Management Accounting, Devolution and Democratic ... 6 Management Accounting,Devolution and...

download Management Accounting, Devolution and Democratic ... 6 Management Accounting,Devolution and Democratic

of 48

  • date post

    19-Mar-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    1
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Management Accounting, Devolution and Democratic ... 6 Management Accounting,Devolution and...

  • Management Accounting, Devolution and Democratic Accountability

    Research Report

    Mahmoud Ezzamel Cardiff Business School

    Noel Hyndman Queen’s University, Belfast

    Åge Johnsen Oslo University College

    Irvine Lapsley University of Edinburgh Management School

    June Pallot Canterbury University, New Zealand

    Simona Scarparo Warwick University Business School

  • Copyright © CIMA 2005 First published in 2005 by: The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants 26 Chapter Street London SW1P 4NP

    Printed in Great Britain

    The publishers of this document consider that it is a worthwhile contribution to discussion, without necessarily sharing the views expressed.

    No responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this publication can be accepted by the authors or the publishers.

    All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means method or device, electronic (whether now or hereafter known or developed), mechanical, photocopying, recorded or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.

    Translation requests should be submitted to CIMA.

  • Management Accounting, Devolution and Democratic Accountability 1

    Contents

    Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About the authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Executive Summary and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Glossary of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

    1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3 Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.4 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.5 Outline of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

    2. The Process of Devolution in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 2.2 Devolution in Northern Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 2.3 Devolution in Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 2.4 Devolution in Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

    3. International Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 3.2 Political Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 3.3 National Audit Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 3.4 New Public Management (NPM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 3.5 Public Management Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 3.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

    4. Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 4.1 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 4.2 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 4.3 Way of Working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

    5. Accountability in the UK Devolved Parliaments and Assemblies . . . . . . . . .22 5.1 Introduction: ‘The Accountability Gap’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 5.2 Accountability Arrangements in the UK Devolved Institutions . . . . . . . . . .23 5.3 What Accountability Means for the Participants to the Study . . . . . . . . . .24 5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

    6. Management Accounting Information in the UK Devolved Institutions . . .26 6.1 Northern Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 6.2 Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 6.3 Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 6.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

    7. Issues of Performance Measurement and Auditing in the UK Devolved Parliament and Assemblies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 7.2 Availability and Use of Performance Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 7.3 Sources and Accessibility of Performance and Audit Information . . . . . . . .33 7.4 The Impact of Reforms on Performance and Audit Information . . . . . . . . .34 7.5 The Impact of Devolution on Performance and Audit Information . . . . . .34 7.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

    8. International Comparison: Issues on Accounting and Accountability in New Zealand and Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 8.2 Empirical Issues on Accounting and Accountability in New Zealand . . . . .36 8.3 Empirical Issues on Accounting and Accountability in Norway . . . . . . . . . .38 8.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

    9. Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

    References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

  • Management Accounting, Devolution and Democratic Accountability2

    The work on this project started in Edinburgh in 2000 as an idea for a CIMA-sponsored project on management accounting in central government. The project was funded by a grant from the Research Foundation of The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) in 2001. In 2002, the project also received a grant from the Devolution, Parliamentarism and Democratic Accountability: a Comparative Study project (grant award number L219252132) in the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) research programme on devolution and constitutional change.

    The aim in writing this report is to contribute to the debate on the role of finance, accounting and management as facets of the modernising agenda in evaluating the democratic accountability that is taking place in accounting, public management, political science, sociology and economics, within the ‘governance and the constitution’ theme. This report aims to be useful to practitioners (public sector accountants, managers and policy-makers). Research on current political and administrative practices can be useful for politicians, policy-makers, journalists and citizens, at large. In particular, the project is relevant for informing the debates on devolution, decentralisation, regionalisation and federalism, for instance with regard to establishing regional assemblies in England, and in assessing the diverse roles of accounting on democratic accountability in public sector reforms.

    Acknowledgements

    It is of great sadness to the research team that we acknowledge the death of June Pallot, a member of this research team who passed away on 5th November 2004 following a long battle with illness. This publication is dedicated to her memory.

    A number of steps have been taken to facilitate interaction with – and dissemination of findings to – different user groups of this research (such as academics, politicians and policy-makers). Firstly, the main findings have been presented both to academic and to professional conferences, including seminars in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, where plans and preliminary results have been presented and discussed with politicians and policy-makers. Secondly, the authors have also participated in CIMA and ESRC workshops and conferences. Thirdly, results have been circulated and published, with more publications in prospect to enhance dissemination.

    There are many institutions and ind