Budgeting is used throughout all types of organizations and is a significant topic of accounting research. In order to advance the discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of budgeting, future budgeting research will benefit from a comprehensive review of the theories used by previous budgeting researchers. This literature review highlights the major theoretical perspectives and specific theories used in budgeting research as well as the common variables used and methodologies, among other observations of budgeting research in 249 articles. Although we find no cohesive theory of budgeting, we identify the importance of a unified thought process to budgeting research and provide insights for future work in the area. EN QUÊTE D'UNE THÉORIE DES PROCESSUS BUDGÉTAIRES : UNE ANALYSE DOCUMENTAIRE RÉSUMÉLes processus budgétaires sont utilisés dans toutes les formes d'organisations et retiennent beaucoup l'attention des chercheurs en comptabilité. Pour faire en sorte que progresse l'analyse des avantages et des inconvénients des processus budgétaires, les chercheurs qui s'intéressent à ce sujet bénéficieront, dans leurs travaux à venir, d'une compilation exhaustive des théories utilisées par les chercheurs précédents. L'analyse documentaire proposée par les auteures met en relief les principales perspectives théoriques dans lesquelles le sujet est abordé et les théories précises adoptées dans la recherche sur les processus budgétaires ainsi que les variables et les méthodologies communément utilisées, entre autres observations tirées des travaux réalisés dans ce domaine, décrits dans 249 articles. Bien que les auteures ne notent pas de cohésion dans les théories avancées relativement aux processus budgétaires, elles mesurent l'importance d'un processus de réflexion cohésif dans la recherche sur les processus budgétaires et proposent des pistes de recherche future dans le domaine.Mots clés : analyse documentaire; comptabilité de gestion; processus budgétaires; théorie * Accepted by Pascale Lapointe-Antunes. We would like to thank Pascale Lapointe-Antunes for the opportunity, anonymous reviewers, Alan Webb, and participants at CAAA for their helpful and insightful comments. All other mistakes are our own. 508ACCOUNTING PERSPECTIVES / PERSPECTIVES COMPTABLES 2. A subjective act at the best of times, we understand that there may be a few discrepancies should another set of researchers choose to do the same literature review that we have done. However, we worked to ensure integrity of the classification process.
PurposeThe US federal government requires auditors to follow governmental auditing standards when performing audits of entities expending significant federal government dollars. This study explores stakeholder participation during the comment letter phase of government auditing standard setting to determine if participation is symbolic or substantive.Design/methodology/approachResearchers conduct an analysis of the 179 comment letters submitted to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) and received for their 2010 and 2017 exposure drafts of government auditing standards.FindingsThe distribution of stakeholder participation groups in the government auditing standard-setting process differs from the distribution in the private company auditing standard-setting process. On average, participants submit letters that are greater than two pages in length. Participants also contribute feedback on topics that the GAO directly solicits. Taken together, the results demonstrate stakeholder behaviors that are consistent with a substantive rather than symbolic due process involvement for government auditing standards.Research limitations/implicationsStakeholder beliefs are inferred based on the observed behavior of comment letter submissions. Also, there is a subjective element to the classification of the comment letters for the study.Practical ImplicationsGiven the far-reaching implications of Yellow Book auditing standards on public, private and nonprofit entities, the findings are relevant to a heterogeneous audience. This study reveals opportunities for users of government auditing standards, practitioners and academics for greater involvement in due process standard setting to bring additional legitimacy to the GAO and its standard-setting activities.Originality/valueBeyond the current study, little empirical research examines Yellow Book auditing standards or the due process through which these standards are established. This is the first study to examine the complete set of comment letters for the 2010 and 2017 exposure drafts of government auditing standards.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.