accounting standards research paper

A review of the IFRS adoption literature

• Published: 03 June 2016
• Volume 21 , pages 898–1004, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

• Emmanuel T. De George 1 ,
• Xi Li 2 , 3 &
• Lakshmanan Shivakumar 1  

21k Accesses

277 Citations

27 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper reviews the literature on the effects of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption. It aims to provide a cohesive picture of empirical archival literature on how IFRS adoption affects: financial reporting quality, capital markets, corporate decision making, stewardship and governance, debt contracting, and auditing. In addition, we also present discussion of studies that focus on specific attributes of IFRS, and also provide detailed discussion of research design choices and empirical issues researchers face when evaluating IFRS adoption effects. We broadly summarize the development of the IFRS literature as follows: The majority of early studies paint IFRS as bringing significant benefits to adopting firms and countries in terms of (i) improved transparency, (ii) lower costs of capital, (iii) improved cross-country investments, (iv) better comparability of financial reports, and (v) increased following by foreign analysts. However, these documented benefits tended to vary significantly across firms and countries. More recent studies now attribute at least some of the earlier documented benefits to factors other than adoption of new accounting standards per se, such as enforcement changes. Other recent studies examining the effects of IFRS on the inclusion of accounting numbers in formal contracts point out that IFRS has lowered the contractibility of accounting numbers. Finally, we observe substantial variation in empirical designs across papers which makes it difficult to reconcile differences in their conclusions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The impact of corporate governance on financial performance: a cross-sector study

Wajdi Affes & Anis Jarboui

Meta-analyses on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): a literature review

Patrick Velte

The role of the external auditor in managing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reputation risk

Bright Asante-Appiah & Tamara A. Lambert

Stojilkovic ( 2011 ) and Jarolim and Oppinger ( 2012 ) discuss these criticisms. See also Financial Director , “Long Road Ahead as IASB remedies governance concerns,” April 14, 2014.

The initial evidence on IFRS effects could also be affected by the publication bias prevalent in social science research, whereby significant results tend to be published, as opposed to studies that fail to reject the null.

Throughout this review, we distinguish between the contracting and valuation roles of accounting numbers, with the former referring to the use of accounting numbers within formal contracts (such as in debt covenants) and the latter referring to the use of accounting numbers for valuation decisions. We classify the effects of accounting on the initiation and terms of contracts under the valuation role.

IAS were issued by the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) until 2000. In 2001, the IASC was succeeded by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), which adopted the earlier-issued IAS and started issuing new standards as IFRS. Throughout this review, we use the acronyms IFRS and IAS interchangeably to describe IFRS.

Our search period starts in 1999, as we find no published papers related to IAS in these journals before then.

Chan, Lin, and Mo ( 2010 ) examine the effect of IFRS adoption on tax non-compliance.

For a detailed history of the IASC and its evolution into the IASB, we refer the reader to studies by Camfferman and Zeff ( 2007 ) and Zeff ( 2012 ).

This regulation (Regulation 1606/2002) was adopted by the Council of Ministers of the EU on June 7, 2002.

This regulation was subsequently enacted into law by the European Parliament on Sept. 11, 2002.

Barth et al. ( 2014 ), who analyze reconciliations of net income across IFRS and local GAAP, find that the effect of IFRS on net income tends to be larger for firms in the UK than in many other European countries.

See http://www.ifrs.org/About-us/Pages/IFRS-Foundation-and-IASB.aspx .

Comment letter to SEC on allowing US issuers to prepare financial statements in accordance with IFRS (August 7, 2007).

Along these lines, publicly listed companies within the EU must comply only with IFRS endorsed by the European Commission (EC). The EC is not a national standard setter per se but a transnational EU committee.

On Nov. 19, 2004, the EC endorsed IAS 39 with the exception of two “carve-outs”: one relating to the Full Fair Value Option and the other to hedge accounting. In July 2005, the EU adopted an amended version of the regulation for the fair value option. Some hedge accounting requirements under IAS 39 are still to be endorsed.

“IASB chairman offers respite in big impact pronouncements” ( http://www.cch.co.uk/ , December 17, 2004).

See “IFRS under attack,” Accountancy , Sept. 1, 2005.

“Publication of the first quantified explanations of the impact of IFRS heralds the start of a very different phase in their implementation—communicating the findings,” Accountancy Live , January 2005.

“Avoid nasty shocks: get to grips with IFRS,” Accounting , February 2005.

“IFRS sparks share price fears,” Accountancy , December 2004.

“Tardy IFRS prep will lead to audit qualifications,” Accountancy , September 2004.

“Investors fear IFRS surprises,” Accountancy Age , July 2005.

Bartov et al. ( 2005 ) do not find evidence to suggest that US GAAP are of a higher value relevance than IAS, suggesting that their results are driven by a higher value relevance of both US GAAP and IAS over local German GAAP.

Venkatachalam ( 1999 ) provides a nice discussion of alternative explanations for and interpretations of the mixed results of Harris and Muller ( 1999 ).

Truong ( 2012 ) provides corroborative evidence based on analysis of New Zealand firms. He documents a significant increase in information content over the 1994–2009 period, with a marked increase immediately following the adoption of IFRS.

We discuss the contamination issues associated with mandatory IFRS adoption studies in detail in Sect.  10 .

The eight items are listed as follows: existence of statement of cash flow, disclosure of accounting policies, disclosure of a change in accounting policies, disclosure of the effect of a change in accounting estimates, disclosure of prior period adjustments, disclosure of post-balance-sheet events, disclosure of related party transactions, and disclosure of segment information. See Table A1 (p. 438) of Ashbaugh and Pincus ( 2001 ) for specific details about their measures.

For each firm, Lang et al. ( 2010 ) select matched peers from firms that are domiciled in a different country but have the same two-digit SIC classification as the first firm.

To ensure that the transnational information is relevant for a domestic firm, Wang ( 2014 ) requires matched non-announcing firms to have foreign sales and to not have announced their own earnings before the earnings announcements by a global leader.

Wang ( 2014 ) and Yip and Young ( 2012 ) exclude financial firms from their samples. Wang ( 2014 ) also excludes utilities.

We discuss these arguments in greater detail in Sect.  4.3 .

DeFond et al. ( 2011 ) omit the year of mandatory adoption (i.e., 2005), arguing that investors may not fully understand IFRS-compliant financial statements or that preparers might not have applied new rules consistently in this transition year.

Given that IFRS adoption is associated with an increase in the issuance of annual reports in English (Jeanjean et al. 2015 ), the evidence related to cross-border capital flow around IFRS adoption may also reflect the benefits of lowering language barriers rather than those of IFRS reporting.

Young and Zeng ( 2015 ) assess the performance of multiples-based valuation using three criteria: pricing accuracy (defined as the difference between the actual stock price and valuation implied by foreign peers), the ability of the implied values to explain cross-sectional variations in observed stock prices, and the ability of foreign peers’ valuation multiples to predict firms’ future market-to-book multiples.

Although Bae et al. ( 2008 ) do not focus on IFRS adoption, in a supplementary analysis, they document that analysts familiar with IAS are more likely to start following a firm after its voluntary IAS adoption.

For each industry-country, DeFond et al. ( 2011 ) measure accounting uniformity as the number of firms in that industry and country using IFRS in the post-IFRS-adoption period, divided by the number of firms in that industry and country using local accounting standards in the pre-IFRS-adoption period.

In an economy where the level of disclosure is the same for all firms, estimation risk can be diversified away. However, Barry and Brown ( 1985 ) show that differential information (i.e., cross-firm differences in the amount of available information about the firm) affects pricing.

Easley and O’Hara ( 2004 ) develop a model in which firms with less public and more private information face a greater information risk and higher expected returns. They argue that, due to their information disadvantage relative to informed investors, uninformed investors end up holding suboptimal portfolios with too many stocks with pending bad news and too few with pending good news. As this risk cannot be diversified away by holding more stocks, the risk gets priced in equilibrium. However, Lambert et al. (2007, pp. 396–397) point out that the information effect on stock prices is diversified away when the number of traders becomes large.

Daske et al. ( 2013 ) use three proxies to identify major changes in firm-level reporting incentives related to voluntary (and mandatory) IAS adoption. The first is the primary factor drawn from factor analysis of a variety of firm attributes, such as size, leverage, profitability, book-to-market ratio, percentage of closely held shares, and percentage of foreign sales to total sales. The second is the negative of the ratio of absolute value of accruals to the absolute value of cash flow from operations. The final proxy is the number of analysts following a firm. The authors then use the changes in these proxies over six years around IAS to sort firms into “serious” and “label” adopters based on whether the changes are above or below the median change.

Li ( 2010 ) measures cost of equity capital as the average implied cost of capital measures estimated from the four different valuation models.

In Duffie and Lando’s ( 2001 ) model, the transparency of the accounting system is specifically characterized as the variance of the noise in asset values, which directly affects creditors’ ability to estimate the probability of default. Bhat et al. ( 2015 ) empirically measure transparency using analyst forecast dispersion and error.

For US stocks, Francis et al. ( 2005 ) and Bharath, Sunder, and Sunder ( 2008 ) provide evidence of a negative relationship between reporting quality and the cost of debt using accrual quality as a proxy for reporting quality.

Florou and Kosi ( 2015 ) limit their sample period to years before 2008 to avoid the financial crisis period. Chen et al. ( 2015b ) end their sample period in 2011. In addition, Florou and Kosi ( 2015 ) limit their sample to senior term loans, revolvers, and 364-day facilities.

In Florou and Kosi’s ( 2015 ) study, the indicator variable for mandatory IFRS adoption has a positive but insignificant coefficient in most of their regressions on the cost of private loans. Florou and Kosi’s ( 2015 ) sample has 8628 observations versus the 11,238 observations included by Chen et al. ( 2015b ) for the same period, i.e., 2000–2007. In addition, Florou and Kosi’s ( 2015 ) regression models include variables measuring default risk, such as O-score and distance to default, which load significantly.

Ball et al. ( 2015 ) provide the following reasons for why fair value emphasis lowers the relevance of IFRS numbers for inclusion in debt contracts. First, fair value gains and losses from shocks to the cash flows of assets are transitory, making current-period earnings a poorer predictor of future debt service capacity. Second, fair value gains and losses include shocks to the expected returns of assets. To the extent that these shocks are expected to reverse before debt maturity, they are irrelevant for debt contracting. Third, as debt contracts require repayment of the principal and interest and not the fair value of the debt, the IFRS option to fair value certain financial liabilities lowers the contracting value.

Timely loss recognition removes incentives for managers to continue loss-making projects and invest in new unprofitable projects, particularly when the negative consequences of such projects will be unknown to outsiders for long periods. However, such concerns do not arise for managers continuing profit-making projects. Furthermore, conditionally conservative reporting can aid outside directors by attenuating managerial biases to report favorably. Finally, timely recognition of gains involves greater managerial subjectivity and lower verifiability, which lowers demand for contracting and stewardship purposes.

See studies by Bushman and Smith ( 2001 ), Armstrong et al. (2010b) , and Shivakumar ( 2013 ) for reviews.

For example, Indjejikian and Matejka ( 2009 ) find a decrease in the reliance of CFO bonus contracts on financial performance after SOX and attribute this finding to firms’ wanting to decrease CFOs’ incentives to misreport.

Although Paul ( 1992 ) predicts that the valuation role of earnings is independent of the managerial-incentive contracting role of earnings, Bushman, Engel, and Smith (2006) and Banker et al. ( 2009 ) extend the analysis and show empirically that earnings can play a role in both valuation and compensation contracts simultaneously.

In addition, Wu and Zhang ( 2009 ) examine the sensitivity of employee layoffs to accounting earnings after voluntary IAS adoption and find results consistent with those for CEO turnover.

Christensen et al. ( 2013 , Appendix A) provide a detailed discussion of enforcement changes within the EU.

They specifically calculate a country-level measure of concurrent reforms using data from the Annual Executive Opinion Survey conducted by the Institute for Management Development. Although the primary purpose of the survey is to provide quantifiable measurements of management practices, labor relations, and corruption, the survey explicitly asks respondents to evaluate the extent to which auditing and accounting practices are implemented in their firms adequately and the extent to which corporate boards supervise company management effectively. The authors measure the changes in these scores from the pre-IFRS to post-IFRS periods.

See Barth ( 2006 ), Laux and Leuz ( 2009 ), and Ball et al. ( 2015 ) for detailed discussions about fair value accounting.

Elad ( 2004 ) provides a discussion of the implementation of IAS 41 and offers a detailed comparison of US GAAP and IFRS in terms of the measurement of agricultural assets. Giner and Arce ( 2012 ) and McAnally, McGuire, and Weaver ( 2010 ) provide useful background information about the adoption of IFRS 2 and its comparison with SFAS 123 under US GAAP.

See Quagli and Avallone ( 2010 ) for a detailed discussion of IAS 40. The authors also provide empirical evidence that a firm’s decision to adopt fair value accounting for investment properties under IAS 40 is a function of information asymmetry, contractual efficiency, and managerial opportunism.

See Appendix 1 of Goncharov et al. ( 2014 ) for a full list of countries in relation to this issue.

In theory, firms can choose between the fair value and historical cost model under IFRS. However, in practice, all of Liang and Riedl’s ( 2014 ) sample firms use the fair value model. They attribute this to the UK’s legacy of using the fair value model for investment property assets under domestic UK GAAP.

Stolowy, Haller, and Klockhaus ( 2001 ) provide a detailed comparison of IAS 38 and French and German GAAP.

Effective January 1, 2016, IFRS require firms to account for bearer biological assets such as property, plant, and equipment.

Of the studies adopting a single-country research design, five focus on firms cross-listed in the US, and one uses firms cross-listed in the UK. We count these studies as using the US or UK as a single treatment country.

Horton and Serafeim ( 2010 ) provide a detailed discussion of the effects of IFRS relative to local UK GAAP for key accounting areas, i.e., leases, employee benefits, share-based payments, deferred taxes, goodwill and intangibles, and financial instruments.

Christensen et al. ( 2013 ) present a test in Table 6 of their study to separately identify the liquidity effects arising exclusively from enforcement changes. They investigate liquidity changes for Japanese firms around 2004, when Japan changed its enforcement practices without changing its accounting standards. Although their analysis provides some evidence that supports the enforcement changes affecting stock liquidity, it is unclear whether these results can be generalized to other contexts or countries, as Japan saw large changes in the functioning of its banks and capital markets between 2001 and 2007, when regulators introduced new laws aimed at decreasing non-performing loans on banks’ balance sheets.

For details about the options available to EU member states in relation to mandatory IFRS adoption, see Table  1 of Pownall and Wieczynska ( 2012 ).

Although insignificant values for β 1 and β 2 in Eq. ( 1 ) would provide some comfort that IFRS-adopting and control firms are comparable and that IFRS adoption does not affect control samples, the values for these coefficients are not often reported separately, as they are subsumed by the inclusion of fixed effects in the difference-in-differences model.

Admati, A. R., & Pfleiderer, P. (2000). Forcing firms to talk: Financial disclosure regulation and externalities. Review of Financial Studies, 13 (3), 479–519.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmed, K., Chalmers, K., & Khlif, H. (2013a). A meta-analysis of IFRS adoption effects. The International Journal of Accounting, 48 , 173–217.

Ahmed, A. S., Neel, M., & Wang, D. (2013b). Does mandatory adoption of IFRS improve accounting quality? Preliminary evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30 (4), 1344–1372.

Altamuro, J., Beatty, A. L., & Weber, J. (2005). The effects of accelerated revenue recognition on earnings management and earnings informativeness: Evidence from SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101. The Accounting Review, 80 (2), 373–401.

Amihud, Y., & Mendelson, H. (1986). Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread. Journal of Financial Economics, 17 (2), 223–249.

Amiram, D. (2012). Financial information globalization and foreign investment decisions. Journal of International Accounting Research, 11 (2), 57–81.

Armstrong, C. S., Barth, M. E., Jagolinzer, A., & Riedl, E. (2010a). Market reaction to the adoption of IFRS in Europe. The Accounting Review, 85 (1), 31–61.

Armstrong, C. S., Core, J. E., Taylor, D. J., & Verrecchia, R. E. (2011). When does information asymmetry affect the cost of capital? Journal of Accounting Research, 49 (1), 1–40.

Armstrong, C. S., Guay, W. R., & Weber, J. P. (2010b). The role of information and financial reporting in corporate governance and debt contracting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50 , 179–234.

Ashbaugh, J., & Olsson, P. (2002). An exploratory study of the valuation properties of cross-listed firms’ IAS and US GAAP earnings and book values. The Accounting Review, 77 (1), 107–126.

Ashbaugh, H., & Pincus, M. (2001). Domestic accounting standards, International Accounting Standards, and the predictability of earnings. Journal of Accounting Research, 39 (3), 417–434.

Auer, K. (1996). Capital market reactions to earnings announcements: Empirical evidence on the difference in the information content of IAS-based earnings and EC directives-based earnings. European Accounting Review, 5 (4), 587–623.

Badertscher, B., Shroff, N., & White, H. (2013). Externalities of public firm presence: Evidence from private firms’ investment decisions. Journal of Financial Economics, 109 (3), 682–706.

Bae, K.-H., Tan, T., & Welker, M. (2008). International GAAP differences: The impact of foreign analysts. The Accounting Review, 83 (3), 593–628.

