You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2013.
In my last blog entry, I referred to the chameleon nature of the description of IFRS adoption in many countries. I described the contradictions that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) presents when it refers to the overwhelming acceptance of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) globally. This contradiction and confusion generates ambiguity in the application of the standards in most less developed countries that seem to apply the standards from different angles than anticipated by the IASB. This in turn has the potential to undermine the achievement of the benefits of these standards as presented by proponents of IFRSs.
The question is, how different or similar will the outcomes (results) of IFRSs application(s) be if some countries adopt IFRSs without modifications as compared to those that apply modified versions of the standards? Will the IASB be able to achieve the goal of comparability of financial statements across borders? Will the need to harmonize accounting practices globally in order to achieve uniformity be fulfilled? The aim of this blog entry is to reassess the claims that countries and the IASB make when they speak of IFRS adoption, looking for the best way to gauge if and when a country has actually adopted IFRSs.
Let’s start with the basic premise that a single global accounting standard has the prospects of improving information quality across borders and to foster cross border investments. This premise rests on the notion that granted that a single global accounting standard is in place, comparability of financial statements will be achieved, leading to a reduction in information processing costs associated with different national accounting standards, and thereby resulting in a reduction in the overall cost of capital.
This post is provided by guest blogger Domen Bajde of the University of Southern Denmark.
As evidenced by inventive movements and campaigns (for a future example see Half the Sky Movement: The Game), the field of charity is undergoing considerable dynamics. As a skeptically-optimistic observer, I am happy to see research that explores such developments against the backdrop of broader material and social change, appreciating their innovativeness and critically questioning the suppositions, mechanics and stakes at play.
I recently stumbled upon a book sharing my skeptical optimism. Surveying historical change in Amnesty International and Oxfam advertising, Chouliaraki argues that poverty is increasingly instrumentalized, setting the focus on the “self” (of the Western donor), turning charity into an ironic spectacle largely shaped by “compassion fatigue” (a.k.a. avoiding stuff that is unpleasant). Rather than amplifying the voice of those in need, many charities end up prioritizing the interests/pleasures of donors.
governancexborders.com 