No abstract

No abstract

The needs for economic systems that humans constructed throughout time have been the driving force for accounting technological inventions starting with bookkeeping, followed by double-entry bookkeeping. Many civilizations and societies have contributed to the development and advancements of accounting. To this effect, Italy was a fortune county in which the number of "antecedents" converged, and thus, is considered the place of origin for modern accounting. Italy as a society cannot be held solely responsible for its birth, nor can its citizens be credited for the invention of accounting. Attributing the creation of accounting to Pacioli and the dating of its origin to 1449 require further consideration, rendering the questions of who invented accounting and when wide open. In the absence of hard evidence, speculating such a defining moment is the optimal contemporary accounting research produces. Accounting has retained its usefulness in societies through its adaptability to new roles when the master of the business is present. The business model needs to be revisited and retheorized when accounting is not serving well. A social paradox results from financing the operations of corporations and becoming their victims. Accounting cannot compensate for owners' absence in the business model selected for conducting business. Accounting research inquiring about the role of accounting and questioning its usability and benefit to society labeled 'critical' or 'historical' or deeming such discourse radical should be one of the mainstream accounting research instead.

Research Question: Whether accounting research has been in a better status after the domination of Rochester School of Accountancy’s Positive Accounting Methodology. Motivation: This study revisits the debate of the validity of Rochester school of accountancy's positive methodology. Rochester school of accountancy's positive accounting research has properly identified the assumed imaginary need of the US market. While positive accounting methodology may not be scientific under various accounts for science, it has contributed to accounting methodologically. Idea: Restricting financial accounting on issues related to decision-usefulness and perceiving corporate reporting as a product of accounting choices from an agency theory perspective constrains other dimensions of reality. Any restrictions to definitions of the role of accounting and its function (Glauter & Underdowen, 1974) blocks profoundly deep-rooted in contextual factors such as a country's social, political, and economic environment that all make up accounting which supposedly needs to be considered (Hellmann et al., 2010) in properly theorizing comprehensively practiced accounting. Data: Extensive writings have that documented internationally throughout time have been looked over. Tools: An analytical and critical examination has been conducted upon internationally accounting literature in a wide-ranging manner to provide an evaluation regarding Rochester school of accountancy's positive accounting research. Findings: The positive accounting methodology of the Rochester school of accountancy has been criticized by several accounting researchers for decades and even deem it disappointment and probably shame. Yet, Watts and Zimmerman declared themselves prime candidates. Its prevalence is the rhetoric of scientific inquiry. A measure of the failure of the so-called positive accounting methodology has achieved lays in its inability to become universal because differences in institutional environments persevere in the world. Contribution: Revisiting the debate of the validity of Rochester school of accountancy's positive methodology potentially contributes to our knowledge in assessing its legitimate prevalence in academic accounting research. New accounting researchers and scholars need to be aware of the predominant theoretical structure that governs the empirical financial paradigm and its limitation. This is especially significant to accounting researcher who has been intellectually trained under the positivistic tradition of economics.

The audit function in a corporate model can be a defective tool in monitoring executive management. Arguably, the Sarbanes-–Oxley Act (SOX) inadvertently has placed auditors in unwanted positions while increasing their independence. Auditors’ reliance on their clients for collecting information, financial dependence, and self-bias in processing information restrain them from neutrally and objectively judging corporate reporting. Mandated rules can never substitute integrity and the desired objectivity by shareholders. By reconceptualizing the result of the relationship as a general partnership where trust plays a critical role, this study considers the relationship between management and their auditors, offers an explanation about the audit firms’ behavior, and offers reasons for the failure of some audit for committing unethical actions. The analysis leads to testable empirical and policy implications. Accounting theorists should be on board critiquing and retheorizing positively but not normatively. A corporation with the absence of an objective party that shareholder count to attest corporate reporting impartially.

Several efforts have been made towards basing the practices of corporate accounting on reasoning. This article critiques Understanding Mattessich and Ijiri: A Study of Accounting Thought to expand some of the topics currently relevant to the accounting discourse. The following two claims may be needed for further clarification. Mattessich"s and Ijiri"s presuppositions towards reality actually contribute to reality, as each one of them perceived it as an objective construct, but this idea is challenged in this article. In conceptualizing the practice of accounting, Mattessich may not explain how corporate accounting is perceived. A suitable extension of the book"s topic is thus discussing positive accounting research, elitism in accounting research. More sources on the topics of "accounting sociology" by applying the theory of elitism, "positive accounting research", and "citation analysis" are provided as well. Reading the book may be deemed for accounting researchers trained in the positive traditions as a voyage in "the land of wonder," but is nonetheless thought-provoking.

The investment climate in the country depends largely on the level of confidence of potential investors, which actualizes the need to provide transparent and quality financial reporting to economic entities. Powerful corporations that have established an effective corporate governance mechanism are able to provide high competitive advantage over the long term, contributing to their financial and economic stability. The purpose of the article is to determine the impact of corporate governance mechanisms on the quality of a company’s financial statements. The corporate governance rules in force in Saudi Arabia were developed in 2006, then revised twice in 2009 and 2015, and only finally approved in 2017. The survey was based on the results of an electronic survey of 56 Saudi financial analysts selected from their LinkedIn profiles (financial analysts were selected by respondents because they play a significant role in the capital markets and are users of financial statements). The author points out that the objectivity of the survey results can be enhanced by expanding the sample of survey participants. The questionnaire contained 11 questions about corporate governance and its contribution to improving the quality of the financial statements of the respective companies. The results of the survey have empirically confirmed that corporate governance is a factor contributing to improving the quality of financial reporting and, consequently, increasing foreign investment inflows, so compliance with the new corporate governance rules is extremely important for Saudi Arabia corporations. Improvements in corporate governance mechanisms are perceived by members of boards of directors, audit committees, and internal audit departments as one of the main factors in improving the quality of financial reporting. Keywords: corporate governance; Financial Statements; financial analysts; transparency of reporting; investors; Saudi Arabia.

No abstract