Public Sector to Public Services: 20 years of ‘Contextual’ Accounting Research

səhifə	2/4
tarix	24.06.2016
ölçüsü	0.85 Mb.

1 2 3 4

provision of services; their source is not considered important and private delivery is justified if it is value for money (v-f-m). For instance, this is illustrated in the involvement of the private sector through the vehicle of partnership, in the context of Public Private Partnerships and the Private Finance Initiative (Broadbent and Laughlin, 2005)^²¹.
Thus, a significant difference in private sector involvement over the period is that PBE have floated off functions in their entirety, whereas PPP/PFIs can be undertaken in particular projects within local, central government or PIS. PPP/PFIs do not take over the whole of the operation of a sector but can operate at a particular organisational level whilst, in other operational units, provision is delivered in full by the public provider. For this reason, PPP/PFIs do not represent a change of ownership from the domain of the public services, but a change to the provision of services.^²²
Figure 2 illustrates that both PBE and PIS remain in the domain of what we now call the public services, but without the rhetoric of public involvement in the services through share ownership or through governance processes as was seen in the early 1990s. The PBEs are gradually migrating towards the private sector. Globally, it is now taken for granted that it is the provision of services that matters, rather than who provides them, and that what is in question is accountability and regulation for the nature of that provision. Thus, Figure 2 highlights the accountability relationships between the providers (both public and private) and the government at different levels. PBE remain within the domain of the public services, but are moving more towards the private sector as citizens become accustomed to private involvement in these areas. Whilst PBEs are subject to state regulation as a means of control and the services they provide are seen as public goods that should be universally and equitably available PBEs still however remain in the domain of public services. In the context of PIS, private sector involvement is increasing through the use of PPP/PFI, but the services are still more firmly located in the domain of public services. They remain a public good and control is more direct than is the case with the PBE regulatory schemes, private providers’ obligations being contractually determined. In turn those who are managing the contracts are held accountable to the state through different systems of performance management.
At the same time as provision of public services is moved to private sector providers, there is pressure on those elements that remain more firmly in the direct control of government at both central and local levels to adopt a business approach to accounting and management. In these different ways we move from the concept of ‘public sector’ to the concept of provision of ‘public services’ that, as Hutton (2006) argues, provides the services a society assumes are available in an equitable fashion and be funded from taxation revenue (Hutton, 2006). Hence, our key argument is that PSAR should be concerned with the delivery of public services rather than with the ownership and organisational structure of the public sector.
(iii) ‘Alternative’ approaches to accounting research

Broadbent and Guthrie (1992) recognised that, in exploring PSAR, several research approaches can be taken. The categorisation of the research approaches that we offered in 1992 are now briefly revisited in this paper. The three original categories identified remain robust. Thus the present paper will differentiate technical accounting, that work which considers accounting techniques as a set of a-contextual practices (see for example, Solà and Prior, 2001), from the body of more contextual work. Technical contextual accounting and contextually technical accounting are differentiated thus: the former looks at techniques in context, seeing the context as having implications for the construction of techniques (Jones, 2000), while the latter is interested in the interaction of accounting and context (Cole and Cooper, 2006; Kurunmäki and Miller, 2006). There seems, on reflection, to be no reason to change our original categorisation^²³.

Thus, it remains the case that only a small number of the research papers reviewed seek to take a purely technical accounting approach; these also see accounting technologies as drivers of change, for instance, in that by changing the technology it is assumed better information can be produced. The small representation of this category is a product of the journals reviewed. The selected journals recognise the context of the public services, seeing accounting technologies as mediated by their context and implicated in change, although perhaps not in the way that was intended. Some of the reviewed literature remains contextually technical in that it wishes to understand the context and recognises that accounting technologies are relevant as a contextual element. In this latter category, the interest is in how accounting is used or implicated in processes of change. As noted above, the current paper reviews a particular set of journals that by their nature either tend to concentrate on contextual and qualitative research, or are receptive to it. Whilst the bulk of the research therefore tends to have some contextual element, nevertheless, a small number of papers are more technically focused and all three types of alternative research are represented in the body of work considered. The method used to analyse this research will be explored in the next section.
3. The Nature of the Analysis Undertaken

This section documents our methods for selecting and reviewing the papers (see, Parker, 2005). It includes the selection of journals, and papers within those journals, and the classification scheme used and procedures for data collection and analysis. Six steps were identified for our review process.