Ball, R. (2001). Infrastructure requirements for an economically efficient system of public financial reporting and disclosure. Brookings - Wharton Papers on Financial Services , 127–169.

Ball, R. (2006). International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): Pros and cons for investors. Accounting and Business Research, 36 (1), 5–27.

Ball, R., Jayaraman, S., & Shivakumar, L. (2012). Audited financial reporting and voluntary disclosure as compliments: A test of the confirmation hypothesis. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53 (1–2), 136–166.

Ball, R., Kothari, S. P., & Robin, A. (2000). The effect of international institutional factors on properties of accounting earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29 , 1–51.

Ball, R., Li, X., & Shivakumar, L. (2015). Contractibility and transparency of financial statement information prepared under IFRS: Evidence from debt contracts around IFRS adoption. Journal of Accounting Research, 53 (5), 915–963.

Ball, R., Robin, A., & Wu, J. (2003). Incentives versus standards: Properties of accounting income in four East Asian countries. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 36 , 235–270.

Ball, R., & Shivakumar, L. (2005). Earnings quality in UK private firms: Comparative loss recognition timeliness. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39 (1), 83–128.

Ball, R., & Shivakumar, L. (2008). How much new information is there in earnings? Journal of Accounting Research, 46 (5), 975–1016.

Google Scholar  

Banker, R. D., & Datar, S. (1989). Sensitivity, precision, and linear aggregation of signals for performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research, 27 , 21–39.

Banker, R. D., Huang, R., & Natarajan, R. (2009). Equity incentives and long-tem value created by SG&A expenditure. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28 (3), 794–830.

Barry, C. B., & Brown, S. J. (1985). Differential information and security market equilibrium. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 20 (December), 407–422.

Barth, M. E. (2006). Including estimates of the future in today’s financial statements. Accounting Horizons, 20 (3), 271–285.

Barth, M. E., Beaver, W. H., & Landsman, W. R. (2001). The relevance of value-relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting: Another view. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31 , 77–104.

Barth, M. E., Clinch, G., & Shibano, T. (1999). International accounting harmonization and global equity markets. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 26 , 201–235.

Barth, M. E., & Israel, D. (2013). Disentangling mandatory IFRS reporting and changes in enforcement. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56 , 178–188.

Barth, M. E., Landsman, W. R., & Lang, M. (2008). International accounting standards and accounting quality. Journal of Accounting Research , 467–498.

Barth, M. E., Landsman, W. R., Lang, M., & Williams, C. (2012). Are IFRS-based and US GAAP-based accounting amounts comparable? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 54 , 68–93.

Barth, M. E., Landsman, W. R., Young, D., & Zhuang, Z. (2014). Relevance of differences between net income based on IFRS and domestic standards for European firms. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 43 , 297–327.

Bartov, E., Goldberg, S. R., & Kim, M. (2005). Comparative value relevance among German, U.S., and International Accounting Standards: A German stock market perspective. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 20 , 95–119.

Beatty, A., & Weber, J. (2003). The effects of debt contracting on voluntary accounting method changes. The Accounting Review, 78 (1), 119–142.

Beneish, M. D., Miller, B. P., & Yohn, T. L. (2014). Macroeconomic evidence on the impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on equity and debt markets. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 34 (1), 1–27.

Bergstresser, D., & Philippon, T. (2006). CEO incentives and earnings management. Journal of Financial Economics, 80 (3), 511–529.

Bharath, S., Sunder, J., & Sunder, S. (2008). Accounting quality and debt contracting. The Accounting Review, 83 (1), 1–28.

Bhat, G., Callen, J. L., & Segal, D. (2014). Credit risk and IFRS: The case of credit default swaps. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 29 (2), 129–162.

Bhat, G., Callen, J. L., & Segal, D. (2015). Testing the transparency implications of mandatory IFRS adoption: The spread/maturity relation of credit default swaps. Management Science (forthcoming).

Biddle, G. C., Callahan, C. M., Hong, H. A., & Knowles, R. L. (2013). Do adoptions of international financial reporting standards enhance capital investment efficiency? Working paper (November 2013). http://ssrn.com/abstract=2353693 .

Biddle, G. C., Hilary, G., & Verdi, R. S. (2009). How does financial reporting quality relate to investment efficiency? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 48 (2–3), 112–131.

Bilinksi, P., Lyssimachou, D., & Walker, M. (2013). Target price accuracy: International evidence. The Accounting Review, 88 (3), 825–851.

Botosan, C., & Plumlee, M. (2002). A re-examination of disclosure level and the expected cost of equity capital. Journal of Accounting Research, 40 , 21–40.

Bradshaw, M. T., Bushee, B. J., & Miller, G. S. (2004). Accounting choice, home bias, and U.S. investment in non-U.S. firms. Journal of Accounting Research, 42 (5), 795–841.

Brochet, F., Jagolinzer, A. D., & Riedl, E. J. (2013). Mandatory IFRS adoption and financial statement comparability. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30 (4), 1373–1400.

Brown, P., Preiato, J., & Tarca, A. (2014). Enforcement of accounting standards: An audit and enforcement proxy. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 41 (1 & 2), 1–52.

Bruggemann, U., Daske, H., Homburg, C., & Pope, P. F. (2012). How do individual investors react to global IFRS adoption? Working paper (August 2012). SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1458944 .

Bruggemann, U., Hitz, J., & Sellhorn, T. (2013). Intended and unintended consequences of mandatory IFRS adoption. European Accounting Review, 22 , 1–37.

Burns, N., & Kedia, S. (2006). The impact of performance-based compensation on misreporting. Journal of Financial Economics, 79 (1), 35–67.

Bushman, R., Chen, Q., Engel, E., & Smith, A. (2004). Financial accounting information, organizational complexity and corporate governance systems. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37 (2), 167–201.

Bushman, R., & Indjejikian, R. (1993). Accounting income, stock price and managerial compensation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 16 (1–3), 3–23.

Bushman, R., & Smith, A. (2001). Financial accounting information and corporate governance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32 , 237–333.

Byard, D., Li, Y., & Yu, Y. (2011). The effect of mandatory IFRS adoption on financial analysts’ information environment. Journal of Accounting Research, 49 (1), 69–96.

Cameron, A., Gelbach, J. B., & Miller, D. L. (2008). Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90 (3), 414–427.

Camfferman, K., & Zeff, S. A. (2007). Financial reporting and global capital markets: A history of the International Accounting Standards Committee, 1973–2000 . Oxford: Oxford Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

Cascino, S., & Gassen, J. (2015). What drives the comparability effect of mandatory IFRS adoption? Review of Accounting Studies, 20 , 242–282.

Chalmers, K. G., Clinch, G., & Godfrey, J. M. (2011a). Changes in value relevance of accounting information upon IFRS adoption: Evidence from Australia. Australian Journal of Management, 36 (2), 151–173.

Chalmers, K. G., Godfrey, J. M., & Webster, J. C. (2011b). Does goodwill impairment regime better reflect the underlying economic attributes of goodwill? Accounting and Finance, 51 , 634–660.

Chan, A. L., Hsu, A. W., & Lee, E. (2013). Does mandatory IFRS adoption affect the credit ratings of foreign firms cross-listed in the US? Accounting Horizons, 27 (3), 491–510.

Chan, K. H., Lin, K. Z., & Mo, P. L. L. (2010). Will a departure from tax-based accounting encourage tax noncompliance? Archival evidence from a transition economy. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50 , 58–73.

Chen, T., Chin, C. L., Wang, S., & Yao, C. (2015b). The effects of financial reporting on bank loan contracting in global markets: Evidence from mandatory IFRS adoption. Journal of International Accounting Research (forthcoming).

Chen, L. H., & Khurana, I. K. (2015). The impact of eliminating the Form 20-F reconciliation on shareholder wealth: Evidence from U.S. cross-listed firms. The Accounting Review, 90 (1), 199–228.

Chen, L. H., Ng, J., & Tsang, A. (2015a). The effect of mandatory IFRS adoption of international cross-listings. The Accounting Review, 90 (4), 1395–1435.

Chen, L. H., & Sami, H. (2008). Trading volume reaction to the earnings reconciliation from IAS to U.S. GAAP. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25 (1), 15–53.

Chen, L. H., & Sami, H. (2013). The impact of firm characteristics on trading volume reactions to the earnings reconciliation from IFRS to US GAAP. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30 (2), 697–718.

Chen, C., Young, D., & Zhuang, Z. (2013). Externalities of mandatory IFRS adoption: Evidence from cross-border spillover effects of financial information on investment efficiency. The Accounting Review, 88 (3), 881–914.

Chen, J. J., & Zhang, H. (2010). The impact of regulatory enforcement and audit upon IFRS compliance—Evidence from China. European Accounting Review, 19 (4), 665–692.

Cheung, E., Evans, E., & Wright, S. (2008). The adoption of IFRS in Australia: The case of AASB 138 (IAS 38) intangible assets. Australian Accounting Review, 46 (18), 248–256.

Christensen, H. B. (2012). Why do firms rarely adopt IFRS voluntarily? Academics find significant benefits and the costs appear to be low. Review of Accounting Studies, 17 , 518–525.

Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2013). Mandatory IFRS reporting and changes in enforcement. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56 (2–3), 147–177.

Christensen, H. B., Lee, E., & Walker, M. (2009). Do IFRS reconciliations convey information? The effect of debt contracting. Journal of Accounting Research, 47 (5), 1167–1199.

Christensen, H. B., Lee, E., Walker, M., & Zeng, C. (2015). Incentives or standards: What determines accounting quality changes around IFRS adoption. European Accounting Review, 24 (1), 31–61.

Christensen, H. B., & Nikolaev, V. V. (2013). Does fair value accounting for non-financial assets pass the market test? Review of Accounting Studies, 18 , 734–775.

Clarkson, P., Ferguson, C., & Hall, J. (2003). Auditor conservatism and voluntary disclosure: Evidence from the year 2000 systems issue. Accounting and Finance, 41 , 21–40.

Coles, J. L., & Loewenstein, U. (1988). Equilibrium pricing and portfolio composition in the presence of uncertain parameters. Journal of Financial Economics, 22 (2), 279–303.

Covrig, V. M., DeFond, M. L., & Hung, M. (2007). Home bias, foreign mutual fund holdings, and voluntary adoption of international accounting standards. Journal of Accounting Research, 45 (1), 41–70.

Cox, C. (2014). How America’s Participation in International Financial Reporting Standards Was Lost. In Speech to the 33rd annual SEC and financial reporting institute conference , June 5, 2014. http://dev.cfla-acfl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Cox_IFRS_speech-Jun05141.pdf .

Daske, H. (2006). Economic benefits of adopting IFRS or US-GAAP—Have the expected costs of equity capital really decreased? Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 33 (3), 329–373.

Daske, H., Hail, L., Leuz, C., & Verdi, R. (2008). Mandatory IFRS reporting around the world: Early evidence on the economic consequences. Journal of Accounting Research, 46 (5), 1085–1142.

Daske, H., Hail, L., Leuz, C., & Verdi, R. (2013). Adopting a label: Heterogeneity in the economic consequences around IAS/IFRS adoptions. Journal of Accounting Research, 51 (3), 495–547.

De Franco, G., Kothari, S. P., & Verdi, R. S. (2011). The benefits of financial statement comparability. Journal of Accounting Research, 49 (4), 895–931.

De George, E. T. (2015). Accounting harmonization and equity market contagion . Working paper (April 2015).

De George, E. T., Ferguson, C., & Spear, N. (2013). How much does IFRS cost? IFRS adoption and audit fees. The Accounting Review, 88 (2), 429–462.

Dechow, P., Ge, W., & Schrand, C. (2010). Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50 , 344–401.

DeFond, M. L., Erkens, D., & Zhang, J. (2016). Does PSM really eliminate the big N audit quality effect? Working paper, University of Southern California.

DeFond, M. L., Hu, X., Hung, M., & Li, S. (2011). The impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on foreign mutual fund ownership: The role of comparability. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51 , 240–258.

DeFond, M. L., Hung, M., Li, S., & Li, Y. (2015). Does mandatory IFRS adoption affect crash risk? The Accounting Review, 90 (1), 265–299.

Demerjian, P. R. (2012). Uncertainty and debt covenants . Working paper, Emory University.

Diamond, D., & Verrecchia, R. (1991). Disclosure, liquidity and the cost of capital. Journal of Finance, 46 (4), 1325–1355.

Diehl, K. A. (2010). The real cost of IFRS: The relationship between IFRS implementation and audit, tax, and other auditor fees. International Research Journal of Finance & Economics, 37 , 96–101.

Donelson, D. C., Jennings, R., & McInnis, J. M. (2015). Debt contracting and financial reporting: Evidence from survey of commercial lenders . Working paper, University of Texas at Austin.

Duffie, D., & Lando, D. (2001). Term structures of credit spreads with incomplete accounting information. Econometrica, 69 (3), 633–644.

Durnev, A., & Mangen, C. (2009). Corporate investments: Learnings from restatements. Journal of Accounting Research, 47 (3), 679–720.

Dye, R. A., & Sunder, S. (2001). Why not allow the FASB and IASB standards to compete in the U.S.? Accounting Horizons, 15 (3), 257–271.

Easley, D., & O’Hara, M. (2004). Information and the cost of capital. Journal of Finance, 59 (4), 1553–1583.

Elad, C. (2004). Fair value accounting in the agricultural section: Some implications for international accounting harmonization. European Accounting Review, 13 (4), 621–641.

Engel, E., Hayes, R. M., & Wang, X. (2003). CEO turnover and properties of accounting information. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 36 (1–3), 197–226.

Fang, V. W., Maffett, M., & Zhang, B. (2015). Foreign institutional ownership and global convergence of financial reporting practices. Journal of Accounting Research, 53 (3), 593–631.

Fernandes, N., Ferreria, M. A., Matos, P. P., & Murphy, K. J. (2012). Are US CEOs paid more? New international evidence. Review of Financial Studies, 26 (2), 323–367.

Fiechter, P., & Novotny-Farkas, Z. (2015). Fair value categorization under - IFRS, institutional environment and the value relevance of fair values . Working paper, Social Science Research Network.

Florou, A., & Kosi, U. (2015). Does mandatory IFRS adoption facilitate debt financing? Review of Accounting Studies, 20 , 1407–1456.

Florou, A., Kosi, U., & Pope, P. F. (2015). Are international accounting standards more credit relevant than domestic standards . Working paper, Kings College, London.

Florou, A., & Pope, P. F. (2012). Mandatory IFRS adoption and institutional investment decisions. The Accounting Review, 87 (6), 1993–2025.

Foster, G. (1981). Intra-industry information transfers associated with earnings releases. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3 , 201–232.

Fox, A., Hannah, G., Helliar, C., & Veneziani, M. (2013). The costs and benefits of IFRS implementation in the UK and Italy. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 14 (1), 86–101.

Francis, J. R., Huang, S. X., & Khurana, I. K. (2015). The role of similar accounting standards in cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Contemporary Accounting Research (forthcoming).

Francis, J. R., & Krishnan, J. (1999). Accounting accruals and auditor reporting conservatism. Contemporary Accounting Research, 16 (1), 135–165.

Francis, J., LaFond, R., Olsson, P., & Schipper, K. (2005). The market pricing of accruals quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39 , 295–327.

Freeman, R., & Tse, S. (1992). An earnings prediction approach to examining inter-company information transfer. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 15 , 509–523.

Gebhardt, G., & Novothy-Farkas, Z. (2011). Mandatory IFRS adoption and accounting quality. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 38 (3&4), 289–333.

Gigler, F., & Hemmer, T. (1998). On the frequency, quality, and informational role of mandatory financial reports. Journal of Accounting Research, 36 (supplement), 117–147.

Giner, B., & Arce, M. (2012). Lobbying on accounting standards: Evidence from IFRS 2 on share-based payments. European Accounting Review, 21 (4), 655–691.

Gjesdal, F. (1981). Accounting for stewardship. Journal of Accounting Research, 19 (1), 208–231.

Goncalves, R., Lopes, R. (2015). Value relevance of biological assets under IFRS . Working paper, University of Porto (March 2015).

Goncharov, I., Riedl, E. J., & Sellhorn, T. (2014). Fair value and audit fees. Review of Accounting Studies, 19 , 210–241.

Goodman, T., Neamtiu, M., Shroff, N., & White, H. (2014). Management forecast quality and capital investment decisions. The Accounting Review, 89 (1), 759–790.

Gow, I. D., Ormazabal, G., & Taylor, D. J. (2010). Correcting for cross-sectional and time-series dependence in accounting research. The Accounting Review, 85 (2), 483–512.

Griffin, P. A., Lont, D. H., & Sun, Y. (2009). Governance regulatory changes, international financial reporting standards, and New Zealand audit and non-audit fees: Empirical evidence. Accounting and Finance, 49 (4), 697–724.

Hail, L., Leuz, C., & Wysocki, P. (2010). Global accounting convergence and the potential adoption of IFRS by the U.S. (Part I): Conceptual underpinnings and economics analysis. Accounting Horizons, 24 (3), 355–394.

Hail, L., Tahoun, A., & Wang, C. (2014). Dividend payouts and information shocks. Journal of Accounting Research, 52 (2), 403–456.

