Normative Accounting TheoriesMd. Hu

Normative Accounting Theories

Md. Humayun Kabir*

Abstract This paper reviews five important works on normative accounting theory – MacNeal (1939), Paton and Littleton (1940), Littleton (1953), Chambers (1966), and Ijiri (1975) – with emphasis on recognition and measurement issues in accounting. It shows that there is a lack of agreement among these theorists on basic assumptions and hypothesized information needs of the users. Even where there is agreement on an assumption, different implications have been drawn therefrom by the concerned theorists. These differences lead to different recognition and measurement proposals. This paper also shows that many of the ideas in accounting that seemed to be novel were anticipated by these early theorists. Finally, it assesses the present accounting practice in the light of these theories.

Keywords: Normative accounting theory, accounting recognition and measurement.

Introduction

This paper examines select normative accounting theories. Starting with the twentieth century,1 normative accounting theorists had been preoccupied with developing/constructing accounting principles. The primary concern had been recognition and measurement issues. Hence the focus of this paper shall be on these theorists’ proposals on accounting recognition and measurement and the arguments/theoretical structures behind these proposals. It also compares the works reviewed.

There are controversies among accounting academics regarding what an accounting theory is. Watts and Zimmerman (1986: 2) posit that accounting theory seeks to explain and predict accounting practice.2 Positivists like Watts and Zimmerman (hereinafter W & Z only) cite

* Md. Humayun Kabir, D.B.A., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Accounting & Information Systems, University of Dhaka. The author is grateful to Professor Santi Narayan Ghosh and Professor Saroj Kumar Saha of the University of Dhaka and Professor Hidetoshi Yamaji of Kobe University of Japan for their helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. Comments of an anonymous reviewer are appreciated.

1 The debate about accounting principles did not start seriously before the twentieth century (MacNeal 1939: 69). Accounting practice was primarily concerned with the development of bookkeeping techniques up to the beginning of the twentieth century. Early bookkeeping books seem to have been concerned with the methods of making bookkeeping entries. In fact, the early books did not mention even such basic issues as the use and calculation of depreciation.

2 They label their theory as ‘Positive Accounting Theory.’ They borrow the phrase ‘positive theory’ from economics. Friedman (1953) popularized this phrase. What Watts and Zimmerman do actually is propagate a specific version of accounting theory. Methodologically they subscribe to the Kuhnian (1970) view of science. It is, however, to be noted that most of the research in economics, from which Watts and Zimmerman (1986) borrow their term positive, has normative consequences. When economists analyze a social phenomenon, their analysis contain in it normative implications. For example, information economics deals with the implications of information asymmetry and contains the suggestion that mechanisms should be devised so that the problem of information asymmetry can be mitigated. Agency theory highlights the agency problem arising from the separation of ownership from control in large corporations and suggests that corporate governance mechanisms should be designed and implemented to mitigate the agency problem. The same can be said of Adam Smith’s the Wealth of Nations. The Wealth of Nations did not merely explain a capitalistic economy. In fact the English economy was hardly capitalistic in today’s terms when Smith wrote the book. The Nation propagated the notion and benefits of a capitalistic economy. The book was written and used as an intellectual weapon by the bourgeois against the monarchy (Ashton 1968). Positive accounting theorists have studied the incentives of earnings management and have identified situations when earnings management may be present. But they hardly suggest a remedy to this problem. Sterling (1990) has rightly attacked this position of the positivists. This note, however, should not be taken as an attempt to belittle the achievements of positive accounting research. It has yielded many interesting and useful insights into financial

economics and natural science disciplines such as physics, chemistry, etc. in the defense of their method and call their method ‘the scientific method’ (W & Z 1986: 2), thus probably implying that there is only one method in science. This is highly disputed by accounting academics pursuing other strands of research (Christensen 1983; Chua 1986). Science is not a unified structure. There is no a unique scientific method. Science knows many methods (Feyerabend 1993). Hence, even if one wishes to study accounting as a scientific discipline, there is more than the method advocated by W & Z (1986).3 One major criticism of W & Z’s view of accounting theory is that it unnecessarily narrows the area of accounting research (Chua 1986; Whittington 1987). For our purpose, we adopt the following definition of accounting theory: “--- the business of accounting theory is to examine beliefs and customs critically, to clarify and extend the best from experience, and to direct attention to the genesis and outcome of accounting work” (Littleton 1953: 132). This definition accommodates different strands of accounting research such as research in normative accounting and empirical accounting as well as research in interpretative accounting.

