Public sector accounting education (PSAE) has recently attracted increasing attention from both scholars and practitioners. Nonetheless, there is still an education/practice gap that undermines public servants’ ability to face the complexity of the current working environment. This paper reviews and critiques the PSAE literature, identifies the main practical issues affecting the field, and outlines how education providers can improve formal and non-formal curricula and training. Results reveal that the exploratory nature of a large part of the PSAE research and the lack of a practical perspective able to bridge the gap between PSAE and the requirements in practice of the current public sector context demonstrate the pressing need to develop the topic and how it is investigated. The present review is one of the first attempts to investigate PSAE with a focus on the practical approaches that could be used for the development of graduates and public servants’ accounting competencies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgostinoD.ArnaboldiM., & LemaM. D. (2020). New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator of digital transformation in public service delivery. Public Money and Management, 41(1), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.1764206
2.
AllenR.Schiavo-CampoS., & GarrityT. C. (2004). Assessing and reforming public financial management: A new approach. World Bank Publications.
AndrewsM.CangianoM.ColeN.de RenzioP.KrauseP., & SeligmannR. (2014). This is PFM(Working Paper No. 285), Center for International Development. Harvard University.
5.
Anessi-PessinaE.BarberaC.SiciliaM., & SteccoliniI. (2016). Public sector budgeting: A European review of accounting and public management journals. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(3), 491–519. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2013-1532
6.
BaldiS. (1998). Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations: A network-analytic model. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 829–846. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657504
7.
BiemansW.GriffinA., & MoenaertR. (2010). In search of the classics: A study of the impact of JPIM papers from 1984 to 2003. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(4), 461–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00730.x
8.
BracciE.PapiL.BigoniM.Deidda GagliardoE., & BrunsH.-J. (2019). Public value and public sector accounting research: A structured literature review. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 31(1), 103–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-07-2018-0077
9.
BroadbentJ., & GuthrieJ. (2008). Public sector to public services: 20 years of ‘contextual’ accounting research. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(2), 129–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810854383
10.
BruscaI.CaperchioneE.CohenS., & Manes-RossiF. (2015). Comparing accounting systems in Europe. In BruscaI.CaperchioneE.CohenS., & Manes-RossiF. (Eds.), Public sector accounting and auditing in Europe. The challenge of harmonization (pp. 235–251). Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
BruscaI.CaperchioneE.CohenS., & Manes-RossiF. (2018). IPSAS, EPSAS and other challenges in European Public Sector Accounting and Auditing. In OngaroE. & Van ThielS. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe (pp. 165–185). Palgrave Macmillan.
12.
CaidenN. (1985). The boundaries of public budgeting: Issues for education in tumultuous times. Public Administration Review, 45(4), 495–502. https://doi.org/10.2307/3110034
13.
CampbellA.LindsayD. H., & FooteP. S. (2000). Does a government/not-for-profit program requirement improve CPA exam pass rates?The Journal of Government Financial Management, 49(2), 38–44.
14.
CaperchioneE. (2015). Standard-setting in the public sector: State of the art. In BruscaI.CaperchioneE.CohenS., & Manes-RossiF. (Eds.), Public sector accounting and auditing in Europe. The challenge of harmonization (pp. 1–11). Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
ChristiaensJ.VanheeC.Manes-RossiF.AversanoN., & Van CauwenbergeP. (2015). The effect of IPSAS on reforming government financial reporting: An international comparison. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(1), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314546580
16.
DonatellaP. (2020). Determinants of mandatory disclosure compliance in Swedish municipalities. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 32(2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-03-2019-0048
17.
DumayJ.BernardiC.GuthrieJ., & DemartiniP. (2016). Integrated reporting: A structured literature review. Accounting Forum, 40(3), 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2016.06.001
18.
EgenolfR., & WillisG. W. K. (1983). Status of public sector accounting education. Journal of Accounting Education, 1(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0748-5751(83)90029-5
19.
FerryL.SalitererI.SteccoliniI., & TuckerB. (2018). The research-practice gap on accounting in the public services: An international analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.
20.
GarfieldE. (1964). Science citation index: A new decision in indexing. Science, 144(3619), 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.144.3619.649
21.
GarlattiA.FedeleP.IacuzziS., & Garlatti CostaG. (2020). Coproduction and cost efficiency: A structured literature review. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 32(1), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-12-2018-0142
22.
HayesA. F., & KrippendorffK. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664
23.
HodgeG. A., & GreveC. (2017). On public–private partnership performance: A contemporary review. Public Works Management & Policy, 22(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X16657830
24.
HoqueZ. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research. The British Accounting Review, 46(1), 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2013.10.003
25.
IacuzziS. (2022). An appraisal of financial indicators for local government: A structured literature review. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 34(6), 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-04-2021-0064
26.
JacobsK. (2012). Making sense of social practice: Theoretical pluralism in public sector accounting research. Financial Accountability & Management, 28(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.2011.00534.x
27.
JacobsK. (2013). Making sense of social practice: Theoretical pluralism in public sector accounting research: A reply. Financial Accountability & Management, 29(1), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12005
28.
KrippendorffK. (2013). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications.
29.
LapsleyI., & MillerP. (2019). Transforming the public sector: 1998–2018. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(8), 2211–2225. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2018-3511
30.
MassaroM.DumayJ., & GarlattiA. (2015). Public sector knowledge management: A structured literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(3), 530–558. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2014-0466
31.
MassaroM.DumayJ., & GuthrieJ. (2016). On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(5), 767–801. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1939
32.
ModellS. (2013). Making sense of social practice: Theoretical pluralism in public sector accounting research: A comment. Financial Accountability & Management, 29(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12004
33.
MongeonP., & Paul-HusA. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
34.
OECD/IFAC. (2017). Accrual practices and reform experiences in OECD countries. OECD Publishing.
35.
OulasvirtaL., & RönkköJ. (2023). Public Financial Management: Budgeting, accountability and auditing. In PekkolaE.JohansonJ. E., & MykkänenM. (Eds.), Finnish public administration. Governance and public management (pp. 111–126). Palgrave Macmillan.
36.
PetticrewM., & RobertsH. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Wiley-Blackwell.
37.
SantisS.GrossiG., & BisognoM. (2018). Public sector consolidated financial statements: a structured literature review. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 30(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-02-2018-0017
38.
SchmidthuberL.HilgersD., & HofmanS. (2022). International public sector accounting standards (IPSASs). A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Financial Accountability & Management, 38(2), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12265
39.
SerenkoA., & DumayJ. (2015). Citation classics published in knowledge management journals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 401–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2014-0220
40.
SteccoliniI. (2019). Accounting and the post-new public management: Re-considering publicness in accounting research. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(1), 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2018-3423
41.
ThomM. (2019). Teaching public financial management: An integrated approach to a critical subject. Teaching Public Administration, 37(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739418810996
42.
TuckerB.FerryL.SteccoliniI., & SalitererI. (2020). Debate: The practical relevance of public sector accounting research; time to take a stand—A response to van Helden. Public Money & Management, 40(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1660098
van HeldenJ. (2019). New development: The practical relevance of public sector accounting research; time to take a stand. Public Money and Management, 39(8), 595–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1621053
45.
VašičekV., & RojeG. (2019). Public sector accounting, auditing and control in South Eastern Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.
46.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.
