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

Hasil (Farsi) 1:

Accounting Normative Theories Md. Humayun Kabir * Abstract This paper reviews five important works on Normative accounting theory - Macneal (in 1939), Paton and Littleton (1 940), Littleton (1953rd), Chambers (1,966th), and Ijiri (one thousand nine hundred seventy-five) - 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 Théories. Keywords: Normative accounting theory, accounting recognition and measurement. Introduction This paper Examines Normative select Théories accounting. 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 reviewed Compares the works. There are among accounting Academics Controversies Regarding what is an accounting theory. Watts and Zimmerman (1986: 2) accounting theory seeks to explain and predict accounting Posit that Practice.2 Positivists like Watts and Zimmerman (Hereinafter W & Z only) cite * Md. Humayun Kabir, DBA, 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 seriously start before the twentieth century (Macneal in 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 even mention such basic issues as the use and calculation of Depreciation. 2 Their theory They label 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 accounting and empirical research in accounting as well as research in Interpretative Normative 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 (1,940th) fall in this group. So far three approaches have been employed in research Normative accounting. 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 criterion is relevant to a decision model or accounting and reporting issues. The point to make is that this note Intends 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 research accounting. 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 Théories 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 policies are often intermingled and Théories. 2 are isolated and various accounting alternatives Presumably Compared to the data necessary for implementing these decision models' (AAA the 1977th: 10). Inductivists such as Hatfield (one thousand nine hundred twenty-seven), Littleton (in 1953), Ijiri (1,975th ), 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 in the following words over Deductive models: This type of inductive reasoning implicit in the behavior of an existing system to Derive goals is not intended to be pro-establishment or maintenance of the status quo to promote the. 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

Hasil (Farsi) 2:

