Investigating ISA adaptation in a developing country context: the selective influence of Big Four affiliates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines how the national process of adapting the International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) unfolds in developing countries, focusing on the case of Egypt. The study relies on data gathered from 33 semi-structured interviews with government officials and senior auditors alongside documentary evidence. Our findings show how legacy state institutions that were involved in the national standard-setting committee have largely fallen short of their aspirations to align local auditing standards with the expectations set out in the ISAs. The lack of a coherent approach to developing state policy objectives, resources, and public consultation, together with technical demands and translation difficulties, hampered the process. Such weaknesses provided an opportunity for the local Big Four affiliates to become deeply involved. The firms’ strategic manoeuvres were driven not only by a material desire to protect their market position/status but also by a commitment to a perceived national duty to support government attempts at national standard-setting. Importantly, our findings reveal the selectivity of such interventions and the differential impact of ISA adaptation on the diverse constituency of audit firms. Theoretically, we propose the institutional void perspective to conceptualise the intervention of private actors as well as to articulate the elements of a void in an audit regulatory process. While Big Four firms typically seek to position themselves in such processes, we argue that international reforms and policies should focus on fostering a more inclusive, accountable, and deliberative system that promotes the presence of diverse, independent and representative local audit actors.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".