Aobb in Germania

Financial Accountability & Management, 27(2), May 2011, 0267-4424
A TAXONOMY OF THE PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING: EVIDENCE FROM GERMAN STATES
TOBIAS JAGALLA, SEBASTIAN D. BECKER AND JURGEN WEBER
INTRODUCTION
The question of which accounting style is the best one for public administration and state-owned enterprises has often been subjected to prior practical considerations and theoretical analyses. Like many times before and after World War I, today the costs and benefits of cash accounting and accrual accounting are once again being analysed.1
Like so many current research papers in the field of public sector accounting, this analysis could start with the introductory words of a text published more than 60 years ago (as indeed it does). Amazingly, that early publication still clearly states one of the focal points of the current debate. Although we may only speculate as to why this issue has been so difficult to resolve, we can claim with some confidence that any comprehensive overview of the benefits of the reform2 would provide a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion. Supporting our claim is the surprising fact that, to date, no empirically grounded structuring of benefits has been the primary focus of any research in this field. Most publications only lay out the benefits of Accrual Output-Based Budgeting (AOBB) as loose lists. Hence, any such exploratory benefit analysis the very purpose of this paper furthers our fundamental understanding of the field. This paper is organized into six sections. In the following section, we review how the field of AOBB research has emerged over recent decades and how the benefits of AOBB are dealt with in the extant literature. The third section sets out our rationale for selecting empirical data and discusses the research methods
The authors are all from the Institute of Management Accounting and Control (IMC) at WHU Otto Beisheim School of Management. Previous versions of this paper were presented at the 2009 CLVS workshop at the University of St. Gallen and the May 2009 session of the CIGAR conference in Modena. The authors thank participants in these events as well as the anonymous referees for their valuable feedback. This publication enjoyed funding by Interdisziplinre Studien zu Politik, Recht, Administration und Technologie (ISPRAT) a e.V. Sebastian D. Becker gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Hanns Seidel Foundation. Address for correspondence: Jrgen Weber, Institute of Management Accounting and u Control (IMC), WHU Otto Beisheim School of Management, Burgplatz 2, D-56179 Vallendar, Germany. e-mail: jweber@whu.edu
C 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, MA 02148, USA.
134
BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING
135
we employed to produce the findings we present in the fourth section. Here, our main contribution is to draw up a taxonomy of the benefits of AOBB along with a prioritization of its main categories. The fifth section applies this taxonomy to past research, reinterpreting it and suggesting managerial ramifications. After some discussion of the papers limitations and suggestions for further research, a final section concludes the paper.
LITERATURE
AOBB Research and Review of Benefits

Over the past 25 years, researchers have studied the benefits of AOBB from a normative or conceptual as well as from an empirical viewpoint (Jones, 1992; and Christiaens and Rommel, 2008). With a few exceptions (e.g., the contingency model by Lder, 1992), early research from the mid-1980s onwards was mainly u focused on the normative/conceptual view, whereas empirical approaches have come to dominate more recent research contributions (Lapsley and Pallot, 2000).3 While early normative publications mostly concentrated on questions such as the general transferability of private sector accounting frameworks to public sector settings and the benefits they could bring (Carlin, 2005), a pivotal role for the development of new public sector accounting and budgeting techniques was played by conceptual frameworks (e.g., CICA, 1980; FASB, 1980; and Drebin et al., 1981). With decision usefulness at their heart (Jones, 1992), these studies broadly identified the relevant user groups for public accounting data and derived common as well as user-specific information requirements. Building on these findings, this literature went on to propose better, more userfriendly frameworks for public financial management (e.g., Mayston, 1992; and Jones and Puglisi, 1997). Among other methods, AOBB has been specifically advanced as one technique that meets such user needs more effectively (AnessiPessina and Steccolini, 2007). Alongside the growing recognition of user needs, the seed of the concepts developed by normative/conceptual research (and by practitioners) in the 1980s and early 1990s would bear fruit. Irrigated by the rising tide of New Public Management pledging the benefits of private sector instruments for the public sector, public entities around the world although mainly from Anglo-Saxon countries at the outset committed large amounts of resources to introducing AOBB (Budus et al., 2003; and Carlin, 2005), and will probably continue to do so a in the coming years (Lder and Jones, 2003). Unable to resist the temptation to u study the reform process in the field, researchers established a strong empirical research stream from the mid-1990s onwards. Their analysis has resulted in lively debate surrounding the benefits stemming from the reform, with a number of recent studies controversially identifying drawbacks in it. Anessi-Pessina et al. (2008, p. 323), for example, observe that a substantial number of scholars see the reform in a negative light and state that an increasing body of literature
2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
136
JAGALLA, BECKER AND WEBER
has criticised the adoption of accrual[s] accounting by public organizations on both theoretical grounds [. . .] and practical considerations. As a case in point, some of this literature points out that AOBB is far more complex than any cash-based accounting and budgeting system. This, it is argued, leads to increased susceptibility to misunderstanding, obfuscation, or manipulation by users and thus actually decreases transparency as well as accountability (Carnegie and West, 2003; Barton, 2004; Carlin, 2005; and Connolly and Hyndman, 2006). Most of these studies conclude that, overall, the reform has a negative cost/benefit ratio (e.g., Jones and Puglisi, 1997) and entails various underestimated downsides and side effects such as poor quality decision making (Johnstone, 1999). In general, these publications consistently find that hopes of drawing benefit from new accounting and budgeting techniques were raised too high (Connolly and Hyndman, 2006; and ter Bogt and van Helden, 2000) and that, in most cases, these hopes have either only partially materialized or not materialized at all (Mellett, 1997 and 2002). While ter Bogt (2008, pp. 233-34) does not see a clear case in favour of the reform either, he sees small cracks of light breaking through the dark picture. In his study of local government in the Netherlands, he highlights changes observed in organizational culture yet finds less evidence for typically discussed and rather technical benefits:
The research suggests that the actual effects of accounting changes on decision-making and control differ between organizations, but in general are not quite so functional and direct as they should be according to the ideals of the advocates of NPM [New Public Management] (see also Hoggett, 1996, pp. 20-24). However, it seems that the accounting changes, even though they were not a success in a technical sense, did bring about some effects in organizational culture and individual behaviour that are in keeping with the ideas of NPM, i.e., a greater focus on performance, external stakeholders, and a businesslike attitude.
Within other recent literature, Christiaens and van Peteghem (2007, p. 379) observe that, in spite of all their criticisms, certain studies do identify benefits. Like ter Bogt (2008), Christiaens and van Peteghem argue that these benefits are more subtle and indirect, meaning that we should shift our focus on the reform towards a broader understanding of the impact of accounting and related instruments on decision making and general management:
[I]t is necessary to stress that in recent years more and more studies [. . .] are devoted to the more comprehensive management accounting reforms in the public sector. These studies have to a lesser degree attention for the accounting reform but in an increasing degree to the application of new administration tools and techniques in the public sector to facilitate the decision making and the management of the organization. The accrual information system usually provides useful accounting information for these tools and techniques (Venieris and Cohen, 2004).
Although much of the recent literature holds an essentially negative view of the reform (e.g., Jones and Puglisi, 1997; ter Bogt and van Helden, 2000; Carlin, 2005; and Connolly and Hyndman, 2006) and other studies only hint at
137
less obvious benefits (e.g., ter Bogt, 2008; and Christiaens and van Peteghem, 2007), our intention here is to explore this issue in greater depth, thereby providing a broader view and a better understanding of the potential benefits of AOBB. To this end, we first reviewed and summarized the benefits of AOBB put forward in the existing literature, and found that most recent studies, in one way or the other, mostly refer to two major issues (e.g., Carlin, 2005; Ellwood and Wynne, 2005; and Groot and Budding, 2008).4 The first is improved internal and external transparency. It is argued that greater transparency emerges because the information supplied by an accrual-based system is deemed to be more comprehensive (Guthrie, 1998) and of higher quality and consistency (USGAO, 2000, p. 206) than information produced by a cash-based accounting system, thus rais[ing] consciousness of a wider range of management issues (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004, p. 71). More concretely, among the oft-mentioned benefits of AOBB are improved visibility of long-term effects (Mellor, 1996; and McGeough, 1998), a consolidated view of assets, liabilities, and cost (Likierman, 2000; and Anessi-Pessina and Steccolini, 2007), and recognition of resource use (IFOA, 1997; and Evans, 1995). In the realm of better cost transparency benefits, such as a view of working capital, a systematic recording of (full) fixed assets and depreciation as well as a view of the cost of capital charges are often put forward (Gosling, 1997; Robinson, 1998; and Mellett, 2002). Furthermore, attributing costs to the appropriate time periods and events (Raupach and Stangenberg, 2006)5 and comparing public sector service costs with external providers both become possible (Carlin, 2004). The latter is especially true if similar accounting standards are employed in both the public and private sectors. As a consequence, increased transparency is said to augment the degree of accountability (Likierman, 2000; and Connolly and Hyndman, 2006). Above and beyond the various facets of transparency, the second issue of the impact of AOBB on decision making is mentioned less frequently as an accompaniment of the reform. For instance, Groot and Budding report
that accrual accounting helps to identify the full cost of activities, enabling improved decision making in resource allocation, coordination and control (2008, p. 8, emphasis added).
Groot and Buddings argument follows the typical reasoning that more transparency (in the sense described above) ultimately leads to better operational control and action by managers. For instance, transparency may lead to improved resource allocation, better capital investment decisions and enhanced control by and within government (Connolly and Hyndman, 2006). Discussion of the areas where decision making is changed by AOBB goes into far less depth than it does for the various domains of transparency highlighted above. Accordingly, the literature provides us with quite an extensive list of transparency-related benefits but with a significantly less comprehensive list relating to decision making. In addition, very few prior publications allude to a third dimension. They claim that a switch in perspective from inputs to outputs and outcomes and a
138
more businesslike approach focusing on performance may also result (Carlin and Guthrie, 2003; and ter Bogt, 2008). Taken together, the benefits are also said to accumulate on an aggregate level, providing for better control by parliament, increased compliance and reporting discipline (Mellor, 1996), better management of public capital (Likierman, 2003), better creditor information (ASB, 2003; and Lder et al., 1993), and u intergenerational fairness (Robinson, 1998; and Funnel and Cooper, 1998). Ultimately, shifting to AOBB is said to drive greater organizational performance (see Carlin, 2005, and the sources given therein). As mentioned above, a related body of publications mainly focused on user groups of public accounting data as well as their information needs. A review by Mack and Ryan (2006) shows that this literature has also empirically aimed to contribute evidence to the discussion initiated by the conceptual frameworks. Next to a focus of identifying users, these studies have further researched (a) which information requirements (needs) these users have and (b) for which purposes the users require information (Mack and Ryan, 2006). While the studies on the information requirements mainly result in the finding that user groups are interested in performance information, in the (full) cost of services at low levels of aggregation, and in the knowledge of assets and liabilities (e.g., Jones et al., 1985; Hay and Antonio, 1990; Crain and Bean, 1998; and Kober et al., 2010),6 there is limited and contrary evidence regarding the purposes for which users require information (Mack and Ryan, 2006). A few of these studies show that users require information that helps improve accountability, decision making, and resource management (Jones et al., 1985; Coy et al., 1997; Mignot and Dolley, 2000; and Kober et al., 2010). Together with the findings on the information requirements, this literature gives support in favour of the introduction of accrual accounting techniques (Kober et al., 2010). However, Jones and Puglisi (1997) find that the government departments surveyed in their study only modestly perceive accrual accounting techniques to be relevant to a wide range of users. In addition, Mack and Ryan (2006) find that accrualbased financial reports were more used to satisfy accountability rather than for economic decision making. When comparing the results from our review of the AOBB benefits literature and the user and user needs literature, we find that both discourses identify similar themes. The strength of the latter is to be more precise in considering different user groups while the former is more detailed with respect to the particular effects.
Deriving Our Research Objective