First, we formulated our main research objective and corresponding aims and established several boundaries for defining and limiting PSAR papers. The second step was the selection of journals from the accounting discipline which would reflect interdisciplinary research. The following eight journals were included: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal; Accounting Forum; Accounting, Organizations and Society; British Accounting Review; Critical Perspectives on Accounting; European Accounting Review; Financial Accountability and Management; and Management Accounting Research (AAAJ, AF, AOS, BAR, CPA, EAR, FAM, MAR).
Third, we considered the number of papers dedicated to PSAR in the selected journals. This led to a grouping of papers from each journal for which the number is identified in Table 1. As indicated previously this was limited to the time period 1992 to 2006. For all papers a PDF of the entire paper was obtained and entered in the database and full referencing details established in Endnote.
[Take in Table 1]
The fourth step was to pilot test the classification criteria on a sample of papers. During this stage both authors read the papers based on abstracts and full text of the articles and preliminary classifications were made and discussed. From this a slightly modified coding scheme was established and then one of the authors of this paper undertook the reading and coding for all the articles.
[Insert table 2 about here]
During the fifth step all papers were classified based upon the coding classification (see, Table 2). In instances where ambiguity as to coding was identified, the second-named author retrieved the full PDF and discussion ensued until agreement was reached.
Finally, in step six the data base was established and used to construct a range of descriptive statistics that allowed extensive discussion of the patterns that emerged from the reviewed articles and provided the basis for analysis of the field over the period in question.
The classification process considered four different descriptive criteria, as highlighted in Table 2. First, the location of the work was considered and this was divided into five geographic regions: North America, Australasia, United Kingdom, Rest of Europe, and Other. An important aspect here is that where the location of the work is indeterminable or multifarious, the default for this code is the first-mentioned author’s location. The second classification criterion was the level of government jurisdiction. This included a supranational/international element, which covered comparative work or a cross national boundary organisation (e.g., United Nations) as well as the various tiers of government within a national setting: national, state/territory/province, and local government. The final element in this categorisation, labelled organisation/industry specific, included the government agencies or industries (such as police, education, university, health, water, etc). Excluded from this categorisation was anything to do with private sector companies, not for profit organisations, such as charities, and the like.
The third classification was by accounting type and this involved analysing the publication for various functional types of accounting related specifically to the public sector. These included seven main accounting categories: management accounting and control/ budgeting and performance management; external reporting (financial, SE, IC, etc); finance/capital budgeting; auditing/evaluation; accountability and governance; Privatisation/PPP/PFI; and a final ‘other’ category to include more general work.
Our fourth categorisation was of the research approach used in the work. We differentiated between case and field work, historical or content analysis, survey work and interview work that sought to use questionnaires and provide more statistical analysis rather than cases, commentaries and normative work, theoretical or literature review approaches, and finally, combined approaches. This categorisation proved to be most problematic as often aspects of different elements were combined not in an explicit manner to provide a formal combination of research approaches, but in the context of, for example, using case based approaches to lead to commentary.
4. Descriptive Analysis

Once the selected papers were obtained from the eight selected accounting journals, a meta-analytical review of PSAR was undertaken to provide a descriptive patterning. This section answers, in an analytical way, the first question: what has been done?

