Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:42:58.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crisis and the Consolidation of International Accounting Standards: Enron, The IASB, and America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sarah B. Eaton
Sarah B. Eaton*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the interplay between leading international and American accounting authorities over the span of a critical four-year period, 2001–2005. Historically, US regulators and private-sector accounting institutions have taken a cautious approach to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs), citing the superior rigor and overall quality of their own Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). During the past four years, however, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) have each become markedly receptive to the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB) efforts to harmonize accounting standards worldwide based on IFRSs. Why? This paper offers an explanation that highlights the role of the high-profile American corporate scandals (2001–2002) in precipitating a shift in US accounting authorities' views of the optimal form of accounting rules, an issue that has stood in the way of trans-Atlantic accounting standard convergence. Prior to the accounting scandals, the highly-detailed rules that are characteristic of US GAAP were widely seen to be the most effective form of accounting rule. Since 2002, a normative shift has taken place such that the SEC now endorses objectives-oriented rules that are conceptually aligned with the principles-based standards promulgated by the IASB. The analysis is framed by insights from contemporary International Relations theory which emphasize the influence of scope conditions on patterns of governance.

Keywords

IASBSECFASBIFRSUS GAAPEnronaccounting scandalsInternational Relations theory
Type
Research Article
Information
Business and Politics , Volume 7 , Issue 3: Special Issue: The Globalization of Accounting Standards , December 2005 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2005 and published under exclusive license to Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, Emanuel (1997). “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 3: 319–363.Google Scholar
Adler, Emanuel and Haas, Peter M. (1992). “Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order, and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program”. International Organization 46, no. 1: 367–390.Google Scholar
Baker, Richard C. and Hayes, Rick (2004). “Reflecting Form over Substance: The Case of Enron Corp.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 15: 767–785.Google Scholar
Bratton, Williams W. (2003). “Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley and Accounting: Rules Versus Principles Versus Rents” Villanova Law Review 48: 1023–1055.Google Scholar
Cairns, David (1997). “The Future Shape of Harmonization: A Reply” The European Accounting Review 6, no. 2: 305–348.Google Scholar
Catanach, Anthony H. Jr. and Rhoades-Catanach, Shelley (2003). “Enron: A Financial Reporting Failure?” Villanova Law Review 48: 1057–1076.Google Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2003). “Social Constructivism in Global and European Politics.” Working Paper, 15/03. Advanced Research on the Europeanisation of the Nation-State.Google Scholar
Culpepper, Pepper D. (2005). “Institutional Change in Contemporary Capitalism: Coordinated Financial Systems since 1999.” World Politics 57, no. 2: 173–202.Google Scholar
Duchac, Jonathan (2004). “The Dilemma of Bright Line Accounting Rules and Professional Judgment: Insights from Special Purpose Entity Consolidation Rules” International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 1, no. 4: 324–338.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon (1992). “Arguing and Bargaining in the Federal Convention and the Assemblée Constituante.” In Rationality and Institutions: Essays in Honour of Knut Midgaard, edited by Malnes, Raino and Underdal, Arild. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fearon, James and Wendt, Alexander (2002). “Rationalism v. Contructism: A Skeptical View.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas and Simmons, Beth. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Financial Accounting Standards Board (December 1999). “International Accounting Standard Setting: A Vision for the Future.” Report of the FASB. Norwalk, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha (1996). National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn (1998). “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change”. International Organization 52, no. 4: 887–917.Google Scholar
International Organization of Securities Commission, Report of the Technical Committee (May 2000). “IASC Standards—Assessment Report”.Google Scholar
Kapstein, Ethan Barnaby (1992). “Between Power and Purpose: Central Bankers and the Politics of Regulatory Convergence”. International Organization 46, no. 1: 265–87.Google Scholar
March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P. (1998). “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders”. International Organization 52: 943–969.Google Scholar
Martínez-Diaz, Leonardo (2005). “Strategic Experts and Improvising Regulators: Explaining the IASC's Rise to Global Influence, 1973–2001” Journal of Business and Politics, 27, no. 3: Article 3.Google Scholar
Martínez-Diaz, Leonardo (2001). “Private Expertise and Global Economic Governance: The Case of International Accounting Standards, 1972–2001” M.Phil thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford.Google Scholar
Müller, Harald (2004). “Arguing, Bargaining and All That: Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory and the Logic of Appropriateness in International Relations”. European Journal of International Relations 10, no. 3: 395–435.Google Scholar
Nicolaisen, Donald T. (2005). “A Securities Regulator Looks at Convergence” Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 25, no. 3: 661–686.Google Scholar
Nicolaisen, Donald T. (December 11, 2003). “Remarks before the 2003 Thirty-First AICPA National Conference on Current SEC Developments”.Google Scholar
Niemann, Arne (2004). “Between Communicative Action and Strategic Action: the Article 113 Committee and the Negotiations on the WTO Basic Telecommunications Services Agreement” Journal of European Public Policy 11, no. 3: 379–407.Google Scholar
Nobes, Christopher and Parker, Robert (1988). Issues in Multinational Accounting. Oxford: Philip Allan Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
North, Douglass C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Changes and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perry, James and Noelke, Andreas (2005). “International Accounting Standard Setting: A Network Approach” Journal of Business and Politics 7, no. 3: Article 5.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas (2000). “Let's Argue! Communicative Action in World Politics.” International Organization 54, no. 1: 1–39.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Don (2001). “What Price Global Accounting Standards?” The CPA Journal 71, no. 5: 40–48.Google Scholar
Schuetze, Walter (December 1992). “An International Financial Accounting Esperanto” IASC Insight: 7.Google Scholar
Securities and Exchange Commission (April 21, 2005). “Chairman Donaldson Meets with EU Internal Market Commissioner McCreevy.”Google Scholar
Securities and Exchange Commission (July 25, 2003). “Study Pursuant to Section 108(d) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 on the Adoption by the United States Financial Reporting System of a Principles-Based Accounting System.”Google Scholar
Securities and Exchange Commission (October 29, 2002). “Actions by FASB, IASB Praised”.Google Scholar
Securities and Exchange Commission (2000). “SEC Concept Release: International Accounting Standards.”Google Scholar
Shiratori, Eiichi (December 1994). “Time for a Different Approach from IOSCO” IASC Insight: 9–12.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A. (2001). “The International Politics of Harmonization: The Case of Capital Market Regulation.” International Organization 55, no. 3: 589–620.Google Scholar
Snidal, Duncan (2002). “Rational Choice and International Relations”. In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas and Simmons, Beth. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Tweedie, David (2005). “Setting a Global Standard: The Case for Accounting Convergence.” Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 25, no. 3: 589–608.Google Scholar
Tweedie, David (2002). “An Interview with Sir David Tweedie” (Donna Street) Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting 13, no. 1: 73–100.Google Scholar
US House Committee on Financial Services (June 7, 2001). “Promotion of International Capital Flow through Accounting Standards.”Google Scholar
US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (February 14 2002). “Are Current Financial Accounting Standards Protecting Investors?”Google Scholar
US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (February 14 2002). “Accounting and Investor Protection Issues Raised by Enron and Other Public Companies: International Accounting Standards and Necessary Reforms to Improve Financial Reporting.”Google Scholar
Wardell, Thomas (2003). “The Current State of Play under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002” North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White House (June 20 2005). “The United States and the European Union Initiative to Enhance Transatlantic Economic Integration and Growth.”Google Scholar