Determinants of different accounting methods choice in Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the factors that determine the choice of multiple accounting methods in Tanzania. The study investigates managers' decisions to choose accounting methods in a positive accounting theory perspective using panel data covering 60 years from 15 companies listed on the Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange. Design/methodology/approach Data were extracted from the companies' annual reports. Possible determinants of the choice of accounting methods are identified based on the positive accounting theory, including firm size, leverage, internal financing, proportion of non‐executive directors, ownership dilution, and labour force intensity. The study then utilises multiple regression analysis to determine the significant factors influencing the manager's choice of accounting methods. Findings The results show that the significant factors are company size, internal financing, proportion of non‐executive directors, and labour force. Contrary to the outcome of prior studies, the authors found that company size and internal financing are positively related with income strategy. The study proves statistically that there is a strong association between choice of accounting methods and income strategy. Originality/value The paper makes several contributions to the body of knowledge. First, in the Tanzanian context, it determines the factors which affect choice of accounting methods. Second, the study identifies the proportion of non‐executive directors as a new factor impinging on the choice of accounting policies. Finally, this study shows for the first time that the use of ratio of income‐increasing accounting policies to total number of accounting policies can be used as a dependent variable.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".