IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v142y2017i2d10.1007_s10551-016-3158-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Examination of the U.S. Public Accounting Profession’s Public Interest Discourse and Actions in Federal Policy Making

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Baudot

    (University of Central Florida)

  • Robin W. Roberts

    (University of Central Florida)

  • Dana M. Wallace

    (University of Central Florida)

Abstract

Participation in the political process by the United States public accounting profession often blurs the role of the profession as advocates for the public interest with its role as advocates for its own private interests. In this study, we draw from prior theoretical and empirical work to investigate recent federal political activities of the public accounting profession to shed light on these sometimes contradictory roles. In particular, we investigate ten contemporary regulatory issues of interest to the AICPA. We analyze 36 AICPA legislative advocacy letters related to these issues that were provided to federal policy makers. In addition, we analyze the public accounting profession’s federal lobbying reports that were submitted during this same time period. The analysis allows us to assess the public interest discourse present in the AICPA legislative letters as well as the extent of political action taken by the profession related to these issues based on the profession’s lobbying efforts. Our analyses (1) demonstrate that the profession’s discourse and actions often reflect both public and private interest motivations, (2) allow us to categorize the profession’s advocacy efforts as arising from specific motivations, and (3) show that the profession’s public interest arguments used to advocate for their policy positions change depending upon the specific legislative issue being considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Baudot & Robin W. Roberts & Dana M. Wallace, 2017. "An Examination of the U.S. Public Accounting Profession’s Public Interest Discourse and Actions in Federal Policy Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 203-220, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:142:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3158-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3158-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-016-3158-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-016-3158-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Puro, M, 1984. "Audit Firm Lobbying Before The Financial Accounting Standards Board - An Empirical-Study," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 624-646.
    2. Richard A. Posner, 1974. "Theories of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 5(2), pages 335-358, Autumn.
    3. Kothari, S.P. & Ramanna, Karthik & Skinner, Douglas J., 2010. "Implications for GAAP from an analysis of positive research in accounting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 246-286, December.
    4. Dellaportas, Steven & Davenport, Laura, 2008. "Reflections on the public interest in accounting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 19(7), pages 1080-1098.
    5. Mary Canning & Brendan O'Dwyer, 2001. "Professional accounting bodies' disciplinary procedures: accountable, transparent and in the public interest?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 725-749.
    6. S.P. Kothari & Karthik Ramanna & Douglas J. Skinner, 2009. "Implications for GAAP from an Analysis of Positive Research in Accounting," Harvard Business School Working Papers 09-137, Harvard Business School, revised Sep 2010.
    7. Stigler, George J., 2011. "Economics of Information," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 5, pages 35-49.
    8. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    9. Roberts, Robin W. & Dwyer, Peggy D. & Sweeney, John T., 2003. "Political strategies used by the US public accounting profession during auditor liability reform: The case of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 433-457.
    10. Shane Leong & James Hazelton & Cynthia Townley, 2013. "Managing the Risks of Corporate Political Donations: A Utilitarian Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 429-445, December.
    11. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    12. Steven Thornburg & Robin W. Roberts, 2013. "In whose interest? A critical examination of public interest appeals made by the public accounting profession in the USA," International Journal of Critical Accounting, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(1), pages 81-95.
    13. Parker, Lee D., 1994. "Professional accounting body ethics: In search of the private interest," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 507-525, August.
    14. Thornburg, Steven & Roberts, Robin W., 2008. "Money, politics, and the regulation of public accounting services: Evidence from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(2-3), pages 229-248.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laurence Daoust & Bertrand Malsch, 2020. "When the Client Is A Former Auditor: Auditees' Expert Knowledge and Social Capital as Threats to Staff Auditors' Operational Independence†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1333-1369, September.
    2. Darius Fatemi & John Hasseldine & Peggy Hite, 2020. "The Influence of Ethical Codes of Conduct on Professionalism in Tax Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 133-149, June.