In his comprehensive overview of the literature, Carlin (2005) argues that the majority of extant research advocating the implementation of AOBB tends to address the question of why organizations should adopt it rather than the questions of how this can be done or what the effects might be. Only a handful
139
of studies explicitly set out to focus on the latter, i.e., on what the benefits are (a notable exception is Connolly and Hyndman, 2006) and [t]hus many issues concerning the potential benefits of accrual accounting style reforms are still unresolved (Guthrie, 1998, p. 15). Most conceptual studies only briefly mention benefits in their introductory paragraphs and generally assume the superiority of AOBB to cash-based accounting and budgeting. As a result, this has led some to argue that the benefits are overstated (Anessi-Pessina and Steccolini, 2007) and that a lot of unspecified fiction has been created (Carlin, 2005, p. 320; similarly Mellett, 2002). We see this as problematic for any objective evaluation of the benefits of actual AOBB implementation, both for research and for practice, since the literature also suffers from a lack of empirical evidence put forward to support [AOBBs] claims (Potter, 1999, p. 48; similarly Ellwood and Wynne, 2005; Christensen, 2006; and Connolly and Hyndman, 2006). What we found in our above review of the academic literature was that, when mentioning the benefits of AOBB, research often cites governmental publications (e.g., HM Treasury, 1994 and 2001; Mellor, 1996; and USGAO, 2000). Yet, more often than not, such works are published in advance of actual AOBB implementation and/or appear to support (rather optimistically) these very projects, thereby eliciting scepticism as to their validity (Guthrie, 1998; Rubin, 2000; and Connolly and Hyndman, 2006). Despite any underlying doubts regarding particular promises of the reform, the insight that certain changes have nevertheless been observed in practice encourages us to contribute to a more clear-cut and comprehensive picture of the benefits that can be expected from AOBB. Since no publication, to our knowledge, focuses exhaustively on listing or even prioritizing the benefits, that is precisely what we set out to do in this study. Thus, our main research objective is to draw up a taxonomy of benefits for AOBB. Further, we also explore and analyze those (benefit) categories that are of greatest importance since the prior literature records benefits as the opportunities which arose and does not provide any sense of priority. Before moving on, we want to further support our research objective by outlining three building blocks we identified in the literature and deemed important to our investigation. Firstly, the gap between what is normatively expected from accounting change and its effects in practice (Guthrie, 1998; and ter Bogt and van Helden, 2000) leads us to take a strongly empirical approach to our investigation. This conclusion is also motivated by Scapens, who states:
It encourages us to take seriously the study of accounting as a practice, rather than comparing accounting practice with some ideal [. . .]. It also suggests that an undue concern with the gap could cause us to ignore some important issues, as an overemphasis on the theoretical ideals could lead to failure to study closely the practice of management accounting (1994, p. 303).
Secondly, we follow the literature that suggests that different AOBB stakeholders could potentially have differing views on the benefits of AOBB
140
(e.g., IFOA, 1997; Connolly and Hyndman, 2006; ter Bogt, 2008; and Kober et al., 2010). Such thinking has mainly been advanced by the user and user needs analysis on which most conceptual frameworks of accounting standardsetting bodies are built (Jones, 1992; and Clark, 2010). This mostly normative literature has produced several relatively similar lists proposing the various recipients of public financial information (Jones, 1992; and Mack and Ryan, 2006) and commonly sees at least seven different groups such as: (1) Voters, tax-payers, and consumers of public goods, (2) representatives of group 1, (3) policy-makers and their civil service and other advisers, (4) managers within governmental organizations and public sector agencies, (5) employees and professionals working in the public sector, (6) monitoring bodies, and (7) creditors to public sector bodies (Mayston, 1992, pp. 228-29; similarly e.g., Anthony, 1978; CICA, 1980; and Drebin et al., 1981). The lesson we draw from this is not to restrict ourselves to the core experts from the finance and budgeting functions and, instead, to engage a broader spectrum of experts also in nonfinance functions (e.g., politicians, line management of administrative units). However, a full examination, especially of external user groups, is difficult to carry out for pragmatic reasons (Jones and Puglisi, 1997). In this regard, we acknowledge Lapsleys (1992, p. 284) comment, for example, that the general public is the most difficult [user group] to identify, locate and ascertain the views of its members. In addition, while the more normative user and user needs literature typically emphasizes external users (Jones and Puglisi, 1997; and Mack and Ryan, 2006), a number of empirical studies have found internal users to be more active users of public financial information (e.g., Coy et al., 1997; and Kober et al., 2010).7 We survey all external and internal groups with the exception of group (1) voters, tax-payers, and consumers of public goods as well as (7) creditors to public sector bodies. Thirdly and lastly, we purposefully chose our research environment and, in doing so, made two decisions. The first relates to the study of the implementation projects we analyze. We aim to assess the benefits of AOBB relative to cashbased accounting and budgeting. To this end, we could either compare two or more public entities that are currently using these different accounting and budgeting systems, or we could try to identify the changes within public entities that transfer from one system to the other. A comparison of different entities, however, would suffer unduly from difficulties in attributing the reasons for observed discrepancies to the accounting and budgeting system (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004). Guthrie supports this view, asserting that
the paradoxes associated with reforms and the differing context in which they are applied make overall assessment difficult (1998, p. 15).
In order to avoid this complication, we follow the second approach, i.e., we analyze the differences within one organization. In this way we can attribute any observed changes to AOBB with greater precision. This then brings us to choosing between two schools of thought. The first leans towards studying
141
environments where the reform has been established (e.g., Carlin, 2006). Relying on longstanding experience or a long observation horizon (Arnaboldi and Lapsley, 2009) within the organization ensures maximum confidence in fully discovering any effects AOBB may have. Clearly, such confidence comes at the price of having some respondents leave the organization and increased potential for forgetfulness bias (ter Bogt, 2008) from respondents being asked to compare the current system with a prior system in use several years ago (Malmi, 1999). An alternative view prefers to examine systems in transition (e.g., Heald, 2005; Caccia and Steccolini, 2006; and Connolly and Hyndman, 2006), meaning projects that are currently being transformed or have recently been brought to official closure. Although this approach mitigates potential biases caused by retrospection, it could be argued that systems in transition do not reflect changes to their full, materialized extent. We concluded that it was important for us to study projects that were well under way or recently closed and situated somewhere between the two extremes outlined above in order to draw on sound opinions of the new accounting system in practice.8 The second decision we made relates to placing our study in an organizational setting. With our goal to establish a universal taxonomy for the benefits of AOBB, we intended to choose an environment liable to bring a comprehensive taxonomy of benefits to the surface. In our choice of a level of government, German states (Lnder) combine local and national (i.e., federal) level organizations a and may therefore be viewed as an intermediate structure representing different elements from both levels. We therefore assume that studying the reform at German state level allows us to reveal the broadest set of AOBB benefits. Furthermore, we deem such analysis particularly insightful because the level of state accounting has been largely ignored in research to date (Broadbent and Guthrie, 2008) and because further research in these settings has been called for (Connolly and Hyndman, 2006). Similarly, responding to interest in geographies that have not been placed in the limelight of debate (Guthrie et al., 1999; and Carlin, 2005), our study makes a further contribution to the literature by spotlighting a German setting a context rarely studied in the past (Hood, 1995). In addition, we shed light on a level of government that as mentioned above does not suffer from retrospection bias and, instead, shows the effects of actual implementation over several years. As we lay out below, German Lnder a fulfil this requirement.
DATA AND RESEARCH METHOD
German State Accounting

