Current Practices and Issues in the Accounting for Government Infrastructure Assets
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 paper aims to explore the current accounting practices and issues in accounting for infrastructure assets in Malaysian public sector organisations. Comparatively, this paper also provides an overview of current practices in other countries. Design/ Methodology/ Approach: Data collection was through reviews of extant literature, accounting standards and guidelines by the Accountant General’s Department of Malaysia (AGD), including guidelines and government publications in other countries. Findings: Accounting practice for infrastructure assets varies across countries. There is no specific accounting standard for infrastructure assets. Instead, most countries including Australia, Austria, Canada, France, New Zealand and Malaysia follow the accounting standards for property, plant and equipment to account for infrastructure assets. However, given the unique nature of infrastructure assets, there are issues in identifying what constitute infrastructure assets and determining which government organisations have control over their assets. In addition, challenges in recognition and valuation of infrastructure assets, which include initial and subsequent measurement, depreciation and disclosure also exist. Practical Implications: The government’s spending for infrastructure assets represents a significant proportion of its budget. Therefore, accurate accounting treatments and reporting of the assets is pivotal. This paper aimsto present an update to policy makers and practitioners on current pertinent accounting standards, issues and accounting practices at the international level as well as at the Malaysian federal government. Originality/ Value: Research on accounting for infrastructure assets is still limited. Findings from this research will add to the body of knowledge by highlighting the main issues and providing basis for further investigation. Keywords: Infrastructure assets, definition, recognition, IPSAS17, MPSAS17.
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 | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it