Accounting normative theory MD. Humayun Kabir * Abstract: In this paper, five major works in accounting normative theory - MacNeal (1939), Patton and Littleton (1940), Littleton (1953), Chambers (1966), and Ijiri (1975) - with an emphasis on recognition and measurement accounting issues. This shows that a lack of agreement between the theorists are the basic assumptions and hypotheses information needs of users. Even in cases where there is agreement on an assumption, different concepts The worry is that by theorists. These differences lead to the recognition and measurement project is different. This article also shows that many of the ideas that seemed accounting novel early theorists had predicted. The , it evaluates the accounting practice in the light of this theory. Keywords: normative theory of accounting, recognition and measurement of accounting Introduction This paper explores the normative accounting theory to choose from. With the start of the twentieth century, developing normative accounting theorists 1 / Construction was busy accounting principles. The main concern is the recognition and measurement issues. For this reason, the focus of this article should design theorists, in recognition of the accounting and measurement and reasoning / theoretical structures are behind this project. The study compares the works. the difference between accounting academics about what the theory of accounting. Watts and Zimmerman (1986: 2) assume that accounting theory seeks to explain and predict accounting positivist practice.2 like Watts and Zimmerman ( From W & Z only) Citation * MD Humayun Kabir, DBA, associate professor in the department. Accounting and information systems, Dhaka University. The author is grateful to Professor Saroj Kumar Saha ° Narayan Ghosh and Professor of Dhaka University and Professor Hidetoshi Yamajy of Kobe University in Japan for their helpful suggestions on a draft of this article. Comments appreciated by an anonymous reviewer a. 1 discuss accounting principles before the twentieth century (MacNeal 1939: 69) in earnest. Action accounting primarily with the development of accounting until the beginning of the twentieth century was concerned. Book early to appear accounting method Making accounting entries have been considered. In fact, even such basic issues as the earlier book does not mention the use and depreciation. 2 are labeled his theory as "positive accounting theory. They have "positive approach" to borrow the phrase of the economy . Friedman (1953), the popularity of the phrase. What Watts and Zimmerman, in fact, is publishing a special edition of accounting theory. methodology them Kuhnian (1970) subscribe to the science. However, it should be noted that most of the research The economy, which Watts and Zimmerman (1986), loan term positive outcomes is the norm. When economists analyze a social phenomenon, in its analysis of the normative implications. For example, economic data پیامدهای عدم تقارن اطلاعاتی می پردازد و شامل این پیشنهاد که مکانیزم باید ابداع به طوری که مشکل عدم تقارن اطلاعات را می توان کاهش داد. تئوری نمایندگی برجسته مشکل نمایندگی ناشی از جدایی مالکیت از کنترل در شرکت های بزرگ و نشان می دهد که مکانیسم حاکمیت شرکتی should be designed and implemented to reduce the agency problem. The same can be from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. The Wealth of Nations is not just a capitalist economy to explain. The English economy was hard capitalism that Smith wrote today. Nation promote the concept and benefits of a capitalist economy. This book was written and thought by the bourgeoisie against the monarchy as a weapon (Ashton 1968) is used. theorists positive accounting earnings management incentives have studied the conditions detected There have earnings management. But they hardly suggest a remedy for this problem. Sterling (1990) rightly attacked the position of the positivists. This note, however, should be viewed as an attempt to shrink the effect of accounting research achievements have been positive. It has many interesting insights and yielded useful financial economics and natural science disciplines such as physics, chemistry, etc. In defense of his methods and his approach to the scientific method. " call (W & Z 1986: 2), thus presumably implying that there is only one way in science. This is strongly disputed by academics accounting for other fields of study (Christensen, 1983; Chua 1986). Science It is not a monolithic structure. There is no unique scientific method. Science knows the different methods (Feyerabend 1993). Thus, even if one wishes to study accounting as a scientific discipline, more than supported by There W & Z (1986) 3. One of the main criticisms of the theory of accounting in terms of W & Z is that it unnecessarily narrow area of Accounting Research (Chow 1986; Whittington, 1987). For our purposes, we adopted the following definition of Accounting Theory "--- the business of accounting theory, which examines the critical beliefs and customs, to clarify and extend the best from experience, and directly resulted in the discovery of the accounting work" (Littleton 1953: 132 ). The definition of accounting research capacity in different disciplines like accounting normative and empirical research in accounting as well as research in accounting interpretation. a normative theory accounting for some of the accounting measure, certain accounting practices, financial reporting and content administration (Ijiri 1975; W & Z 1986) .4 Ijiri normative theory as a special case of deductive theory. The theory that inductive inference so start with some assumptions objective and normative theories.5 accounting methods on labels, two important elements There is a normative theory: (a) the assumption of purpose, and (b) the deduction. A theorist may not be your goals inherent to current accounting practice. Chambers (1966) falls in this category. Again, a Inductive theorist may be derived from accounting practice targets and use these targets shows improvement in current practice. Ijiri falls into this group. Such a theory is classified as normative in this paper. It should be noted that any theorist explicit statement of purpose. Some of the basic assumptions and accounting implications of this measure. Patton and Littleton (1940) fall in this group. So far three normative accounting research method was used. This a deductive model, (b) deductive model, and (c) the effectiveness of decision-making approach. At induction, a public statement (X) is the result of some experimental observations, theoretical phenomenon, or non-empirical concepts (O). Consequences X includes and beyond O. Go it may be noted that many of O. X may be caused by participation in the future is an analog model with X as an explanation O. On the other hand, the opposite process deductive model. Here O of X. X is concluded that a set of theories or assumptions which have already been accepted. In a deductive model, O is a special case of X. In the decision, the approach model Decisions, decisions about a model or standard accounting and reporting issues. The point to note is intended to normative accounting research, and should rightful place in accounting theory and research. 3 accounting knows the many methods. One method uses positive accounting theory. Hopwood and Miller (1994) for a sample of studies using assumptions observation / different world it's positive accounting research. Sawabe and Yamajy (1999) for a useful discussion of the various methods used in this study, accounting view. In particular, they discussed various research falling under the broader approach of accounting research institution. 4 Watts and Zimmerman of expression "normative theory of accounting, not use. Instead, they (P.7) Use the 'normative statements. The 5 Ijiri difference between theory and politics is the norm. The norm theory, the researcher does not commit itself to aim default / herself. in accounting policy, however, is committed to the goal is achieved. As a result, the normative theory be scientifically verified, the policy researcher's value judgments. For Ijiri recognizes this distinction is blurred in accounting. Accounting theory and politics often mix. 2 replaces the separate accounting and in comparison with the data may be necessary for the implementation of this decision model (AAA 1977: 10). Inductivists like Hatfield (1927), Littleton (1953), Ijiri (1975), etc. Check existing accounting practice and have tried to explain and sometimes justify the elements Much of the existing accounting practice. The inductivists, Ijiri (1975) in their adoption of an inductive approach to accounting theory is very clear. He expressed his preference for the induction over the inductive model in the following words: این نوع از استدلال قیاسی به استخراج اهداف ضمنی در رفتار یک سیستم موجود در نظر گرفته نمی شود طرفدار ایجاد و یا برای ترویج نگهداری از وضع موجود است. هدف از چنین ورزش است که در آن به برجسته ترین تغییرات مورد نیاز و جایی که آنها امکان possible. As a result of the proposed changes as a study of a much better chance of actually being implemented. The assumptions in the model normative goal or goals of support in policy debates are often based solely on one's convictions

