Premium
Reporting Performance: Comprehensive Income and its Components
Author(s) -
Newberry Susan
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
abacus
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.632
H-Index - 45
eISSN - 1467-6281
pISSN - 0001-3072
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2003.00136.x
Subject(s) - accounting , robustness (evolution) , strengths and weaknesses , conceptual framework , financial accounting , politics , point (geometry) , business , political science , accounting information system , sociology , epistemology , law , social science , biochemistry , chemistry , philosophy , geometry , mathematics , gene
The underlying question raised in this article is: why is the accounting profession's conceptual framework (CF) so authoritative when it is conceptually incoherent? A supplementary question is how can ‘conceptually robust’ accounting standards be derived from an incoherent framework? This article draws on Page and Spira's (1999) contrasting framework metaphors to suggest that the appearance of conceptual robustness is more important than the reality, and illustrates the point with the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB’s) progress report on its reporting performance project. Some inherent weaknesses in the move towards internationally enforceable financial regulations have been acknowledged, but this article suggests the IASB's project demonstrates two additional weaknesses: internal incoherence, and the potential for political ends to drive supposedly technical regulations.