German Lnder in general, and our research sites Hesse and Hamburg a in particular, offer certain advantages for our research objective which we would like to highlight, as we deem this information relevant for a deeper understanding of our empirical data.
142
Lnder play an important role in the German administrative and legal setup a because they are members of the Federation yet [retain] sovereign state power of their own (Rber, 1996, p. 170).9 Among other characteristics, they are o endowed with comparatively substantial autonomy: they have legislative power in certain policy fields, such as education, police forces, or environmental protection, enjoy relative freedom to create and manage their own budgets, and are in charge of substantial operational tasks, such as state road maintenance. Although Lnder enjoy relative autonomy, there is a horizontal financial a equalization scheme (Lnderfinanzausgleich) that transfers subsidies from wealthy a states to poorer ones. Organizationally, local government10 is embedded in the Lnder. However, due to the concept of local self-administration (kommunale a Selbstverwaltung) in the territorial states i.e., in all Lnder except the three citya states of Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg local governments manage their own budgets completely independently from their states budget. In the case of citystates, both these budgeting processes are integrated. This leads to a noteworthy difference between city-states and territorial states. Because government at local level provides less abstract goods (e.g., issuing ID-cards or building permits, processing citizen registrations) than government at Lnder level (a substantial a part of administrative activity is policy making), city-states tend to have a higher share of businesslike operations than their territorial counterparts.11 In this environment, only a small number of Lnder of the sixteen in total a have committed to introducing a full AOBB system.12 There are some notable exceptions, however, and with a view to providing unique insights into this field, we opted to conduct our study in Hamburg and Hesse. Hamburg and Hesse are two states that have pioneered the introduction of AOBB in Germany. Other states have been less active or have publicly expressed doubts about any favourable cost/benefit ratio from the reform (e.g., FischerHeidelberger, 2007). Also, for AOBB implementations in both states, numerous interviewees took a critical view either of how the reform process itself was carried out in their organizations and/or of how useful the AOBB system itself is when net benefits and costs are taken into account. Challenging or disruptive implementation processes match reports in the literature from other contexts (e.g., ter Bogt, 2008). As representative of a territorial state, Hesse first initiated the reform by shifting its budgeting and cost accounting from a cash-based system to AOBB instead of focusing on drawing up an opening balance sheet first (Hessisches Ministerium der Finanzen, 1999). Compared to other German states, Hesse today has a well-developed, output-oriented accrual accounting and budgeting system and by the time of our interviews, almost all interviewees were using it. Moreover, all major services provided by the administration were part of a statewide comprehensive product catalogue. In theory, units receive funding on the basis of a logic of product price multiplied by number of products provided. The reform philosophy in Hesse appears to follow the we mock the market (interview) approach. Following a one-size-fits-all approach (i.e., with scant customization
143
to the specific needs of different units) with mandatory participation, the overall change has penetrated the organization relatively well. In light of an unstable political situation, the opening balance sheet was disclosed relatively late in November 2009.13 Hesse took a comparatively meticulous approach, applying the full set of business accounting rules currently used for accrual accounting in Germany (HGB) almost to the letter. According to consistent statements by interviewees, the goal of the reform project management in Hesse is to foster greater public acceptance of financial results, even though the cost of this reform is said to be significantly higher. In Hamburg, one of three German city-states, the trajectory for introducing AOBB has been different in several ways. At the end of 2002, all political parties were relatively unanimous in their decision to introduce AOBB (Brgerschaft u der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg, 2003). Hamburg took a rather pragmatic approach, choosing not to stick rigidly to one standard set of accounting rules. In contrast to Hesse, Hamburg focused first on creating an opening balance sheet and then on making changes in the budgeting realm, as is currently the case in several pilot areas where the AOBB system is already fully active (e.g., in its university). Hamburgs opening balance sheet (Stadt Hamburg, 2006) was published in mid 2006 and had slight positive net equity. It is our hypothesis that greater choice of what elements to implement has led to AOBBs slightly slower penetration in the state. On the other hand, this approach seems to have appeased many critics: overall, interviewees in Hamburg had more positive opinions about the reform than those interviewed in Hesse. Even though we cannot be absolutely sure that there were no other reform projects running in the states of Hamburg and Hesse, we are confident that there was no crowding of the reform space (Carlin, 2005, p. 315) similar to other empirical explorations such as devolution (Connolly and Hyndman, 2006) or capital charging (Heald and Dowdall, 1999; and Carlin, 2003). Equally, and according to official sources, none of the states introducing AOBB intends to apply internationally accepted accounting standards such as IPSAS. This means that neither Hamburg nor Hesse were carrying out major public financial management or any additional wider public management reforms (Pallot, 2001) in parallel to the introduction of AOBB. Nevertheless, throughout our study, we remained cautious about assuming that we are not exploring the combined effects of two or more simultaneous reforms. Because the reform is a recent phenomenon in many contexts, most research like ours has been conducted in settings where the new system has not been used for long periods of time (e.g., Heald, 2005; and Paulsson, 2006). However, since the sites we scrutinize represent two implementation projects that have lasted a number of years at the time of our last interviews, six (Hamburg) and nine years (Hesse) we can draw from experienced study participants. These participants were able to assess the new system in relation to the former, once large parts of the reform went live in the respective settings. In the following section, we present how we extracted our findings from our sites.
144 Method
As we mention above, debate surrounding the benefits of AOBB has raged for decades. The literature therefore provides numerous findings relating to various benefits one might expect. As previously mentioned, we had doubts that the literature had identified all main benefit categories currently deemed relevant by practitioners and consequently feared that pursuing a survey-based procedure might produce a mistaken perception of accuracy. Analyzing responses to the closed-ended questions typically used in surveys would incur the risk of not being able to understand and clarify these responses sufficiently. We sidestepped this pitfall by asking open-ended questions in the field. Finally, we learnt from ter Bogt (2008) to be sensitive to subtle clues pertaining to benefits, which, for our objective, further rendered any survey design less effective. Motivated by these considerations, we adopted an approach based on qualitative interview data gathered at two research sites. Before moving on, we would briefly like to comment on the role of the two states in this paper. Since we investigate two sites in our study, such analysis is typically called a multiple or a collective case study (Yin, 2003, p. 46; and Stake 2005, p. 445). But since our concrete interest in the data is what Stake (2005) calls instrumental, the purpose of our examining these sites is, as opposed to an intrinsic case study, mainly to further our understanding of the benefits of introducing AOBB with the more external interest of drawing up a taxonomy. While we do possess in-depth knowledge of the complex contextual natures of both cases due to our access to the data, this information plays only supporting roles in the resulting synthesis (Stake, 2005), since the cases themselves are of only secondary interest.14 Nevertheless, to enable the reader to put our findings into perspective, we provide detail from the sites whenever necessary.15 Basically following the procedure suggested by Eisenhardt (1989), we set out our research in three phases. Phase 1 (January to Summer 2007) resembled a pilot study to develop the research question. In total, we had face-to-face meetings with ten individuals in seven German states. Phase 2 (Summer 2007) consisted in carrying out four interviews in Hamburg and Hesse to enhance our understanding of the situation in our two sample sites. Phase 3 (June 2008 to February 2009) was the main data-gathering phase of our analysis in which we interviewed 45 individuals in 38 face-to-face meetings. Altogether, we draw our findings from face-to-face meetings with 49 individuals16 in 42 semi-structured interviews conducted in phases 2 and 3. We selected our interviewees deliberately and purposefully, i.e., using organizational charts from which we identified those we wanted to incorporate. Almost all our chosen interviewees were persuaded to take part in our study. We therefore expect only minimal distortion from response bias. The duration of our interviews ranged from 45 minutes to more than two hours and we mostly spoke to one interviewee at a time.17 As Figure 1 indicates, shares of interviews were reasonably well balanced with about 20 interviews per state.
145
Figure 1 Job Functions of Interviewees by Case
As suggested by qualitative research protocol, questions were adjusted and customized to the interviewee if needed (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Armed with written confidentiality agreements, we asked all interviewees for permission to tape record the conversation and all but three interviewees agreed to this procedure. In preparation for the coding and analysis process, all tape-recorded conversations were transcribed and notes on the few unrecorded interviews were digitized. Each interviewee was asked to show written material, which, when provided, was also acknowledged. Whenever we needed any clarification following an interview (e.g., doubts about what certain statements meant, followup contact with specific persons), we contacted interviewees directly. All our requests were answered and no open questions remain. We were therefore confident that we had built a saturated and homogenous view of the data presented in the following section.
RESULTS
Taxonomy of Benefits
As Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan (2007, p. 1283) state, the development of a taxonomy is a somewhat ambitious endeavour:
As with any taxonomy, ours can be accused of collapsing meaningful distinctions in the interest of parsimony. After all, taxonomies like theories are attempts to eliminate
146
some of the complexity found in the real world (Bacharach, 1989). Our intention was not to capture every nuance of theory building and theory testing, but rather to create a tool that could be used to chart trends in theoretical contributions over time.
Aware of this trade-off, we describe the procedure that led us to the suggested taxonomy and discuss the issues we faced in building our taxonomy. During and after conducting and transcribing interviews, we used Atlas.ti to code the content of the interviews and performed qualitative data analysis in line with standard practice (Miles and Huberman, 1994; and Creswell, 2009). We filtered all codes that contained an opinion about benefits relating to the reform and grouped codes with similar content to one superior category. Over several successive refinements of the coding scheme, the categories of the taxonomy emerged.18 Aspiring to reconcile the trade-off alluded to above by building a taxonomy that does not oversimplify a complex topic yet remains comprehensible, we were glad to see the data fall relatively effortlessly into three top-level categories. For the development of these top-level categories, we took account of numerous interviewees who articulated thoughts along the following lines:
I think that the main benefit of the whole reform is that we are now aware of what we own . . . [it is] truly bizarre . . . The next logical step would be to work and calculate with it (Operational Accountant in non-central unit).