Hasil (Farsi) 3:

نظريه هاي حسابداری مورد دمکراسی ـ هنجاری (normative

مريلند همايون کبير*


مجرد اين كاغذ مرورى بر آثار مهم در مورد دمکراسی ـ هنجاری (normative پنج نظريه MacNeal - حسابداری (۱۹۳۹)، به مرشدآباد پايتخت بنگال گام نهاد و Littleton (سال 1940)، (1953)، Littleton چمبرز (1966) و (1975) - Ijiri با تاكيد بر شناسايي و سنجش مسائل حسابداری است.اين نشان می دهد که عدم توافق در ميان نظريه پردازان بر اين فرضيات اساسي hypothesized اطلاعات و نيازهاي کاربران. حتي آنجا كه موافقت با اين فرض، مفاهيم مختلف كشيده شده يا گمراه شده توسط صاحب نظران نگران است. اين اختلافات منجر به شناسايي و پيشنهادهاي مختلف اندازه گیری شد.اين روزنامه همچنين نشان مى دهد كه بسيارى از انديشه ها در حسابداری به نظر ميرسيد كه اين رمان بودند، اين نظريه پردازان اوليه پيشي گرفت. سرانجام، در حال حاضر تمرينات حسابداری اقتصاددانان بخشی را در پرتو اين فرضيه است.

لغات کلیدی: حسابداری، حسابداری مورد دمکراسی ـ هنجاری (normative تئورى شناخت و اندازه گیری است.




مقدمه كاغذ مبناي اين فرضيه مورد دمکراسی ـ هنجاری (normative حسابداری را انتخاب کنید.با شروع قرن بيستم,1 در مورد دمکراسی ـ هنجاری (normative حسابداری حیله شده نظريه پردازان توسعه/سازى اصول حسابداری. نگرانی اوليه را شناسايي كرده و مسائل اندازه گیری شد. از اين روست كه كانون اين كاغذ خواهد شد صاحب نظران اين پيشنهادها در حسابداري شناسايي و سنجش و استدلالات/ساختارهاي نظري در پشت اين پيشنهادها.همچنين اين مقايسه آثار موضوعی است.

وجود تنشهای ميان نظريات استدان حسابداری در خصوص آنچه كه يك نظريه حسابداري است. وات و Zimmerman (1986: 2) نظريه حسابداری صحبتي كه خواهان توضيح و پيش بينی می شود.2- عمل حسابداری Positivists مانند وات و Zimmerman & Z گنجانده می شود (وات)



بحق* همايون کبير، مريلند،B.A. دیدستيار استاد دانشگاه است در وزارت امور حسابداری & سیستم های اطلاعاتی، دانشگاه داكا. نويسنده سپاسگزار است پروفسور سانتي Narayan Ghosh Saroj Saha کلکته و استاد دانشگاه داكا و Yamaji سنگاپور که میزبانی مسابقات را از استاد دانشگاه ژاپن برای تدارک بیشتر مفید پيشنهادات خود را روی اين كاغذ پيش نويس قبلي است. توضیحات از مشوقان پرحرارتي گمنام است.

مورد تقدير قرار دارند.