A normative accounting theory seeks to prescribe some basis of accounting measurement, particular accounting procedures, and the contents of financial reports (Ijiri 1975; W & Z 1986).4 Ijiri views normative theories as a special case of deductive theories. Deductive theories that start with some goal assumptions and deduce accounting procedures therefrom are labeled normative theories.5 Thus, there are two important elements of a normative theory: (a) goal assumption, and (b) deduction. A theorist may set his own goals that are not inherent to current accounting practice. Chambers (1966) falls in this group. Again, a theorist may inductively derive goals from accounting practice and use those goals to suggest improvements in current practice. Ijiri falls into this group. Such theories are also categorized as normative in this paper. It is to be noted that not every theorist is explicit on goal statement. Some state the basic assumptions and deduce accounting measurement from these. Paton and Littleton (1940) fall in this group.

So far three approaches have been employed in normative accounting research. These are (a) inductive model, (b) deductive model, and (c) the decision usefulness approach. In induction, a general statement (X) is induced from some empirical observations, hypothetical phenomena, or non-empirical concepts (O). The implications of X include and go beyond O. It may be noted that many Xs may be induced from O. The contribution of an inductive model is in coming up with an X as an explanation of O. On the other hand, the opposite process is followed in deductive models. Here O is deduced from X. X is a set of theories, or assumptions that have already been accepted. In a deductive model, O is a special case of X. In the decision-usefulness, decision model approach, ‘information relevant to a decision model or criterion is

accounting and reporting issues. The point this note intends to make is that normative accounting research has, and should have, a rightful place in accounting theory and research.

3 Accounting also knows many methods. Positive accounting theory uses one of these methods. See Hopwood and Miller (1994) for a sample of studies using methodological assumptions/world views different from those used in positive accounting research. See Sawabe and Yamaji (1999) for a useful discussion of various approaches employed in the research of accounting. Specifically, they discuss various research approaches falling under the broader umbrella of institutional accounting research.

4 Watts and Zimmerman do not use the phrase ‘normative accounting theory’. Rather they (p.7) use the phrase ‘normative propositions.’

5 Ijiri differentiates between normative theories and policies. In normative theory, the researcher does not commit himself/herself to the goal assumed. In accounting policy, however, the researcher is committed to the goal. Normative theories can thus be scientifically verified, while policies are based on value judgement of the researcher. As Ijiri recognizes, this distinction is blurred in accounting. Accounting theories and policies are often intermingled.

2

isolated and various accounting alternatives are compared to the data presumably necessary for implementing these decision models’ (AAA 1977: 10).

Inductivists such as Hatfield (1927), Littleton (1953), Ijiri (1975), etc. examine extant accounting practice and have tried to rationalize and, sometimes, justify major elements of extant accounting practice. Among the inductivists, Ijiri (1975) is very explicit in his adoption of the inductive approach to accounting theory. He expresses his preference for inductive models over deductive models in the following words:

This type of inductive reasoning to derive goals implicit in the behavior of an existing system is not intended to be pro-establishment or to promote the maintenance of the status quo. The purpose of such an exercise is to highlight where changes are most needed and where they are feasible. Changes suggested as a result of such as a study have a much better chance of being actually implemented. Goal assumptions in normative models or goals advocated in policy discussions are often stated purely on the basis of one’s conviction

Normative Accounting Theories

Md. Humayun Kabir*

Abstract This paper reviews five important works on normative accounting theory – MacNeal (1939), Paton and Littleton (1940), Littleton (1953), Chambers (1966), and Ijiri (1975) – with emphasis on recognition and measurement issues in accounting. It shows that there is a lack of agreement among these theorists on basic assumptions and hypothesized information needs of the users. Even where there is agreement on an assumption, different implications have been drawn therefrom by the concerned theorists. These differences lead to different recognition and measurement proposals. This paper also shows that many of the ideas in accounting that seemed to be novel were anticipated by these early theorists. Finally, it assesses the present accounting practice in the light of these theories.