Hamberg, M., Paananen, M., & Novak, J. (2011). The adoption of IFRS 3: The effects of managerial discretion and stock market reactions. European Accounting Review, 20 (2), 263–288.

Harris, T., & Muller, K. (1999). The market valuation of IAS versus US-GAAP accounting measures using Form 20-F reconciliations. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 26 (1–3), 285–312.

He, X., Wong, T. J., & Young, D. (2012). Challenges for implementation of fair-value accounting in emerging markets: Evidence from China. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29 (2), 538–562.

Holmstrom, B. (1979). Moral hazard and observability. Bell Journal of Economics, 10 , 74–91.

Holthausen, R. W., & Watts, R. L. (2001). The relevance of the value-relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31 , 3–75.

Hong, H. A. (2013). Does mandatory adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards decrease the voting premium for dual-class shares? The Accounting Review, 88 , 1289–1325.

Hong, H., Hung, M., & Lobo, G. (2014). The impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on IPOs in global capital markets. The Accounting Review, 89 (4), 1365–1397.

Horton, J., & Serafeim, G. (2010). Market reaction to and valuation of IFRS reconciliation adjustments: First evidence from the UK. Review of Accounting Studies, 15 , 725–751.

Horton, J., Serafeim, G., & Serafeim, I. (2013). Does mandatory IFRS adoption improve the information environment? Contemporary Accounting Research, 30 (1), 388–423.

Hsu, A. W.-H., & Pourjalali, H. (2015). The impact of IAS No. 27 on the market’s ability to anticipate future earnings. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32 (2), 789–813.

Huffman, A. (2014). Matching measurement to asset use: Evidence from IAS 41 . Working paper, Tulane University (November 2014).

Hughes, J., Liu, J., & Liu, J. (2007). Information, diversification, and cost of capital. The Accounting Review, 82 , 705–729.

Hung, M., & Subramanyam, K. R. (2007). Financial statement effects of adopting international accounting standards: The case of Germany. Review of Accounting Studies, 12 , 623–657.

ICAEW (2015). The effects of mandatory IFRS adoption in the EU: A review of empirical research. In Information for better markets . Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (forthcoming).

Indjejikian, R., & Matejka, M. (2009). CFO fiduciary responsibilities and annual bonus incentives. Journal of Accounting Research, 47 , 1061–1093.

International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2002). International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation , Annual Report 2002 (London).

Israeli, D. (2015). Recognition versus disclosure: Evidence from fair value of investor property. Review of Accounting Studies, 20 , 1457–1503.

Jamal, K., Colson, R. H., Bloomfield, R. J., Christensen, T. E., Moehrle, S. R., Ohlson, J., et al. (2010). A research based perspective on SEC’s proposed rule on roadmap for potential use of financial statements prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by U.S. issuers. Accounting Horizons, 24 (1), 139–147.

Jarolim, N., & Oppinger, C. (2012). Fair value accounting in times of financial crisis. Journal of Finance and Risk Perspectives, 1 (1), 67–90.

Jayaraman, S., Verdi, R. (2013). The effect of economic integration on accounting comparability: Evidence from the adoption of the euro . Working paper (June 2013). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2286699 .

Jeanjean, T., Stolowy, H., Erkens, M., & Yohn, T. (2015). International evidence on the impact of adopting English as an external reporting language. Journal of International Business Studies, 46 (2), 180–205.

Jones, S., & Higgins, A. D. (2006). Australia’s switch to international financial reporting standards: A perspective from account preparers. Accounting and Finance, 46 , 629–652.

Joos, P. M., & Lang, M. (1994). The effects of accounting diversity: Evidence from the European Union. Journal of Accounting Research, 32 , 141–168.

Joos, P. M., & Leung, E. (2013). Investor perceptions of potential IFRS adoption in the United States. The Accounting Review, 88 (2), 577–609.

Kang, J. K., & Stulz, R. (1997). Why is there is a home bias? An analysis of foreign portfolio equity ownership in Japan. Journal of Financial Economics, 46 , 3–28.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2007). Governance matters VI: Aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996–2006 . Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Khurana, I. K., & Michas, P. N. (2011). Mandatory IFRS adoption and the U.S. home bias. Accounting Horizons, 25 (4), 729–753.

Kim, Y., Li, H., & Li, S. (2012a). Does eliminating the Form 20-F reconciliation from IFRS to US GAAP have capital market consequences? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53 (1), 249–270.

Kim, J., Liu, X., & Zheng, L. (2012b). The impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on audit fees: Theory and evidence. The Accounting Review, 87 (6), 2061–2094.

Kim, J., & Shi, H. (2012). IFRS reporting firm-specific information flows and institutional environments: International evidence. Review of Accounting Studies, 17 , 474–517.

Kim, J., Tsui, J. S. L., & Yi, C. H. (2011). The voluntary adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards and loan contracting around the world. Review of Accounting Studies, 16 (4), 779–811.

Kinnunen, J., Niskanen, J., & Kasanen, E. (2000). To whom are IAS earnings informative? Domestic versus foreign shareholders’ perspectives. European Accounting Review, 9 (4), 499–517.

Kraft, P., & Landsman, W. (2014). Effect of mandatory IFRS adoption on accounting - based prediction models for CDS spreads . Working paper, New York University.

La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106 , 1113–1155.

Lai, C. Y., Li, Y., Shan, Y., & Taylor, S. (2013). Costs of mandatory international financial reporting standards: Evidence of reduced accrual reliability. Australian Journal of Management, 38 (3), 491–521.

Lambert, R., & Larcker, D. (1987). Accounting and market measures of performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 25 (supplement), 85–125.

Lambert, R., Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. (2007). Accounting information, disclosure, and the cost of capital. Journal of Accounting Research, 45 (2), 385–420.

Lamoreaux, P. T., Michas, P. N., & Schultz, W. L. (2015). Do accounting and audit quality affect World Bank lending? The Accounting Review, 90 (2), 703–738.

Landsman, W. R., Maydew, E. L., & Thornock, J. R. (2012). The information content of annual earnings announcements and mandatory adoption of IFRS. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53 , 34–54.

Lang, M., Maffett, M. G., & Owens, E. L. (2010). Earnings comovement and accounting comparability: The effects of mandatory IFRS adoption . Working paper, University of North Carolina, Chapel-Hill.

Lang, M., & Stice-Lawrence, L. (2015). Textual analysis and international financial reporting: Large sample evidence. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60 , 110–135.

Lantto, A.-M., & Sahlstrom, P. (2009). Impact of international financial reporting standard adoption on key financial ratios. Accounting and Finance, 49 , 341–361.

Larcker, D., & Rusticus, T. (2010). On the use of instrumental variables in accounting research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49 (3), 186–205.

Laux, C., & Leuz, C. (2009). The crisis of fair-value accounting: Making sense of the recent debate. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34 , 826–834.

Leuz, C. (2003). IAS versus U.S. GAAP: Information asymmetry-based evidence from Germany’s New Market. Journal of Accounting Research, 41 (3), 445–472.

Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. (2000). The economic consequences of increased disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 38 (supplement), 91–124.

Leuz, C., & Wysocki, P. (2016). The economics of disclosure and financial reporting regulation: Evidence and suggestions for future research. Journal of Accounting Research (forthcoming).

Levitt, A. (1998). The importance of high quality accounting standards. Accounting Horizons, 12 (2), 79–82.

Li, S. (2010). Does mandatory adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards in the European Union reduce the cost of equity capital? The Accounting Review, 85 (2), 607–636.

Li, X., & Yang, H. (2015). Mandatory financial reporting and voluntary disclosure: The effect of mandatory IFRS adoption on management forecasts. The Accounting Review (forthcoming). http://ssrn.com/abstract=2172014 .

Liang, L., & Riedl, E. (2014). The effect of fair value versus historical cost reporting model on analyst forecast accuracy. The Accounting Review, 89 , 1151–1177.

Liao, Q., Sellhorn, T., & Skaife, H. (2012). The cross-country comparability of IFRS earnings and book values: Evidence from France and Germany. Journal of International Accounting Research, 11 (1), 155–184.

Lim, C. Y., Lim, C. Y., & Lobo, G. (2013). IAS 39 reclassification choice and analyst earnings forecast properties. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32 , 342–356.

Lin, S., Riccardi, W., & Wang, C. (2012). Does accounting quality change following a switch from US GAAP to IFRS? Evidence from Germany. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 31 , 641–657.

Louis, H., & Urcan, O. (2014). The effect of IFRS on cross - border acquisitions . Working paper (July 2014). http://ssrn.com/abstract=2164995 .

Loureiro, G., & Taboada, A. G. (2015). Do improvements in the information environment enhance insiders’ ability to learn from outsiders? Journal of Accounting Research, 53 (4), 863–905.

Loyeung, A., Matolcsy, Z. P., Weber, J., & Wells, P. A. (2011). An analysis of the accounting errors that arise during the transition to IFRS . Working paper (January 2011). http://ssrn.com/abstract=1752485 .

Marra, A., & Mazzola, P. (2014). Is corporate board more effective under IFRS or “It’s just an illusion”? Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 29 , 31–60.

Marra, A., Mazzola, P., & Prencipe, A. (2011). Boarding monitoring and earnings management pre- and post-IFRS. The International Journal of Accounting, 46 , 205–230.

McAnally, M. L., McGuire, S. T., & Weaver, C. D. (2010). Assessing the financial reporting consequences of conversion to IFRS: The case of equity-based compensation. Accounting Horizons, 24 (4), 589–621.

Muller, K., Riedl, E., & Sellhorn, T. (2011). Mandatory fair value accounting and information asymmetry: Evidence from the European real estate industry. Management Science, 57 (6), 1138–1153.

Muller, K., Riedl, E., & Sellhorn, T. (2015). Recognition versus disclosure of fair values. The Accounting Review, 90 (6), 2411–2447.

Myers, S. C. (1984). Capital structure puzzle. Journal of Finance, 39 (3), 575–592.

Myers, S. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13 , 187–221.

Naranjo, P., Saavedra, D., & Verdi, R. S. (2014). Financial reporting regulation and financing decisions . Working paper, Social Sciences Research Network.

Nobes, C. (2001). GAAP 2001—A survey of national accounting rules benchmarked against international accounting standards. International Forum on Accountancy Development (IFAD) .

Nobes, C., & Zeff, S. A. (2008). Auditors’ affirmations of compliance with IFRS around the world: An exploratory study. Accounting Perspectives, 7 (4), 279–292.

Ozkan, N., Singer, Z., & You, H. (2012). Mandatory IFRS adoption and the contractual usefulness of accounting information in executive compensation. Journal of Accounting Research, 50 (4), 1077–1107.

Panaretou, A., Shackleton, M. B., & Taylor, P. A. (2013). Corporate risk management and hedge accounting. Contemporary Accounting Review, 30 (1), 116–139.

Paul, J. (1992). On the efficiency of stock-based compensation. Review of Financial Studies, 5 (3), 471–502.

Petersen, M. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies, 22 , 435–480.

Platikanova, P., & Perramon, J. (2012). Economic consequences of the first-time IFRS adoption in Europe. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting, 41 , 497–519.

Pope, P. F., & McLeay, S. J. (2011). The European IFRS experiment: Objectives, research challenges and some early evidence. Accounting and Business Research, 41 , 233–266.

Pownall, G., & Wieczynska, M. (2012). Deviations from the mandatory adoption of IFRS in the European Union: Implementation, enforcement, incentives, and compliance . Working paper.

Prather-Kinsey, J., & Tanyi, P. N. (2014). The market reaction to SEC IFRS-related announcements: The case of American Depository Receipt (ADR) firms in the U.S. Accounting Horizons, 28 (3), 579–603.

Quagli, A., & Avallone, F. (2010). Fair value or cost model? Drivers of choice for IAS 40 in the real estate industry. European Accounting Review, 19 (3), 461–493.

Raman, K., Shivakumar, L., & Tamayo, A. (2013). Target’s earnings quality and bidders’ takeover decisions. Review of Accounting Studies, 18 (4), 1050–1087.

Ramanna, K., & Sletten, W. (2014). Network effects in countries’ adoption of IFRS. The Accounting Review, 89 (4), 1517–1543.

Schipper, K. (2003). Principles-based accounting standards. Accounting Horizons, 17 (1), 61–72.

Schleicher, T., Tahoun, A., & Walker, M. (2010). IFRS adoption in Europe and investment-cash flow sensitivity: Outsider versus insider economies. The International Journal of Accounting, 45 , 143–168.

Sengupta, P. (1998). Corporate disclosure quality and the cost of debt. The Accounting Review, 73 (4), 459–474.

Shima, K. M., & Gordon, E. A. (2011). IFRS and the regulatory environment: The case of U.S. investor allocation choice. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 30 (5), 481–500.

Shivakumar, L. (2013). The role of financial reporting in debt contracting and in stewardship. Accounting and Business Research, 43 (4), 362–383.

Shroff, N. (2015). Corporate investment and changes in GAAP . MIT Sloan research paper no. 4972-12. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1977532 .

Shroff, N., Verdi, R. S., & Yu, G. (2014). Information environment and the investment decisions of multinational corporations. The Accounting Review, 89 (2), 759–790.

Sloan, R. G. (1993). Accounting earnings and top executive compensation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 16 (1–3), 55–100.

Smith, C. W., & Warner, J. B. (1979). On financial contracting: An analysis of bond covenants. Journal of Financial Economics, 7 (2), 117–161.

Soderstrom, N. S., & Sun, K. J. (2007). IFRS adoption and accounting quality: A review. European Accounting Review, 16 , 675–702.

Stojilkovic, M. (2011). Towards a criticism of fair value accounting. Economics and Organization, 8 (1), 91–109.

Stolowy, H., Haller, A., & Klockhaus, V. (2001). Accounting for brands in France and Germany compared with IAS 38 (Intangible Assets): An illustration of the difficulty of international harmonization. The International Journal of Accounting, 36 (2), 147–167.

Sunder, S. (2011). IFRS monopoly: The Pied Piper of financial reporting. Accounting Business Research, 41 (3), 291–306.

Tan, H., Wang, S., & Welker, M. (2011). Analyst following and forecast accuracy after mandated IFRS adoptions. Journal of Accounting Research, 49 , 1307–1357.

Truong, C. (2012). Information content of earnings announcements in the New Zealand equity market, a longitudinal analysis. Accounting and Finance, 52 , 403–432.

Tweedie, D. (2006). Prepared statement of Sir David Tweedie, Chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board before the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament . http://www.iasplus.com/resource/0601tweedieeuspeech.pdf .

Van Tendeloo, B., & Vanstraelen, A. (2005). Earnings management under German GAAP versus IFRS. European Accounting Review, 14 (1), 155–180.

Venkatachalam, M. (1999). Are 20-F reconciliations between IAS and US-GAAP value-relevant? A discussion. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 26 , 313–318.

Verriest, A., Gaeremynck, A., & Thornton, D. B. (2013). The impact of corporate governance on IFRS adoption choices. European Accounting Review, 22 (1), 39–77.

Voulgaris, G., Stathopoulos, K., & Walker, M. (2014). IFRS and the use of accounting-based performance measures in executive pay. The International Journal of Accounting, 49 (4), 479–514.

Wang, C. (2014). Accounting standards harmonization and financial statement comparability: Evidence from transnational information transfer. Journal of Accounting Research, 52 (4), 955–992.

Wang, S., & Welker, M. (2011). Timing equity issuance in response to information asymmetry arising from IFRS adoption in Australia and Europe. Journal of Accounting Research, 49 (1), 257–307.

Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1986). Positive accounting theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Webb, R. (2006). Brace yourselves: IFRS will be bumpy. Financial Review, 25 (January), 26.

Wu, J. S., & Zhang, I. X. (2009). The voluntary adoption of internationally recognized standards and firm internal performance evaluation. The Accounting Review, 84 (4), 1281–1309.

Wu, J. S., & Zhang, I. X. (2011). Accounting integration and comparability: Evidence from relative performance evaluation around IFRS adoption . Working paper, University of Rochester.

Wu, J. S., & Zhang, I. X. (2014). The adoption of internationally recognized accounting standards: Implications for credit markets. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 29 (2), 95–128.

Yip, R. W. Y., & Young, D. (2012). Does mandatory IFRS adoption improve information comparability? The Accounting Review, 87 (5), 1767–1789.

Young, S., & Zeng, Y. (2015). Accounting comparability and the accuracy of peer-based valuation models. The Accounting Review, 90 (6), 2571–2601.

Yu, G., & Wahid, A. S. (2014). Accounting standards and international portfolio holdings. The Accounting Review, 89 (5), 1895–1930.

Zeff, S. A. (2012). The evolution of the IASC into the IASB, and the challenges it faces. The Accounting Review, 87 (3), 807–837.