The first issue to highlight is that, as illustrated in Table 1, apart from the journal dedicated to the public services and the charities/voluntary sector (Financial Accountability and Management) and the generalist journal (Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal), there is a paucity of published public services research in other journals. The specialised journal FAM accounts for 50% of the publications in the field. It should be recognised that some of the PSAR work is also submitted to public administration journals, but nevertheless given the size and importance of the public services, it is disappointing not to see it represented rather more substantially in more of the other accounting journals. It should also be recognised that this may well be the result of author submission practices as much as journal policy. Given the evidence that the acceptance of PSAR in the generalist accounting journals is patchy, those with a track record of acceptances in the field provide a signal to potential submitters, so a concentration of contributions develops. It is encouraging to note that, over time, the body of published public services research is growing and the area is becoming more established.
[Insert Figure 3 about here]
Figure 3 illustrates the geographic location of the work that has been undertaken. This shows the area with the greatest number of publications in PSAR to be the UK followed by Australasia. This may be a result of the fact that public sector financial management reform in these regions led the world. This is perhaps partly the result of fact that the journals that have been chosen are English language publications. European nations other than the UK are nevertheless well represented and this contribution is growing more recently. It must be acknowledged that there is a tradition of public sector research in other European languages in both accounting and public administration. Indeed, Europe has followed the North American tradition and developed prestigious specialist institutions that are focused on the field. This perhaps means that there is a tradition of publication in public administration journals rather than in the areas of economics and accounting, as might be the case in the UK and Australia where PSAR has always been a sub-discipline of the generic accounting discipline. In addition to the limitations presented by restricting journals to those in English there is also the matter of cultural bias. For example, there is a very different approach to public service delivery in the US.
It is perhaps also significant to note that the pattern of publication reflects the reach of the Westminster system of government. This reflects the policy links that are embedded in communities of practice such as the Auditors-General of the various jurisdictions. One Australian federal Auditor-General described the link between the audit offices of Australia and UK as ‘like being part of a family’. The point is that whilst there remain significant differences in the execution of policies, there is nevertheless a great deal of sharing of ideas between particular jurisdictions. This has enabled comparative research and may have led to more research related to these geographic locations.
It remains rare to find work related to emerging economies – a problem addressed by the work Trevor Hopper^²⁴ has undertaken with doctoral students in the area (Uddin and Hopper, 2001; 2003; Wickramasinghe, Hopper et al., 2004). Work from the former Soviet Union and from the Asia Pacific region is also now emerging (Jaruga and Nowak, 1995; Xavier, 1996; Bourmistrov and Mellemvik, 1999).
[Insert Figure 4 about here]
The extent of research in different levels of government/jurisdictions reflects the distribution of nations studied and the structures within them. Figure 4 demonstrates that the majority of research considers two arenas; the most popular area of interest is organisationally based studies and the second most popular area of research interest focuses on national level analysis. Because all jurisdictions have national governments and all have many different organisations this is perhaps unsurprising. Given that the research is mainly contextual, organisations provide the bulk of research sites because of their availability and ease of access.
Analysis of the organisational sites shows that there is still a great deal of interest in the Health Services (e.g. Pettersen, 1995; Lapsley, 1996; Llewellyn, 1997; Broadbent, Jacobs et al., 2001; Lowe, 2001; Arai, 2006; Scarparo, 2006). Schools and universities are also popular sites for study (e.g. Cameron and Guthrie, 1993; Laughlin, Broadbent et al., 1994; Broadbent, Jacobs et al., 1999; Montondon and Fischer, 1999; Yamamoto, 2004; Modell, 2005). However, the call made in 1992 (Broadbent and Guthrie, 1992) for wider study sites has been addressed and a variety of other areas have been studied including the utilities (Vass, 1993), scientific organisations (Boden, Gummett et al., 1998), national theatres (Skaerbaek, 1992), social housing (Collier, 2005), the police (Hoque, Arends et al., 2004) and museums (Carnegie and Wolnizer, 1996). The range of interest is broad, but the extent to which there is a body of in depth research in these areas is limited, meaning there are still ample research opportunities.
National Government provides an accessible site. While engagement with organisational actors may not be straightforward, it is easy to retrieve policy and contextual documentation, especially given the ubiquitous nature of the information on government websites (Luder, 1993; Luder, 2000; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2005). This provides the opportunity for commentary and normative discussion.
Work in Local Government and Municipalities is a continuing theme and research has been undertaken in the context of significant changes to the structures of delivery of service from these authorities in various countries (e.g. Mussari, 1995; Seal, 1999; Gill-McLure, Ironside et al., 2003; Monsen, 2006).
[Insert Figure 5 about here]
When the various functional types of accounting are considered, management accounting remains the most researched area of interest. The extent of interest in management accounting is illustrated above in Figure 5. Management accounting (C1) accounts for 188 articles, whilst financial accounting and external reporting (C2) accounts for 83 articles. Other (C7) has 58 articles and the rest of the public service articles by accounting type are accountability and governance (C5), auditing and evaluation (C4), Finance (C3) and PPP (C6) with 23 identified research articles. The technologies of NPM still fascinate researchers (e.g. Heald and Geaughan, 1994; Bellamy and Kluvers, 1995; Llewellyn and Grant, 1996; Jacobs, 1997; Doolin, 1999; Groot, 1999; Bowerman, Ball et al., 2001; Percy, 2001). Thus research about the nature of the raft of accounting technologies concerned with budgets or costs of a particular type of organisation (see for example Llewellyn, 1993; 1997; 1998; Llewellyn and Northcott, 2005) remains an important theme. The same is true of the interest in the processes and structures in place to enable the new technologies (e.g. McSweeney and Duncan, 1998; O'Connor, Chow et al., 2004). Performance Management and Indicators provoked much interest in the years up to 1992 and this remains an important area of concern (e.g., Mol, 1996; Modell, 2001; 2004; Siverbo and Johansson, 2006).
Financial accounting is the second most popular area of interest and this is perhaps the result of some specific structural changes.^²⁵ Connolly and Hyndman (2006) provide a taste of the debates that concern themselves with the appropriateness of the use of this approach in the public services.
Accountability and governance has provided a topic of study for several researchers, reflecting the changes to the structure of the domain (e.g. Gray and Jenkins, 1993; Goddard and Powell, 1994; Johnsen, Meklin et al., 2004; Collier, 2005). Work in this area is diverse but a common theme is that of seeking to understand the extent to which changes in the approaches to management or to the accounting information provided enables or restricts accountability in different situations (e.g. Humphrey, Miller et al., 1993; Hodges and Wright, 1995; Levaggi, 1995; Burritt and Welch, 1997; Coy, Fischer et al., 2001; Gendron, Cooper et al., 2001; English, 2003; Carnegie and West, 2005; Barton, 2006).
Auditing and evaluation is a significant area represented in the body of research undertaken and a range of different sites or initiatives are of interest (e.g., Humphrey, Moizer et al., 1995; Jacobs, 2000; Johnsen, Meklin et al., 2001; Broadbent, Gill et al., 2003). The extent to which evaluation, in the processes set up to seek to make such evaluations, simply undermines its own intent was of particular interest to Olsen et al (Olson, Humphrey et al., 2001). This theme of the dysfunctional consequences of evaluation or control systems is one that is also reflected in other sub-areas of the field in general, for example, in work that questions the measurement systems operated in the context of the development of reference costs as measures by which to evaluate performance of hospitals in relation to their costs (e.g. Northcott and Llewellyn, 2003; Llewellyn and Northcott, 2005).
Auditing is important, both on the national stage with the work of the National Auditors-General, and at the local level in municipalities; evaluation of outcomes is part of the work auditors are expected to undertake (e.g. Bowerman, 1994; 1995; Hodges and Wright, 1995; Olson, Humphrey et al., 2001; Pallot, 2003; Pollitt, 2003; Johnsen, Meklin et al., 2004; Johnson, 2006). Given the importance of the sub-themes that could emerge from this area, particularly in relation to questions of v-f-m and evaluation there would arguably be a case for more scholarly interest in the area.
This analysis also demonstrates the emergence of some new areas of interest extending existing themes. As well as the work on PPP/PFI (e.g. Shaoul, 1997; Broadbent and Laughlin, 1999; Torres and Pina, 2001; English and Guthrie, 2003; Froud, 2003; Shaoul, 2005) there is an interest in social and environmental matters (e.g. Burritt and Welch, 1997; Ball, 2004; 2005), devolution to different jurisdictions (Midwinter, 2005), and intellectual capital (Habersam and Piber, 2003).
Figure 6 considers methods used within the selected articles and shows the spread of research methods that have been adopted in the study of PSAR.
[Take in Figure 6]
Figure 6 shows that historical work (D2) is becoming more common (e.g. Funnell, 1998), combined with content analysis it is as popular as field or case study work (D1). Survey/questionnaire/interview studies (D3) are less popular. Many of the papers provide commentaries or normative studies (D4) – this is the largest body of work represented. Aligned to this category are the literature reviews (D5) which like the commentaries and normative work do not directly engage empirically. The final category of work, combined theoretical and empirical studies (D6) remedies the omission of empirical insights.
The analysis is interesting particularly given there has been some discussion amongst the academic community about the dearth of theoretical underpinnings. This analysis demonstrates that there is more fieldwork and case work than theoretically informed work in the area (e.g. Barton, 2005) and supports this perception. However, a more significant finding is that there is a danger that there may be an over-reliance on normative theorising and theoretical reviews of the existing literature – represented in categories D4 and D5. It should be recognised that the problem of disembedded theory is as great as that of under theorised empirics. The role of ‘armchair theorising’ is important in raising normative debate, but remains limited if academics are to engage in policy especially in a context where there are call for more evidence based policy. Practical solutions must at some stage be rooted in practice and context and there must therefore be a move beyond theorising to theory in practice. Given the great preponderance of work that is not engaging with empirics it would seem as if the balance is not being achieved. On the other hand it should also be noted that there were a number of significant papers that were theoretically and empirically informed (e.g. Dillard and Smith, 1999 Humphrey, Moizer et al., 1995; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2002; English and Guthrie, 2003).
In summary, the descriptive perspective on the accumulated PSAR is important as it helps identify who published, what was published and the focus of the selected research. By analysing the patterning of the PSAR body of knowledge via the classification criteria, we are able to provide a foundation on which to ground our conceptual analysis, as well as form some tentative conclusions as to the gaps in the body of current PSAR research.
5. Discussion