Keywords: Normative accounting theory, accounting recognition and measurement.

Introduction

This paper examines select normative accounting theories. Starting with the twentieth century,1 normative accounting theorists had been preoccupied with developing/constructing accounting principles. The primary concern had been recognition and measurement issues. Hence the focus of this paper shall be on these theorists’ proposals on accounting recognition and measurement and the arguments/theoretical structures behind these proposals. It also compares the works reviewed.

There are controversies among accounting academics regarding what an accounting theory is. Watts and Zimmerman (1986: 2) posit that accounting theory seeks to explain and predict accounting practice.2 Positivists like Watts and Zimmerman (hereinafter W & Z only) cite

* Md. Humayun Kabir, D.B.A., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Accounting & Information Systems, University of Dhaka. The author is grateful to Professor Santi Narayan Ghosh and Professor Saroj Kumar Saha of the University of Dhaka and Professor Hidetoshi Yamaji of Kobe University of Japan for their helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. Comments of an anonymous reviewer are appreciated.

1 The debate about accounting principles did not start seriously before the twentieth century (MacNeal 1939: 69). Accounting practice was primarily concerned with the development of bookkeeping techniques up to the beginning of the twentieth century. Early bookkeeping books seem to have been concerned with the methods of making bookkeeping entries. In fact, the early books did not mention even such basic issues as the use and calculation of depreciation.

2 They label their theory as ‘Positive Accounting Theory.’ They borrow the phrase ‘positive theory’ from economics. Friedman (1953) popularized this phrase. What Watts and Zimmerman do actually is propagate a specific version of accounting theory. Methodologically they subscribe to the Kuhnian (1970) view of science. It is, however, to be noted that most of the research in economics, from which Watts and Zimmerman (1986) borrow their term positive, has normative consequences. When economists analyze a social phenomenon, their analysis contain in it normative implications. For example, information economics deals with the implications of information asymmetry and contains the suggestion that mechanisms should be devised so that the problem of information asymmetry can be mitigated. Agency theory highlights the agency problem arising from the separation of ownership from control in large corporations and suggests that corporate governance mechanisms should be designed and implemented to mitigate the agency problem. The same can be said of Adam Smith’s the Wealth of Nations. The Wealth of Nations did not merely explain a capitalistic economy. In fact the English economy was hardly capitalistic in today’s terms when Smith wrote the book. The Nation propagated the notion and benefits of a capitalistic economy. The book was written and used as an intellectual weapon by the bourgeois against the monarchy (Ashton 1968). Positive accounting theorists have studied the incentives of earnings management and have identified situations when earnings management may be present. But they hardly suggest a remedy to this problem. Sterling (1990) has rightly attacked this position of the positivists. This note, however, should not be taken as an attempt to belittle the achievements of positive accounting research. It has yielded many interesting and useful insights into financial

economics and natural science disciplines such as physics, chemistry, etc. in the defense of their method and call their method ‘the scientific method’ (W & Z 1986: 2), thus probably implying that there is only one method in science. This is highly disputed by accounting academics pursuing other strands of research (Christensen 1983; Chua 1986). Science is not a unified structure. There is no a unique scientific method. Science knows many methods (Feyerabend 1993). Hence, even if one wishes to study accounting as a scientific discipline, there is more than the method advocated by W & Z (1986).3 One major criticism of W & Z’s view of accounting theory is that it unnecessarily narrows the area of accounting research (Chua 1986; Whittington 1987). For our purpose, we adopt the following definition of accounting theory: “--- the business of accounting theory is to examine beliefs and customs critically, to clarify and extend the best from experience, and to direct attention to the genesis and outcome of accounting work” (Littleton 1953: 132). This definition accommodates different strands of accounting research such as research in normative accounting and empirical accounting as well as research in interpretative accounting.