Zhang, J. (2008). The contracting benefits of accounting conservatism to lenders and borrowers. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45 (1), 27–54.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Mary Barth, Ulf Bruggeman, Elizabeth Gordon, Martin Glaum, Luzi Hail (discussant), Sudarshan Jayaraman, Bjorn Jorgensen, Alon Kalay, Peter Pope, Karthik Ramanna, Nemit Shroff, Brian Singleton-Green, Stephen Taylor, Rodrigo Verdi, Martin Walker, Holly Yang, Stephen Zeff, participants at the 2015 Review of Accounting Studies Conference, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments and suggestions. We also thank Han-Up Park for research assistance.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

London Business School, Regent’s Park, London, NW1 4SA, UK

Emmanuel T. De George & Lakshmanan Shivakumar

Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA

London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lakshmanan Shivakumar .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

De George, E.T., Li, X. & Shivakumar, L. A review of the IFRS adoption literature. Rev Account Stud 21 , 898–1004 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-016-9363-1

Download citation

Published : 03 June 2016

Issue Date : September 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-016-9363-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• IFRS adoption
• IFRS literature

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• LOGIN & Help

Experimental Research on Standard-Setting Issues in Financial Reporting

• Accountancy

Research output : Working paper

Accounting standard setters value input from academic research as they deliberate potential new standards and evaluate the effect of existing standards. In this paper, we argue that experimental research is well-suited to producing insights to standard setters throughout the standard-setting process. In so doing, we address common questions that arise when researchers consider undertaking research on standard-setting issues. To facilitate future research in this domain, we compile the existing experimental research on standard-setting issues and classify it in categories that correspond to the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s technical agenda. We then use this taxonomy to identify examples of important questions that future experimental research could address. Finally, we draw on our own experiences to provide insights intended to help researchers conduct high-quality experimental research that is relevant to standard setters and publishable in top academic journals.

• accounting standard setting
• financial reporting
• experiments

Online availability

• 10.2139/ssrn.3893693

Library availability

Fingerprint.

• Financial Reporting Business & Economics 76%
• Financial Accounting Standards Business & Economics 26%
• Academic Research Business & Economics 19%
• Taxonomy Business & Economics 19%

T1 - Experimental Research on Standard-Setting Issues in Financial Reporting

AU - Koonce, Lisa L.

AU - Mongold, Cassie

AU - Quaid, Laura

AU - White, Brian J.

PY - 2021/7/28

Y1 - 2021/7/28

N2 - Accounting standard setters value input from academic research as they deliberate potential new standards and evaluate the effect of existing standards. In this paper, we argue that experimental research is well-suited to producing insights to standard setters throughout the standard-setting process. In so doing, we address common questions that arise when researchers consider undertaking research on standard-setting issues. To facilitate future research in this domain, we compile the existing experimental research on standard-setting issues and classify it in categories that correspond to the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s technical agenda. We then use this taxonomy to identify examples of important questions that future experimental research could address. Finally, we draw on our own experiences to provide insights intended to help researchers conduct high-quality experimental research that is relevant to standard setters and publishable in top academic journals.

AB - Accounting standard setters value input from academic research as they deliberate potential new standards and evaluate the effect of existing standards. In this paper, we argue that experimental research is well-suited to producing insights to standard setters throughout the standard-setting process. In so doing, we address common questions that arise when researchers consider undertaking research on standard-setting issues. To facilitate future research in this domain, we compile the existing experimental research on standard-setting issues and classify it in categories that correspond to the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s technical agenda. We then use this taxonomy to identify examples of important questions that future experimental research could address. Finally, we draw on our own experiences to provide insights intended to help researchers conduct high-quality experimental research that is relevant to standard setters and publishable in top academic journals.

KW - accounting standard setting

KW - financial reporting

KW - research

KW - experiments

U2 - 10.2139/ssrn.3893693

DO - 10.2139/ssrn.3893693

M3 - Working paper

BT - Experimental Research on Standard-Setting Issues in Financial Reporting

Accessibility Links

• Skip to content
• Skip to search IOPscience
• Skip to Journals list
• Accessibility help
• Accessibility Help

Click here to close this panel.

Purpose-led Publishing is a coalition of three not-for-profit publishers in the field of physical sciences: AIP Publishing, the American Physical Society and IOP Publishing.

Together, as publishers that will always put purpose above profit, we have defined a set of industry standards that underpin high-quality, ethical scholarly communications.

We are proudly declaring that science is our only shareholder.

A Study on Financial Reporting Standards and Accounting Quality- Evidence from China

Cheng-Hwai Liou 1

Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd Journal of Physics: Conference Series , Volume 410 , IC-MSQUARE 2012: International Conference on Mathematical Modelling in Physical Sciences 3–7 September 2012, Budapest, Hungary Citation Cheng-Hwai Liou 2013 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 410 012107 DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/410/1/012107

Article metrics

2491 Total downloads

Share this article

Author affiliations.

1 National Taichung University of Science and Technology, Department of Accounting Information, Taichung, Taiwan

Buy this article in print

According to institutional theorists, the forms and business models of corporation are mainly shaped by factors such as politics, regulations, social norms and cultures. This paper examines how the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and institutional environment influence the accounting quality, in response to the threat of political extraction in China. We took mainland China as an example instead in our study, following the accounting quality definition of Barth et al. [2], we found that the developments of Chinese government performance audit are conspicuously different by region; to reflect such differences, we elaborated our research by dividing mainland China into 31 categories (provinces or cities). We set 2003-2010 as the time horizon for this study. After testing the Regression model, our empirical research achieved two conclusions: 1) IFRS adoption in China should significantly improve the accounting quality, and 2) IFRS and institutional environment should synthetically influence the quality of accounting as well.

Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS

The IFRS Foundation is a not-for-profit, public interest organisation established to develop high-quality, understandable, enforceable and globally accepted accounting and sustainability disclosure standards.

Our Standards are developed by our two standard-setting boards, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). 

About the IFRS Foundation

Ifrs foundation governance, stay updated.

IFRS Accounting Standards are developed by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). The IASB is an independent standard-setting body within the IFRS Foundation.

IFRS Accounting Standards are, in effect, a global accounting language—companies in more than 140 jurisdictions are required to use them when reporting on their financial health. The IASB is supported by technical staff and a range of advisory bodies.

IFRS Accounting

Standards and frameworks, using the standards, project work, products and services.

IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards are developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). The ISSB is an independent standard-setting body within the IFRS Foundation.

IFRS Sustainability Standards are developed to enhance investor-company dialogue so that investors receive decision-useful, globally comparable sustainability-related disclosures that meet their information needs. The ISSB is supported by technical staff and a range of advisory bodies.

IFRS Sustainability

Education, membership and licensing, iasb update april 2022.

You need to Sign in to use this feature

This IASB  Update  highlights preliminary decisions of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Projects affected by these decisions can be found on the  work plan . The IASB's final decisions on IFRS ®  Accounting Standards, Amendments and IFRIC ® Interpretations are formally balloted as set out in the IFRS Foundation's  Due Process Handbook .

The IASB met on 25–28 April 2022 .

Related Information

IASB Update archive

Podcast summaries

Research and standard-setting

Post-implementation review of ifrs 9—classification and measurement (agenda paper 3), equity method (agenda paper 13), management commentary (agenda paper 15), goodwill and impairment (agenda paper 18), primary financial statements (agenda paper 21), second comprehensive review of the ifrs for smes accounting standard (agenda paper 30), disclosure initiative—subsidiaries without public accountability: disclosures (agenda paper 31), maintenance and consistent application, maintenance and consistent application (agenda paper 12), demand deposits with restrictions on use arising from a contract with a third party (ias 7): finalisation of agenda decision (agenda paper 12a), ifric update march 2022 (agenda paper 12b), strategy and governance, third agenda consultation (agenda paper 24).

The IASB met on 25 April 2022 to analyse feedback on the requirements for assessing a financial asset’s contractual cash flow characteristics.

Main feedback topics

The IASB discussed the two main topics raised in the feedback—contractually linked instruments and financial assets with ESG-linked features. The IASB was not asked to make any decisions.

At the May 2022 meeting, the IASB will continue its discussion and decide whether to take action in response to the feedback on these two topics.

Other feedback topics

The IASB also considered six application questions raised in the feedback:

• Question A—whether a financial asset has non-recourse features (ie features that limit an entity’s claim to specified assets of the debtor), and under what circumstances an entity is required to assess the cash flows from the specified assets;
• Question B—whether an entity needs to consider cash flows arising from bail-in legislation when the relevant legal requirements are reproduced or referred to in a contract;
• Question C—whether interest rates that are contractually adjusted for inflation introduce leverage;
• Question D—whether interest rates that include a government-imposed leverage factor are regulated interest rates as described in IFRS 9;
• Question E—whether a prepayment feature includes reasonable compensation for early termination of a contract; and
• Question F—whether particular types of interest rates include a modified time value of money element.

The IASB decided to:

• consider Question A with its analysis of contractually linked instruments;
• consider Question B after its Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Equity project has developed further;
• perform outreach with members of ASAF and the IFRS Interpretations Committee to gather further information about Question C and Question D; and
• take no further action on Question E and Question F.

All 10 IASB members agreed with this decision.

At the May 2022 meeting, the IASB will conclude its discussions on contractual cash flow characteristics.

At future meetings, the IASB will analyse feedback on the other topics being considered in this post-implementation review.

The IASB met on 27 April 2022 to continue its discussion on the Equity Method research project. The IASB:

• discussed applying the equity method to the purchase of an additional interest in an associate without a change in significant influence (Agenda Paper 13A).
• reviewed the research findings on changes made to IFRS Accounting Standards arising from the Conceptual Framework , Business Combinations and Joint Arrangements projects (Agenda Paper 13B). The IASB was not asked to make any decisions relating to the research findings.

Purchases of an additional ownership interest in an associate without a change in significant influence (Agenda Paper 13A)

The IASB tentatively decided to consult with stakeholders on measuring the cost of an investment, when an investor obtains significant influence, as the fair value of the consideration transferred, including the fair value of any previously held interest in the investee.

The IASB also:

• considered three approaches to applying the equity method when an investor purchases an additional ownership interest in an associate without a change in significant influence; and
• asked the staff to proceed with an approach whereby an investor that has obtained significant influence would measure the investment in the associate as an accumulation of purchases.

The IASB will discuss how the approach applies to other application questions.

The IASB met on 28 April 2022 to complete its discussion of feedback on its proposals for a revised practice statement on management commentary, as set out in the Exposure Draft Management Commentary . The IASB was not asked to make any decisions.

The IASB will consider a path forward for this project at a future meeting.

The IASB met on 26 April 2022 to discuss its Goodwill and Impairment project. In September 2021 the IASB decided to prioritise:

• making tentative decisions on the package of potential disclosure requirements about business combinations described in its Discussion Paper Business Combinations—Disclosures, Goodwill and Impairment ; and
• analysing specific aspects of the feedback on the subsequent accounting for goodwill.

In this meeting the IASB discussed:

• feedback from additional outreach activities on the IASB’s preliminary views, as described in the Discussion Paper, concerning potential improvements to the current disclosure requirements about business combinations; and
• how to advance or develop those preliminary views.

The IASB was not asked to make any decisions.

The IASB will discuss specific aspects of the feedback identified in September 2021 on the subsequent accounting for goodwill.

The IASB will then make decisions about: (a) the package of disclosure requirements about business combinations; (b) whether to maintain its preliminary view to retain the impairment-only approach to the subsequent accounting for goodwill; and (c) other topics within the scope of the project.

The IASB met on 26 April 2022 to discuss a proposal in its Exposure Draft General Presentation and Disclosures . The proposal discussed would be to require an entity to disclose an analysis of its operating expenses by nature in the notes when the entity reports its operating expenses by function in the statement of profit or loss.

Analysis of operating expenses by nature in the notes (Agenda Paper 21A)

The IASB was not asked to make any decisions. It discussed:

• comment-letter feedback suggesting a partial-matrix approach and what a partial-matrix disclosure requirement might comprise;
• the costs and benefits associated with such an approach based on feedback from limited outreach with the IASB’s consultative bodies and preparers and users; and
• the scope of future papers related to this topic.

The IASB will continue to redeliberate the project proposals at future meetings.

The IASB met on 27 April 2022 to discuss whether and, if so, how to propose amendments to the IFRS for SMEs Accounting Standard as a part of the second comprehensive review.

Towards an exposure draft—disclosures (Agenda Paper 30A)

The IASB tentatively decided to propose amendments to 16 sections of the current Standard based on the application of the principles it had agreed in March 2022 for updating disclosure requirements in the IFRS for SMEs Accounting Standard.

The IASB will continue to develop the project proposals at a future meeting.

The IASB met on 27 April 2022 to discuss feedback on its Exposure Draft  Subsidiaries without Public Accountability: Disclosures . The Exposure Draft sets out proposals for a new IFRS Accounting Standard that would permit eligible subsidiaries to apply IFRS Accounting Standards with reduced disclosure requirements in their financial statements.

The IASB will discuss its plans for redeliberating the project proposals at a future meeting. The IASB will first redeliberate the main issues relating to the scope of the proposed Standard together with its discussion on the scope of the IFRS for SMEs Accounting Standard.

The IASB met on 26 April 2022 to consider an agenda decision—and other matters—discussed at the March 2022 meeting of the IFRS Interpretations Committee.

The IASB was asked whether it objected to the Agenda Decision Demand Deposits with Restrictions on Use arising from a Contract with a Third Party (IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows ).

No IASB member objected to the Agenda Decision.

The Agenda Decision will be published in April 2022 in an addendum to IFRIC Update March 2022 .

The IASB received an update on the Committee’s March 2022 meeting. Details of this meeting were published in IFRIC Update March 2022.

The IASB met on 25 April 2022:

• to decide which new projects to add to its work plan for 2022 to 2026 (Agenda Paper 24A); and
• to discuss due process comments made by respondents to the Request for Information Third Agenda Consultation (Agenda Paper 24B).

The IASB also received an update on some national standard-setters’ strategic consultations.

Projects to add to the IASB’s work plan for 2022 to 2026 (Agenda Paper 24A)

At its March 2022 meeting, the IASB shortlisted seven projects for discussion at a future meeting. At its April 2022 meeting, the IASB considered further those shortlisted projects and decided:

• to add to its work plan a maintenance and consistent application project on climate-related risks;
• intangible assets; and
• the statement of cash flows and related matters;
• to create a reserve list of projects that could be added to the work plan only if additional capacity becomes available;
• operating segments; and
• pollutant-pricing mechanisms; and
• cryptocurrencies and related transactions; or
• going concern disclosures.

Overview of due process comments (Agenda Paper 24B)

The IASB discussed due process comments made by respondents to the Request for Information. The IASB was not asked to make any decisions. The respondents’ comments and the staff’s observations will be communicated to the Due Process Oversight Committee of the IFRS Foundation Trustees.

The IASB will publish a feedback statement summarising feedback on the Request for Information and the IASB’s activities and work plan for 2022 to 2026.

Your privacy

IFRS Foundation cookies

We use cookies on ifrs.org to ensure the best user experience possible. For example, cookies allow us to manage registrations, meaning you can watch meetings and submit comment letters. Cookies that tell us how often certain content is accessed help us create better, more informative content for users.

We do not use cookies for advertising, and do not pass any individual data to third parties.

Some cookies are essential to the functioning of the site. Other cookies are optional. If you accept all cookies now you can always revisit your choice on our  privacy policy  page.

Cookie preferences

Essential cookies, always active.

Essential cookies are required for the website to function, and therefore cannot be switched off. They include managing registrations.

Analytics cookies

We use analytics cookies to generate aggregated information about the usage of our website. This helps guide our content strategy to provide better, more informative content for our users. It also helps us ensure that the website is functioning correctly and that it is available as widely as possible. None of this information can be tracked to individual users.

Preference cookies

Preference cookies allow us to offer additional functionality to improve the user experience on the site. Examples include choosing to stay logged in for longer than one session, or following specific content.

Share this page

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets & Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Social Impact
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Services
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• Videos, Code & Data
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Get Involved
• Reading Materials
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study

International Accounting Standards and Accounting Quality

We examine whether application of International Accounting Standards (IAS) is associated with higher accounting quality. The application of IAS reflects combined effects of features of the financial reporting system, including standards, their interpretation, enforcement, and litigation. We find that firms applying IAS from 21 countries generally evidence less earnings management, more timely loss recognition, and more value relevance of accounting amounts than do matched sample firms applying non-U.S. domestic standards. Differences in accounting quality between the two groups of firms in the period before the IAS firms adopt IAS do not account for the postadoption differences. Firms applying IAS generally evidence an improvement in accounting quality between the pre- and postadoption periods. Although we cannot be sure our findings are attributable to the change in the financial reporting system rather than to changes in firms’ incentives and the economic environment, we include research design features to mitigate effects of both.

• Priorities for the GSB's Future
• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Business Transformation
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• Career Advancement
• Career Change
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• Information for Recommenders
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• After You’re Admitted
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Founding Donors
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Program Contacts
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

Adoption of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards in emerging economies and low-income countries: a structured literature review

Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management

ISSN : 1096-3367

Article publication date: 6 September 2021

Issue publication date: 10 October 2023

The aim of the study is to review the extant literature on International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) adoption in emerging economies (EEs) and low-income countries (LICs) (“what do we know?”), and to propose an agenda for future research (“what do we need to know?”).

Design/methodology/approach

An analytical framework that builds on diffusion theory is developed. The authors follow the “PRISMA Flow Diagram” to reduce a total of 427 articles from four databases to a final sample of 41 articles. These studies are examined, aided by the analytical framework.