Strong differentiation between changes in knowledge and changes in action caused by the reform was a recurring theme and consequently led us to choose these two items as top-level categories: Better knowledge and Better action. As we do not want to assume that changes in thinking necessarily lead to changes in action, we carved out a third category which collects all benefits other than changes in knowledge and changes in action in the top-level category Mindset changes. The following statement by a leading employee illustrates this in greater detail:
We want to establish a system that is basically self-managed. In my view that is the only way that we can cut costs in the long run. The reason is simple: control by politicians cannot reach down to the operational level where the service is provided. Hence, we have to implement a system that creates incentives and mindset changes (State Secretary reporting directly to Finance Minister).
We feel comfortable with this choice as it suits the mental construction of the actors in the AOBB context well and also falls in line with standard models of behavioural science.19 This choice also means that we discarded other possible top-level categories that at first sight might seem more convincing to some readers. We assessed and dismissed alternative top-level categories such as Benefits by stakeholder group (such as state-owned enterprises or central ministry functions or the stakeholder groups suggested by the user-needs literature) and Type of government. We rejected the former because we feared significant redundancy in benefits and the latter because we felt this would add one
147
more level of complexity without generating any further insights. We also feel comfortable with our top-level structure because it is applicable to every unit in the public sector, i.e., every stakeholder in every public sector unit can determine whether these benefits can be observed in his or her context or not. Having identified the top-level categories, the choice of subordinate categories emerged from the data. In the top-level category Better knowledge, we observed that the interviewees were in certain cases quite precise about the dimension in which awareness improved, while in others they were rather non-specific. Two illustrative statements follow. The first interviewee is rather vague about transparency, while the second expresses his view much more precisely:
The accrual accounting-based year-end reporting we have now is a lot more sophisticated and transparent compared to what we had before. That is why I am a supporter of the reform in spite of all the problems we have (Head of Budgeting at Ministry A). We now have transparency regarding the yearly resource use. Especially in the context of infrastructure, that is a big advantage. Before, we were always saying, we need that much to repair the streets, but there was no substance to this claim. Now we have numbers we can present. We have not yet received more money, but maybe that will be the case in the future . . . (Head of Budgeting at Ministry B).
Therefore, we subdivided this top-level category into Enhanced unspecific transparency and Enhanced specific transparency. In the top-level category Better action, we observed that several interviewees mentioned the benefits of avoiding bad decisions. Thus, the split into Enhanced action and decisions and Avoided bad action and decisions appeared to be a natural one. One quotation pointing to Enhanced specific transparency but also alluding to the Enhanced action and decisions category comments on the suitability of AOBB information for decision making:
We have a department that is in charge of the payroll statements for all state employees. The reform made transparent that the unit cost is way too high. Even the parliament debated what an adequate level should be based on private sector and cross-state benchmarks. That led to a commission being set up to investigate what other more efficient states do and what can be done to bring the cost down in Hesse. This attention was very unpleasant for the payroll guys: they had to explain their bad performance. I am sure that going forward they will do everything to avoid standing in that spotlight again (Leading Executive for Budgeting in Hesses Finance Ministry).
According to another interviewee, in some cases bad decisions may be avoided through AOBB, which produces the category Avoided bad action and decisions:
I believe that certain transactions we have seen in the past will not happen again in the future. Take for instance the drainage system, which is a sizable asset that was fully paid for in past budgeting periods. This system was put into a separate legal entity that paid a debt-financed dividend to the state worth about the full value of the drainage system. For the citizen, that transaction does not make a big difference. However, for the budget of the state, this cash inflow caused a balanced budget instead of a negative one. In the accrual accounting world this transaction will not happen as it does not formally create value in such cases (Manager of Investment Administration).
148
Figure 2 Taxonomy of Benefits
However, as in the case of the Better knowledge subcategories, the sole purpose of these subcategories is to provide better organization within each category. With the above structure in mind, we assessed our empirical data and defined categories onto which we mapped the codes. After one coding cycle for each hermeneutic unit, we looked for systematic differences between Hesse and Hamburg and found that most categories (e.g., enhanced cost transparency) were significantly similar. The few idiosyncratic categories for each hermeneutic unit were turned into dummy categories for subsequent evaluations of the material, ultimately yielding identical and robust categories. With this procedure, we ensured that we did not overlook a structure in one hermeneutic unit that we detected in the other. After this assessment we decided to consolidate certain categories.20 In spite of the fact that the categories Revenues, Bad investment decisions, and Creative accounting were not mentioned by a sizable number of respondents, we decided to dedicate discrete categories to them because we could not map them onto other categories with any precision. As a result of this process, we produced the taxonomy that can be seen in Figure 2.
Priority of Categories
Our research objective is not only to draw up a taxonomy but also to seek to identify those categories practitioners deem most important. The scientific debate surrounding AOBB has argued for decades about the benefits of the reform sometimes with no empirical foundation at all, as Carlins (2005)
149
review shows. Because of the lack of an extant body of research on this topic, our rather exploratory prioritization contributes to scholarly debate. If, for instance, future research sets out to analyze benefits using a confirmatory, large-sample questionnaire methodology, our work establishes a valuable basis for the choice of areas to explore. Moreover, we are able to show what practitioners i.e., those who work with AOBB on a daily basis perceive to be its most important benefits. This knowledge is valuable because it opens the door to perceptionfocused investigations of the reform. In the first step of our analysis, we had to choose how to identify the importance or priority of a category. As we did not want to use our own impressions as the only measure, we sought out more objective measures for the relative importance of each benefit. We follow Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 253) in noting that, when we say something is important or significant or recurrent, we have to come to an estimate, in part, by making counts, comparisons, and weights. At the same time, we do not want to convey the impression that our qualitative data was forced into a quantitative mold (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 252). We thus illustrate the empirical groundedness of our findings by drawing on a few selected quotations from our data. Ultimately, we agree with Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 253) that the hallmark of qualitative research is that it goes beyond how much there is of something to tell us about its essential qualities. The quotations incorporated in this section are designed to provide insights in this sense. We are aware that, in some cases, the pure number of statements in a certain category might not provide us with a true impression of priority. For example, certain benefits might be politically critical while others might require certain specific knowledge or insight. Independently of their true priorities, this might lead to high counts for some benefits and to low counts for others. We consider this risk relatively small given that we can triangulate our findings with our qualitative understanding of the data. Here, triangulation does not reveal any inconsistencies. By adding the number of mentions in each hermeneutic unit (Hamburg and Hesse), we observe that the following categories are the most important to practitioners: (1) Increased cost transparency (see taxonomy Better knowledge Enhanced specific transparency Cost), (2) Improved general decision making (see taxonomy Better action Enhanced actions and decisions Improved general decision making and Cost for following benefit), (3) Improved cost management, (4) Increased focus (on results) (see taxonomy Mindset changes for this and the following benefit), and (5) Adoption of businesslike thinking, procedures, and pragmatism. These results fall in line with our own impressions from the interviews. The claims of Increased cost transparency, Improved cost management and Mindset changes in its various guises attracted most of our interviewees lively attention, as the following four quotations indicate. The first quotation is drawn from an accounting practitioner in a state-owned company that has been using AOBB for a substantial amount of time. His
150
organization is already fully penetrated by the reform and he is able to name various changes in both thinking and behaviour. In the following quotation, he emphasizes the effect of Improved cost transparency:
[The unit was established for servicing our own property.] We also sometimes provide the services externally. If we are asked to do so, we submit an offer. Before the reform, we used a table with relatively generous terms. Now we have adjusted them to the full cost rate, also charging overhead. This led to quite an increase in our rates (Head of Budgeting for State-Owned Enterprise).
The second quotation comes from a top-tier finance ministry executive who serves as a liaison between the political level and the administrative body. From his perspective, the effect of Improved cost management is particularly relevant. We hypothesize that daily exposure to large monetary figures leads him to the conclusion that AOBB adds value by breaking numbers down to a meaningful level:
I dont believe that public sector employees work harder or are lazier than the private sector ones. But I believe that the [cash accounting] system, with its lack of transparency, decreases how much people care about the cost bit by bit. It is similar to a firm car with a flat fuel rate. In this case, you not only drive more, but at some point you stop caring about how much fuel costs. You simply ignore that part of your reality. The main point of the reform is that we bring the figures to a level that everyone can relate to. If we only see the abstract numbers of multi-billion budgets, nobody can mentally capture that (State Secretary reporting directly to Finance Minister).
The last two quotations highlight the new mindset that AOBB is said to bring with it. The first one is taken from a politician in a rural region of the state who attempts to relate the introduction of AOBB to comparatively tangible effects such as the one mentioned in the following quote. It describes how the users of public goods appear to develop increased accountability:
We built some social housing some time ago for 300,000. Sad to say, the housing will fall apart in 30 years. We now see how much the annual cost is, and the social institution has to justify this charge yearly. This awareness has now entered our thinking (Politician in a Conservative Party).
The last quotation comes from an individual who works in an organization with a strong, data-driven management approach. He alludes to both changes in mindsets as well as Improved cost management:
It is a great success that we have established cost sensitivity. We observe, for example, that someone in charge of an account says, This invoice is assigned to my account in error. I will not carry the cost of it on my account. Nobody could imagine this kind of behaviour a couple of years back. Now department heads and people in charge of the budget really care about their budgets (Budgeting Employee in the State Chancellery).
We conclude the presentation of our findings with this selection of quotations in order to provide qualitative evidence to complement the essentially quantitative findings presented in Figures 35. The following section discusses our findings in the light of the existing literature.
151
Figure 3 Number of Times Mentioned Better Knowledge
Figure 4 Number of Times Mentioned Better Action
152
Figure 5 Number of Times Mentioned Mindset Changes
DISCUSSION
Findings and Managerial Implications

