A contextual analysis of the development and diffusion of depreciation accounting at the Bell System, 1910–37

Abstract

Managerial accounting innovations often follow new technologies, products or services because new businesses operate in environments that lack established guidelines for the collection and analysis of essential accounting information. The current paper examines the influence of the social and political context on the development, presentation and reception of an accounting innovation by the Bell System, group depreciation. Following the mildly confrontational Progressive years, the 1920s generally provided a pro-business and pro-specialist environment that allowed the firm to develop its innovative methodologies uncontested. During this time, group depreciation, a statistically based methodology, transitioned from accounting innovation to accepted practice. However, during the Depression the relationship between government and industry altered and regulators intervened in ways that acted to the detriment of the firm.

Accounting for community building: the municipal amalgamation of Milan in 1873–1876

“…To examine the process of accounting change, our theoretical framework draws primarily on institutional theory (Di Maggio and Powell 1983) to enhance our understanding of the extra-organisational factors influencing management accounting change (Alsharari, Dixon, and El-Azi Youssef 2015). Yet, accounting change is also influenced by intra-organisational factors, such as internal culture, power and politics (Buchanan 1997;Quattrone and Hopper 2001), and both factor types allow a better understanding of what happens during the process of change (Burns and Scapens 2000;Scapens 2006;Collier 2012;Quinn and Jackson 2014). In particular, Burns and Scapens (2000) add that management accounting practices in organisations play the same role of formal rules and norms and so can provide insightful knowledge about the origins of institutional transformation (Gervais and Quinn 2016;Quinn and Gibney 2018).…”

Construyendo perspectivas de investigación: Una genealogía institucional sobre la depreciación contable como política

“…Como ha sido argumentado (Romero, 2018) la verdad en la contabilidad tiene muchos matices y no se reduce a la correspondencia con la realidad. Apoyándose en las teorías de la verdad de Habermas (1972;2012), Rorty y Davidson (1972;2012) muestra que en los fenómenos contables como la estandarización y la comunicación de información financiera la referencia a la verdad se debe remitir al significado del lenguaje, el que se determina por el uso principalmente y destaca las pretensiones de validez como recurso para interpretar la comunicación en el mundo contable.…”

“…Esta verdad, con validez institucional producida por el regulador, se legitima en el contexto donde se suscita el intercambio y responde a las necesidades económicas, jurídicas o fiscales de las nacientes industrias (Gschwandtner & Lambson, 2012, p. 1060 como las ferroviarias (Wallis, 1907, p. 13;Teele, 1908, p. 90;Vanderblue, 1922, p. 843) poseedoras de cuantioso capital físico. Asimismo, las organizaciones de servicios públicos como el agua, la energía y el gas, reconocen activos objeto de depreciación (Collier, 2012). Puede notarse en el amplio y sugerente despliegue en la literatura académica (Bauer, 1925;Adams, 1930, p. 100;Clay, 1932, p.129;Lilienthal, 1933, p.745;Schaff, 1938Schaff, , p. 1039Devine, 1943, p.3;Edwards, 1986, p. 254) y la regulación (Stevens, 1914;Lilienthal, 1929, p.405).…”

The history of the standard for the calculation of cost of ownership in the semiconductor industry

“…The topic of standards for management information has been discussed in the literature, although Caglio and Ditillo (2008) identified the topic as under-researched in their review of the literature on interorganizational management accounting. While some papers describe the history of particular standardization initiatives of management accounting inside a large company (Chandar et al, 2012; Collier, 2012), the notion of management accounting standards implies use across multiple organizations. A few empirical studies provide examples of cost models that extend beyond a single firm, often initiated by a large and powerful customer who enforced this on his suppliers (Dekker, 2003; Dekker and Van Goor, 2000; Schulze et al, 2012).…”