The authors find that IPSASs are a relevant issue for EEs/LICs. Overall, existing research is often explorative. The authors discover that the majority of articles rely on secondary data collection. While two-thirds of the studies perform a content analysis of pre-existing material, about one-fifth of the articles each collect primary data through means of interviews and questionnaires. The findings offer a holistic understanding of where and at what stages IPSAS reforms stand in EEs/LICs, and what factors influence the progression of reforms to the next stage of diffusion.

Originality/value

The authors outline a number of avenues for further research after discussing the dominating trends and structuring the literature based on our analytical framework. These stem from looking at the blank spots and an identified need to contextualise IPSASs adoption in EEs/LICs.

• Public sector accounting
• International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS)
• Emerging economies
• Low-income countries
• Structured literature review

Polzer, T. , Adhikari, P. , Nguyen, C.P. and Gårseth-Nesbakk, L. (2023), "Adoption of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards in emerging economies and low-income countries: a structured literature review", Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management , Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 309-332. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-01-2021-0016

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Tobias Polzer, Pawan Adhikari, Cong Phuong Nguyen and Levi Gårseth-Nesbakk

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

This research stems from our interest in understanding “what is known about the adoption of International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) in emerging economies (EEs) and low-income countries (LICs)” [1] and “what needs to be known”, and is based on a systematic review of the literature. The harmonisation of financial reporting in the public sector has been one of the major components of recent public sector accounting (PSA) reform initiatives ( Manes Rossi et al. , 2016 ). In this context, the IPSASs have become an international benchmark for evaluating PSA reforms ( Ben Amor and Damak Ayadi, 2019 ; Polzer et al. , 2021a ).

While a number of literature reviews have been conducted on IPSASs adoption ( Polzer et al. , 2020 ; Schmidthuber et al. , 2020 ), the focus has been on western countries, which represent not more than 10% of the global population. A recent systematic review of IPSASs ( Schmidthuber et al. , 2020 ) refers to the context of EEs and LICs only sporadically. However, a more dedicated focus on the adoption contexts is regarded as highly relevant when analysing IPSASs in EEs/LICs. This is because although some scholars hold the view that EEs and LICs could potentially “benefit more from accounting reforms [such as the adoption of IPSASs] than developed countries” ( Schmidthuber et al. , 2020 , p. 13; Chan, 2006 ), such voices are, however, in the minority. The dominant view asserts the fact that accounting solutions that have been developed in western countries do not always suit the context of EEs and LICs ( Hopper et al. , 2017 ; Soobaroyen et al. , 2017 ).

What dominating trends can be identified in the literature on IPSASs adoption in EEs and LICs over time?

What are the potential avenues for further research on IPSASs in EEs and LICs?

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section ( Section 2 ), we present a conceptual orientation, where our research phenomenon is briefly outlined, and an analytical model based on diffusion theory is developed. We then provide an overview of the research methodology ( Section 3 ), followed by a categorisation of reviewed publications ( Section 4 ). Finally, we discuss findings and outline avenues for further research ( Section 5 ).

2. Conceptual orientation

2.1 research phenomenon – ipsass and their adoption in ees and lics.

IPSASs have emerged standard by standard since the establishment of the Public Sector Committee of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) in 1986, which was later transformed into the IPSAS Board (IPSASB) ( Christiaens et al. , 2015 ; Polzer et al. , 2021d ). The IPSASs follow the (accrual-based) International Accounting Standards/International Financial Reporting Standards (IASs/IFRSs) as much as appropriate, with some differences (additional commentaries, different terminologies and definitions). In addition, IPSASs have attempted to cater to the particularities of the public sector, such as the disclosure of information about the general government sector or revenues from non-exchange transactions (taxes and transfers). The outreach of the IPSASB to practitioners and academics has increased over the past years ( Jensen, 2020 ).

Although the priority of the IPSASB has been to promote the accrual-based IPSASs, EEs and LICs are encouraged, particularly by international organisations, to adopt the Cash Basis IPSAS as a necessary first step for a longer-term transition towards accrual-based IPSASs ( Adhikari et al. , 2015 ). In a comparative study of IPSASs adoption in South Asia, Adhikari and Mellemvik (2010) illustrate how the World Bank, in collaboration with professional accounting institutions, was involved in creating a myth in the region; an underlying assertion was that a transition towards accrual accounting would not yield any results without first complying with the Cash Basis IPSAS.

Claimed benefits for governments of adopting the IPSASs include, among others, enhanced accountability and transparency, improved decision-making and increased efficiency ( Polzer et al. , 2021d ). Such benefits abound in the reports and documents issued by international standard setters such as the International Federation of Accountants (see e.g. IFAC, 2011 ), international organisations (e.g. World Bank, 2010 ) and professional accounting associations and accounting firms (e.g. ACCA, 2017 ; PwC, 2013 ). For instance, the World Bank (2010 , p. 8) argues that the “[a]pplication of IPSAS will support developments in public sector reporting directed at improved decision making, financial management and accountability and will be an integral element of reforms directed at promoting social and economic development”. Also, more favourable conditions in capital markets are expected for adopters due to a better understandability of financial reports by rating agencies ( IPSASB, 2010 ). Other declared benefits concern governmental professionalisation and an access to younger talent, government stability and international comparability ( ACCA, 2017 ).

However, despite such claims, the literature suggests that convergence and harmonisation of accounting systems (such as through the adoption of IPSASs) may face challenges, with regard, for example, to diverging national traditions, to implementation costs or to preserving sovereignty ( Manes Rossi et al. , 2016 ; Polzer et al. , 2021b ). In some countries, the reluctance towards the implementation of IPSASs is quite intense (e.g. Oulasvirta, 2014 ). EEs and LICs might have less discretion, as the drive “to adopt the IPSASs mainly comes from external groups such as donors, consultants and the accountancy profession. These external groups have their own interest, which is not always the interest of the country concerned” ( Hepworth, 2017 , p. 147). As a result, attempts made by many EEs and LICs to embrace IPSASs have proved to be problematic at the implementation stage ( Adhikari et al. , 2019 ; Polzer et al. , 2020 ). Hepworth (2017 , p. 141) notes “that the implementation of the accrual-based IPSASs in European-influenced developing and transition economy countries is not an appropriate reform unless preceded or accompanied by other, essentially managerial, reforms”.

Other studies have emphasised the particularities of EEs and LICs in the area of PSA and governance, examples, among others, being limited planning; poorly grounded reform recipes, mainly the pursuit of once-size-fits-all approaches; inadequate IT facilities and human resources; and the intervention of consultants and professional accountants (see, e.g. Adhikari and Jayasinghe, 2017 ). For instance, success of IPSASs in the Asia-Pacific region is limited and rarely is any evidence available delineating the planned implementation of the standards ( Harun et al. , 2019 ). Adhikari and Mellemvik (2011) , focusing on Nepal, state that the country declared the adoption of IPSASs at a time when it was struggling even to operate a simple form of cash accounting, let alone accrual accounting. This decision was reversed later by prioritising the adoption of the Cash Basis IPSAS, a decision which took a decade to put into practice due to resource constraints ( Adhikari et al. , 2015 ).

In a similar vein, several scholars have demonstrated the challenges that Latin American countries have faced in complying with IPSASs, and have made a claim that hardly any countries in the continent have fully implemented IPSASs in practice as intended, despite their enduring commitments to IPSASs (e.g. Cavanagh and Fernández Benito, 2016 ). Gómez-Villegas et al. (2020 , p. 495) state that “there is more rhetoric than practice” in Latin America, even though most of the countries had already started to embark on implementation years ago.

In Africa, IPSAS reforms have drawn more critics for further weakening the existing accountability mechanisms, thereby impinging on governance problems, patronage politics and endemic corruption ( Hopper et al. , 2017 ; Lassou, 2017 ). For example, in their study of Nigeria, Bakre et al. (2017) demonstrate how the adoption of IPSAS 17 was manipulated to continue using the historical costs in property valuation, which largely benefitted politicians, public officers and their family members. In their study of Tanzania, Goddard et al. (2016) illustrate how resource constraints and donor pressures have led to the manipulation of the compliance of financial statements prepared by local governments.

More recently, Jayasinghe et al. (2020) point out that there is the danger that positive aspects of local accounting practices in EEs and LICs are deliberately ignored by the epistemic community when disseminating IPSASs. However, in many EEs and LICs, local accounting and reporting practices already far exceed the requirements laid down in that standard. ( Jayasinghe et al. , 2020 ). It is important to note in this context that PSA reforms are not neutral, but always have a political and ideological component ( Bakre et al. , 2021 ; see also Adam, 2018 ; Cenar, 2012 ; Mattei et al. , 2020 ). More specifically, in terms of the IPSASs, a number of critical opinions have been raised – for example, that they are being issued by an authority that is not democratically legitimated (the IPSASB, Brusca et al. , 2013 ). There are also critical remarks that the IPSASs represent the Anglo-Saxon method of PSA ( Oulasvirta, 2014 ). They are claimed to be irrelevant in the contexts where the budget has continued to dominate ( Adhikari and Gårseth-Nesbakk, 2016 ). In the following, we develop an analytical framework in order to trace to what extent the argued benefits and critical issues manifest in EEs and LICs.

2.2 Analytical framework – diffusion theory

Diffusion theory concerns providing an understanding of how innovations in the forms of ideas, practices or standards are disseminated in a specific context ( Jackson and Lapsley, 2003 ; Rogers, 2003 ). The application of the theory has steadily increased in accounting research, not least PSA ( Dissanayake et al. , 2020 ; Ezzamel et al. , 2014 ; Lapsley and Wright, 2004 ; Thoradeniya et al. , 2020 ). In the context of EEs/LICs, researchers have drawn on the theory to examine, for example, the unintended consequences of PSA reforms in countries such as Nepal ( Adhikari et al. , 2015 ), Sri Lanka ( Dissanayake et al. , 2020 ) and Egypt ( Adhikari et al. , 2019 ).

With the help of diffusion theory, researchers have demonstrated the extent to which PSA reforms vary in different contexts due to multiple external and internal factors, and formal and informal channels of communication ( Adhikari et al. , 2015 ; Lapsley and Wright, 2004 ). In this regard, the essence of applying diffusion theory concerns its ability to bring out distinct trajectories in the reform process. Such holistic insights are paramount to shed light on the causes of unintended consequences in PSA in general and IPSASs adoption in particular ( Ezzamel et al. , 2014 ; Polzer et al. , 2020 ).

For the purpose of this study, we developed an analytical framework ( Table 1 ) to assess the literature, focusing on two key elements. First, we categorise the identified articles alongside the five stages involved in the diffusion of innovations , as described by Rogers (2003) – this is the upper half of the table. When we refer to IPSASs adoption , we use this term as an umbrella term for (potentially) all five stages. Second, as the context for IPSASs adoption differs in EEs and LICs ( Hopper et al. , 2017 ; Soobaroyen et al. , 2017 ), our framework allows us to take the contextual conditions for each stage explicitly into consideration – this is the lower half of the framework.

The first stage of Rogers' (2003) model (seeking knowledge about reform innovations) highlights information-seeking processes. This stage is strongly guided and influenced by already available knowledge. In the context of the public sectors in EEs and LICs, pre-existing knowledge about accrual accounting might be limited ( Adhikari et al. , 2015 ) or accounting systems might be generally less developed ( Chan, 2006 ).

Persuasion is the second stage in Rogers' (2003) model. Establishing consensus about the need and rationale of IPSASs adoption is a complex social process where multiple actors are involved (on the administrative and political side, professional accounting bodies and international (donor) and non-profit organisations). During this stage, the innovation is often contested. A range of factors increase the likelihood of an innovation becoming accepted: its complexity; piloting of the innovation; the fit with the adopter's existing values; the expected benefits from the innovation; and the possibility of actually observing the results of the innovation. In the EE/LIC context, donor pressures might be the dominant driver of persuasion ( Hopper et al. , 2017 ), limiting the influence of actors within a country. Indeed, PSA reforms introduced in EEs/LICs have been mostly a supplier-led initiative resulting from the loan conditionality and development discourses of international organisations such as the World Bank and the IMF, which is evident in extant work ( Adhikari et al. , 2019 ). International organisations have demonstrated pro-innovation biases in EEs/LICs, designating IPSASs as the best accounting practices which could lead to improved governance and accountability ( Adhikari and Mellemvik, 2010 ; Jayasinghe et al. , 2020 ).

The decision (stage 3) involves the formal approval or rejection of a law or framework document to implement IPSASs. In practice, a decision can come in different forms – for example, a decision for sequencing ( Bietenhader and Bergmann, 2010 ), or a partial approval. The decision has to be made by a legitimate actor, which could be, for example, Parliament, the cabinet, a responsible minister or the accounting standards board. In the context of EEs and LICs, reform decisions are often taken in a top-down manner, i.e. without consulting local implementing organisations or those who are actually involved in implementing reforms ( Zaman Mir and Shiraz Rahaman, 2005 ).

Once the decision to adopt IPSASs has been made, the implementing organisations (in particular, government ministries and agencies) move to stage 4 – implementation ( Rogers, 2003 ). However, implementation is not a simple application of the legal or guidance material resulting from the decision, but also involves its active interpretation in the specific policy context. The implementation requires knowledge transfer and boundary-spanning activities ( Jackson and Lapsley, 2003 ) to ensure a meaningful application. However, at the same time, some actors may seek to modify or reinvent the innovation, partly driven by the need to cater for the specific local and organisational circumstances ( Baskerville and Grossi, 2019 ; Mouritsen, 2005 ). From the extant literature on implementing reforms in EEs and LICs, it is known that power struggles over resources by different individuals and societal groups ( North et al. , 2013 ), a lack of resources ( Gómez-Villegas et al. , 2020 ) and extended training needs of civil servants ( Rajib et al. , 2019 ) are the factors that might pose challenges to the implementation of reforms. Adhikari et al. (2019) state that implementation has been reckoned to be the most complex and problematic stage within the diffusion trajectory, as well as the stage in which the factors and causes of unintended consequences become much clearer.

The final stage 5 – confirmation – is reached when the IPSASs have become an institutionalised and legitimate practice beyond the formal implementation and gain legitimacy ( Rogers, 2003 ). Stakeholders start to recognise the benefits and the innovation spreads throughout the PSA system. The question of how enduring change can be achieved has also been intensely discussed in the PSA literature (e.g. Liguori and Steccolini, 2012 ). For EEs and LICs, changing traditional and precolonial values ( Hopper et al. , 2017 ) might be an additional challenge. Also, very often the adoption of an innovation seldom happens in isolation, but is connected to wider reforms ( Hepworth, 2017 ). With this, judging the outcomes of IPSASs adoption in solitude is challenging.

While the significance of the five stages of the diffusion model and their analytical value were confirmed in prior work, also in the area of PSA ( Ezzamel et al. , 2014 ), we assume that the stages are not clear-cut in practice, but rather serve to structure and rationalise developments ex post. Furthermore, in the context of EEs/LICs, studies discussing (1) the stages of diffusion that PSA reforms pass through and (2) the contextual conditions in each stage (which might result in unintended consequences) are scarce, with a few exceptions (see, e.g. Adhikari et al. , 2015 ). We intend to address this theoretical gap in this study.

3. Research approach

Systematic literature reviews have become increasingly popular in PSA ( De Waele et al. , 2021 ; Schmidthuber et al. , 2020 ) and also in the EE/LIC context (e.g. Nolte et al. , 2021 ; Van Helden et al ., 2021 ; van Helden and Uddin, 2016 ). The purposes of such reviews are to identify the areas of a research field where substantial progress was made and to outline future directions of research ( Bracci et al. , 2019 ; Massaro et al. , 2016 ). In our study, we follow the “PRISMA Flow Diagram” ( Moher et al. , 2009 ) to ensure reproducibility ( Figure 1 ). This flow chart has gained recent popularity for review studies in public sector research (e.g. de Vries et al. , 2016 ).

3.1 Identification of studies

The searches were carried out in autumn 2020. As shown in Table 2 , 16 queries in four literature databases that are commonly used in the social sciences yielded 427 results for a full-text search (the table reports databases and search terms). We did not limit our search to any particular years, so we cover articles from 2003 (being the year when the first relevant article on IPSASs appeared) to 2020. We also did not exclude any subject categories, as we wanted to obtain results from potentially the accounting, development and public administration research areas. However, we limited the results to peer-reviewed journal articles (i.e. excluding book chapters and conference papers) in English, where this was allowed by a database. Such an exclusion strategy is recommended in order to obtain validated knowledge on an issue ( Podsakoff et al. , 2005 ; Polzer et al. , 2021c ). After we removed duplicates in the next step, the number of records decreased to 225.

3.2 Screening

Next, the relevance of search hits was assessed ( Manes Rossi et al. , 2020 ). We performed an initial screening of title, abstract and keywords of each article in order to establish if each one actually focused on IPSASs as a (potential) main topic ( Moher et al. , 2009 ). This further reduced the sample to 69. Following such an approach, articles that were not focusing on IPSASs at all (but instead on, for example, street trading in South Africa; Bénit-Gbaffou, 2018 ) or mentioned IPSASs only in a footnote (e.g. Tooley et al. , 2010 ) were excluded.

3.3 Eligibility and included studies

During the following step – the eligibility check – we reduced our data set to 41 articles after analysing if the IPSASs were actually a central topic of the article. This led, for example, to the exclusion of an initially promising paper on the quality of public sector financial statements ( Ratmono and Sutrisno, 2019 ), which was later not deemed eligible because it covered IPSASs only very marginally. After the eligibility check, 41 papers were included in our analysis.