A normative accounting theory seeks to prescribe some basis of accounting measurement, particular accounting procedures, and the contents of financial reports (Ijiri 1975; W & Z 1986).4 Ijiri views normative theories as a special case of deductive theories. Deductive theories that start with some goal assumptions and deduce accounting procedures therefrom are labeled normative theories.5 Thus, there are two important elements of a normative theory: (a) goal assumption, and (b) deduction. A theorist may set his own goals that are not inherent to current accounting practice. Chambers (1966) falls in this group. Again, a theorist may inductively derive goals from accounting practice and use those goals to suggest improvements in current practice. Ijiri falls into this group. Such theories are also categorized as normative in this paper. It is to be noted that not every theorist is explicit on goal statement. Some state the basic assumptions and deduce accounting measurement from these. Paton and Littleton (1940) fall in this group.

So far three approaches have been employed in normative accounting research. These are (a) inductive model, (b) deductive model, and (c) the decision usefulness approach. In induction, a general statement (X) is induced from some empirical observations, hypothetical phenomena, or non-empirical concepts (O). The implications of X include and go beyond O. It may be noted that many Xs may be induced from O. The contribution of an inductive model is in coming up with an X as an explanation of O. On the other hand, the opposite process is followed in deductive models. Here O is deduced from X. X is a set of theories, or assumptions that have already been accepted. In a deductive model, O is a special case of X. In the decision-usefulness, decision model approach, ‘information relevant to a decision model or criterion is

accounting and reporting issues. The point this note intends to make is that normative accounting research has, and should have, a rightful place in accounting theory and research.

3 Accounting also knows many methods. Positive accounting theory uses one of these methods. See Hopwood and Miller (1994) for a sample of studies using methodological assumptions/world views different from those used in positive accounting research. See Sawabe and Yamaji (1999) for a useful discussion of various approaches employed in the research of accounting. Specifically, they discuss various research approaches falling under the broader umbrella of institutional accounting research.

4 Watts and Zimmerman do not use the phrase ‘normative accounting theory’. Rather they (p.7) use the phrase ‘normative propositions.’

5 Ijiri differentiates between normative theories and policies. In normative theory, the researcher does not commit himself/herself to the goal assumed. In accounting policy, however, the researcher is committed to the goal. Normative theories can thus be scientifically verified, while policies are based on value judgement of the researcher. As Ijiri recognizes, this distinction is blurred in accounting. Accounting theories and policies are often intermingled.

isolated and various accounting alternatives are compared to the data presumably necessary for implementing these decision models’ (AAA 1977: 10).

Inductivists such as Hatfield (1927), Littleton (1953), Ijiri (1975), etc. examine extant accounting practice and have tried to rationalize and, sometimes, justify major elements of extant accounting practice. Among the inductivists, Ijiri (1975) is very explicit in his adoption of the inductive approach to accounting theory. He expresses his preference for inductive models over deductive models in the following words:

This type of inductive reasoning to derive goals implicit in the behavior of an existing system is not intended to be pro-establishment or to promote the maintenance of the status quo. The purpose of such an exercise is to highlight where changes are most needed and where they are feasible. Changes suggested as a result of such as a study have a much better chance of being actually implemented. Goal assumptions in normative models or goals advocated in policy discussions are often stated purely on the basis of one’s conviction

0/5000

Dari: -

Ke: -

Hasil (Farsi) 1: [Salinan]

Disalin!

