No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to review and critique the field of public sector accounting research. Many nation states deliver essential public services. In recent times, many of these nations have been involved in programmes of “modernisation”, which, in part, means that these public services now are significantly managed, delivered and governed by private and third sector organisations.Design/methodology/approachThe paper employs a literature‐based analysis and critique of public sector accounting articles published in the selected journals from 1992 to 2006. From this, a descriptive meta‐analysis of the characteristics of the research will be discussed. Finally, a conceptual analysis of the selected literature will be used to evaluate the field and address a possible future research agenda.FindingsThe descriptive analysis highlights that among the research papers reviewed several interesting patterns emerged concerning public service research. Also, the dominance of Australasia and UK research was noted. The extent of research in different levels of government/jurisdiction indicated that the majority of research was organisationally based. Finally, when the various functional types of accounting are considered, management accounting remained the most researched area of interest.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper only considered research within eight selected journals and over the period 1992 to 2006. Therefore, for instance, US mainstream public sector accounting research has not been reviewed.Originality/valueThe main implications of the paper are that “contextual” public service accounting research has a strong tradition and, through the process of reflection and critique of the body of work, several important insights are provided in order to highlight areas for further research and policy development.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This paper documents the growing dependence of Australian governments on the use of private funding to provide infrastructure and related services to the public. Using a Habermasian framework proposed by Broadbent and Laughlin (1999) we examine their second research question: "What is the nature of PFI and who is regulating their application?" to frame our analysis of the complex relationships between steering media and steering mechanisms in determining the operation of privately financed projects (PFP) in Australia. A secondary, but related concern, is to explore the linkages between the macro economic policy debates that gave rise to PFP and their implications for the micro organisational control issues. The debate about whether or not PFP are a response by governments to macro economic pressures remains unresolved. Similarly, there is evidence that governments are not as successful as private-sector consortia at identifying and shifting risk and, therefore, at achieving value-for-money (VFM). Ultimate PFP outcomes depend on two factors: broad policy parameters established by governments (steering mechanisms) either discreetly, or through other appointed steering media; and execution at the micro or organisational level, that is, on the decisions and actions taken by a variety of actors interfacing with PFP.

Paper type: research paper Purpose: Although there is no mandatory requirement for Italian universities to report beyond a financial report, several universities have produced a social report, despite the context of increasing pressure to cut financial resources. This study aims to investigate if Italian state universities produce voluntary social reports and, if so, what they disclose, and also to explore their motivations to do so and the main difficulties encountered.Design/methodology/approach: Content analysis is applied to the total pool of Italian universities' social reports observed up to 2010. Also, a subsequent online survey was undertaken with preparers of those social reports.Findings: The findings indicate that a social report is not a common practice in all Italian universities. Subsequent online interviews and thematic analysis found that a key individual within the university played a pivotal role in developing a social report. In the pool of reports examined, there were few social and environmental aspects disclosed. Also the respondents to our survey highlighted that the main difficulty in the development of social reports was the lack of systematic collection of non-financial information within the university context.