In this paper we present a comprehensive taxonomy of the perceived benefits of AOBB as opposed to cash-based accounting and budgeting and identify its most important subcategories. Our findings share some aspects in common with the existing literature but also differ in other respects. To bring them to light, we advance two arguments relating to the types of benefit observed and their related antecedents. First of all, in our literature review we present the claims made in the existing literature regarding the benefits of AOBB and point to the fact that the resulting picture was overly optimistic and mostly lacked grounding in empirical findings. Using the results of our taxonomy, we set out to reinterpret this past prior research by mapping any benefits mentioned onto our taxonomy. Every time we were unable to establish such links, we checked to see if any interviewees alluded to these claims as a further means of triangulation. For example, the issues Performance or Accountability are not contained explicitly in our taxonomy. However, some participants alluded to these topics during the interviews. We therefore found support for these claims even though they were not salient or relevant enough to be included in the taxonomy. In three instances we neither found a direct link nor implicit mentions:
Increased compliance and reporting discipline: One author who alludes to this benefit
dimension is Mellor (1996, p. 82). She states

that accrual reporting at the whole of government level is appropriate and necessary as it [. . .] introduces discipline in financial reporting and therefore ensur[es] the integrity of the reported information.
In our entire sample, not one interviewee mentions this effect. Rather, the opposite appears to be true: Numerous respondents mention how little they value the reporting, how little any of their superiors care about the reports, and how many pages needed to be pointlessly filled out. This finding gains even
153
more relevance when we interpret it in the light of the specific context. Given that the literature traditionally views German administration as placing strong cultural emphasis on compliance with rules (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004), the implementation of AOBB as a discipline-enhancing system should go rather unnoticed in this respect. Such disregard for reporting is thus evidence that, for AOBB implementations, this argument carries little relevance and perhaps its opposite might even be true.
Increased intergenerational fairness: This very frequent claim (e.g., Blejer and Cheasty,
1991; and Funnel and Cooper, 1998) is not supported by our data either. It might be argued that this matter does not play a significant role in day-to-day administrative operations, which is why this claim was not mentioned by any interviewees. Such an objection may be true for more operational interviewees. However, since we also interviewed both top-tier administrative executives and politicians, this risk appears limited. Somewhat related to intergenerational fairness, some interviewees did mention the effects of AOBB implementation on long term planning and on the amount of new debt. However, in our view, such statements were too modest to be seen as an implicit intergenerational fairness argument. When explicitly asked about this aspect towards the end of conversations, interviewees generally took a critical view of this claim. Altogether, our findings are consistent with conceptual dismissals asserting that accrual accounting is just as irrelevant as cash accounting to the assessment of intergenerational equity (Robinson, 1998, p. 33).
Provisioning of relevant information for creditors: No interviewee mentioned, either
explicitly or implicitly, any benefits for creditors that are widely seen as major users of financial reports in the public sector (Mayston, 1992). This surprised us since a number of prior publications allude to this effect (e.g., Ingram, 1983; Lder et al., 1993; and Pallot, 2001). In our investigations, we find no grounds for u any such effects. It is possible that the horizontal financial equalization scheme among the Lnder in Germany produces such a result by generally reassuring a creditors and thereby indirectly removing some of the importance placed on creditor information. This effect, which is rooted in assuming governments to be a going concern because of their taxing authority, has similarly been documented in extant literature (e.g., Jones and Puglisi, 1997; and AnessiPessina et al., 2008). Another possible explanation for this could be the fact that in much of the literature accrual accounting is seen as sector neutral (Carlin, 2005). This might have lead to an influx of proposed benefits for the public sector extrapolated from the private sector literature (Rutherford, 1992), where creditor protection and investor needs are of paramount importance (Ellwood and Wynne, 2005). On closer examination, these three benefits are all less operational and relate to the interaction of government bodies with its external stakeholders. As such, it is important to emphasize here that we included politicians and senior managers in our interviews, who act as a link between external and internal
154
stakeholders and should therefore be able to assess the benefits of AOBB also for less operational topics. Nobody from this group mentioned the benefits listed above. Our approach provides some evidence that, as asserted in the literature, much fiction [on the benefits] has been created (Carlin, 2005, p. 320). The empirical approach we follow in our study has the notable advantage of directly addressing the gaps between normative claims made in the literature and predominantly by governments about the nature of the reform (Carlin and Guthrie, 2003; and Connolly and Hyndman, 2006) and what organizations may realistically expect from their reforms. With respect to user information requirements, we find that the requirements mentioned by the extant literature (e.g., full cost information, knowledge of assets and liabilities), appear to be better fulfilled by the AOBB system compared to the prior cash-based system. Further, our taxonomy enables us to contribute a deeper picture of the benefits observed in practice to the literature in which, to date, they have mostly been referred to in passing and on a level equating in our taxonomy to a toplevel category (for example, transparency). Generally speaking, as laid out in our literature review above, two major benefits are typically given transparency and better decision making. In our taxonomy, we show that these resonate well empirically with our data and we call them Better knowledge and Better action, respectively. Also at the top-level, we ascertain that benefits relating to Changes in mindset have tended to be overlooked in the literature, yet we show, in both our taxonomy and prioritization, that they are of practical relevance. We attribute this under-representation to the fact that the discussion to date has been rather technical (ter Bogt, 2008), having only recently, and to a lesser extent, begun to encompass less technical benefits. Taken as a whole, we would argue that in the literature mindset changes have not yet received the attention they deserve. Further research, of which some is currently emerging, that incorporates and examines more closely these kinds of outcomes of AOBB implementation such as changes in working methods, employee attitudes, or organizational culture (e.g., ter Bogt, 2008) would therefore make a valuable contribution to the literature. Further examples of mindset changes may include AOBB being used in high-level discussions rather than its being applied solely in decision making at the operational level (Connolly and Hyndman, 2006), a more businesslike or citizen- and performance-oriented approach, or greater focus on output and outcome (ter Bogt, 2008). Above and beyond simply structuring the benefits of AOBB, our study also adds greater depth by providing both subordinate categories and basic benefits to complement our top-level categories. Our second point of discussion pertains to various antecedents of the benefits that came to light because of our research design. As outlined above, we conducted our research at two sites to obtain a broader perspective of our findings. On the whole, our resulting taxonomy shows reliable and conceptually sound attributes across the two sites we studied. We do find, however, that some of the underlying results seem to be contingent on the status of the reform and
155
on the characteristics of its process and we were able to bring these to light because of our specific research design. Our first finding of this kind is the intuitive observation that the benefits mentioned were less specific in the setting where the reform was slightly less advanced i.e., in Hamburg and that, vice versa, concrete benefits such as enhanced cost management or more specific transparency in general were more pronounced in Hesse. We summarize this as a greater tendency towards a more precise perception of benefits the further the reform has advanced. Our results thus add evidence to what has been termed an experience effect (Watts, 1995). A number of studies have found evidence for such an increasing recognition of the benefits of new information over time (e.g., Jones and Puglisi, 1997; and Kober et al., 2010). Secondly, we are aware that our analysis is based on perceptions expressed by organizational participants gathered in interviews and not on hard data another limitation of our study. Our case findings show that such perceptions may be driven by idiosyncratic communication within a given organization. This tendency becomes manifest, for example, in the oft-repeated description of the case of a police car in Hamburg:
About 13 years ago someone came up with an illustration of the current investment practice. In the old world one bought a police car in one year by issuing a credit that provided the necessary liquidity. After five years that car was taken to the scrap yard and a new car was bought. The credit remained unpaid. This way after 20 years the state owned one used car but the credit worth four police cars remained. In the new world this story looks a little different (Member of group responsible for the AOBB-reform in State Audit Court).
We would therefore suggest that future research pay closer attention to such issues of organization-internal folklore, since this may incur a bias. In our study, the police-car argument was the only instance when organization-internal folklore became apparent. These findings corroborate the view that both the outcomes of the reform and perceptions of it are influenced by the way the change process is managed overall. Prior studies show that the parameters of the change process are often disregarded in research and in practice (ter Bogt and van Helden, 2000), so we would encourage more research on this aspect. The literature refers to change processes as trajectories of modernization and reform (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004, p. 67) or design styles (Bourmistrov, 2006, p. 13) and on this point discusses a number of explanatory aspects or antecedents. In particular, reform outcomes may be sensitive to trajectories that differ either according to their what, i.e., to their scope and components (e.g., changing finance, personnel, organization, or performance measurement systems), or according to their how, i.e., their process. Thus, there exists a wide range of diverse trajectories that a jurisdiction introducing AOBB may pursue. At the same time, choosing one route over another impacts the benefits pursuant to the reform (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004). In Hamburg, for instance, the opening balance sheet was presented in
156
the first stage while the rollout of budgeting reforms only followed later. In our view, this helped stabilize the reform and foster buy-in within the organization. Similarly, Hesse started off with an ambitious set of reporting requirements that were subsequently loosened. This practice led to more opposition and frustration than in Hamburg where reporting was subsequently changed in comparatively small increments. Since we found evidence pointing to the importance of the change trajectory itself, we would suggest further exploration of how it may influence the outcomes i.e., the benefits and/or drawbacks of AOBB implementations. Recent research drawn from the private sector has identified employee participation and leadership style as influencing implementation outcomes in management accounting change (Hooze and Bruggeman, 2010).21 e Not only do our findings contribute to existing research but we also see managerial implications in two ways. First and foremost, politicians, policy makers, and top-tier administrative employees may now have at their disposal a structured catalogue of benefits based on our findings when deciding for or against the introduction of AOBB. Notably in the event that they want to improve specific aspects in their respective organizations (e.g., lack of cost transparency), our exploratory prioritization can provide them with clear indications and address the improvement potential. Likewise, they could pay special attention and increase resource allocation to those areas which they want to improve but which benefit less from AOBB introduction and vice versa. They will need to use their own judgment when applying the taxonomy and deciding which of the presented benefits will materialize in their specific context and help address user needs. Although we see no evidence to refine this taxonomy, we would nevertheless suggest testing whether or not it needs to be customized to respective contexts. Since we only present the benefits of the reform, assessing the (opportunity) costs of any decision to reform cannot rest on this contribution alone. Here, we provide a structural basis for consideration, but turn to practitioners to supply additional pieces of information. Secondly, this papers findings could serve project managers in charge of the reform projects in their attempts to shape implementations of the reform (Arnaboldi and Lapsley, 2009). As we present a weighted taxonomy of perceived benefits, our findings are suitable for developing persuasive project communications. In such cases, we suggest that project members engaged in these tasks select the benefits that enjoy broad agreement from our interviewees.
Limitations and Further Research

