The translation and sedimentation of accounting reforms. A comparison of the UK, Austrian and Italian experiences

Since the late 1980s, there has been a significant and progressive movement away from the traditional Public Administration (PA) systems, in favour of NPM-type accounting tools and ideas inspired by the private sector. More recently, a new focus on governance systems, under the banner Public Governance (PG), has emerged. In this paper it is argued that reforms are not isolated events, but are embedded in more global discourses of modernisation and influenced by the institutional pressures present in a certain field at certain points in time. Using extensive document analysis in three countries with different administrative regimes (the UK, Italy and Austria), we examine public sector accounting and budgeting reforms and the underlying discourses put forward in order to support the change. We investigate the extent to which the actual content of the reforms and the discourses they are embedded within are connected over time; that is, whether, and to what degree, the reform “talk” matches the “decisions”. The research shows that in both the UK and in Italy there is consistency between the debates and the decided changes, although the dominant discourse in each country differs, while in Austria changes are decided gradually, and only after they have been announced well in advance in the political debate. We find that in all three countries the new ideas and concepts layer and sediment above the existing ones, rather than replace them. Although all three countries underwent similar accounting and budgeting reforms and relied on similar institutional discourses, each made its own specific translation of the ideas and concepts and is characterised by a specific formation of sedimentations. In addition, the findings suggest that, at present in the three countries, the PG discourse is used to supplement, rather than supplant, other prevailing discourses.

Studying administrative reforms through textual analysis: the case of Italian central government accounting

This paper contributes to the literature on public-sector reforms by proposing textual analysis as a useful research strategy to explore how reform archetypes and related ideas are deployed in the parliamentary debate and regulations advancing reforms. Public Administration (PA) (Wilson 1887; Weber 1922), New Public Management (NPM) (Hood 1991, 1995; Dunleavy and Hood 1994; Ferlie et al. 1996) and Public Governance (GOV) (Osborne 2010; Rhodes 1997) can be depicted as three different archetypes providing characteristic administrative ideas and concepts (i.e. interpretive schemes) and related tools and practices (i.e. structures and systems) which lead reforms. We use textual analysis to look into more than twenty years of Italian central government accounting reforms and investigate how the three administrative archetypes have evolved, intertwined and replaced each other. Textual analysis proves a useful tool to investigate reform processes and allows highlighting that in neo-Weberian countries, such as Italy, NPM and GOV, far from being revolutionary paradigms, may represent fashionable trends that did not leave significant traces in the practice and rhetoric of reforms. These results also suggest interesting implications for practitioners and policy makers.

Public Sector Reforms: Changing Contours on an NPM Landscape

Previous studies suggest that public-sector accounting has moved from Public Administration (PA) to New Public Management (NPM) ideas and, more recently, towards a New Public Governance (NPG) approach. These systems are presented as mutually exclusive and competing. Focusing on accounting changes in the UK central government, this paper explores whether movements towards NPG ideas can be identified at the level of political debate. No evidence is found that NPM is a transitory state. Rather, the findings demonstrate that political debate continues to utilise predominantly NPM arguments, with the three systems viewed as containing complementary, rather than competing, schemes.

Radical Change, Accounting and Public Sector Reforms: A Comparison of Italian and Canadian Municipalities

NPM has been generally regarded as an administrative reform for which resilience and consequences have been mainly investigated at a country level. Although accounting played a central role in NPM reforms over the last decades, how accounting change actually took place, and through what organizational dynamics, has been under-investigated. This paper adopts a new perspective, archetype theory, and looks into how intra-organizational dynamics (values, interests, power, capabilities) combine with reform processes to influence the outcome of accounting change. Evidence from Italian (disruptive process) and Canadian (sedimented process) municipalities shows that radical change is associated with specific configurations of intra-organizational dynamics.

Rethinking the Sacred and Secular Divide. Accounting and Accountability Practices in the Diocese of Ferrara (1431-1457)

Purpose – Informed by the work of Laughlin and Booth, the paper analyses the role of accounting and accountability practices within the 15th century Roman Catholic Church, more specifically within the Diocese of Ferrara (northern Italy), in order to determine the presence of a sacred-secular dichotomy. Pope Eugenius IV had embarked upon a comprehensive reform of the Church to counter the spreading moral corruption within the clergy and the subsequent disaffection with the Church by many believers. The reforms were notable not only for the Pope’s determination to restore the moral authority and power of the Church but for the essential contributions of ‘profane’ financial and accounting practices to the success of the reforms.
Design/methodology/approach – Original 15th century Latin documents and account books of the Diocese of Ferrara are used to highlight the link between the new sacred values imposed by Pope Eugenius IV’s reforms and accounting and accountability practices.
Findings – The documents reveal that secular accounting and accountability practices were not regarded as necessarily antithetical to religious values, as would be expected by Laughlin and Booth. Instead, they were seen to assume a role which was complementary to the Church’s religious mission. Indeed, they were essential to its sacred mission during a period in which the Pope sought to arrest the moral decay of the clergy and reinstate the Church’s authority. Research implications/limitations – The paper shows that the sacred-secular dichotomy cannot be considered as a priori valid in space and time. There is also scope for examining other Italian dioceses where there was little evidence of Pope Eugenius’ reforms.
Originality/value – The paper presents a critique of the sacred-secular divide paradigm by considering an under-researched period and a non Anglo-Saxon context.

Justifying accounting change through global discourses and legitimation strategies. The case of the UK central government.

Accounting has been viewed, especially through the lens of the recent managerial reforms, as a neutral technology that, in the hands of rational managers, can support effective and efficient decision making. However, the introduction of new accounting practices can be framed in a variety of ways, from value-neutral procedures to ideologically-charged instruments. Focusing on financial accounting, budgeting and performance management changes in the UK central government, and through extensive textual analysis and interviews in three government departments, this paper investigates: how accounting changes are discussed and introduced at the political level through the use of global discourses; and what strategies organisational actors subsequently use to talk about and legitimate such discourses at different organisational levels. The results shows that in political discussions there is a consistency between the discourses (largely NPM) and the accounting-related changes that took place. The research suggests that a cocktail of legitimation strategies was used by organisational actors to construct a sense of the changes, with authorisation, often in combination with, at the very least, rationalisation strategies most widely utilised. While previous literature posits that different actors tend to use the same rhetorical sequences during periods of change, this study highlights differences at different organisational levels.