تئوری های هنجاری حسابداریدکتر همایون کبیر *خلاصه این مقاله بررسی پنج مهم آثار در تئوری هنجاری حسابداری – MacNeal (1939) Paton و لیتلتون (1940) لیتلتون (1953) اتاق (1966) و Ijiri (1975) – با تاکید بر مسائل شناخت و اندازه گیری در حسابداری. این را نشان می دهد که عدم توافق میان این نظریه پردازان در فرضیات اولیه و فرضهای اطلاعات نیازهای کاربران وجود دارد. حتی در جایی که توافق بر فرض وجود دارد، مفاهیم متفاوت از ان توسط نظریه پردازان نگران کشیده شده اند. این تفاوت ها منجر به شناخت مختلف و طرح های اندازه گیری. این مقاله نیز نشان می دهد که بسیاری از ایده ها در حسابداری است که به نظر رمان می رسید با این نظریه پردازان اولیه پیش بینی شده بودند. در نهایت، آن را به اين عمل حسابداری در پرتو این نظریه ارزیابی.واژه هاي كليدي: اصولی تئوری حسابداری, حسابداری شناخت و اندازه گیری.مقدمهدر این مقاله به بررسی تئوری حسابداری هنجاری را انتخاب کنید. با قرن بیستم شروع 1 هنجاری حسابداری نظریه پردازان دغدغه با اصول حسابداری در حال توسعه/احداث شده بود. نگرانی اولیه بوده است شناخت و مسائل مربوط به اندازه گیری. از این رو تمرکز این مقاله بر روی نظریه پردازان این طرح در حسابداری شناسایی و اندازه گیری و استدلال نظری سازه های پشت سر این طرح خواهد بود. همچنین این آثار بررسی مقایسه.مجادلات میان دانشگاهیان حسابداری مربوط به چه تئوری حسابداری است وجود دارد. تئوری حسابداری به توضیح و پیش بینی practice.2 حسابداری Positivists مانند وات و زیمرمن، دنبال وات و زیمرمن، (1986:2)، قرار دادن (پس W & Z فقط) استناد* دکتر همایون کبیر D.B.A.، استادیار در بخش حسابداری و سیستم های اطلاعاتی، دانشگاه داکا است. نویسنده به استاد Santi Narayan محمدی پست و Saroj پروفسور کومار ساها از دانشگاه داکا و Yamaji هیده استاد دانشگاه کوبه ژاپن سپاسگزار برای پیشنهادات مفید خود را در پیش نویس قبل از این مقاله است. نظرات ناشناس بازبین مینماید.1 بحث در مورد اصول حسابداری قبل از قرن بیستم (MacNeal 1939:69) به طور جدی آغاز شد. عمل حسابداری در درجه اول با توسعه تکنیک های حسابداری تا آغاز قرن بیستم نگران بود. به نظر می رسد در اوایل کتاب های حسابداری با روش ساخت حسابداری نوشته اند. در واقع کتاب اولیه حتی چنین مسائل اساسی عنوان استفاده و محاسبه استهلاک ذکر بود.2 آنها برچسب نظریه خود را به عنوان 'مثبت حسابداری تئوری.' آنها عبارت "نظریه مثبت' از اقتصاد قرض. فریدمن (1953) این عبارت نکردم. چه وات و زیمرمن، در واقع انتشار یک نسخه خاص از تئوری حسابداری است. متدولوژيک آنها Kuhnian (1970) مشاهده علم اشتراک. با این حال، به ذکر است که بسیاری از پژوهش در اقتصاد که از وات و زیمرمن، (1986) قرض خود را مثبت مدت دارای عواقب هنجاری. هنگامی که اقتصاددانان تجزیه و تحلیل پدیده های اجتماعی، شامل تجزیه و تحلیل خود را در آن مفاهیم هنجاری. به عنوان مثال، اطلاعات اقتصاد پیامدهای عدم تقارن اطلاعات می پردازد و شامل پیشنهاد که مکانیسم های که مشکل عدم تقارن اطلاعات می تواند به تخفیف ابداع باید. تئوری سازمان برجسته آژانس مشکل ناشی از تفکیک مالکیت از کنترل در شرکت های بزرگ و نشان می دهد که مکانیسم های نظارتی باید طراحی و اجرا برای کاهش