This study adds new insights to the academic debate on the effectiveness of both accrual-basis systems and the adoption of harmonised accounting rules at the international level by considering an additional perspective: their effect on corruption. This study investigates a sample of 33 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries for the period 2010–2014, creating a panel data set that allows the taking of an international comparative approach. The results indicate that corruption is reduced as governments advance in public-sector accounting reforms, adopting International Public Sector Accounting Standards, or implementing accrual-basis systems.
Points for practitioners
Our findings show the relevant role played by public sector accounting reforms in reducing corruption. Concretely, International Public Sector Accounting Standards implementation and accrual-accounting adoption can attenuate the information advantage of politicians towards citizens, reducing the level of corruption. This article contributes to the debate concerning the institutional arrangements that should be implemented to reduce corruption.
AdesADi TellaA (1999)
Rents, competition and corruption.American Economic Review89: 982–994.
2.
ArellanoMBondS (1991)
Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations.Review of Economic Studies58: 277–297.
3.
ArellanoMBoverO (1995)
Another look at the instrumental variables estimation of error components models.Journal of Econometrics68: 29–51.
4.
BallI (2012)
New development: Transparency in the public sector.Public Money and Management32(1): 35–40.
5.
BartonA (2009)
The use and abuse of accounting in the public sector financial management reform program in Australia.Abacus45(2): 221–248.
6.
BastidaFBenitoB (2007)
Central government budget practices and transparency: An international comparison.Public Administration85(3): 667–716.
7.
BaumCSchafferMStillmanS (2003)
Instrumental variables and GMM: Estimation and testing.Stata Journal3(1): 1–31.
8.
BellancaS (2014)
Budgetary transparency in the European Union: The role of IPSAS.International Advances in Economic Research20: 455–456.
9.
BellancaSVandernootJ (2014)
International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) implementation in the European Union (EU) member states. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing10(3): 257–269.
10.
BenitoBBruscaIMontesinosV (2007)
The harmonization of government financial information systems: The role of the IPSASs.International Review of Administrative Sciences73(2): 293–317.
11.
BergmannA (2012)
The influence of the nature of government accounting and reporting in decision-making: Evidence from Switzerland.Public Money and Management32(1): 15–20.
12.
BlöndalJR (2002)
Accrual accounting and budgeting: Key issues and recent developments. OECD Journal on Budgeting3(1): 43–60.
13.
BlundellRBondS (1998)
Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models.Journal of Econometrics87(1): 115–143.
14.
BoyneGA (1997)
Public choice theory and local government structure: An evaluation of reorganisation in Scotland and Wales.Local Government Studies23(3): 56–72.
15.
BruscaICaperchioneECohenS, et al. (2015) Public Sector Accounting and Auditing in Europe. The Challenge of Harmonisation.
Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
BruscaICaperchioneECohenS, et al. (2018) IPSAS, EPSAS and other challenges in European public sector accounting and auditing. In: OngaroEVan ThielS (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe.
London:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 165–186.
17.
BuchananJM (2009) Politics without romance: A sketch of positive public choice theory and its normative implications. In: BuchananJTollisonR (eds) The Theory of Public Choice – II.
Michigan:
The University of Michigan Press.
18.
Caba-PérezCLópez-HernándezAM (2009)
Governmental financial transparency in MERCOSUR member countries.International Review of Administrative Sciences75(1): 169–181.
19.
CaperchioneESalvatoriF (2012)
Rethinking the relationship between local government and financial markets.Public Money & Management32(1): 21–25.
20.
ChanJL (2003)
Government accounting: An assessment of theory, purposes and standards.Public Money & Management23(1): 13–20.
21.
ChristiaensJ (2004)
Capital assets in governmental accounting reforms: Comparing Flemish technical issues with international standards. European Accounting Review13(4): 743–770.
22.
Christiaens J and Rommel J (2008) Accrual accounting reforms: only for businesslike (parts of) governments. Financial Accountability & Management 24(1): 59–75.
23.
ChristiaensJReyniersBRolléC (2010)
Impact of IPSAS on reforming governmental financial information systems: A comparative study.International Review of Administrative Sciences76(3): 537–554.
24.
ChristiaensJVanheeCManes-RossiF, et al. (2015)
The effect of IPSAS on reforming governmental financial reporting: An international comparison.International Review of Administrative Sciences81(1): 158–177.
DahlbergSHolmbergSRothsteinB, et al. (2018) The Quality of Government Basic Dataset, version Jan18. University of Gothenburg, Quality of Government Institute, DOI: 10.18157/QoGBasJan18 (accessed 25 February 2018).
27.
De MingoACCerrillo-i-MartínezA (2018)
Improving records management to promote transparency and prevent corruption.International Journal of Information Management38(1): 256–261.
28.
DonchevDUjhelyiG (2014)
What do corruption indices measure?Economics & Politics26(2): 309–331.
29.
EC (European Commission) (2013) Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Towards implementing harmonised public sector accounting standards in member states. The suitability of IPSAS for the member states. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52013DC0114 (accessed 30 March 2018).
30.
Gomes P, Fernandes M J and Da Costa Carvalho J B (2015) The international harmonization process of public sector accounting in Portugal: the perspective of different stakeholders. International Journal of Public Administration 38(4): 268–281.
31.
GuariniE (2016)
The day after: Newly-elected politicians and the use of accounting information.Public Money & Management36(7): 499–506.
32.