3.4 Analysis

We structure our findings alongside the following dimensions, as suggested by Massaro et al. (2016) : (a) year of publication, (b) journal ranking, (c) number of citations per year, (d) country and tier of governments, (e) research strategies and methods, (f) conceptual orientation of the studies, (g) keywords and thematic embedding and (h) categorisation of the main findings with respect to the elements of the established analytical framework ( Table 1 ).

In terms of (b) journal ranking, we draw on a measure developed by Scimago Lab. “SCImago JCR” is a form of impact factor and shows the journal citation ranking of 2019 as per the definition developed by Scimago Lab ( Scimago Research Group, 2007 ). In addition to traditional impact factors, this ranking takes into account the prestige of the citing journal. With respect to (g) thematic embedding, extant research found that governments seldom introduce new reform tools (such as the IPSASs) on their own, but often on top of, or interwoven with, existing ones ( Hepworth, 2015 ). We therefore expect that pieces covering IPSASs adoption are frequently related to studies focusing on prevalent, more general PSA topics. To make the interlinkages visible, we draw a network of co-occurrences of author keywords from the articles ( Kumar et al. , 2020 ) in an additional analysis (34 of the 41 identified articles contained keywords).

Turning to (h) categorisation of the main findings, we assigned for each of the articles five values between 0 (minimum) and 3 (maximum) with respect to its focus on knowledge , persuasion , decision , implementation and confirmation as per our analytical framework ( Table 1 ) based on the model by Rogers (2003) . For example, the article by Timoshenko and Adhikari (2010) that compared IPSASs implementation in Nepal and Russia focused on the decision (coded as 2) and implementation (also coded as 2) stages. Coding reliability was ensured by team coding: all preliminarily coded values were double-checked by two members of the research team and discussed, until consensus in the interpretation was reached among the team.

4. Findings

4.1 descriptive analysis, 4.1.1 year of publication and outlet.

An analysis of the number of articles published per year shows that research on IPSASs in EEs and LICs has gained momentum over the years (see Figure 2 ). With the first eight IPSASs published in 1999, IPSASs become an important PSA reform issue in EEs and LICs relatively quickly and the first paper with an IPSASs focus was published four years later ( Chan, 2003 ). We can observe an increasing trend in publications on IPSASs over the years (see the dotted trend line – nine papers in 2020), which is also due to a Special Issue in the International Journal of Public Sector Management ( Nurunnabi, 2020 ).

Looking at the outlets of the identified research papers and using the SCImago JCR 2019 ranking as a benchmark, we find that the article by Bakre et al. (2017) is the one that has been published in the journal with the highest JCR score ( Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal : 1.459 – comparators: Accounting, Organizations and Society : 1.924; Critical Perspectives on Accounting : 1.823). The majority of the articles are published in low to medium-ranked journals (JCR values under 1). Just 7.3% of studies are from outlets with a higher score. When looking at the averages of JCR values per year (solid line in Figure 2 ), no clear trend emerges; for example, we cannot observe that the discourse is moving towards outlets with higher impact factors.

4.1.2 Citations per year

The papers that have the highest citations per year (a top ten ranking as per counts on the Google Scholar website divided by years) are listed in Table 3 . The papers by Chan (2003) and Torres (2004) include evidence from both western countries and EEs/LICs. This means that the issue has gained some scholarly attention over the last years. Other frequently cited papers (in absolute terms) include Saleh and Pendlebury (2006) , with 59 citations, Grubišić et al. (2009) , with 42 citations and Deaconu et al. (2011) , with 41 citations.

4.1.3 Locus of studies

Our country analysis ( Table 4 ) shows that the majority of studies (39.0%) are cross-country analyses (e.g. two-country case study comparisons – Ghana and Benin: Lassou, 2017 ; Nepal and Russia: Timoshenko and Adhikari, 2010 ; Arab region: Abushamsieh et al. , 2013 ; Central America: Araya-Leandro et al. , 2016 ; quantitative comparisons of 87 countries: Amiri and Hamza, 2020 ). There are three studies (7.3%) each from Indonesia (e.g. Fahmid et al. , 2020 ) and Romania (e.g. Tiron Tudor, 2010 ), as well as two (4.9%) each from Russia (e.g. Legenkova, 2016 ), Nepal (e.g. Adhikari and Jayasinghe, 2017 ) and Nigeria (e.g. Mustapha et al. , 2019 ). The remaining articles (31.7%) represent a further 13 countries. With this, there is a degree of empirical breadth of research in our sample, with accounts from all continents.

Table 4 also shows which tier of government is being analysed. The majority of studies (56.1%) focus on central government. While the state/regional level is targeted in only one single study (2.4%: Sour, 2020 ), there are just two (4.9%, e.g. Mir and Sutiyono, 2013 ) on the local government level. The study by Deaconu et al. (2011) focuses on the level of single public sector organisations. Finally, 9.8% of studies research IPSASs adoption in multiple levels of government.

4.1.4 Research design

For analysing the research design, we draw on van Thiel's (2014) distinction between research strategies and methods ( Figure 3 ). Regarding the former, we differentiate between experiment, survey, case study, desk research and other. Regarding the latter, we categorise the sampled papers alongside the categories of observation, questionnaire, interview, content analysis, secondary analysis, meta-analysis, mixed methods (only if explicitly mentioned) or other. As a study can make use of more than one strategy and method, we code the two main methods applied.

Our analysis reveals that primary data are collected in about 40% of the studies, and that about two-thirds of the articles follow the qualitative paradigm. In terms of research strategy, about half of the publications are based on desk research (e.g. Carolini, 2010 ; Hepworth, 2015 ). About a quarter follow a case study approach to explore IPSASs adoption. Moving on to the research methods, in over 50% of the studies a form of content analysis is carried out, often without collecting primary data (e.g. Amiri and Hamza, 2020 ; Deaconu et al. , 2011 ). About 20% of the papers analyse primary data collected through means of questionnaires (e.g. a survey among 223 accountants in local governments – Antipova and Bourmistrov, 2013 ) and interviews (e.g. 80 semi-structured conversations in Jordan: Alsharari, 2020 ). Very few studies reanalyse existing data or use other techniques (e.g. Ben Amor and Damak Ayadi, 2019 ; Kartiko et al. , 2018 ). We find no studies that use advanced methods such as experiments. This demonstrates that existing research is often explorative.

4.1.5 Conceptual background

Next, we are interested in how the studies are anchored in the literature, i.e. which theory/-ies were mobilised as an analytical framework. To shed light on this question, we coded up to three conceptual lenses per article (as more than one lens could be mobilised). The results ( Figure 4 ) show that about one-third of the articles are not explicitly conceptually anchored. For example, the recent overview by Fahmid et al. (2020) , which looks at recent developments in the adoption of IPSASs worldwide and in particular at the different governmental ties in Indonesia, draws on no particular conceptual orientation.

Another quarter draw on new institutional theory ( Greenwood et al. , 2017 ). Also, the overview by Van Helden et al . (2021) finds that this theory has dominated PSA research in EEs and LICs in the last decade. Here, a number of studies delve into the different aspects of isomorphism , for example how international donors and organisations exert pressures to implement IPSASs. A study by Hassan (2015) is one of them, looking at the coercive pressures by international lenders on the transformation to more accrual-based accounting practices (including towards IPSASs adoption) in the Indonesian government. An empirical account from Turkey ( Ada and Christiaens, 2018 , p. 8) holds the view that “[t]he influence of IFAC and IPSASB are examples of normative forces being exerted for the adoption of IPSAS”. Traces of mimetic isomorphism are identified in the work by Timoshenko and Adhikari (2010 , p. 474) for Russia, where “mimetic isomorphic pressures may have acted along with normative and coercive ones [… stemming] from a plethora of international agencies and departments worldwide […], which all have been somehow embedded in the transformation process”. Other studies embody the concept of decoupling and connected concepts in new institutional theory. For instance, drawing on the concept of organisational façades, Lassou's study on Ghana and Benin finds that (2017, p. 502) “[w]hile decoupling occurred in the study contexts in different ways, adopted reforms and their subsequent implementation appeared to represent façades”. Yet other papers refer to institutional logics and institutional entrepreneurship (e.g. Rajib et al. , 2019 ).

Thirteen percent of the studies focus on IPSASs adoption mobilising the lens of contingency theory , which was made available to PSA research by Lüder (1992) . For example, scrutinising the case of IPSASs adoption in Nigeria, Mustapha et al. (2019) find that the quality of reporting according to the Cash Basis IPSAS is contingent on a number of organisational factors, with accounting staff competency significantly and positively influencing the perceived reporting quality. Looking at the adoption process of IPSASs in Sri Lanka through the lens of contingency theory, De Silva Lokuwaduge and De Silva (2020 , p. 191) conclude that “prevailing political uncertainty in Sri Lanka has negatively impacted the implementation process”.

Papers that fall under the category of other (17%) use yet another conceptual background. We subsume all approaches under this category that appear only once in the sample. Here, studies such as the one by Adhikari and Jayasinghe (2017) , which mobilises strong structuration theory , are noteworthy. Another example is the paper by Torres (2004) that looks at Mercosur countries (among others). Using Cooke's Index as a starting point, this research takes IPSAS 1 as a benchmark and evaluates the information content of financial statements. The study also describes “to what extent the IPSASs are able to fit into diverse public administration styles in order to improve the transparency, accountability and reliability of the financial information disclosed” ( Torres, 2004 , p. 447).

Finally, it needs to be noted that several articles combine some of the described theories. The paper by Polzer et al. (2020) that develops a framework that combines institutional and diffusion theory is an example. The research evaluates if the IPSAS reform walk (actual implementation) matches the reform talk (announcement). Some authors complete their analytical frameworks with yet other theories, such as contingency theory combined with institutional and economic network theories ( Amiri and Hamza, 2020 ).

4.1.6 Thematic embedding of IPSASs

The network in Figure 5 shows how the keywords from the abstracts of the reviewed studies are linked to each other (co-occurrences; Kumar et al. , 2020 ). Each keyword represents a node, and a link between keywords is established if they are mentioned in the same article or if the same keyword is mentioned in two different articles. The more links nodes are sharing, the closer they are positioned to one another. This approach helps to show the links between IPSASs and further instruments, ideas, actors, discourse communities and geographic areas. In order to focus on the most prominent links, we defined a threshold of two co-occurrences for ties to be included in the network.

Figure 5 shows that the IPSASs are linked to multiple nodes. The most frequent co-occurrences are, somewhat unsurprisingly, with accrual accounting and public sector (both 29.0%), followed by EEs (22.9%). Grouping the links, we first identify a thematic embedding of IPSASs with the targets pursued with their implementation ( accountability , transparency , harmonisation and, maybe of particular relevance to EEs and LICs, corruption ). Second, we find references to general accounting issues and accounting standards (such as accounting reform , accounting standards and accrual accounting ), PSA ( public sector accounting and government accounting ) and wider public sector reforms ( public sector reform and NPM (New Public Management)). Third, country clusters appear in the network ( Indonesia and Nepal ). Looking closer at these clusters, the papers on Indonesia are related to ideas of NPM (e.g. Fahmid et al. , 2020 ) and the studies on Nepal to the EEs context (e.g. Adhikari and Mellemvik, 2011 ). Fourth, three conceptual lenses that are mobilised in the studies come to the fore ( institutional theory , diffusion and contingency factors ). Finally, the keywords refer to two government tiers where the adoption of IPSASs takes place – central government and local government .

4.2 Content analysis

In this section we revisit the individual elements of our analytical framework, as illustrated in Table 1 . We have developed Figure 6 , to show the focus of studies, i.e. if a particular study addresses one of the five stages (an article could focus on more than one stage) of Rogers' (2003) diffusion model (0 being the minimum and 3 being the maximum with respect to its focus on knowledge , persuasion , decision , implementation and confirmation ). The figure indicates that the implementation stage is the most researched one (1.63 of 3), while research addressing the persuasion stage is scarce (0.07). A score of around 0.5 is reached for the other three stages.

4.2.1 Knowledge

About one-fifth of papers (i.e. nine out of 41) address the first stage, knowledge. For example, the normative study by Hughes (2007) illustrates four steps for the adoption of IPSASs and suggests an implementation plan. There is also evidence from Bahrain (a survey among 80 civil servants; Elmezughi and Wakil, 2018 ) that knowledge about the innovation might be an issue. While 59% of respondents feel a lack of knowledge accrual accounting in general, 68% feel uneasy with IPSASs. Regarding valuation according to IPSASs, 63% of respondents expect difficulties in the valuation of inventory and 69% in the valuation of fixed assets such as infrastructure and heritage assets. Applying a diffusion theory lens ( Rogers, 2003 ) and looking at various factors that influence the readiness of the public sector to adopt IPSASs in Qatar, Abdulkarim et al. (2020 , p. 490) conclude that “despite the availability of highly skilled professionals among public sector staff in Qatar, it is still recommended that training programmes be developed to equip employees with up-to-date knowledge about IPSAS, because of the complex nature of the standards”.

4.2.2 Persuasion

Second, persuasion is an issue for under 10% of studies (these are Adhikari et al. , 2019 ; Adhikari and Mellemvik, 2011 ; Polzer et al. , 2020 ). This low value might indicate that – in contrast to western countries – EEs and LICs have a limited say about the general decision to adopt IPSASs, as this reform often appears as a supplier-led reform encouraged by international organisations. This directs attention to the bottom part of our analytical framework (i.e. the contextual factors of adoption).

4.2.3 Decision

About 30% of pieces address the decision stage. Here, studies bring issues of non-participation of stakeholders in EEs and LICs to the forefront. For example, Rajib et al. (2019) find that the Cash Basis IPSAS in Bangladesh was adopted in a rather top-down manner without consulting professional accounting bodies (see Zaman Mir and Shiraz Rahaman (2005) for a similar account on the adoption of international accounting standards in the private sector). Drawing on the experiences from other Arab countries, Abushamsieh et al. (2013) develop a framework facilitating the adoption decision in Palestine based on contingency theory ( Lüder, 1992 ). The study by Boolaky et al. (2018) is a chronology of decisions in Indonesia (PSA regulatory changes including IPSASs).

4.2.4 Implementation

The majority of papers (about three-quarters) focus on the implementation stage of IPSASs adoption. Here, studies often analyse the factors that facilitate or impede implementation (often in research that deploys a contingency theory framework). Hindering factors include political uncertainty ( De Silva Lokuwaduge and De Silva, 2020 ), insufficient training of public sector accountants ( Polzer et al. , 2020 ; Rajib et al. , 2019 ), further institutional incapability ( Hassan, 2015 ) or patronage ( Lassou, 2017 ). In their comparative study of Egypt, Nepal and Sri Lanka, Adhikari et al. (2019) state that delay and resistance have often become the key characteristics of PSA reforms, including IPSAS reforms at the implementation stage.

4.2.5 Confirmation

Another 30% of the studies describe the final stage in Rogers' (2003) model, which looks at reform outcomes ( Figure 6 ). Research often discusses decoupling (e.g. Ada and Christiaens, 2018 ; Antipova and Bourmistrov, 2013 ; Hassan, 2015 ; Lassou, 2017 ). Also, Goddard et al. (2016 , p. 19) find that “despite the inherent weaknesses facing the implementation of IPSAS, all financial statements of the Tanzanian Councils were stamped as “fully IPSAS compliant”. The research by Adhikari and Jayasinghe (2017) provides evidence that the reform in Nepal has not been materialised, which is mainly due to the inability of reform propagators to make a considerable impact on the internal structures of government accountants. On a more positive note, the paper by Korutaro Nkundabanyanga et al. (2013 , p. 65) on Uganda finds “that accounting standards and legal frameworks are all positively and significantly associated with the quality of financial reporting”. This suggests that enforcing compliance with standards can ultimately result in a successful adoption.

4.2.6 Contextual factors present in EEs and LICs

First, it is interesting to note that the majority of studies are silent on whether the IPSASs are regarded suitable to be adopted in EEs/LICs. While 78% of studies take a neutral stance, about 17% take a positive one and the rest are openly critical towards IPSASs adoption by EEs and LICs. For example, Legenkova's article (2016) concludes that the adoption of IPSASs could contribute to the Russian Federal Government's goal to deliver services more effectively and efficiently. In contrast, the research by Carolini (2010 , p. 469) argues that IPSASs currently “fail to adequately encompass and address the voices and concerns of governments in the global South”. Bakre et al. (2017) illustrate that IPSASs can even foster corruption in a patronage-based culture, and Jayasinghe et al. (2020) question the significance of IPSASs for EEs/LICs, which tend to de-emphasise the elements of existing good accounting practices.

In order to overcome decoupling, a number of papers point towards the necessity to respect national peculiarities in EEs and LICs when implementing the IPSASs (e.g. Adhikari et al. , 2013 ). This is in line with what studies have found on the adoption of private sector IFRSs (e.g. Nguyen and Dinh Khoi Nguyen, 2012 ). Having this in mind, in order to accommodate the idiosyncrasies of EEs and LICs, a sequencing or prioritisation reform approach is suggested, i.e. carrying out basic reforms first before more advanced PSA reforms are undertaken ( Bietenhader and Bergmann, 2010 ) – for example, introducing consolidated financial statements ( Santis et al. , 2018 ). Such an approach is also emphasised by the World Bank (2010) that recommends that EEs and LICs implement the Cash Basis IPSAS first before rolling out the full set of IPSASs ( Adhikari and Mellemvik, 2010 ). More recently, Jayasinghe et al. (2020) argue that in many EEs/LICs some elements of good government accounting practices already exist, and reforms should build on these rather than initiating new large-scale reform projects.

