外文翻譯---國(guó)內(nèi)的會(huì)計(jì)和國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則（英文）

1、Observations on measuring the differences between domestic accounting standards and IASChristopher W. Nobes *University of London, Royal Holloway, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, United Kingdoma r t i c l e i n f oKe

2、ywords:International accounting differencesRules versus practicesBiases in dataa b s t r a c tIn an earlier edition of this journal, Ding et al. use data in GAAP2001 to assess determinants and effects of differences betw

3、eendomestic and international standards. This paper examineswhether those data are suitable for the purposes of academicresearch by outlining the biases and particular features of GAAP2001. The main problem with the data

4、 for research is that the dif-ferences from IAS that it records, which focus on rules, are of vary-ing importance for accounting practice. This raises questions aboutthe equal weighting applied by Ding et al. This paper

5、also questionstheir distinction between absence of IAS requirements and diver-gence from those requirements. Some doubts are also raised aboutthe independent variables.? 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.1. Introduc

6、tionDing et al. (2007) use the data of Nobes (2001) in order to assess the determinants and effects of differences between domestic and international accounting standards (IAS). Many other authors1 referto the same data

7、for various purposes. As Ding et al. report, the data relate to the accounting rules in forceat the end of 2001 in 62 countries, of which they choose 30 countries. The original data for each countrywere divided into four

8、 categories: absence of recognition/measurement rules (compared to IAS), absenceof disclosure requirements, inconsistencies in rules (compared to IAS) affecting many enterprises, andinconsistencies affecting certain ente

9、rprises. Ding et al. add the first two categories together as ‘‘a(chǎn)b-sence”, and the second two as ‘‘divergence”.0278-4254/$ - see front matter ? 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2009.01.003*

10、 Tel.: +44 1784 276213; fax: +44 1784 276100.E-mail address: Chris.Nobes@rhul.ac.uk1 Google Scholar (accessed on 7 September 2007) shows 549 results for ‘‘GAAP 2001 Nobes”, most of which are for thispublication.J. Accoun

11、t. Public Policy 28 (2009) 148–153Contents lists available at ScienceDirectJ. Account. Public Policyjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaccpubpolWhether de jure differences that are not de facto differences should

12、 be set aside depends upon the purpose of the research. A discussion of this issue by future researchers would be helpful. In the con- text of Ding et al. it would be worth discussing whether good quality reporting needs

13、 good quality reg- ulation or whether good reporting can develop without good regulation if a strong equity market demands it. If the latter is the case, then a study of de jure differences from IAS is less relevant.2.3.

14、 An IAS biasThe GAAP 2001 data were based on looking at accounting rules from one direction: the content of IAS. So, if a national system had more rules or more restrictive rules than IAS had, this did not show up. For e

15、xample, US GAAP covered many issues on which IAS was silent (e.g. oil and gas accounting); and UK GAAP did not allow LIFO whereas IAS did. Since these types of difference are not covered by GAAP 2001, they were not inclu

16、ded by Ding et al. (as they note in their Appendix A). If these differences were included, it would make the US and the UK look more different from IAS than the ‘‘a(chǎn)bsence” and ‘‘divergence” measures suggest, but it would

17、 not much affect the position of the Netherlands, where the rules were generally less detailed or less restrictive than IAS.2.4. 111 topics but 79 survey questionsDing et al. (in Appendix A) notice that some topics in th

18、e survey do not correspond with the original survey questions asked. This is because the survey results were prepared after an interactive process. First, I prepared the questions by analysing the whole of IAS, assessing

19、 which were its key require- ments. Country teams of senior technical staff replied to the questions. I asked for clarifications, often disputing country answers. Sometimes, new issues turned up. Consensus was eventually

20、 reached, and the country teams signed off on the lists of differences. This also explains another feature of GAAP 2001 upon which Ding et al. comment: that the country lists of differences are not in exactly the order o

21、f the original questions. They are broadly in the order of: (i) consolidation issues, (ii) assets, and (iii) liabilities. However, an exact order is less important if there is no intention to compare countries. Incidenta

22、lly, researchers using other data might consider contacting the preparers of the data in order to ask questions such as these.2.5. Respondent behaviorAnother possible bias in the data is behavioral. Some countries like t

23、o be seen to be ‘‘international” and therefore to be complying with IAS. This includes many developing countries. By contrast, in 2001 (before the Enron/Andersen debacle), the US was emphasizing that its accounting was d

24、ifferent from (i.e. better than) IAS (e.g. Bloomer, 1999). There was thus pressure from some countries to minimize the list of differences and from a few others to maximize it. I believe that we did not give way in the f

25、ormer case, but readers of the US entry in GAAP 2001 might notice that some of the ‘‘divergence” from IAS is abstruse, meaning that US divergence is exaggerated.3. MethodologyThis section contains some specific observati

26、ons on the paper by Ding et al. (2007), under three headings.3.1. AdditivityDing et al. need to add items together so as to create scores for countries in order to perform numerical analyses. In GAAP 2001, we resisted th