This section reflects on our aims. The first aim was to take the earlier paper as a foundation on which to build and the second aim sought to consider the contemporary relevance of the previous analysis. The arguments in Broadbent and Guthrie (1992) have been re-visited and refined in the discussions in section 2 of this paper. The nature of the domain has been redefined and illustrated in Figure 2. As a result we argue that during the period the changing context has moved the focus beyond the public sector to an emphasis on public services. The relevance of the approaches to research has been considered and is still seen as relevant. The rest of this section seeks to address the third aim, that of the content of the body of research and those areas we see as both significant and those that have been forgotten or silenced.

Significant Trends

Thus, the first task in this section will be to consider the significant contemporary trends within PSAR, noting that changes in the contextual environment have moved the research agenda within the field over the period in question. Three aspects will be considered^²⁶: External Financial Reporting; Governance and Risk; and Performance Measurement and Management. The consideration of these three areas of PSAR demonstrates the importance of the reflexive consideration of context and accounting practice. The examples illustrate the extent to which accounting practice is both constituted by, and is constitutive of, the social context.

(i) The move to external reporting issues and the concern with public infrastructure

A significant change in contemporary PSAR is the increase in work in the area of external reporting. In 1992, the majority of the research in the field was concerned with management accounting techniques of various types. At that stage the concerns in policy and practice were with how to manage the organisation more efficiently and how to control what those managing the sector were doing (Dunleavy, 1994). The overall field of research is dynamic and mutable and there has been a greater interest in researching financial aspects of PSAR as the period has progressed.

