The self-regulating profession: An analysis of the political monopoly tendencies of the audit profession

Defrauding the public interest: A critical examination of reengineered audit processes and the likelihood of detecting fraud

“…This is not inconsistent with the concerns voiced by Byington and Sutton (1991) who viewed the expectation gap standards as an attempt to signal greater change to the profession's critics than in fact the profession intended to make. The Byington and Sutton (1991) study used a professional monopoly lens in viewing the historical pattern of standards releases by the profession and found that in times of deep criticism the profession showed a definite pattern of increased standards issuance in an apparent attempt to signal change.…”

The impact of political pressure on novice decision makers: are auditors qualified to make going concern judgements?

“…The profession and its members have a vested interest in maintaining its self-regulatory powers, while at the same time providing a minimally acceptable level of audit quality (Byington & Sutton, 1991). In order to maintain these self-regulatory powers, the profession issues a myriad of new standards, makes changes in the audit report, and revises entrance requirements-all with virtually no impact on the level of services already being provided by the major accounting firms at the time of enactment (Byington & Sutton, 1991;Fogarty et al, 1991;Humphrey et al, 1992). Such approaches are consistent with the legitimation practices posited by trust theory Figure 1.…”

Commercialism and Its Impact on the Integrity of Professional Tax Services in the United States

“…Byington & Sutton, 1991;Hooks, 1992;Roberts & Dwyer, 1998). These studies question the accounting profession's adherence to functionalist ideals and call for higher levels of commitment to professionalism.…”

“…Tinker, 1984;Puxty et al, 1987;Richardson, 1987;Miller, 1990), accounting regulation (e.g. Merino & Neimark, 1982;Benston, 1985;Watts & Zimmerman, 1986;Byington & Sutton, 1991), and histories of the professions (Zeff, 1972;Radcliffe et al, 1994, p. 602).…”