آژانس مشکل. همان را می توان از آدام اسمیت گفت ثروت ملل است. ثروت ملل صرفا اقتصاد کاپيتاليستى توضیح بود. در واقع اقتصاد فارسی به سختی کاپيتاليستى در شرایط امروز هنگامی که اسمیت نوشت این کتاب بود. کشور تبلیغ مفهوم و مزایای اقتصاد کاپيتاليستى است. این کتاب نوشته شده بود و به عنوان سلاح معنوی توسط بورژوا در علیه سلطنت (اشتون 1968) استفاده می شود. مثبت نظریه پردازان حسابداری مشوق مدیریت درآمد را مطالعه کرده اند و هنگامی که درآمد مدیریت ممکن است شرایط را شناسایی کرده اند. اما آنها به سختی نشان می دهد درمان برای این مشکل. استرلینگ (1990) به درستی حمله کرده است این موقعیت positivists. این توجه داشته باشید، با این حال، باید نه به عنوان تلاشی برای تحقیر دستاوردهای مثبت تحقیقات حسابداری گرفته شود. آن بسیاری از بینش های جالب و مفید به مالی تسلیم است اقتصاد و علوم طبیعی رشته های مانند فیزیک، شیمی، و غیره در دفاع از خود و روش خود تماس "روش علمی" (W و Z 1986:2)، بنابراین احتمالا بنحوی که تنها یک روش در علم وجود دارد. این است که بسیار توسط دانشگاهیان حسابداری رشته دیگر از تحقیقات (1983 كريستن سن؛ به دنبال مورد مناقشه است Chua 1986). علم یک ساختار یکپارچه نیست. وجود دارد هیچ روش علمی منحصر به فرد. علم می داند که بسیاری از روش ها (Feyerabend 1993). از این رو، حتی اگر یکی بخواهد مطالعه حسابداری به عنوان یک رشته علمی وجود دارد بیش از روش طرفداری توسط W & Z (1986). 3 یکی از انتقاد عمده W & Z را مشاهده تئوری حسابداری است که آن بی ارزش منطقه تحقیقات حسابداری (1986 Chua؛ باریک وهیتینگتن 1987). برای ما هدف ما اتخاذ زیر تعریف تئوری حسابداری: "---کسب و کار تئوری حسابداری بررسی اعتقادات و آداب و رسوم انتقادی روشن و گسترش بهترین از تجربه و مستقیم توجه به پیدایش و نتیجه کار حسابداری است" (لیتلتون 1953:132). این تعریف ظرفیت رشته های مختلف حسابداری تحقیق مانند تحقیقات تجربی حسابداری و حسابداری هنجاری و همچنین تحقیق در حسابداری تفسیری.نظریه هنجاری حسابداری به تجویز برخی بر اساس اندازه گیری حسابداری روشهای حسابداری خاص و محتویات گزارش های مالی (Ijiri 1975; دنبال W & Z 1986).4 Ijiri مشاهدات تئوری های هنجاری به عنوان یک مورد خاص از نظریه های استقرایی یا قیاسی. نظریه های استقرایی یا قیاسی است که با برخی از مفروضات هدف شروع و روشهای حسابداری به استنباط از ان با برچسب اصولی theories.5 بنابراین، دو عنصر مهم نظریه هنجاری وجود دارد: فرض هدف () و (ب) کسر. نظریه پرداز قادر به تعیین اهداف خود ذاتی عمل حسابداری فعلی هستند که ممکن است. اتاق (1966) در این گروه می افتد. دوباره مي ممکن است inductively اهداف مشتق از عمل حسابداری و استفاده از آن اهداف بهبود در عملکرد فعلی نشان می دهد. Ijiri به این گروه می افتد. چنین تئوری نیز به عنوان اصولی در این مقاله طبقه بندی هستند. به ذکر است که هر نظریه پرداز صریح در بیانیه هدف است. اندازه گیری حسابداری از این استنباط و برخی مفروضات اساسی دولت. Paton و لیتلتون (1940) را در این گروه قرار می گیرند.