Australia and New Zealand were perhaps the earliest jurisdictions to signal an interest in moving governmental accounting to cohere with private sector models (e.g. Pallot, 1997; Guthrie, 1998). In New Zealand, this interest aligned with the change agenda introduced into the public sector as a whole. New Zealand was seen as a leader in the adoption of New Public Management (NPM) approaches and was particularly attracted to the private sector approach to public service delivery, seeking to impose this framework upon its public sector in all aspects (Pallot, 2001). For some time this approach was less evident in other nations (Broadbent, Jacobs et al., 1999). However, there has been an increasing interest in using private sector accounting approaches and this has been evidenced by the interest in using accrual accounting in the public services across the globe (e.g. Brorstrom, 1998; Robinson, 1998; Christiaens, 2004; Monsen, 2006; Carlin, 2003; Heald, 2005; Lye, Perera et al., 2005) and looking to the matter of ‘Whole of Government Accounting’.
Not all of the research has been complimentary about the adoption of private sector approaches to reporting of public services, seeing the differences between the sectors as significant. The interest in financial accounting reporting and concerns about the applicability of private sector approaches in the public services - which are seen to be driven by different assumptions - has been accompanied by commentaries on approaches to the setting of standards in the area of public services (e.g. Pallot, 1992; Rutherford, 1992; Scheid, 1993; Guthrie, 1998; Walker and Clarke, 2000; Price and Wallace, 2002). The debate as to whether generic approaches are relevant and possible and thus how to regulate financial reporting in the public services remains alive and some consideration of both conceptual frameworks and implementation is evident (e.g. Mayston, 1992; Lye, Perera et al., 2005; Mack and Ryan, 2006) In the world of practice, the standard setting bodies also continue to debate the matter.
The growing interest in financial accounting issues has led to a particular interest in issues relating to the treatment of infrastructure assets. The desire to produce financial accounts compatible with those of the private sector has raised issues of introducing capital charging (e.g. Coombs and Edwards, 1992; Heald and Scott, 1995; 1996; Heald and Dowdall, 1999; Carlin, 2003; Christiaens, 2004). When cash accounting was used in the sector then there was no overt mechanism for capital charges or for asset depreciation to be recorded. It has been argued that this should be remedied so as to reflect the cost of Treasury support and make the cost of asset usage more visible in order to ensure efficiency of use. The debate links into the management accounting changes of NPM that were directly geared to efficiency, and for that reason practitioners and regulators have introduced such charges (e.g. Christiaens, 2004; Goddard, 2005; Paulsson, 2006). Arguments have been made that this is inappropriate, given the distinct nature of some elements of the sector, which leads to claims of incompatibility with business approaches. One such example is the debate surrounding the inclusion and valuation of heritage assets such as Ancient Monuments or Works of Art. The concern with their valuation and a debate as to whether they should indeed form part of the National Account is reflected in the literature (e.g. Barton, 2000; Christiaens, 2004). The value and the nature of the ownership of the national infrastructure has come to the fore in the discussion of PPP/PFI that follows.
The general question of why there has been more interest in applying private sector approaches to external financial reporting is significant. Arguably one element in a tentative explanation of this phenomenon lies in the context of the introduction of more private sector involvement in the public services. For example, in the implementation of markets or quasi-markets with their attendant price competition, there is a need to develop costing and pricing information through the development of accounting technologies (e.g. Chua and Preston, 1994; Guthrie, 1998). Where competition is between public and private sector organisations there is some incentive to have comparable financial information sets (e.g. Ellwood, 1996) in order to have comparable information for decision making. The contracting out of services or pricing for market situations (e.g. Aiken and McCrae, 1992; Arai, 2006) has led to a need to develop comparative information. This is one element creating the impetus for the adoption of private sector approaches to financial reporting.
This impetus has been consolidated by a recent and important contributory factor, the impact of ‘third way’ thinking (Giddens, 1998). Third way thinking has introduced the notion of partnership between public and private organisations. Structural changes in the provision of services that have emerged have required accounting, auditing and accountability changes. Third way thinking has sought to dissipate the need to make stark choices between public and private sectors. As such it has been influential in the development of the notion of the government’s role in funding public services as opposed to maintaining a public sector. Third way thinking introduced the logic that the private sector could be used to provide public services in the context of partnership and, in doing so, legitimated the involvement of the private sector for some elements of the political left. This, of course, is an approach that has not been problematic for the political right who have long espoused the use of the private sector as a more efficient means of operation. The political right of course have used the market mechanism as justification for private sector involvement. In ‘partnership thinking’ the motivation for the use of the private sector is different but the outcome is similar - there is more private sector involvement in the provision of public services.
For instance, the ideas of PPP/PFI have spread across the OECD (e.g. Mayston, 1999; English and Guthrie, 2003; Froud, 2003; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2005). PPP/PFI has promoted public service delivery by the private sector and whilst it is said to be in partnership, the essence of the approach in practical terms is that the private sector is contracted and funded by taxation revenue to deliver a public service. The partnership element is represented in the extent to which there is claimed to be a sharing of the risk of the project with allocations of risk to those who are best able to manage it. The partnerships have particularly been used to solve the problems of the provision and updating of infrastructure. Backlog maintenance of public assets has been seen as significant, public borrowing as restricted and hence the renewal of infrastructure has been a problem for a variety of nation states. The use of the private sector to provide funding for the infrastructure of public services has therefore had great appeal (e.g. Hodges and Mellett, 1999; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2003a; 2003b; Edwards and Shaoul, 2003; Shaoul, 2005).
The use of the private sector to provide public services has been criticised as the private sector makes profit from services such as health, education, police or justice (e.g. Froud, Haslam et al., 1998; Froud and Shaoul, 2001; Froud, 2003; Newberry and Pallot, 2003; Shaoul, 2005). Calls for a broad evaluation of the initiative have been made, with a particular emphasis on an assessment of the implications of long contracts which are integral to PPP initiatives and where it remains difficult to know what the final outcome of PPP/PFI might be (Broadbent, Gill et al., 2003). Calls to consider the way in which these initiatives are accounted for, both financially and in general economic terms, have also been made (e.g. Hodges and Mellett, 1999; Mayston, 1999; Broadbent, Gill et al., 2003; Rutherford, 2003; Shaoul, 2005).
The adoption of PPP/PFI has raised questions about the nature of management accounting approaches to capital investment decision making and to the question of how to deal with risk (e.g. Froud, Haslam et al., 1998; Shaoul, 1998; Froud and Shaoul, 2001; Froud, 2003; Newberry and Pallot, 2003). It has raised questions about how the state legitimises its decisions (e.g. Broadbent and Laughlin, 2003) and the logic of PPP as a policy (Edwards and Shaoul, 2003).
PPP/PFI is significant in financial accounting research because it both emerges from and consolidates the ideological drift to private sector approaches to the management and provision of public services. This has led to increased attention being paid to external financial reporting for public services and has impacted particularly on those organisations that were previously seen as residing in a different sphere – that of the public sector. Hence the structural and ideological changes have created the ‘space’ for new approaches to service provision and the need for new accountings. The accountings themselves have created some of the arguments for the adoption of the new structures of provision (for example through the arguments that PPP/PFI provides value-for money (see, Heald, 2003). PPP/PFI is both the driver of and driven by change and this provides an example of the constitutive nature of accounting, and shows how accounting itself is also constituted by wider practice (Broadbent and Guthrie, 1992).
The more general point of significance that emerges from the research in the area of external financial reporting is the demonstration of the unresolved tensions that remain in relation to the nature of external financial reports and the conceptual basis informing their construction. The fundamental question of whether there are significant and inherent differences in the nature of organisations within the domain of the public services and those in the private sector remains. Whether the financial reports for the different organisations can be constructed using the same conceptual frames and practical rubrics is still a point of debate. In that respect there is still a need to explore whether the different elements that comprise the domain of the public services described in Figure 2 can be accounted for in the same manner. Questions about the differences between the provision of public services and the ownership of public assets might be raised, for example.
The outcome of this, ironically in a paper that has concerned itself with ‘alternative’ PSAR, is the signal that there remains a need for more technical accounting research, albeit technically contextual accounting research. One conclusion of this paper must therefore be that there remains a gap in our shared understandings of this area. Whereas there is already significant work in the area, there is still insufficient contextually rooted consideration of the technical and conceptual nature of the accounts produced.
The technical work that has been undertaken in relation to External Reporting demonstrates a concentration of this interest, it being the interest of a limited number of scholars (for instance, Lapsley, 1992; Mayston, 1992; Barton, 2000; 2005; Heald, 2005). In this respect it is interesting to note that the links through to practice are considerable within this group^²⁷. This raises a second point that requires attention. This is the need to address the policy agenda and the means by which to engage with this. Before developing this point, the paper turns first to other areas that have grown in significance.

