Abstract
This issue, the last for 2017, contains a Vale to Michael Gaffikin, seven articles, a selection of book reviews, the ninth Accounting History International Conference (9AHIC) report, and various announcements and notices, including the announcement of the 10AHIC. The articles have been written by authors drawn from Australia, France, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
Baskerville, Carrera, Gomes, Lai, and Parker explore the issues, opportunities, and obstacles which may arise when accounting history researchers seek to engage with other accounting scholars and with scholars from outside accounting in undertaking historical accounting research. The article originated from a panel presentation which was made at the eighth Accounting History International Conference that was held in Ballarat, Australia, in August 2015. The authors encourage scholars to enhance the interdisciplinarity of accounting history research by embarking on the broader engagements they examine and recommend.
An examination of the annual reporting practices of an Australian Commonwealth Government department, known as the Department of Social Services/Security (DSS), during the years 1942–1998 is provided by Davis. During the first 40 years of this extended period, the reporting practices observed were essentially consistent. However, during the 1980s, the former annual reporting practices were replaced by a suite of new reporting techniques, marking the rise of ‘New Public Management’ (NPM). The author, however, argues that the NPM agenda resulted in the quality of the annual reports of the Department declining with adverse implications for discharging accountability.
Levant and Zimnovitch pose the question, ‘Is accounting history still a legitimate subject of study?’ In providing an answer to this question, the authors, in the first part of this contribution, address some epistemological ideas based on Popperian and pragmatist philosophies. The second part of their article illustrates the application of a conceptual framework developed by the French philosopher André Comte-Sponville to the case of accounting history research and publication. Based on their analysis, a warning is sounded to accounting historians of the risks that may confront the discipline, should it ever descend into introspection and neglect.
An exploration of the failure of the Sunbeam Corporation is provided by Agostini and Favero. The authors present the Sunbeam case as an outlier, linked to the time lapse between fraud disclosure and the corporation’s final bankruptcy, which is the longest of the entities in the sample and regarded as unique because of its length. The study examines Sunbeam’s path to failure using a historical microanalysis to evaluate different hypotheses relating to the corporation’s journey to final bankruptcy. Some unanticipated insights are provided as well as recommendations for future research on accounting and auditing fraud.
Carnegie examines how the Accounting History Special Interest Group of the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand and its journal, Accounting History, have developed integrated scholarly forums as a discourse strategy to support the emergence of an international accounting history discipline. These scholarly forums have comprised periodic journal-badged events consisting of international conferences and doctoral and emerging scholars’ colloquia, and annual regional symposia. Using Richardson’s (2008) ‘framework of strategies’ that relate to the rise of academic disciplines, the author identifies three key distinguishing characteristics of the strategy: (1) the adoption of conference themes and the publication of thematic special issues, (2) acceptance of conference papers based on double-blind peer review, and (3) a focus on developing rising scholars.
A public health crisis is the subject of the investigation by Manetti, Bellucci, and Bagnoli, specifically the management of the plague in Florence at the beginning of the Renaissance. Their study concerns the role of the partnership between the Republic of Florence and the Confraternita of Misericordia, the latter being a charity society. Using surviving records from 1490 to 1530, including rare documents, statutes, and account books concerning the administration of the Misericordia, the authors examine how the accounting systems were used in the management of the plague. The theoretical lens applied in the study, specifically the perspectives of Foucault and of Dean, contribute to an appreciation of the link between religious values, political power, and the accountability mechanisms of the Misericordia.
In their positioning article, Zan and Deng seek to advance a new research agenda by exploring a long overlooked area of investigation, ‘the micro foundation of the Great Divergence debate,’ which involves revisiting differences and similarities between the East and the West. Their starting point is to critique the Western-centric view or a macro bias, which places an overwhelming emphasis on the Industrial Revolution as a major discontinuity of Western development. The authors draw on recent research in accounting, management, and business history which suggests a different direction. The direction involves a micro-level focus, under which critical discontinuities in management and accounting can be linked to the Renaissance period. Addressing implications of this approach, this exploratory work is intended to contribute to the debate on the East–West divergence.