5. Discussion and avenues for further research

When applying our analytical framework to assess the literature ( Figure 6 ), our findings demonstrated that much of the empirical research centred on the implementation stage of the IPSASs. For each of the stages, the studies provided accounts on the idiosyncrasies of EEs and LICs ( Hopper et al. , 2017 ; Soobaroyen et al. , 2017 ). An explanation for the low number of studies that focused on the persuasion stage could be that the adoption is externally driven or supply-led innovation. In terms of outcomes or success of IPSASs adoption initiatives, the (limited) evidence was mixed. While some studies present positive accounts (at least regarding some aspects), issues of decoupling between adopted standards and their actual use are frequently reported, indicating a lack of confirmation of the diffusion.

5.1 Research agenda

We propose the following areas for further research (“what do we need to know?”). First, research to fill the identified blank spots in the analytical framework ( Figure 6 ) is proposed. Here, we call in particular for more analytical works assessing the outcomes (confirmation stage) of IPSASs in different contexts. The study by Bakre et al. (2017) on the adoption of IPSAS 17 in Nigeria is a good example. Given a weak regulatory framework and ineffective governmental institutions, “the promise of using alien accounting standards such as IPSAS 17 to purportedly improve transparency and accountability in property sales and the monetisation of fringe benefits to public officials was ultimately unfulfilled” (ibid., p. 1303). Indeed, formally introducing IPSASs might end up as an exercise that adds little to improving PSA and development without corresponding monitoring of progress ( Bakre et al. , 2021 ; Soobaroyen et al. , 2017 ).

Second, the results revealed that the persuasion and decision stages are under-researched, and in particular the role of local stakeholders such as professional accounting bodies and professional associations of public sector accountants who will work with the new standards on a day-to-day basis. The research by Rajib et al. (2019) contrasts the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making in Sri Lanka and Nepal with their non-involvement in Bangladesh during this stage. The paper by Antipova and Bourmistrov (2013) on Russia suggests that the followed top-down approach did not involve what they refer to as “context ambassadors” very much – but the buy-in of these is needed for the reforms to succeed. With this, we require more in-depth insights as to how to secure the commitment of accountants and users of financial reporting in the course of deciding on the adoption.

Third, developing strong PSA systems in EEs and LICs has been argued to be important for a number of reasons. According to a study by ACCA (2010 , p. 2), PSA systems impact “on a broad range of areas including: aggregate financial management – fiscal sustainability; resource mobilisation and allocation; operational management – performance, value-for-money and budget management; governance – transparency and accountability; fiduciary risk management – controls, compliance and oversight. In addition, effective public financial management is important for decision making”. Looking at the co-occurrence network of keywords from the papers ( Figure 5 ), we see that IPSASs adoption is linked to PSA and wider administrative reform issues such as transparency , accountability and regulation , but not overly to topics such as decision-making , budgeting , fiscal sustainability and fiduciary management . Exploring the relationship of IPSASs with these issues (and potentially also risk management ), i.e. their “interlinking theorisation” ( Höllerer et al. , 2020 , p. 1284), could be an area for further studies.

Related to this, the voiced downsides of IPSASs of (1) initially offering limited public sector-specific provisions in recognising, for example, transactions relating to social benefits and tax revenues and (2) not covering budgeting issues, which is central for countries where public finance is centred around the annual budget, have made the usefulness of IPSASs largely redundant in contexts also beyond EEs and LICs ( Adhikari and Gårseth-Nesbakk, 2016 ; European Commission, 2012 ). This has triggered, for example, a momentum towards developing a separate set of European Public Sector Accounting Standards (EPSASs), especially focusing on the European context, as part of harmonising PSA ( Manes Rossi et al. , 2016 ).

Fourth, we call for more research on the regional and local level and the level of individual organisations. This is, for example, done in Chow and Aggestam Pontoppidan's (2019) study, which focuses on IPSAS adoption in the United Nations System of Organizations. It is on this level where the majority of public services are delivered to citizens and where IPSASs can potentially contribute instantaneously to increasing transparency and discharging accountability. Here, IPSASs adoption could be linked to the debate of the publicness of PSA, and the localisation of reforms in particular ( Steccolini, 2019 ).

Fifth, through the application of diffusion theory, we have delineated a clear trajectory of ongoing PSA reforms in EEs/LICs. IPSAS reforms are at different stages in different EE/LIC contexts and these reforms are encountering varied challenges and obstacles as they traverse each successive stage. Prior work discusses that the diffusion of public sector innovation is not automatic ( Adhikari et al ., 2015 , 2019 ; Dissanayake et al. , 2020 ; Ezzamel et al. , 2014 ). However, rarely has prior work delineated a holistic understanding of where and at what stages IPSAS reforms stand in EEs/LICs, and which factors influence the progression of reforms at the next stage. For instance, our findings show that almost 70% of IPSAS reforms have been unable to reach the confirmation stage and that confirmation has been manipulated in many cases ( Bakre et al. , 2017 ; Goddard et al. , 2016 ). Given that many EEs/LICs are in the process of converging with IPSASs ( Gómez-Villegas et al. , 2020 ), further research is warranted focusing on issues relating to the confirmation stage of the diffusion of PSA reforms.

Finally, we reiterate a number of calls from the papers regarding studying the particular challenges that EEs and LICs are facing, such as the consequences of the global financial crisis about a decade ago ( Amiri and Hamza, 2020 ; Ben Amor and Damak Ayadi, 2019 ; Timoshenko and Adhikari, 2010 ) and recently the COVID-19 pandemic. In the advent of the pandemic, reporting of balance sheet risks and guarantees and contingent liabilities have been key issues in PSA ( Anderson and Burke, 2021 ). While the first empirical research has been published in the area of budgeting (see the Special Issue edited by Grossi et al. (2020) in this journal), we call for an extension of the scope to financial accounting and reporting. Further studies along the suggested lines may help to clear some of the “blank spots” (or reduce them) and eventually foster an understanding of IPSAS diffusion in EEs and LICs.

5.2 Practical implications and conclusion

In addition to the outlined research avenues, we derive a number of practical implications from this research.

First, this research echoes observations made by previous authors ( Bakre et al. , 2021 ; Hopper et al. , 2017 ; Jayasinghe et al. , 2020 ), who make a call to take the characteristics of EEs and LICs into account when adopting (public sector) accounting reforms. The main point here is not to “wash away” the structures already in place, but to make “an ‘intelligent’ application of existing regulations and accounting systems” ( Jayasinghe et al. , 2020 , p. 1) when adopting a “development accounting” instrument ( Jayasinghe and Wickramasinghe, 2011 , p. 410) such as IPSASs.

Second, IPSAS reforms are interconnected to a wider range of (PSA and public sector) reform activities, for example enhancing systems of accountability ( Figure 5 ) or internal auditing capacities ( Nerantzidis et al. , 2020 ). After an assessment of institutional capability ( Hassan, 2015 ), a sequencing/prioritisation approach ( Bietenhader and Bergmann, 2010 ) might be suggested, i.e. starting reforms with more basic issues or reform packages before implementing more advanced instruments. Also, IPSASs could be first introduced in pilot entities ( Jorge et al. , 2020 ).

Finally, in line with Chan (2006) and Rajib et al. (2019) , we argue that the implementation of IPSASs in EEs and LICs often requires a large investment in educating and training public sector employees to develop a new range of accounting skills.

To conclude, this is the first review of IPSASs in EEs and LICs to structure the extant literature and point to under-researched areas. However, as with all empirical research, there are a number of limitations to this study. First, our methodological setup did not enable us to include materials such as books, edited volumes, journals that are not peer-reviewed and material in languages other than English in our review. Further research could address this shortcoming ( Massaro et al. , 2016 ). Also, IPSASs need to be contextualised in the broader “ecosystem” of administrative reforms in the public sectors of EEs and LICs. Further research could, for example, explore how IPSASs relate to broader managerial reforms in these countries ( Hepworth, 2015 ) and how they relate to “good governance” principles, such as transparency and accountability (e.g. Bakre et al. , 2021 ).

Flow diagram for systematic literature review

Articles per year, 2003–2020

Research design of papers

Conceptual background of studies

Author keywords co-occurrence network

Revisited analytical framework

Analytical framework to assess the literature on IPSASs

Search query results

Citations per year (as of December 2020)

Locus of studies

In this review, we follow the criteria of the Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies to determine which countries are considered as EEs ( Tsamenyi and Uddin, 2011 ). EEs are countries within lower- to upper-middle-income bands according to the World Bank, as well as ex-communist countries in Europe, upper-income countries from the Middle East and ASEAN countries (as these countries bear socio-economic similarities to the countries as per the World Bank list). LICs are low-income countries as per the World Bank classification: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups – retrieved: 01/12/2020.

Abdulkarim , M.E. , Umlai , M.I. and Al-Saudi , L.F. ( 2020 ), “ Exploring the role of innovation in the level of readiness to adopt IPSAS ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , Vol. 16 No. 3 , pp. 469 - 495 .

Abushamsieh , K. , López Hernández , A.M. and Ortiz Rodríguez , D. ( 2013 ), “ The transparency of government financial information systems in Arab countries: evidence from Palestine ”, Journal of Accounting – Business and Management , Vol. 20 No. 2 , pp. 99 - 112 .

ACCA ( 2010 ), Improving Public Sector Financial Management in Developing Countries and Emerging Economies , Association of Chartered Certified Accountants , London .

ACCA ( 2017 ), IPSAS Implementation: Current Status and Challenges , Association of Chartered Certified Accountants , London .

Ada , S.S. and Christiaens , J. ( 2018 ), “ The magic shoes of IPSAS: will they fit Turkey? ”, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences , Vol. 54 No. 1 , pp. 5 - 21 .

Adam , B. ( 2018 ), “ Comparison of the perception of overt and covert options in IPSAS financial statements by intergovernmental organizations ”, Tékhne , Vol. 16 No. 1 , pp. 28 - 39 .

Adhikari , P. and Gårseth-Nesbakk , L. ( 2016 ), “ Implementing public sector accruals in OECD member states: major issues and challenges ”, Accounting Forum , Vol. 40 No. 2 , pp. 125 - 142 .

Adhikari , P. and Jayasinghe , K. ( 2017 ), “ ‘Agents-in-focus’ and ‘Agents-in-context’: the strong structuration analysis of central government accounting practices and reforms in Nepal ”, Accounting Forum , Vol. 41 No. 2 , pp. 96 - 115 .

Adhikari , P. and Mellemvik , F. ( 2010 ), “ The adoption of IPSASs in South Asia: a comparative study of seven countries ”, Research in Accounting in Emerging Economies , Vol. 10 No. 1 , pp. 169 - 199 .

Adhikari , P. and Mellemvik , F. ( 2011 ), “ The rise and fall of accruals: a case of Nepalese central government ”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies , Vol. 1 No. 2 , pp. 123 - 143 .

Adhikari , P. , Kuruppu , C. and Matilal , S. ( 2013 ), “ Dissemination and institutionalization of public sector accounting reforms in less developed countries: a comparative study of the Nepalese and Sri Lankan central governments ”, Accounting Forum , Vol. 37 No. 3 , pp. 213 - 230 .

Adhikari , P. , Kuruppu , C. , Wynne , A. and Ambalangodage , D. ( 2015 ), “ Diffusion of the cash basis international public sector accounting standard (IPSAS) in less developed countries (LDCs) – the case of the Nepali central government ”, Research in Accounting in Emerging Economies , Vol. 15 No. 1 , pp. 85 - 108 .

Adhikari , P. , Kuruppu , C. , Ouda , H. , Grossi , G. and Ambalangodage , D. ( 2019 ), “ Unintended consequences in implementing public sector accounting reforms in emerging economies: evidence from Egypt, Nepal and Sri Lanka ”, International Review of Administrative Sciences . doi: 10.1177/0020852319864156 .

Alsharari , N.M. ( 2020 ), “ Accounting changes and beyond budgeting principles (BBP) in the public sector ”, International Journal of Public Sector Management , Vol. 33 Nos 2/3 , pp. 165 - 189 .

Amiri , A. and Hamza , S.E. ( 2020 ), “ The transition to IPSAS standards: the extent of adoption and the influence of institutional, contingency and economic network factors ”, Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems , Vol. 19 No. 2 , pp. 215 - 251 .

Anderson , B. and Burke , K. ( 2021 ), Budgeting for Loans and Guarantees: The United States Federal Credit Reform Act , OECD Working Party of Senior Budget Officials , Paris .

Antipova , T. and Bourmistrov , A. ( 2013 ), “ Is Russian public sector accounting in the process of modernization? An analysis of accounting reforms in Russia ”, Financial Accountability and Management , Vol. 29 No. 4 , pp. 442 - 478 .

Araya-Leandro , C. , Caba-Pérez , M.D.C. and López-Hernandez , A.M. ( 2016 ), “ The convergence of the Central American countries to international accounting standards ”, Revista de Administração Pública , Vol. 50 No. 2 , pp. 265 - 283 .

Bakre , O. , Lauwo , S.G. and McCartney , S. ( 2017 ), “ Western accounting reforms and accountability in wealth redistribution in patronage-based Nigerian society ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 30 No. 6 , pp. 1288 - 1308 .

Bakre , O.M. , McCartney , S. and Fayemi , S.O. ( 2021 ), “ Accounting as a technology of neoliberalism: the accountability role of IPSAS in Nigeria ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting . doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102282 .

Baskerville , R. and Grossi , G. ( 2019 ), “ Glocalization of accounting standards: observations on neo-institutionalism of IPSAS ”, Public Money and Management , Vol. 39 No. 2 , pp. 95 - 103 .

Bénit-Gbaffou , C. ( 2018 ), “ Beyond the policy-implementation gap: how the City of Johannesburg manufactured the ungovernability of street trading ”, The Journal of Development Studies , Vol. 54 No. 12 , pp. 2149 - 2167 .

Ben Amor , D. and Damak Ayadi , S. ( 2019 ), “ The profile of IPSAS-adopters ”, Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems , Vol. 18 No. 2 , pp. 262 - 282 .

Bietenhader , D. and Bergmann , A. ( 2010 ), “ Principles for sequencing public financial reforms in developing countries ”, International Public Management Review , Vol. 11 No. 1 , pp. 52 - 66 .

Boolaky , P.K. , Mirosea , N. and Singh , K. ( 2018 ), “ On the regulatory changes in government accounting development in Indonesia. A chronology from colonisation and post-colonisation era ”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies , Vol. 8 No. 3 , pp. 387 - 411 .

Bracci , E. , Papi , L. , Bigoni , M. , Deidda Gagliardo , E. and Bruns , H.-J. ( 2019 ), “ Public value and public sector accounting research: a structured literature review ”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management , Vol. 31 No. 1 , pp. 103 - 136 .

Brusca , I. , Montesinos , V. and Chow , D.S.L. ( 2013 ), “ Legitimating International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS): the case of Spain ”, Public Money and Management , Vol. 33 No. 6 , pp. 437 - 444 .

Carolini , G.Y. ( 2010 ), “ The tools of whose trade? How international accounting guidelines are failing governments in the global South ”, Third World Quarterly , Vol. 31 No. 3 , pp. 469 - 483 .

Cavanagh , J. and Fernández Benito , A. ( 2016 ), “ Public accounting and fiscal credibility ”, in Pimenta , C. and Pessoa , M. (Eds), Public Financial Management in Latin America. The Key to Efficiency and Transparency , International Monetary Fund , Washington, DC , pp. 183 - 236 .

Cenar , I. ( 2012 ), “ Call for professional judgment policy and accounting estimates changes wihin public institutions ”, Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica , Vol. 14 No. 2 , pp. 348 - 356 .

Chan , J. ( 2003 ), “ Government accounting: an assessment of theory, purposes and standards ”, Public Money and Management , Vol. 23 No. 1 , pp. 13 - 20 .

Chan , J.L. ( 2006 ), “ IPSAS and government accounting reform in developing countries ”, in Lande , E. and Scheid , J.-C. (Eds), Accounting Reform in the Public Sector: Mimicry, Fad or Necessity , Expert Comptable Media , Paris , pp. 31 - 42 .

Chow , D.S.L. and Aggestam Pontoppidan , C. ( 2019 ), “ The United Nations' (UN) decision to adopt International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) ”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management , Vol. 31 No. 2 , pp. 285 - 306 .

Christiaens , J. , Vanhee , C. , Manes-Rossi , F. , Aversano , N. and Van Cauwenberge , P. ( 2015 ), “ The Effect of IPSAS on reforming governmental financial reporting: an international comparison ”, International Review of Administrative Sciences , Vol. 81 No. 1 , pp. 158 - 177 .

De Silva Lokuwaduge , C.S. and De Silva , K. ( 2020 ), “ Determinants of public sector accounting reforms ”, International Journal of Public Sector Management , Vol. 33 Nos 2/3 , pp. 191 - 205 .

de Vries , H. , Bekkers , V. and Tummers , L. ( 2016 ), “ Innovation in the public sector: a systematic review and future research agenda ”, Public Administration , Vol. 94 No. 1 , pp. 146 - 166 .

