The magic of IPSAS accrual: the real without reality

Abstract

PurposeThis study examines the controversial success of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) accrual implementation, using the case of Tanzania.Design/methodology/approachInterviews, documentary reviews and observations were used for data collection. This study draws on the spectacle theory for data analysis.FindingsThe findings demonstrate that IPSAS accrual was a spectacle during its production and consumption. The features and forms of the spectacle were revealed in IPSAS accrual during its production and affirmed by actors during its consumption. Further affirmation of IPSAS accrual as the spectacle was revealed through communication of good news and the hiding of bad news. The outcome was the alleged roles of IPSAS accrual.Research limitations/implicationsThe study is limited as it was conducted in only one country. The controversial success is global and calls for further research in other parts of the world.Practical implicationsThe International Monetary Fund should stop recommending implementation of IPSAS accrual along with cash basis as the two systems are incompatible. Moreover, government officials should have alternative thinking presenting a different view of the world, so as to avoid being passive, and focus on reality rather than appearance.Originality/valueThis study is the first to explain the controversial success of IPSAS accrual implementation. It demonstrates the usefulness of spectacle theory in the field of accounting research, especially in the context of reform implementation. Moreover, this study confirms that IPSAS accrual is a spectacle (Uddin et al., 2011).

External auditors, policy transfer, accruals accounting and the United Nations

“…Such changes have led to dozens of academic articles. While we cannot review all published articles, we note that scholars have detailed the shifts in Greece (Stamatiadis, 2009), New Zealand (Baskerville andGrossi, 2019), Norway (G arseth-Nesbakk, 2011), and Tanzania (Mkasiwa, 2022), among others. It also includes scholars who questioned its utility and implementation in Italy and Sweden (Bruno and Lapsley, 2018;Falkman and Tagesson, 2008) as well as engaged in comparative analyses of OECD countries (Adhikari and G arseth-Nesbakk, 2016) and European countries (Lapsley et al, 2009;Christiaens et al, 2015).…”