In interpreting the results of this study, its limitations should be taken into account. In general, a taxonomic classification like the one presented here might be criticized for its reliance on the researchers judgement. By adopting a three-stage approach, incorporating a broad variety of practitioners perspectives on AOBB benefits, and conducting a thorough coding procedure, however, we attempted to objectify our impressions with the applied research method.
157
Another possible limitation relates to the fact that the primary data we gathered reflect the perceptions of interested parties whose views may reflect expectations but not real benefits. Although, broadly speaking, hard data might be preferable to soft data (Carlin, 2005) when evaluating the success (or the benefits) of implementations, we do share the view that hard evidence is more difficult to obtain (Pallot, 2001). In some instances such as ours, however, we also see advantages in conducting interviews and embracing perceptions derived from them: for example, an impact on decisions and, in our case, the avoidance of bad decisions, can be better understood than with quantified data. Such understanding is important given that impact on decisions has, in a variety of studies, often served as a proxy for the positive consequences of implementations (e.g., Shields, 1995; Malmi, 1997; and Kober et al., 2010). In addition, we believe that it is perceptions rather than hard data that are acted upon and that decide the fate of AOBB, i.e., its use in practice, its adoption at the particular organization, as well as its diffusion in general. Nevertheless, to mitigate any potential bias resulting from the use of perceptions, we included a diverse set of respondents in our analysis. In addition, by asking interviewees to give concrete examples or to be more specific, we tried to make sure that benefits articulated to us referred to the actual use of AOBB in practice and were not merely echoing or parroting presumed benefits or expectations which interviewees had heard from project management or government (Connolly and Hyndman, 2006). Even though we set out to incorporate opinions of AOBB benefits from as many knowledgeable users as possible, we did not include external users such as (1) voters, tax-payers, and consumers of public goods and (7) creditors (numbers refer to stakeholder groups mentioned in the literature section according to Mayston, 1992, pp. 228-29). Further, central government users have been excluded in this study, as the reporting to the central government by Hamburg and Hesse has not yet been set up using AOBB principles (similarly to the Italian and Australian context, see Anessi-Pessina et al., 2008 and Kober et al., 2010, respectively). Not surveying these three user groups limits the conclusions that can be drawn from our study since these may have articulated further benefits or that the three unconfirmed benefits are important to them. Another explanation could be, however, that the finding of less external user-related benefits of AOBB goes in parallel with findings of studies which show that internal users are more active users of public accounting information (e.g., Coy et al., 1997). Through its structuration along benefit categories and not according to user groups, the taxonomy in this study has drawn a rather general picture. Future research may determine with more precision whether and how internal and external users benefit by having their information requirements met and purposes served through AOBB (see e.g., Kober et al., 2010). For a more complete picture to emerge, we suggest to include a broad sample of AOBB stakeholders to further research. In a similar vein, the fact that, at the time of the interviews, Hamburg had not yet fully completed its transformation and that Hesse had recently closed
158
it by presenting its balance sheet, might raise some doubts as to whether the benefits reported to us had actually materialized. As we were aware of this at the outset and chose our research method accordingly, we see little reason to assume that the results have been substantially distorted by this effect. This is also because, due to opposing logics in the change trajectories at the two sites with Hessen starting with budgeting related reforms and ending with creating an opening balance sheet and Hamburg proceeding in the opposite way we have scrutinized the relevant parts of complete change from cash-based accounting and budgeting to AOBB in the context of both businesslike and less businesslike German Lnder. Nevertheless, we see great worth in conducting a further longitudinal studies of AOBB implementations and believe that we have generated valuable ideas for more of this kind of research in this paper. To some extent, our findings are also applicable to settings outside Germany. Even though previous studies have shown the implementation of reforms in the public sector to depend on geographies and level of government (e.g., Hood, 1995; and Olson et al., 1998), we find consistency in large parts of our taxonomy with existing literature drawn from other settings. One final caveat remains. Like many previous studies, this paper cannot answer the question of whether the introduction of AOBB improves the net performance of the public sector. It contributes to the literature by examining the benefits of AOBB in depth but does not take into consideration aspects of cost (Connolly and Hyndman, 2006). Therefore, the two pressing questions of how qualitative benefits translate into increased output or outcome and of what the flipside of the benefits the costs looks like, remain unanswered. Taking account of costs would certainly be beneficial given that, for a specific organization, an implementation will only prove of value if there is a positive cost/benefit ratio. As Carlin (2006) shows, the costs of using AOBB are likely to be significant. Further, it would be interesting to see whether AOBB has relative disadvantages since the literature has failed to emphasise the innate benefits of the cash basis of accounting (Ellwood and Wynne, 2005, p. 169). Including the far end i.e., performance in the equation is, as we learn from the literature, a difficult undertaking that has rarely been done to date (e.g., Pallot, 2001). Not quite so far, the relationship between benefits in mindset and more technical changes (i.e., tangible, direct improvements in an instrumental sense) is another potentially fruitful area for further study. In this context, we hypothesize that instrumental changes precede transformations of individual or organizational mindsets, and we encourage scholars to follow this question.
CONCLUSION
The benefits of accrual accounting and full cost-based, output-oriented budgeting in central governments have been intensely disputed among academics and practitioners. In general, a more precise understanding of the benefits adds to the decision of whether public entities should apply AOBB or not.
159
While the normative, conceptual, or theory-based literature has made promising claims regarding which benefits could be expected from reforms of government accounting and budgeting, recent empirical research has found that at least some of these expectations have been massively overstated. The observed gap between promises and reality raises anew the question of what the true benefits are. By collecting practitioners judgements, the purpose of our paper was to draw up a landscape of perceived benefits (taxonomy). We base our findings on analysis of 42 qualitative interviews conducted in the rather under-explored context of two states in Germany. The derived taxonomy appears to be exhaustive, mutually exclusive, and robust. Our analysis thus contributes both to the interpretation of existing research and to the design of future research. In terms of the former, while being consistent with existing research, it clearly and holistically structures the benefits generally expected and articulated by practitioners implementing AOBB. Mapping our results onto prior claims in the literature, we further reveal that the practitioners interviewed do not see benefits in areas that previous research deems important, while other areas, not previously emphasized, seem to be more relevant in practice. Since interviewees in our sample did not mention them at all, we suggest handling the following benefits with greater caution in future debate: Increased compliance and reporting discipline, Increased intergenerational fairness, and Provisioning of relevant information for creditors. In the latter case, the field of AOBB research inherits contributions along two dimensions. Firstly, our analysis brings to the fore various benefits of AOBB implementation in terms of mindset changes. Secondly, building on quantitative analysis of our interviews as well as on qualitative understanding of our data, we identify the most important benefits: Increased cost awareness, Improved general decision making, Improved cost management, Increased focus (on results), and Adoption of businesslike thinking, procedures, and pragmatism. Providing guidance for future research, our framework therefore points to a need to move beyond a purely technical focus and to embrace less technical perspectives of such implementations. Facilitating the design of future research, our exploratory analysis suggests ideas as to the antecedents and priority levels relating to the benefits of AOBB.
APPENDIX
Themes investigated and covered during interviews:

Interviewees educational background; career positions held so far Description of current position and main responsibilities Perception of the reform process General opinion of AOBB Degree of exposure to AOBB reports and instruments
160

