In 2013 the European Commission started addressing issues concerning public sector accounting harmonization across EU Member States, embarking on a project to develop European Public Sector Accounting Standards (EPSASs). Although acknowledging the indisputable reference of the existing International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs), it highlighted that IPSASs, as they were, could not be suitably applied in the EU context (European Commission, 2013a). IPSASs were considered as not covering specific important matters of public sector accounting, not showing enough stability due to the need of constant convergence with IFRSs, and offering several options that compromised comparability.Comparability of public sector accounts across Member States is one of the main objectives of EPSASs (EUROSTAT, 2016(EUROSTAT, , 2019, clearly established as a qualitative characteristic in the draft EPSAS Conceptual Framework (EUROSTAT, 2018). It is critical for EU economic and fiscal convergence that countries' accounts allow for substantial comparison and standardized transition to the National Accounts (Jorge et al., 2014).The IPSAS Conceptual Framework (IPSASB, 2014), meanwhile issued, sustains that adopting these standards would improve comparability of General Purpose Financial Reporting (GPFR), in this way strengthening transparency and accountability of public sector finance. Given that, despite the above concerns, EPSASs are to be developed on the basis of IPSASs (European Commission, 2019), the purpose of this paper is to show that IPSASs are not an adequate reference for EPSASs in terms of allowing the desired comparability of countries' accounts in the EU. It relies on evidence gathered from IPSAS-based financial reports prepared by some Agencies of the United Nations System and from audit reports of the UN Board of Auditors.The research illustrates that IPSASs only allow for de jure comparability of financial reports at a very broad level. Their implementation and interpretation in practice (due to the options permitted and the judgement required) does not allow for de facto comparable GPFR. European standard-setters need to be aware that the comparability EPSASs need to address across EU Member States' accounts must go beyond the one that is permitted by IPSASs -EPSASs need to stretch IPSASs harmonization to a higher level of standardization.

PurposeWithin the stream of research on public sector accounting standards, heritage asset accounting represents a difficult and challenging issue. This paper intends to join the debate on heritage reporting by carrying out a critical review of the Consultation Paper (CP) “Financial Reporting for Heritage in the Public Sector” issued by the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) in order to highlight its strengths and weaknesses and to make recommendations.Design/methodology/approachTo this end, the current study adopts document analysis as a qualitative research method by referring to Italy as a typical and critical case study. Moreover, the authors actively took part in the Italian working group on heritage assets reporting, so they are well-informed people about the Italian point of view as well as the broad discussion underpinning the Italian response.FindingsEvidence demonstrates that, although the proposals included in the CP represent a new step towards an organic regulation of heritage asset reporting, if these preliminary views are confronted with the reality of an emblematic context, as in the Italian case, much room for improvement remains regarding the definition, recognition, measurement and disclosure of such assets.Originality/valueThe originality of the paper lies in its contribution to overcoming the current controversial aspects of heritage assets reporting and the issuing of an accounting standard. In doing so, the authors also attempt to answer the call made by Anessi-Pessina et al. (2019) to investigate in detail an individual country experience to better understand the state of the art in national and international accounting standards on heritage assets.

PurposeIn the New Public Governance (NPG) paradigm, citizens play a vital role in the decision-making of public organisations and are fundamental to aligning their expectations with service delivery. Citizen engagement could be realised in the budgeting process by adopting participatory budgeting (PB) even if previous literature on PB does not focus on this tool design issue. Therefore, this study aims to understand which PB institutional design arrangements help enhance citizen participation.Design/methodology/approachA deductive content analysis and a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis were carried out on the PB regulations of 100 Italian municipalities.FindingsThe results suggest that the PB design can be elaborated in different ways that do not always guarantee the involvement of citizens. Virtuous municipalities engage citizens from the start of the process and in the most relevant discussion and deliberation phases. A simple legislative provision does not guarantee a real introduction of participatory governance.Originality/valueThis study theorises citizen participation in PB and examines it through empirical evidence to define relationships between PB design arrangements and citizen engagement.

This paper aims to analyse the principle of accrual accounting when applied to non-business-oriented companies, including most general government bodies. The analysis is carried out by referring to concepts that are well-established and firmly anchored to the "history" of accounting and which, today, allow us to define the principle of accrual accounting for "non-business" activities differently to that applicable to profit-oriented companies. This also gives rise to a different interpretation of the economic result. This work subsequently provides a "fieldwork" analysis of how accrual accounting has been introduced in the Italian public sector through an on-going accounting harmonization project. Finally, this paper offers a critical examination of the current accrual basis recognised by the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), as compared to its theoretical definition. The conclusions of this paper support the theory that the IPSAS can contribute to the current harmonization of Italian government accounting, but also reverse.

This paper begins with the assumption that in many public administrations, budgets are not limited to the role of mere statements to provide additional information; they are authorisations with a legal value that make them autonomous documents. Our aim was therefore to analyse the relations between politicians and managers, focusing in particular on the governance models in use within public administration in Italy and the role of budgeting in these cases. We have also looked at the contents and constraints of IPSAS 24, from which the difficulties of its application in Italy have emerged. Our research has led to a firm belief that IPSAS 24 needs to be supplemented by an international standard specifically dedicated to budgeting. Moreover, this should include a European version which takes into account SEC 95 and the COFOG classification.

To identify the governance model “traditionally” used in Italy, is important to analyse the different types of organizational models, identifiable in the Public sector when considering, simultaneously, two different variables: 1.the distribution of power between politicians and managers; 2. the nature of the manager’s employment contracts. In Italy, by the reform, the “traditional” period ended to make way for a “modern” governance model which invaded the organizational aspect of public Administrations. Now, more than 25 years since the principle of distinction was introduced, it is time to understand if the innovations are really applied.

No abstract

No abstract