IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/gemptp/hal-01664143.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quand des justifications similaires sont utilisées pour promouvoir le budget… et sa remise en cause

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas Berland

    (DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Vassili Joannides

    (EESC-GEM Grenoble Ecole de Management)

  • Yves Levant

    (SKEMA Business School)

Abstract

This paper examines the arguments used to promote the adoption of traditional budgetary controls and the challenge found in Beyond Budgeting. In particular, we have studied two distinct lines of argumentation : One focused on the instability of the environment and was used between 1930 and 1950 in support of traditional budgetary controls, while the other has been used in support of managerial freedom since the 1990s. Both are now used in support of abandoning the traditional budgetary process. In our study, we have tried to understand the homogeneity of the conflicting management rhetoric of the two periods. Our conclusions are based on the work of Boltanski and Thevenot (1991) and Boltanski and Chiapello (1999). The former examine lines of argumentation and the orders of worth on which they rest, while the latter look at the idea of capitalism. We show that lines of argumentation will take on different connotations, depending on the audience and the key concepts used.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Berland & Vassili Joannides & Yves Levant, 2015. "Quand des justifications similaires sont utilisées pour promouvoir le budget… et sa remise en cause," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-01664143, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:gemptp:hal-01664143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Simon Alcouffe & Jonathan Maurice & Nadine Galy & Loïc Gate, 2019. "Is the limited diffusion of management accounting innovations really a paradox? A meta-analysis of the relationship between product diversity and the adoption of Activity-Based Costing [La faible d," Post-Print hal-02124677, HAL.

    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:hal:gemptp:hal-01664143. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.