    3. Stenka, Renata & Jaworska, Sylvia, 2019. "The use of made-up users," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Keyser, John D., 2023. "Examine the available evidence: Was the Duhnke PCAOB captured?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. Bertrand Malsch & Marie-Soleil Tremblay & Jeffrey Cohen, 2022. "Non-audit Engagements and the Creation of Public Value: Consequences for the Public Interest," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(2), pages 467-479, June.
    6. Muhammad Azizul Islam & Chris J. Van Staden, 2022. "Modern Slavery Disclosure Regulation and Global Supply Chains: Insights from Stakeholder Narratives on the UK Modern Slavery Act," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(2), pages 455-479, October.
    7. Sargiacomo, Massimo & Everett, Jeff & Ianni, Luca & D'Andreamatteo, Antonio, 2024. "Auditing for fraud and corruption: A public-interest-based definition and analysis," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roland Königsgruber, 2013. "Expertise-based lobbying and accounting regulation," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 17(4), pages 1009-1025, November.
    2. Matt Pinnuck & Kevin Stevenson, 2021. "Enhancing the Interface between Standard‐setters and Academic Research," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 31(3), pages 169-185, September.
    3. Brandon Gipper & Brett J Lombardi & Douglas J Skinner, 2013. "The politics of accounting standard-setting: A review of empirical research," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 38(3), pages 523-551, December.
    4. Oleh Pasko, 2018. "Theories of Regulation in the Context of Modern Practice of Accounting Regulation," Oblik i finansi, Institute of Accounting and Finance, issue 2, pages 37-46, June.
    5. AnnMarie Bennett & Breda Murphy, 2017. "The Tax Profession: Tax Avoidance and the Public Interest," Economics Department Working Paper Series n286-17.pdf, Department of Economics, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
    6. Michel Magnan & Haiping Wang & Yaqi Shi(Sans nom), 2016. "Fair Value Accounting and the Cost of Debt," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-32, CIRANO.
    7. Michael Minnis & Nemit Shroff, 2017. "Why regulate private firm disclosure and auditing?," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(5), pages 473-502, July.
    8. Richard Barker & Anne McGeachin, 2015. "An Analysis of Concepts and Evidence on the Question of Whether IFRS Should be Conservative," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(2), pages 169-207, June.
    9. Giner Inchausti, Begoña, 2014. "Instituciones e intereses en conflicto ante la regulación contable internacional: el caso del sector financiero español," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 143-152.
    10. Chandra Kanodia & Haresh Sapra, 2016. "A Real Effects Perspective to Accounting Measurement and Disclosure: Implications and Insights for Future Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 623-676, May.
    11. Showkat Ahmad Busru & G. Shanmugasundaram & Shariq Ahmad Bhat, 2020. "Corporate Governance an Imperative for Stakeholders Protection: Evidence from Risk Management of Indian Listed Firms," Business Perspectives and Research, , vol. 8(2), pages 89-116, July.
    12. Kuo‐Cheng Kuo & Wen‐Min Lu & Thanh Nhan Dinh, 2020. "Firm performance and ownership structure: Dynamic network data envelopment analysis approach," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(4), pages 608-623, June.
    13. Zhifeng Yang, 2013. "Do Political Connections Add Value to Audit Firms? Evidence from IPO Audits in China," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 891-921, September.
    14. Baylis, Richard M. & Burnap, Peter & Clatworthy, Mark A. & Gad, Mahmoud A. & Pong, Christopher K.M., 2017. "Private lenders’ demand for audit," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 78-97.
    15. Michael Minnis & Andrew Sutherland, 2017. "Financial Statements as Monitoring Mechanisms: Evidence from Small Commercial Loans," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 197-233, March.
    16. Petro Lisowsky & Michael Minnis, 2020. "The Silent Majority: Private U.S. Firms and Financial Reporting Choices," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 547-588, June.
    17. Ratna Puji Astuti KRISMIAJI, 2021. "Accounting Conservatism and Cost of Equity Capital – Evidence from Indonesia," CECCAR Business Review, Body of Expert and Licensed Accountants of Romania (CECCAR), vol. 2(2), pages 64-72, February.
    18. Jelinek, Kate, 2015. "Between a rock and a hard place: Conflict minerals and professional integrity," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 58(5), pages 485-492.
    19. Bertomeu, Jeremy & Magee, Robert P., 2015. "Mandatory disclosure and asymmetry in financial reporting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 284-299.
    20. Murphy, Tim & O’Connell, Vincent & Ó hÓgartaigh, Ciarán, 2013. "Discourses surrounding the evolution of the IASB/FASB Conceptual Framework: What they reveal about the “living law” of accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 72-91.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:142:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3158-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.