تا کنون سه روش در هنجاری تحقیقاتی حسابداری استخدام شده اند. این مدل () استقراء (ب) استنتاجی مدل و رویکرد سودمندی تصمیم (c) هستند. در القاي بیانیه عمومی (X) از برخی از مشاهدات تجربی پدیده های فرضی یا مفاهیم غیر تجربی (O) ناشی از. پیامدهای X شامل و فراتر از اميد ممکن است به ذکر که بسیاری از Xs ممکن است ناشي از اميد سهم مدل استقرایی است در آینده با یک X به عنوان یک توضیح اميد از سوی دیگر به دنبال روند مخالف در مدل های استقرایی یا قیاسی است. اینجا O از استنتاج ميشود X. X مجموعه ای از نظریات یا پیش فرض هایی که قبلا پذیرفته شده است. در مدل استقرایی یا قیاسی، درجه یک مورد خاص از X است. تصمیم گیری در تصمیم گیری سودمندی, روش مدل ' اطلاعات مربوط به مدل تصمیم گیری و یا معیار استحسابداری و گزارش مشکلات. نقطه نظر دارد این یادداشت را که هنجاری تحقیقاتی حسابداری, و باید, جایگاه بر حق در حسابداری تئوری و تحقیق است.3 حسابداری نیز روش های بسیاری را می داند. تئوری مثبت حسابداری به یکی از این روشها استفاده می کند. Hopwood و میلر (1994) نمونه ای از مطالعات با استفاده از روش پیش فرض در جهان نمایش متفاوت در تحقیقات حسابداری مثبت استفاده کنید. Sawabe و Yamaji (1999) برای یک بحث مفید از روش های مختلف در تحقیقات حسابداری استخدام کنید. به طور خاص، آنها در مورد روش پژوهش های مختلف زیر چتر گسترده تحقیقات حسابداری نهادی در حال سقوط.4 وات و زیمرمن، عبارت 'تئوری هنجاری حسابداری' را استفاده نکنید. نه آنها (p.7) با استفاده از عبارت 'گزاره های هنجاری.'5 Ijiri بین تئوری های هنجاری و سیاست های متمایز است. در تئوری های هنجاری محقق خودش به هدف فرض مرتکب نشده. در سیاست های حسابداری با این حال، محقق متعهد به هدف است. در حالی که سیاست های مبتنی بر ارزش قضاوت محقق تئوری های هنجاری نتیجه علمی، می توان به تایید. این تمایز تاری در حسابداری به عنوان Ijiri به رسمیت می شناسد. تئوری حسابداری و سیاست اغلب • ممزوج شدگی هستند. 2 جدا شده و جایگزین های مختلف حسابداری به داده احتمالا لازم برای اجرای این تصمیم مدل (AAA 1977:10) مقایسه شده است.Inductivists مانند هاتفیلد (1927) لیتلتون (1953) Ijiri (1975)، و غیره عمل حسابداری موجود بررسی و سعی در منطقی و گاهی اوقات، توجیه عناصر عمده عمل حسابداری موجود است. از جمله inductivists، Ijiri (1975) بسیار صریح و روشن در او اتخاذ رویکرد استقرایی به تئوری حسابداری است. او بیان اولویت خود را برای القاء مدل را بیش از مدل های استقرایی یا قیاسی عبارت زیر:این نوع از استدلال استقرایی به اهداف ضمنی در رفتار سیستم موجود نیست به طرفدار ایجاد شود و یا ترویج نگهداری وضع در نظر گرفته شده است. هدف یک ورزش به برجسته که در آن تغییرات بیشتر مورد نیاز هستند و جایی که آنها امکان پذیر است. تغییرات پیشنهاد شده به عنوان یک نتیجه از جمله یک مطالعه احتمال بسیار بهتر از در واقع در حال اجرا است. هدف مفروضات در مدل های هنجاری و یا اهداف طرفداری در بحث سیاست اغلب صرفا بر اساس یک اعتقاد راسخ بیان می شوند

Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..

Hasil (Farsi) 2:[Salinan]

Disalin!

Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..

Hasil (Farsi) 3:[Salinan]

Disalin!

Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..

Bahasa lainnya

Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.