Power and international accounting standard setting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study provides significant empirical data and analysis on the international standard‐setting process as conducted by the forerunner of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). It reveals the influences from four key stakeholder groups (users, preparers, accountants, and regulators) in order to ascertain why International Accounting Standards (IAS) turn out the way they do. Design/methodology/approach In‐depth interviews with board representatives and content analysis of documents were used to provide triangulating perspectives. The concept of power from the sociological and political science literature provides the theoretical lens. The standard setting projects on segment reporting and intangible assets were studied in detail. Findings The results show that the process can be best characterized as a mixed power system where no party is accorded the absolute power potential to dictate IAS. Nonetheless, while the user group is the target beneficiaries of IAS, the preparer group has significant influence, as inferred from the changes made to the IAS in line with the preparers' preferences. Research limitations/implications There is always the possibility of researchers missing out on “secret” exercise of power, given that the focus of this study was on “public” paths of influence. After this study, the IASB's meetings became open to public, providing new opportunities for future research. Originality/value This paper contributes to understanding accounting standard setting for international harmonization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it