb4&pid=1-s2.0-S0278425423001102-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Accounting and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278425423001102\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Accounting and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278425423001102","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了正当程序在使国际会计准则理事会(IASB)合法化方面的作用,并以国际财务报告准则第17号保险合同(IASB, 2017a)的制定为例进行了研究。该报告审查了利益相关方的参与情况,并评估了IASB对意见函中所表达意见的回应。它侧重于十年过程中确认、估值和披露的变化,其中财务会计准则委员会(FASB)发挥了相关作用。对于输入和吞吐量合法性分析,我们对评论信进行内容分析,并参考其他来源,以了解保险会计中的关键问题。国际会计准则理事会(IASB)收到了来自不同利益相关方和地理区域(主要是编制人和欧洲成员)的大量反馈。我们的研究结果表明,在整个标准制定过程中,决策与利益相关者的利益保持一致,没有对任何群体的优惠待遇,确认了机构的合法性。这证实了IASB的正当程序可以被视为抵御政治和构成压力的屏障。然而,本研究不能明确地将已确定的变化完全归因于评论信,因为其他渠道可能也具有同样的影响力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Due process as a legitimating mechanism: Participation and responsiveness in the development of IFRS 17: Insurance contracts

This paper investigates the role of due process in legitimizing the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and uses the development of IFRS 17-Insurance Contracts (IASB, 2017a) as a case study. It examines stakeholders’ participation and assesses the IASB’s responsiveness to the views expressed in the comment letters. It focuses on changes in recognition, valuation, and disclosure during the 10-year process, in which the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) played a relevant role. For input and through-put legitimacy analysis, we conduct content analysis of comment letters and consult additional sources to understand key concerns in insurance accounting. The IASB received substantial feedback from diverse stakeholders and geographical regions, primarily preparers and European constituents. Our findings indicate that decisions throughout the standard-setting process align with stakeholders’ interests, without preferential treatment for any groups, affirming the institution’s legitimacy was preserved. This confirms that the IASB’s due process can be seen as a shield against political and constituent pressures. Nevertheless, this study cannot definitively attribute identified changes solely to comment letters, as other channels may have been equally influential.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: The Journal of Accounting and Public Policy publishes research papers focusing on the intersection between accounting and public policy. Preference is given to papers illuminating through theoretical or empirical analysis, the effects of accounting on public policy and vice-versa. Subjects treated in this journal include the interface of accounting with economics, political science, sociology, or law. The Journal includes a section entitled Accounting Letters. This section publishes short research articles that should not exceed approximately 3,000 words. The objective of this section is to facilitate the rapid dissemination of important accounting research. Accordingly, articles submitted to this section will be reviewed within fours weeks of receipt, revisions will be limited to one, and publication will occur within four months of acceptance.
×
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