GuthrieJ (1998)
Application of accrual accounting in the Australian public sector: Rhetoric or reality?Financial Accountability and Management14(1): 1–19.
33.
HerzfeldTWeissC (2003)
Corruption and legal (in)effectiveness: An empirical investigation.European Journal of Political Economy19(3): 621–632.
34.
IFAC (International Federation of Accountants) (2003) Handbook on International Public Sector Accounting Standards.
New York, NY:
International Federation of Accountants.
35.
JanssenMCharalabidisYZuiderwijkA (2012)
Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government.Information Systems Management29(4): 258–268.
36.
JensenMCMecklingWH (1976)
Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure.Journal of Financial Economics3(4): 305–360.
37.
JusticeJBMelitskiJSmithDL (2006)
E-government as an instrument of fiscal accountability and responsiveness: Do the best practitioners employ the best practices?American Review of Public Administration36(3): 301–322.
38.
KopitsGCraigJ (1998) Transparency in government operations. IMF Occasional Paper 158, International Monetary Fund, Washington.
39.
LapsleyIMussariRPaulssonG (2009)
On the adoption of accrual accounting in the public sector: A self-evident and problematic reform.European Accounting Review18(4): 719–723.
40.
LaswadFFisherROyelereP (2005)
Determinants of voluntary Internet financial reporting by local government authorities.Journal of Accounting and Public Policy24(2): 101–121.
41.
LedermanDLoayzaNVSoaresRR (2005)
Accountability and corruption: Political institutions matter.Economics and Politics17(1): 1–35.
42.
LindstedtCNaurinD (2010)
Transparency is not enough: Making transparency effective in reducing corruption.International Political Science Review31(3): 301–322.
43.
MbakuJM (2008)
Corruption clean-ups in Africa. Lessons from public choice theory. Journal of Asian and African Studies43(4): 427–456.
44.
MeijerAJCurtinDHillebrandtM (2012)
Open government: Connecting vision and voice.International Review of Administrative Sciences78(1): 10–29.
45.
MorettiD (2016)
Accrual practices and reform experiences in OECD countries: Results of the 2016 OECD Accruals Survey.OECD Journal on Budgeting16(1): 9–28.
46.
MuellerDC (1989) Public Choice II. A Revised Edition of Public Choice.
New York, NY:
Cambridge University.
47.
MussariR (2014)
EPSAS and the unification of public sector accounting across Europe. Accounting, Economics and Law4(3): 299–312.
48.
Navarro-GaleraARodríguez-BolívarMP (2011)
Modernizing governments in transitional and emerging economies through financial reporting based on international standards. International Review of Administrative Sciences77(3): 609–640.
49.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and IFAC (International Federation of Accountants) (2017) Accrual Practices and Reform Experiences in OECD Countries.
Paris:
OECD Publishing.
50.
OscarssonH (2008) Media and quality of government: A research overview, quality of government. Working Paper 2008:2012, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg.
51.
OulasvirtaL (2014)
The reluctance of a developed country to choose International Public Sector Accounting Standards of the IFAC: A critical case study.Critical Perspectives on Accounting25(3): 272–285.
52.
PerssonTTabelliniGTrebbiF (2003)
Electoral rules and corruption.Journal of the European Economic Association1(4): 958–989.
53.
PilcherRVan Der ZahnM (2010)
Local governments, unexpected depreciation and financial performance adjustment. Financial Accountability & Management26(3): 299–324.
54.
PinaVTorresL (2003)
Reshaping public sector accounting: An international comparative view.Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences20(4): 334–350.
55.
Rodríguez-BolívarMPAlcaide-MuñozLLópez-HernándezAM (2013)
Determinants of financial transparency in government. International Public Management Journal16(4): 557–602.
56.
RogoffKSibertA (1988)
Elections and macroeconomic policy cycles.The Review of Economic Studies55(1): 1–16.
57.
StalebrinkOJSaccoJF (2007)
Rationalization of financial statement fraud in government: An Austrian perspective.Critical Perspectives on Accounting18(4): 489–507.
58.
SutcliffeP (2003)
The standards programme of IFAC’s public sector committee.Public Money & Management23(1): 29–36.
59.
SvenssonJ (2005)
Eight questions about corruption.Journal of Economic Perspectives19(3): 19–42.
60.
ThorstenBClarkeGGroffA, et al. (2001)
New tools in comparative political economy: The Database of Political Institutions. World Bank Economic Review15(1): 165–176.
61.
TorresL (2004)
Accounting and accountability: Recent developments in government financial information systems.Public Administration and Development24(5): 447–456.
TreismanD (2000)
The causes of corruption: A cross-national study.Journal of Public Economics76(3): 399–457.
64.
TreismanD (2007)
What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research?Annual Review of Political Science10: 211–244.
65.
TreismanD (2014) What does cross-national empirical research reveal about the causes of corruption? In: HeywoodPM (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption.
London:
Routledge, pp. 109–123.
66.
WangX (2002)
Assessing administrative accountability.American Review of Public Administration32(3): 350–370.
67.
WerlinHH (1994)
Revisiting corruption: With a new definition.International Review of Administrative Sciences60(4): 547–558.
68.
WirtzBWBirkmeyerS (2015)
Open government: Origin, development, and conceptual perspectives.International Journal of Public Administration38(5): 381–396.
69.
WooldridgeJM (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data.
Cambridge:
The MIT Press.
WynneA (2008)
Accrual accounting for the public sector – A fad that has had its day?International Journal on Governmental Financial Management8(2): 117–132.