Governance and Risk

Another impact of private sector thinking impacting on the provision of public services has been the emphasis on governance. The emergence of this significant aspect of practice is related again to contextual pressures, this time a series of financial scandals in the private sector that have affected thinking and practice in the public services.
The various problems of governance within the private sector, characterised by the case of Enron, has led to the variety of regulation in nations around the world, such as Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX, 2002) in the United States, or the Combined Code in the UK (FRC, 2003). This has, in turn, led to a concern with the issue of governance in the public services and the issuing of codes that mirror the practices laid down for the private sector (see for example, Langlands, 2004)^²⁸. However, we found little evidence that researchers had published on these important issues.

These regulatory changes are starting to lead researchers to consider the nature of governance (e.g. Ezzamel and Willmott, 1993; Craven and Stewart, 1995; Collier, 2005) and question the extent to which governance of the public services using a framework drawn from private sector principles is applicable. The basic question for research is whether the needs of shareholders in the private sector and stakeholders in public services are the same. Some attention is also being paid to the more specific aspect of risk (Froud, 2003), although there is not yet a body of published PSAR work that looks at risk in the context of governance Work in this area is important - given the extent of the impact of regulation on practice there remains an important gap in our understanding of the area. In essence, in this field the perceived need for practitioner action has led to the development of frameworks for practice and research seems to lag somewhat behind. This is a serious omission on the part of the academic community. The relative invisibility of academics in the development of practice contrasts with the pragmatic need for practitioners to develop their practice. This can lead to a view from practitioners that academics simply develop critique retrospectively, whilst they in contrast have to engage^²⁹. The nature of the relationship between academics and practitioners that this raises will be discussed later in this section.

There is, however, some academic interest that relates to the field of governance. For instance, the work of Ezzamel and Willmott (1993) is of particular interest in that it draws together the issues of governance and accountability, highlighting the linkages in their concerns. Accountability is concerned with overview and outcomes - what is being achieved in organisations and this in turn relates to the third area of significance, performance measurement and management.