Nature of AOBB information used Role of AOBB in day-to-day work Major benefits of AOBB compared to cash-based accounting and budget-
ing
Concrete examples of major benefits of AOBB Impact of AOBB information on decision making.
NOTES
1 See Winckelmann (1949, p.1). All sources originally in a foreign language have been translated by the authors. 2 In this paper, reform refers to the shift in government accounting from cash accounting to accrual accounting (Christiaens and van Peteghem, 2007) combined with a reform of the budgeting process (full accrual-based budgeting, product orientation) in public sector entities. As a precursor data feeder system (Carlin, 2005, p. 321), accrual accounting, or similarly resource accounting (RA, e.g., Connolly and Hyndman, 2006), supplies input data for public sector agencies in order to plan, control, and classify public expenditures and sources of revenues with budgeting (Lee and Johnson, 1977). To refer to both these systems jointly, we follow Carlin (2005) in employing the term accrual output-based budgeting (AOBB) when denoting the target state of the reform. 3 Lapsley and Pallot (2000) observe that one stream focuses on the intent and the other on the consequences of the new instruments. 4 Among the sources we reviewed were both publications that address reform-related topics without any intention to analyze benefits in more depth and studies that directly address the benefits of reform. The latter also include recent studies with review sections, such as Arnaboldi and Lapsley (2009), Anessi-Pessina and Steccolini (2007), Connolly and Hyndman (2006), and Carlin (2005). 5 In short, full accrual accounting is based on the businesslike principle that revenues and cost should be charged to the period in which they are earned and used (Arnaboldi and Lapsley, 2009, p. 813). 6 Similarly, together with financial viability and fiscal compliance, also Anthony (1978) lists management performance and cost of services provided as user needs. 7 We additionally refer the reader to studies such as Collins et al. (1991), Lder and Jones u (2003), and Jones and Pendlebury (2004) who find that accounting data are not widely used outside of the respective authorities. One explanation for this may be that internal users require greater detail because they actually manage and operate the entities affairs. [. . .] internal users may need information at the most detailed level of each component activity of a program (USGAO, 2000, pp. 20-21). 8 At this point, we would like to point to studies in management accounting that have raised doubts about the ontological and epistemological nature of (management) accounting systems in change (Burns and Vaivio, 2001; Quattrone and Hopper, 2001; Busco et al., 2007; and Andon et al., 2007). These scholars are critical of linear conceptions of change processes and therefore question whether they should be seen as trajectories from one exact, distinct, and observable steady state to another. 9 For a general description of this unique institutional culture, we refer the reader to Budus a et al. (2003). 10 Local government in the German context includes counties (Kreise), non-county municipalities (kreisfreie Stdte), and municipalities (Gemeinden) (Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004). a 11 It is worth noting that Christiaens and Rommel (2008) make the proposition that accrual accounting reforms work well only in businesslike (parts of) governments. This, however, does not mean that benefits do not result at all in less businesslike parts of governments. 12 This is especially true relative to Anglo-Saxon countries. Pollitt and Bouckaert (2004) argue that in a Rechtsstaat such as Germany, reforms are generally stickier and slower than in public
161
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21
interest regimes because any reforms would require legal changes and an extensive training of senior Beamte with backgrounds predominantly in administrative law. Out of a balance sheet total of about 89 billion, the negative equity of Hesse amounts to roughly 58 billion. This does not mean that we do not see the potential of intrinsic case studies as an important way to gain understanding of particular phenomena (e.g., Flyvbjerg, 2007). Rather, such an approach is just not compatible with the main objective of this study. For an oft-cited accounting literature study that analogously uses qualitative methods and coding techniques with positivistic aims (see Malina and Selto, 2001). In addition to the 49 individuals who were met in an explicit research interview setting, 15 further individuals were met informally. The observations from these interactions have not been formally integrated into the codes but provide us with further reference for triangulation of our findings. In one case three interviewees were present; in five cases we interviewed two individuals at once. Taking advantage of the structuring capabilities of such computer-based analysis, we created two fully independent hermeneutic units with independent categories. Towards the end of the procedure we compared the resulting taxonomies for each research site. The categories information (mental) model action are explicitly or implicitly used in several publications (e.g., Denzau and North, 1994). For instance, we merged Transparency of risks, Impact on cost for new debt, Overall performance improvements, P&L data timeliness, Performance indicators into existing categories as they were only mentioned by a few respondents and fit well with the existing taxonomy. For a management accounting study from the private sector, where this question has attracted equally little explicit attention (see Kasurinen, 2001).
REFERENCES
Accounting Standards Board (ASB) (2003), Statement of Principles for Financial Reporting: Proposed Interpretation for Public Benefit Entities (ASB, London). Anessi-Pessina, E. and I. Steccolini (2007), Effects of Budgetary and Accruals Accounting Coexistence: Evidence from Italian Local Governments, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 11331. , G. Nasi and I. Steccolini (2008), Accounting Reforms: Determinants of Local Governments Choices, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 32142. Andon, P., J. Baxter and W. F. Chua (2007), Accounting Change as Relational Drifting: A Field Study of Experiments with Performance Measurement, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 273308. Anthony, R. (1978), Financial Accounting in Nonbusiness Organizations (FASB, Stamford). Arnaboldi, M. and I. Lapsley (2009), On the Implementation of Accrual Accounting: A Study of Conflict and Ambiguity, European Accounting Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 80936. Bacharach, S. B. (1989), Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 496515. Barton, A. D. (2004), How to Profit from Defence: A Study in the Misapplication of Business Accounting to the Public Sector in Australia, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 281304. Blejer, M. I. and A. Cheasty (1991), The Measurement of Fiscal Deficits: Analytical and Methodological Issues, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 164478. Bogt ter, H. J. (2008), Management Accounting Change and New Public Management in Local Government: A Reassessment of Ambitions and Results An Institutionalist Approach to Accounting Change in the Dutch Public Sector, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 20941. and G. J. van Helden (2000), Accounting Change in Dutch Government: Exploring the Gap Between Expectations and Realizations, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 26379. Bourmistrov, A. (2006), Reforming Central Government Accounting: A Comparative Study of Norway and Russia, in E. Lande and J.-C. Scheid (eds.), Accounting Reform in the Public Sector: Mimicry, Fad or Necessity (Expert Comptable Media, Paris), pp. 318.
162
Broadbent, J. and J. Guthrie (2008), Public Sector to Public Services: 20 Years of Contextual Accounting Research, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 129 69. Budus, D., C. Behm and B. Adam (2003), Chapter: Germany, in K. Lder and R. Jones (eds.), a u Reforming Governmental Accounting and Budgeting in Europe (Fachverlag Moderne Wirtschaft, Frankfurt am Main), pp. 1357. Brgerschaft der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg (2003, August), Drucksache 17/3161: u Einfhrung der Kaufmnnischen Buchfhrung in der Verwaltung, URL: http://fhh.hamburg.de/; u a u 10.08.07. Burns, J. and J. Vaivio (2001), Management Accounting Change, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 389402. Busco, C., P. Quattrone and A. Riccaboni (2007), Management Accounting Issues in Interpreting its Nature and Change, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 12549. Caccia, L. and I. Steccolini (2006), Accounting Change in Italian Local Governments: Whats Beyond Managerial Fashion?, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 17, Nos. 2/3, pp. 15474. Carlin, T. (2003), Unravelling the Capital Charging Riddle: Some Empirical Evidence from Victoria, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 7392. (2004), Output-Based Management and the Management of Performance: Insights from the Victorian Experience, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 26783. (2005), Debating the Impact of Accrual Accounting and Reporting in the Public Sector, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 30936. (2006), Victorias Accrual Output Based Budgeting System: Delivering as Promised Some Empirical Evidence, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 119. and J. Guthrie (2003), Accrual Output Based Budgeting Systems in Australia: The Rhetoric-Reality Gap, Public Management Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 14562. Carnegie, G. D. and B. P. West (2003), How Well Does Accrual Accounting Fit the Public Sector?, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 8386. Christensen, M. (2006), On Public Sector Accounting Change: Epistemic Communities, Consultants, Naive Officials and a Reply to Humphrey, European Accounting Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 28996. Christiaens, J. and V. van Peteghem (2007), Governmental Accounting Reform: Evolution of the Implementation in Flemish Municipalities, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 37599. and J. Rommel (2008), Accrual Accounting Reforms: Only for Businesslike (Parts of) Governments, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 5975. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) (1980), Financial Reporting for Non-Profit Organizations (CICA, Toronto). Clark, C. (2010), Understanding the Needs of Users of Public Sector Financial Reports: How Far Have We Come?, International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 7081. Collins, W., D. Keenan and I. Lapsley (1991), Communication, Sophistry or Obfuscation? The Case of Local Authority Annual Reports and Accounts (CIPFA and ICAS, London and Edinburgh). Colquitt, J. A. and C. P. Zapata-Phelan (2007), Trends in Theory Building and Theory Testing: A Five-Decade Study of the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 6, pp. 1281303. Connolly, C. and N. Hyndman (2006), The Actual Implementation of Accruals Accounting: Caveats from a Case within the UK Public Sector, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 27290. Coy, D., K. Dixon, J. Buchanan and G. Tower (1997), Recipients of Public Sector Annual Reports: Theory and an Empirical Study Compared, British Accounting Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 10327. Crain, G. W. and D. R. Bean (1998), What Users Think of the New Reporting Model for Government: The Results of the GASBs Focus Group Sessions, Government Finance Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 913. Creswell, J. W. (2009), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks). Denzau, A. T. and D. C. North (1994), Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions, Kyklos, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 331.
163
Drebin, A., J. Chan and L. Ferguson (1981), Objectives of Accounting and Financial Reporting for Governmental Units: A Research Study (NCGA, Chicago). Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989), Building Theory from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 53250. Ellwood, S. and A. Wynne (2005), An Accrual World? Questioning the Universal Validity of Accrual Accounting, in A. Bourmistrov and F. Mellemvik (eds.), International Trends and Experiences in Governmental Accounting (Cappelen Akademisk, Oslo), pp. 15872. Evans, M. (1995), Resource Accounting and Budgeting (CIPFA, London). Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) (1980), Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 4. Objectives of Financial Reporting by Nonbusiness Organizations (FASB, Norwalk). Fischer-Heidelberger, H. (2007), Am Ziel vorbei, Move-Moderne Verwaltung, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 16 17. Flyvbjerg, B. (2007), Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research, in C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium and D. Silverman (eds.), Qualitative Research in Practice (Sage Publications, London), pp. 390404. Funnell, W. and K. Cooper (1998), Public Sector Accounting and Accountability in Australia (University of New South Wales Press, Sydney). Gosling, P. (1997), (Interview with A. Likierman, A.) Perhaps, Minister. . ., Management Accounting: Magazine for Chartered Management Accountants, Vol. 75, No. 5, pp. 3031. Groot, T. and T. Budding (2008), New Public Managements Current Issues and Future Prospects, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 113. Guthrie, J. (1998), Application of Accrual Accounting in the Australian Public Sector: Rhetoric or Reality?, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 119. , O. Olson and C. Humphrey (1999), Debating Developments in New Public Financial Management: The Limits of Global Theorising and Some New Ways Forward, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 15, Nos. 3/4, pp. 20928. Hay, L. E. and J. F. Antonio (1990), What Users Want in Government Financial Reports, Journal of Accountancy, Vol. 170, No. 2, pp. 9198. Heald, D. (2005), The Implementation of Resource Accounting in UK Central Government, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 16389. and A. Dowdall (1999), Capital Charging as a VFM Tool in Public Services, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 15, Nos. 3/4, pp. 22945. Hessisches Ministerium der Finanzen (1999), Kabinettvorlage vom 14.12.99 (URL: http://www. hmdf.hessen.de; 10.08.07). HM Treasury (1994), Better Accounting for Taxpayers Money: Resource Accounting and Budgeting in Government (The Stationery Office, London). (2001), Managing Resources: Full Implementation of Resource Accounting and Budgeting (The Stationery Office, London). Hoggett, P. (1996), New Modes of Control in the Public Service, Public Administration, Vol. 74, No. 1, pp. 932. Hood, C. (1995), The New Public Management in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 20, Nos. 2/3, pp. 93109. Hooze, S. and W. Bruggeman (2010), Identifying Operational Improvements During the Design e Process of a Time-Driven ABC System: The Role of Collective Worker Participation and Leadership Style, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 18598. Ingram, R. W. (1983), The Importance of State Accounting Practices for Creditor Decisions, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 517. International Federation of Accountants (IFOA) Public Sector Committee (1997), Occasional Paper No. 3: Perspectives on Accrual Accounting (IFAC, New York). Johnstone, D. (1999), Public-Sector Outsourcing and Charging In-House Bidders for their Use of Capital, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 3341. Jones, D. B., R. B. Scott, L. Kimbro and R. W. Ingram (1985), The Needs of Users of Governmental Financial Reports (GASB, Stamford). Jones, R. (1992), The Development of Conceptual Frameworks of Accounting for the Public Sector, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 24964. and M. Pendlebury (2004), A Theory of the Published Accounts of Local Authorities, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 30525.
164
Jones, S. and N. Puglisi (1997), The Relevance of AAS 29 to the Australian Public Sector: A Case for Doubt?, Abacus, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 11532. Kasurinen, T. (2001), Influence of the Implementation Process on Management Accounting Change in a Hierarchical Corporation, The Finnish Journal of Business Economics, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 45979. Kober, R., J. Lee and J. Ng (2010), Mind your Accruals: Perceived Usefulness of Financial Information in the Australian Public Sector under Different Accounting Systems, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 26798. Lapsley, I. (1992), User Needs and Financial Reporting: A Comparative Study of Local Authorities and the National Health Service, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 28198. and J. Pallot (2000), Accounting, Management and Organizational Change: A Comparative Study of Local Government, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 21329. Lee, R. and R. Johnson (1977), Public Budgeting Systems (University Park Press, Baltimore). Likierman, A. (2000), Changes to Managerial Decision-Taking in U.K. Central Government, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 25361. (2003), Planning and Controlling UK Public Expenditure on a Resource Basis, Public Money & Management, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 4550. Lder, K. (1992), A Contingency Model of Governmental Accounting Innovations in the Politicalu Administrative Environment, in Research in Governmental and Non-Profit Accounting, Vol. 7, pp. 99127. and R. Jones (2003), The Diffusion of Accrual Accounting and Budgeting in European Countries: A Cross-Country Analysis, in K. Lder and R. Jones (eds.), Reforming Governmental u Accounting and Budgeting in Europe (Fachverlag Moderne Wirtschaft, Frankfurt am Main), pp. 1457. , C. Hinzmann, B. Kampmann and R. Otte (1993), Vergleichende Analyse Offentlicher Rechnungssysteme: Querschnittsanalyse (Forschungsinstitut fr Offentliche Verwaltung, u Speyer). Mack, J. and C. Ryan (2006), Reflections on the Theoretical Underpinnings of the GeneralPurpose Financial Reports of Australian Government Departments, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 592612. Malina, M. A. and F. H. Selto (2001), Communicating and Controlling Strategy: An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 4790. Malmi, T. (1997), Towards Explaining Activity-Based Costing Failure: Accounting and Control in a Decentralized Organization, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 45980. (1999), Activity-Based Costing Diffusion Across Organizations: An Exploratory Empirical Analysis of Finnish Firms, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 24, No. 8, pp. 64972. Mayston, D. (1992), Capital Accounting, User Needs and the Foundations of a Conceptual Framework for Public Sector Financial Reporting, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 22748. McGeough, F. (1998), Resource Accounting in Ireland, Public Money & Management, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 5861. Mellett, H. (1997), The Role of Resource Accounting in the UK Governments Quest for Better Accounting, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 15768. (2002), The Consequences and Causes of Resource Accounting, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 23154. Mellor, T. (1996), Why Governments Should Produce Balance Sheets, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 7882. Mignot, H. and C. Dolley (2000), Are AAS 29 Financial Statements Useful?, Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 5161. Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks). Olson, O., J. Guthrie and C. Humphrey (eds.) (1998), Global Warning: Debating International Developments in New Public Financial Management (Cappelen Akademisk, Oslo).
165
Pallot, J. (2001), A Decade in Review: New Zealands Experience with Resource Accounting and Budgeting, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 383400. Paulsson, G. (2006), Accrual Accounting in the Public Sector: Experiences from the Central Government in Sweden, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 4762. Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2004), Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis (Oxford University Press, Oxford). Potter, B. (1999), The Power of Words: Explaining Recent Accounting Reforms in the Australian Public Sector, Accounting History, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 4372. Quattrone, P. and T. Hopper (2001), What Does Organizational Change Mean? Speculations on a Taken for Granted Category, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 40335. Raupach, B. and K. Stangenberg (2006), Doppik in der Offentlichen Verwaltung: Grundlagen, Verfahrensweisen, Einsatzgebiete (Gabler, Wiesbaden). Rber, M. (1996), Germany, in D. Farnham, S. Horton, J. Barlow and A. Hondeghem (eds.): New o Public Managers in Europe (Macmillan, Basingstoke), pp. 16994. Robinson, M. (1998), Accrual Accounting and the Efficiency of the Core Public Sector, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 2137. Rubin, I. S. (2000), The Politics of Public Budgeting: Getting and Spending, Borrowing and Balancing (4th ed., Chatham House Publishers, Chatham). Rutherford, B. A. (1992), Developing a Conceptual Framework for Central Government Financial Reporting, Intermediate Users and Indirect Control, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 26580. Scapens, R. W. (1994), Never Mind the Gap: Towards an Institutional Perspective on Management Accounting Practice, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 5, Nos. 3/4, pp. 30121. Shields, M. D. (1995), An Empirical Analysis of Firms Implementation Experience with ActivityBased Costing, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 14866. Stadt Hamburg (2006), Geschftsbericht zur Erffnungsbilanz auf den 1. Januar 2006 (Stadt Hamburg, a o Hamburg). Stake, R. E. (2005), Qualitative Case Studies, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks), pp. 44366. US Government Accounting Office (USGAO) (2000), Accrual Budgeting: Experiences of Other Nations and Implications for US (Diane Publishing, Darby). Venieris, G. and S. Cohen (2004), Accounting Reform in Greek Universities: A Slow Moving Process, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 183204. Watts, R. L. (1995), Developments in Positive Accounting Research, in S. Jones, C. A. Romano and J. Ratnatunga (eds.): Accounting Theory: A Contemporary Review (Harcourt Brace, London), pp. 297354. Winckelmann, H. (1949), Kameralistische und Kaufmnnische Rechnungslegung in Offentlichen Verwaltungen a und Betrieben: Eine Grundstzliche Betrachtung (Duncker & Humblot, Berlin). a Yin, R. K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks).