De Waele , L. , Polzer , T. , van Witteloostuijn , A. and Berghman , L. ( 2021 ), “ ‘A little bit of everything?’ Conceptualising performance measurement in hybrid public sector organisations through a literature review ”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management , Vol. 33 No. 3 , pp. 343 - 363 .

Deaconu , A. , Nistor , C.S. and Filip , C. ( 2011 ), “ The impact of accrual accounting on public sector management. An exploratory study for Romania ”, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences , No. 32E , pp. 74 - 97 .

Dissanayake , T. , Dellaportas , S. and Yapa , P.W.S. ( 2020 ), “ The diffusion‐adoption of accrual accounting in Sri Lankan local governments ”, Financial Accountability and Management , Vol. 36 No. 3 , pp. 261 - 277 .

Elmezughi , A. and Wakil , A.A. ( 2018 ), “ Feasibility of transformation to accrual basis of accounting in the public sector: Kingdom of Bahrain Context ”, Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal , Vol. 22 No. 6 , pp. 1 - 15 .

European Commission ( 2012 ), Public Consultation – Assessment of the Suitability of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards for the Member States. Summary of Responses , European Commission , Brussels .

Ezzamel , M. , Hyndman , N. , Johnsen , Å. and Lapsley , I. ( 2014 ), “ Reforming central government: an evaluation of an accounting innovation ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , Vol. 25 Nos 4-5 , pp. 409 - 422 .

Fahmid , I.M. , Harun , H. , Graham , P. , Carter , D. , Suhab , S. , An , Y. , Zheng , X. and Fahmid , M.M. ( 2020 ), “ New development: IPSAS adoption, from G20 countries to village governments in developing countries ”, Public Money and Management , Vol. 40 No. 2 , pp. 160 - 163 .

Goddard , A. , Assad , M. , Issa , S. , Malagila , J. and Mkasiwa , T.A. ( 2016 ), “ The two publics and institutional theory – a study of public sector accounting in Tanzania ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , Vol. 40 No. 1 , pp. 8 - 25 .

Gómez-Villegas , M. , Brusca , I. and Bergmann , A. ( 2020 ), “ IPSAS in Latin America: innovation, isomorphism or rhetoric? ”, Public Money and Management , Vol. 40 No. 7 , pp. 489 - 498 .

Greenwood , R. , Oliver , C. , Lawrence , T.B. and Meyer , R.E. ( 2017 ), “ Introduction: into the fourth decade ”, in Greenwood , R. , Oliver , C. , Lawrence , T.B. and Meyer , R.E. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism , Sage , Los Angeles , pp. 1 - 23 .

Grossi , G. , Ho , A.T. and Joyce , P.G. ( 2020 ), “ Budgetary responses to a global pandemic: international experiences and lessons for a sustainable future ”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management , Vol. 32 No. 5 , pp. 737 - 744 .

Grubišić , M. , Nušinović , M. and Roje , G. ( 2009 ), “ Towards efficient public sector asset management ”, Financial Theory and Practice , Vol. 33 No. 3 , pp. 329 - 362 .

Harun , H. , Mir , M. , Carter , D. and An , Y. ( 2019 ), “ Examining the unintended outcomes of NPM reforms in Indonesia ”, Public Money and Management , Vol. 39 No. 2 , pp. 86 - 94 .

Hassan , M.M. ( 2015 ), “ Transformation to more accrual-based accounting practices in Indonesian government ”, Journal of International Business Research , Vol. 14 No. 1 , pp. 139 - 165 .

Hepworth , N. ( 2015 ), “ Debate: implementing advanced public financial management reform in developing countries ”, Public Money and Management , Vol. 35 No. 4 , pp. 251 - 253 .

Hepworth , N. ( 2017 ), “ Is implementing the IPSASs an appropriate reform? ”, Public Money and Management , Vol. 37 No. 2 , pp. 141 - 148 .

Höllerer , M.A. , Jancsary , D. , Barberio , V. and Meyer , R.E. ( 2020 ), “ The interlinking theorization of management concepts: cohesion and semantic equivalence in management knowledge ”, Organization Studies , Vol. 41 No. 9 , pp. 1284 - 1310 .

Hopper , T. , Lassou , P. and Soobaroyen , T. ( 2017 ), “ Globalisation, accounting and developing countries ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , Vol. 43 , pp. 125 - 148 .

Hughes , J.W. ( 2007 ), “ Transitioning from current basis to full accrual basis of accounting for governments in developing countries ”, The Journal of Government Financial Management , Vol. 56 No. 3 , pp. 20 - 26 .

IFAC ( 2011 ), Transition to the Accrual Basis of Accounting: Guidance for Public Sector Entities , IFAC , New York .

IPSASB ( 2010 ), Update of Study 14 – Transition to the Accrual Basis of Accounting: Guidance for Governments and Government Entities , IFAC , New York .

Jackson , A. and Lapsley , I. ( 2003 ), “ The diffusion of accounting practices in the new “managerial” public sector ”, International Journal of Public Sector Management , Vol. 16 No. 5 , pp. 359 - 372 .

Jayasinghe , K. and Wickramasinghe , D. ( 2011 ), “ Power over empowerment: encountering development accounting in a Sri Lankan fishing village ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , Vol. 22 No. 4 , pp. 396 - 414 .

Jayasinghe , K. , Adhikari , P. , Wynne , A. , Malagila , J. , Abdurafiu , N. and Soobaroyen , T. ( 2020 ), “ Government accounting reforms in Sub-Saharan African Countries and the selective ignorance of the epistemic community: a competing logics perspective ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting . doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102246 .

Jensen , G. ( 2020 ), “ The IPSASB's recent strategies: opportunities for academics and standard-setters ”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management , Vol. 32 No. 3 , pp. 315 - 319 .

Jorge , S. , Nogueira , S.P. and Ribeiro , N. ( 2020 ), “ The institutionalization of public sector accounting reforms: the role of pilot entities ”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management , Vol. 33 No. 2 , pp. 114 - 137 .

Kartiko , S.W. , Rossieta , H. , Martani , D. and Wahyuni , T. ( 2018 ), “ Measuring accrual-based IPSAS implementation and its relationship to central government fiscal transparency ”, BAR – Brazilian Administration Review , Vol. 15 No. 4 .

Korutaro Nkundabanyanga , S. , Tauringana , V. , Balunywa , W. and Naigo Emitu , S. ( 2013 ), “ The association between accounting standards, legal framework and the quality of financial reporting by a government ministry in Uganda ”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies , Vol. 3 No. 1 , pp. 65 - 81 .

Kumar , S. , Pandey , N. and Haldar , A. ( 2020 ), “ Twenty years of public management review (PMR): a bibliometric overview ”, Public Management Review , Vol. 22 No. 12 , pp. 1876 - 1896 .

Lapsley , I. and Wright , E. ( 2004 ), “ The diffusion of management accounting innovations in the public sector: a research agenda ”, Management Accounting Research , Vol. 15 No. 3 , pp. 355 - 374 .

Lassou , P.J.C. ( 2017 ), “ State of government accounting in Ghana and Benin: a ‘tentative’ account ”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies , Vol. 7 No. 4 , pp. 486 - 506 .

Legenkova , M. ( 2016 ), “ International Public Sector Accounting Standards implementation in the Russian Federation ”, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues , Vol. 6 No. 4 , pp. 1304 - 1309 .

Liguori , M. and Steccolini , I. ( 2012 ), “ Accounting change: explaining the outcomes, interpreting the process ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 25 No. 1 , pp. 27 - 70 .

Lüder , K. ( 1992 ), “ A contingency model for governmental accounting innovations in the political-administrative environment ”, Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting , Vol. 7 , pp. 99 - 127 .

Manes Rossi , F. , Cohen , S. , Caperchione , E. and Brusca , I. ( 2016 ), “ Harmonizing public sector accounting in Europe: thinking out of the box ”, Public Money and Management , Vol. 36 No. 3 , pp. 189 - 196 .

Manes-Rossi , F. , Nicolò , G. and Argento , D. ( 2020 ), “ Non-financial reporting formats in public sector organizations: a structured literature review ”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management , Vol. 32 No. 4 , pp. 639 - 669 .

Massaro , M. , Dumay , J. and Guthrie , J. ( 2016 ), “ On the shoulders of giants: undertaking a structured literature review in accounting ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 29 No. 5 , pp. 767 - 801 .

Mattei , G. , Jorge , S. and Grandis , F.G. ( 2020 ), “ Comparability in IPSASs: lessons to be learned for the European standards ”, Accounting in Europe , Vol. 17 No. 2 , pp. 158 - 182 .

Mir , M. and Sutiyono , W. ( 2013 ), “ Public sector financial management reform: a case study of local government agencies in Indonesia ”, Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal , Vol. 7 No. 4 , pp. 98 - 117 .

Moher , D. , Liberati , A. , Tetzlaff , J. and Altman , D.G. ( 2009 ), “ Reprint – preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement ”, Physical Therapy , Vol. 89 No. 9 , pp. 873 - 880 .

Mouritsen , J. ( 2005 ), “ Beyond accounting change: design and mobilisation of management control systems ”, Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Organizational Change , Vol. 1 No. 1 , pp. 97 - 133 .

Mustapha , M. , Ismail , K.N.I.K. and Ahmad , H.N. ( 2019 ), “ Professionalism, competency and financial reporting quality: a perception of Director of Finance in a changing public sector reporting standard ”, Jurnal Pengurusan , Vol. 57 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 19 .

Nerantzidis , M. , Pazarskis , M. , Drogalas , G. and Galanis , S. ( 2020 ), “ Internal auditing in the public sector: a systematic literature review and future research agenda ”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management . doi: 10.1108/JPBAFM-02-2020-0015 .

Nguyen , P.C. and Dinh Khoi Nguyen , T. ( 2012 ), “ International harmonization and national particularities of accounting ”, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change , Vol. 8 No. 3 , pp. 431 - 451 .

Nolte , I.M. , Polzer , T. and Seiwald , J. ( 2021 ), “ Gender budgeting in emerging economies – a systematic literature review and research agenda ”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies . doi: 10.1108/JAEE-03-2020-0047 .

North , D.C. , Wallis , J.J. , Webb , S.B. and Weingast , B.R. ( 2013 ), “ Lessons – in the shadow of violence ”, in North , D.C. , Wallis , J.J. , Webb , S.B. and Weingast , B.R. (Eds), In the Shadow of Violence: Politics, Economics and the Problems of Development , Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , pp. 328 - 350 .

Nurunnabi , M. ( 2020 ), “ Editorial: International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS): current status, practices and future agenda ”, International Journal of Public Sector Management , Vol. 33 Nos 2/3 , pp. 113 - 115 .

Oulasvirta , L. ( 2014 ), “ The reluctance of a developed country to choose International Public Sector Accounting Standards of the IFAC. A critical case study ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , Vol. 25 No. 3 , pp. 272 - 285 .

Podsakoff , P.M. , MacKenzie , S.B. , Bachrach , D.G. and Podsakoff , N.P. ( 2005 ), “ The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s ”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 26 No. 5 , pp. 473 - 488 .

Polzer , T. , Gårseth-Nesbakk , L. and Adhikari , P. ( 2020 ), “ ‘Does your walk match your talk?’ Analyzing IPSASs diffusion in developing and developed countries ”, International Journal of Public Sector Management , Vol. 33 Nos 2/3 , pp. 117 - 139 .

Polzer , T. , Grossi , G. and Reichard , C. ( 2021a ), “ The harmonization of public sector accounting and diffusion of IPSAS ”, in Brusca , I. , Gomes , P. , Fernandes , M.J. and Montesinos , V. (Eds), Challenges in the Adoption of International Public Sector Accounting Standards. The Experience of the Iberian Peninsula as a Front Runner , Palgrave Macmillan , Cham , pp. 17 - 34 .

Polzer , T. , Grossi , G. and Reichard , C. ( 2021b ), “ Implementation of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards in Europe. Variations on a global Theme ”, Accounting Forum . doi: 10.1080/01559982.2021.1920277 .

Polzer , T. , Nolte , I.M. and Seiwald , J. ( 2021c ), “ Gender budgeting in public financial management: a literature review and research agenda ”, International Review of Administrative Sciences . doi: 10.1177/00208523211031796 .

Polzer , T. , Reichard , C. and Grossi , G. ( 2021d ), “ Organization of the IPSASB, conceptual framework and claimed benefits and criticisms of IPSAS ”, in Brusca , I. , Gomes , P. , Fernandes , M.J. and Montesinos , V. (Eds), Challenges in the Adoption of International Public Sector Accounting Standards. The Experience of the Iberian Peninsula as a Front Runner , Palgrave Macmillan , Cham , pp. 1 - 16 .

PwC ( 2013 ), Towards a New Era in Government Accounting and Reporting , PwC , Brussels .

Rajib , S.U. , Adhikari , P. , Hoque , M. and Akter , M. ( 2019 ), “ Institutionalisation of the cash basis international public sector accounting standard in the central government of Bangladesh ”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies , Vol. 9 No. 1 , pp. 28 - 50 .

Ratmono , D. and Sutrisno ( 2019 ), “ Financial statements quality of central government entities: a test of institutional and agency theories ”, Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal , Vol. 23 No. 3 , pp. 1 - 15 .

Rogers , E.M. ( 2003 ), Diffusion of Innovations , Free Press , New York .

Saleh , Z. and Pendlebury , M.W. ( 2006 ), “ Accruals accounting in government – developments in Malaysia ”, Asia Pacific Business Review , Vol. 12 No. 4 , pp. 421 - 435 .

Santis , S. , Grossi , G. and Bisogno , M. ( 2018 ), “ Public sector consolidated financial statements: a structured literature review ”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management , Vol. 30 No. 2 , pp. 230 - 251 .

Schmidthuber , L. , Hilgers , D. and Hofmann , S. ( 2020 ), “ International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs): a systematic literature review and future research agenda ”, Financial Accountability and Management . doi: 10.1111/faam.12265 .

Scimago Research Group ( 2007 ), Description of SCImago Journal Rank Indicator , available at: http://www.scimagojr.com/SCImagoJournalRank.pdf ( accessed 01 09 2020 ).

Soobaroyen , T. , Tsamenyi , M. and Sapra , H. ( 2017 ), “ Accounting and governance in Africa – contributions and opportunities for further research ”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies , Vol. 7 No. 4 , pp. 422 - 427 .

Sour , L. ( 2020 ), “ New development: integration of budget and governmental accounting in Mexican states ”, Public Money and Management , Vol. 40 No. 7 , pp. 519 - 522 .

Steccolini , I. ( 2019 ), “ Accounting and the post-new public management: re-considering publicness in accounting research ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 32 No. 1 , pp. 255 - 279 .

Thoradeniya , P. , Ferreira , A. , Lee , J. and Tan , R. ( 2020 ), “ The diffusion of sustainability key performance indicators in a developing country context ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal . doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-07-2019-4106 .

Timoshenko , K. and Adhikari , P. ( 2010 ), “ A two-country comparison of public sector accounmting reforms: same ideas, different paths? ”, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management , Vol. 22 No. 4 , pp. 449 - 486 .

Tiron Tudor , A. ( 2010 ), “ Romanian public institutions financial statements on the way of harmonization with IPSAS ”, Accounting and Management Information Systems , Vol. 9 No. 3 , pp. 422 - 447 .

Tooley , S. , Hooks , J. and Basnan , N. ( 2010 ), “ Performance reporting by Malaysian local authorities: identifying stakeholder needs ”, Financial Accountability and Management , Vol. 26 No. 2 , pp. 103 - 133 .

Torres , L. ( 2004 ), “ Accounting and accountability: recent developments in government financial information systems ”, Public Administration and Development , Vol. 24 No. 5 , pp. 447 - 456 .

Tsamenyi , M. and Uddin , S. ( 2011 ), “ Editorial ”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies , Vol. 1 No. 1 , p. 1 .

van Helden , J. and Uddin , S. ( 2016 ), “ Public sector management accounting in emerging economies: a literature review ”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting , Vol. 41 No. 1 , pp. 34 - 62 .

Van Helden , J. , Adhikari , P. and Kuruppu , C. ( 2021 ), “ Public sector accounting in emerging economies: a review of the papers published in the first decade of Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies ”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies . doi: 10.1108/JAEE-02-2020-0038 .

van Thiel , S. ( 2014 ), Research Methods in Public Administration and Public Management: An Introduction , Routledge , London and New York .

World Bank ( 2010 ), Public Sector Accounting and Auditing in South Asia , World Bank , Washington, DC .

Zaman Mir , M. and Shiraz Rahaman , A. ( 2005 ), “ The adoption of international accounting standards in Bangladesh ”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal , Vol. 18 No. 6 , pp. 816 - 841 .

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on the manuscript. The authors are indebted to the participants of the AAEE 2018 and EGPA 2019 conferences for the valuable feedback received. The authors would like to thank Editor-in-Chief Giuseppe Grossi for his guidance through the review process. This work was supported by the British Academy/Newton Mobility Grant (Grant Number NG160355). The usual disclaimer applies.

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here