Performance Measurement and Management

A striking aspect of this review of PSAR is the extent of interest in accountability as a topic over the period. Arguably concerns raised in accountability research are closely linked to some of the concerns of governance. In particular, there is a common concern that organisations operate in ways that are not corrupt and that serve the needs of those they should benefit. Many scholars have considered the nature of accountability (e.g. Fowles, 1993; Gray and Jenkins, 1993; Humphrey, Miller et al., 1993; Gendron, Cooper et al., 2001) and its role in a variety of organisational situations (e.g. Carnegie and Wolnizer, 1996; Burritt and Welch, 1997; Angluin and Scapens, 2000; Coy, Fischer et al., 2001; English, 2003). That work has been undertaken in a range of nation states (e.g. Laughlin, Broadbent et al., 1992; Lawrence, Alam et al., 1997; Jacobs, 2000). A common theme is that of understanding how different stakeholders can be reassured that the organisations in question are doing what is expected of them. Another matter of concern is whether the accounting systems imposed or adopted help to make transparent or obscure the actions of the organisations in question.
In light of the need to ensure organisations use their resources to achieve the ends required of them, particularly in the context of delegation of day to day management and the contracting out of services, accountability systems that are closely concerned with performance have been developed. This can be seen as part of a neo-liberalist agenda (Rose, 1992) where the attempts of the State to delegate responsibility are accompanied by strong central control. In this way, political accountability for the government becomes managerial accountability for managers of organisations in the public service (Broadbent and Laughlin, 2003). There has been a good deal of change in the systems that have been employed over the period in question, with moves to more comprehensive performance management systems over time (e.g. Leeuw, 1996; Hyndman and Anderson, 1997; Ballantine, Brignall et al., 1998; Jacobs, Marcon et al., 2004; Modell, 2004; Carlin, 2006; Kurunmäki and Miller, 2006). The performance management systems themselves emerged from a tradition of budgetary control over the organisations within the sector (Rea, 1994; Jacobs, 1995; Xavier, 1996; Llewellyn, 1998; Mayston, 1998; Lowe, 2000; Serritzlew, 2005), a tradition that endures in some jurisdictions that have not yet moved so far down the route of what has been called modernisation (e.g. Lapsley and Pong, 2001; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2005; van Helden, 2005).
‘Modernisation’ in government policies has, in the UK, led to the development of extensive regimes of targets and performance measures (HMSO, 1998; Cabinet Office, 1999). Thompson’s earlier work (1995; 1999), had already reviewed targets and performance measures in museums and art galleries illustrating the extent of the impact of such approaches. The impact of this is now under consideration (Broadbent and Laughlin, 2007). The work of the ESRC Public Services Programme^³⁰ has some published work reflecting on the extent of this approach and the degree to which this approach is useful or otherwise (Hood, 2007; McLean, 2007). In the PSAR literature, the more general significance of budgets and targets on behavioural outcomes is well researched (e.g. Orford, 1992; Jacobs, 1995; Pettersen, 1995; Northcott and Llewellyn, 2003; Llewellyn and Northcott, 2005; Serritzlew, 2005). The extent to which these targets are as likely to cause dysfunctions as to ensure intended outcomes remains problematic more generally and is a significant issue in relation to public services.
What can be seen is that over time there has been a mutation of the management accounting technologies used to control organisational activity, with a move away form controlling budget performance based on a concern with the inputs and towards performance management which is concerned with achieving the desired outputs and outcomes. The latter performance management approaches are used to monitor service delivery in the private sector, which cannot be controlled directly. They are also applicable within the organisations where the state nation has more direct control. The change in structure of the provision of services can again be demonstrated to be both enabled by technologies of accounting (those that enable devolved or privatised delivery of services) and enabling of that structural change.
In summary, therefore, the extent to which public accounting technologies are both constituted by the context and are constitutive of the context is demonstrated above. Arguably, the root of these areas of interest can be traced to the growing interest in using business approaches and the introduction of the private sector as providers of public services. This has challenged the very concept of the public sector, replacing it with the notion of public services. The change in language is significant as it is itself constituted by changes in ideological views as well as being constitutive of the situation. This body of work – taken together – potentially comprises a particularly significant contribution to our understanding of PSAR and to societal changes over the last 20 years^³¹. The enhanced contribution could be achieved by the recognition of the common roots and by a more active attempt to build this work as a body of scholarship. This will require for it to be brought together much more actively than is presently the case. One particular element of that research agenda has been highlighted and that is the need to look carefully at the technical aspects in context and particularly in the context of developing PSAR policy.
Other Aspects and Some Omissions

Scholars have of course studied aspects that go way beyond the three interconnected areas that have been highlighted above as part of a significant conceptual shift. The second task of this final section will be to provide some further overview of areas of interest in order to highlight areas for further research and in some ways this offers a reprise on the agendas we highlighted in Broadbent and Guthrie (1992). The following sub-sections therefore address the second question: what could be done?

Content of PSAR

The issues highlighted below are concerned with research in particular topic areas and demonstrate the extent of technically contextual accounting.
First, there is good evidence of attempts to broaden the remit of PSAR in order to consider a wider range of organisations (e.g. Skaerbaek, 1992; Montondon and Fischer, 1999; Poletti, 2004; Rouse and Putterill, 2005; Jupe and Crompton, 2006) although, as noted, earlier scholars are still attracted to studies of healthcare (Järvinen, 2006). International comparative work is also in evidence – although not abundantly (e.g. Torres and Pina, 2001; Jacobs, Marcon et al., 2004; Wickramasinghe, Hopper et al., 2004). The opportunity to diversify location and undertake comparisons should be grasped when possible as it provides the basis for contrast and comparison that facilitates our learning and allows both a transfer of good practice and prevents mistakes being repeated elsewhere.
Second, the body of work also shows that scholars remain interested in particular technologies. Studies of benchmarking and approaches to costing (e.g. Bowerman, Ball et al., 2001; Jones, 2002; Trenchard and Dixon, 2003; Smark, 2006) demonstrate that a concern with computing and judging the costs of services is still seen as relevant. An interest in accounting technologies as they come in and out of fashion is also likely to form a part of the research agenda and again this forms the basis for learning and should be encouraged.
Third, the same claims can be made about topical contextual pressures (such as legislative change, technological advances or interest group concerns) that promote interest in more specialist themes. Examples include devolution (e.g. Ezzamel, Hyndman et al., 2005; Midwinter, 2005), or privatisation (e.g. Lapsley, 1993; Ogden, 1995; Stittle, 2004) which was widely covered when the privatisation agenda was at its height, only to re-emerge when problems in the privatised rail industry occurred in the UK. New topics that are now emerging include an interest in intellectual capital (e.g. García-Meca, Parra et al., 2005; Mouritsen, Thorbjørnsen et al., 2005) and sustainability and environmental matters (e.g. Burritt and Welch, 1997; Ball, 2004; 2005). Hopefully a more specialist than topical interest is that in the armed forces and war (e.g. Catasús and Grönlund, 2005; Funnell, 2006). These all provide the possibility of growing into a much more significant theme – or indeed are specialist off-shoots of a wider body of scholarship (as is the case with environmental and sustainability issues). Alternatively they may simply fade away as context changes.
All these topic areas are ones that remain an important element of the agenda of the accounting research community and demonstrate that PSAR is in good health, particularly in the production of technically contextual studies. Arguably, whilst these studies are important, and necessary, it is not sufficient simply to understand techniques in context and hence the exhortation above to think more systematically about their place in the development of a field of knowledge.
(ii) Research Approaches in PSAR