Aobb in Germania

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Aobb in Germania

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Financial Accountability & Management, 27(2), May 2011, 0267-4424

BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

AOBB Research and Review of Benefits

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

JAGALLA, BECKER AND WEBER

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

JAGALLA, BECKER AND WEBER

Deriving Our Research Objective

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

JAGALLA, BECKER AND WEBER

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

German State Accounting

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

JAGALLA, BECKER AND WEBER

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

JAGALLA, BECKER AND WEBER

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

Figure 1 Job Functions of Interviewees by Case

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

JAGALLA, BECKER AND WEBER

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

JAGALLA, BECKER AND WEBER

Figure 2 Taxonomy of Benefits

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

JAGALLA, BECKER AND WEBER

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

Figure 3 Number of Times Mentioned Better Knowledge

Figure 4 Number of Times Mentioned Better Action

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

JAGALLA, BECKER AND WEBER

Figure 5 Number of Times Mentioned Mindset Changes

Findings and Managerial Implications

dimension is Mellor (1996, p. 82). She states

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

JAGALLA, BECKER AND WEBER

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

JAGALLA, BECKER AND WEBER

Limitations and Further Research

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

JAGALLA, BECKER AND WEBER

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

BENEFITS OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETING

Themes investigated and covered during interviews:

2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd