IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v20y2011i2d10.1007_s10726-009-9166-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Accounting Standards Setting Process in the U.S.: Examination of the SEC–FASB Relationship

Author

Listed:
  • Dan Palmon

    (Rutgers University)

  • Marietta Peytcheva

    (Lehigh University)

  • Ari Yezegel

    (Bentley University)

Abstract

In the U.S. there is a close relationship between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a governmental agency legally responsible for setting accounting standards, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), a private sector body to whom the SEC has delegated this responsibility. In this paper we examine the influence of the SEC on the FASB as evidenced by all major statements issued by the FASB. Minor statements, amendments, and strictly technical pronouncements were omitted because of their limited exposure to the political process. Our analysis reveals that the SEC applied substantial pressure on the FASB in the standard setting process and has not adopted a position of benign neglect.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Palmon & Marietta Peytcheva & Ari Yezegel, 2011. "The Accounting Standards Setting Process in the U.S.: Examination of the SEC–FASB Relationship," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 165-183, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:20:y:2011:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-009-9166-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-009-9166-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-009-9166-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-009-9166-x?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. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
    2. Morris Fiorina, 1982. "Legislative choice of regulatory forms: Legal process or administrative process?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 33-66, January.
    3. Bendor, J. & Glazer, A. & Hammond, T.H., 2000. "Theories of Delegation in Political Science," Papers 00-01-14, California Irvine - School of Social Sciences.
    4. Richard A. Posner, 1974. "Theories of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 5(2), pages 335-358, Autumn.
    5. Baldwin, Robert & Cave, Martin & Lodge, Martin, 2011. "Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199576098, Decembrie.
    6. Newman, Dp, 1981. "The Secs Influence On Accounting Standards - The Power Of The Veto," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19, pages 134-156.
    7. -, 1986. "Agenda = Agenda," Series Históricas 8749, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    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. Gary Kleinman & Pamela Strickland & Asokan Anandarajan, 2016. "The Accounting Court: Some Speculations on Why Not?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 845-871, July.
    2. Alon, Anna & Dwyer, Peggy D., 2016. "SEC's acceptance of IFRS-based financial reporting: An examination based in institutional theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 1-16.

    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. Dennis W. Carlton & Randal C. Picker, 2014. "Antitrust and Regulation," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 25-61, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Keohane, Nathaniel O. & Revesz, Richard L. & Stavins, Robert N., 1997. "The Positive Political Economy of Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," Discussion Papers 10759, Resources for the Future.
    3. Lee, Changyen & Cheng, Chun-Fa & Chuang, Min-Ta & Hsu, Wei-Chieh & Chen, Yen-Hung & Cheng, Kuo-Tai, 2018. "How transparency and accountability matter in regulating the Taiwan Water Supply Corporation," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 50-58.
    4. J.A. den Hertog, 2010. "Review of economic theories of regulation," Working Papers 10-18, Utrecht School of Economics.
    5. Ando, Amy, 1998. "Delay on the Path to the Endangered Species List: Do Costs and Benefits Matter," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-43-rev, Resources for the Future.
    6. Maciej Czaplewski, 2015. "Oddziaływanie regulacyjne Unii Europejskiej na rynek usług telekomunikacyjnych," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 5, pages 65-87.
    7. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8527 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. 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.
    9. Ray Ball, 2009. "Market and Political/Regulatory Perspectives on the Recent Accounting Scandals," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 277-323, May.
    10. Krisztina Antal-Pomázi, 2020. "Corporate Interest in Antitrust Enforcement," Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences 10912816, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    11. Simshauser, P., 2020. "Merchant utilities and boundaries of the firm: vertical integration in energy-only markets," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2039, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    12. Silvia Sacchetti, 2015. "Inclusive and Exclusive Social Preferences: A Deweyan Framework to Explain Governance Heterogeneity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 126(3), pages 473-485, February.
    13. James W. Hughes & Michael J. Moore & Edward A. Snyder, 2002. ""Napsterizing" Pharmaceuticals: Access, Innovation, and Consumer Welfare," NBER Working Papers 9229, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Wafula, Francis & Molyneux, Catherine & Mackintosh, Maureen & Goodman, Catherine, 2013. "Protecting the public or setting the bar too high? Understanding the causes and consequences of regulatory actions of front-line regulators and specialized drug shop operators in Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 220-227.
    15. Helland, Eric & Sykuta, Michael, 2004. "Regulation and the Evolution of Corporate Boards: Monitoring, Advising, or Window Dressing?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 167-193, April.
    16. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/8527 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Niels J. Philipsen, 2010. "Regulation Of Liberal Professions And Competition Policy: Developments In The Eu And China," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 203-231.
    18. Simshauser, Paul & Akimov, Alexandr, 2019. "Regulated electricity networks, investment mistakes in retrospect and stranded assets under uncertainty," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 117-133.
    19. World Bank, 2013. "Uganda - Diagnostic Trade Integration Study Update : Prepared for the Enhanced Integrated Framework," World Bank Publications - Reports 16035, The World Bank Group.
    20. Timothy Besley & Stephen Coate, 2003. "Elected Versus Appointed Regulators: Theory and Evidence," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(5), pages 1176-1206, September.
    21. Djankov, Simeon & Glaeser, Edward & La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei, 2003. "The new comparative economics," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 595-619, December.
    22. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/8602 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Camille Chaserant & Sophie Harnay, 2013. "The regulation of quality in the market for legal services: Taking the heterogeneity of legal services seriously," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 10(2), pages 267-291, August.

    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:spr:grdene:v:20:y:2011:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-009-9166-x. 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.