As in 1992, we continue to call for more ‘alternative’ accounting research to be undertaken. Some significant contextually technical accounting research is being produced, although this is still under-represented in the population of publications. Examples of this work include the studies undertaken by Neu who has looked at the issue of the ‘birth of a nation’ (Neu and Graham, 2006), considering Canada’s first nations, and has also explored the notions of public space in the context of public discussions about educational reform in Canada (Neu, 2006). Townley’s ( 2001) consideration of models of strategic management as elements of modernity is another example. Arguably this area of work is also worthy of more attention. In addressing the field with a contextually technical research approach it is more likely that the body of knowledge called for above will develop. If this endeavour were to be addressed, then some of the questions we left at the end of the previous review might be answered (Broadbent and Guthrie, 1992, p. 25). Thus we still have little understanding of the reasons for the changes in the field of PSAR and how the changes are maintained and enhanced. In this paper we note simply the reflexivity that surrounds the social construction of accounting and its constitutive nature. This goes some way to suggesting how we might study the linkage of technologies of accounting into other technologies and how these might all be theorised. This provides an enduring and extensive academic agenda that remains to be addressed. Nevertheless it signals the contribution of an extensive body of work that has already been achieved.

(iii) Omissions: Empirically Informed Theorising

The analysis for the research methods used demonstrates that there is an imbalance between work that provides commentaries, normative theorising and reviews and that which is engaging with practice. As argued earlier this has implications for engagement with practitioners and for the legitimacy of academics in the development of practice. This should not be taken as a critique of the individual published papers in the categories mentioned, the problem instead is in the nature of the aggregated scholarship. It says something about the nature of the research efforts of the academy as a whole and perhaps is a reflection of the difficulty that is often encountered in engagement with organisations and in bringing theory and emprics together. This is something that must be addressed in the context of research training. It is a significant issue for the development of a body of scholarship in the discipline.

(iv) Omissions: Theory and Practice

Throughout this paper we have signalled an issue of importance to which we now return, namely the matter of engagement with practice. If PSAR is to make a significant impact in society, then academics must impact on policy. This requires academics to engage with policy makers and to engage in matters of governance on a practical level. PSAR must move beyond the pages of academic journals and researchers must consider diverse audiences when researching and writing. For instance, students are easy to reach and well positioned to offer a longer–term solution; we need to educate them to understand the complexity of PSAR and the solutions technologies offer. Politicians and policy makers are struggling to find solutions to problems, albeit in the shorter term. They are interested in pragmatic solutions that are not mired in complexity. It is possible for researchers to build such bridges with practitioners, as noted earlier in our discussing of accounting regulation. Engagement with the political sphere may be difficult, as politicians and policy makers can be selective and undermine carefully thought out solutions. This means we must also communicate with the general public and engage with the media more to ensure our views are well represented and widely so. The relationship between academics and practice has long been fragile and fraught with difficulty and this remains a challenge to be addressed. Comparative studies of how this issue is worked out in different nation states therefore provide a future area of research.

6. Conclusions

The previous section provides an agenda for PSAR. It is a policy agenda as well as an academic one and the two are intertwined.

The academic agenda highlights some significant omissions. As we suggested in 1992, the range of locations studied could be more extensive. More significantly the agenda requires us to look quite specifically at the policy aspects of the technical agenda especially in relation to financial reporting, although these considerations must take due consideration of context. Technically contextual work is necessary for these matters to be addressed but is not sufficient to complete the agenda. Contextually technical work remains important but under-represented. There is a real gap to fill in the consideration of matters of governance. We need more balance between normative and empirical work. All these aspects require us as an academic community to try to build the links in our work to construct a body of developing knowledge, rather than simply produce a set of interesting and disparate ideas.
If we do not succeed in building a more coherent body of knowledge and understanding rooted in empirical understandings then the policy agenda will not be addressed effectively and academia will be left on the fringes, unable to influence the world we live in. This is the result of not being able to provide systematic evidence and understanding of practice that can convince policy makers and practitioners of the legitimacy of our concerns. To this extent addressing the policy agenda is perhaps more significant and here there is a significant deficit. In crude terms it could be argued that over the past twenty years a range of extensive changes have swept through public services across the globe; that academics have written extensive critiques of these changes; and that the changes have still been implemented. In 1992 our call was for greater understanding of the role of accounting in public sector change. Our current prescription is more robust in that we wish to emphasise the need to go beyond understanding. To paraphrase Marx, we must go beyond understanding and try to change the world.

1 2 3 4