The winding road to fair value accounting in China: a social movement analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine China’s stop-start adoption of fair value accounting (FVA) into its national accounting standards. The paper analyzes how FVA standards promoted by transnational organizations were eventually adopted in China despite its conservative accounting traditions. Design/methodology/approach The study uses archival records and an analytic framework adapted from the studies of social movements to identify the institutional factors that differ between China’ first unsuccessful attempt to adopt FVA and its second successful attempt. Findings Shared interests of elite national and international groups, creation of social infrastructure, marshaling of key resources, and specific actions to frame FVA standards are found to be crucial factors supporting FVA reform in China. Practical implications The study helps advance our understanding of dissemination of international accounting regulations in non-Western societies. The findings can help accounting standard setters to avoid costly failures. Originality/value The study provides a structured analysis of the propagation of global accounting regulations. It exposes the factors in the failure and success of FVA adoption in China.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".