Inaugural Lecture: '109 Voices: Translation Issues for Accounting Standards in the EU', Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel F. Baskerville
Author(s):  
David Thackeray

Brexit is likely to lead to the largest shift in Britain’s economic orientation in living memory. Some have argued that leaving the EU will enable Britain to revive markets in Commonwealth countries with which it has long-standing historical ties. Their opponents argue that such claims are based on forms of imperial nostalgia which ignore the often uncomfortable historical trade relations between Britain and these countries, as well as the UK’s historical role as a global, rather than chiefly imperial, economy. This book explores how efforts to promote a ‘British World’ system, centred on promoting trade between Britain and the Dominions, grew and declined in influence between the 1880s and 1970s. At the beginning of the twentieth century many people from London, to Sydney, Auckland, and Toronto considered themselves to belong to culturally British nations. British politicians and business leaders invested significant resources in promoting trade with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa out of a perception that these were great markets of the future. However, ideas about promoting trade between ‘British’ peoples were racially exclusive. From the 1920s onwards colonized and decolonizing populations questioned and challenged the bases of British World networks, making use of alternative forms of international collaboration promoted firstly by the League of Nations and then by the United Nations. Schemes for imperial collaboration amongst ethnically ‘British’ peoples were hollowed out by the actions of a variety of political and business leaders across Asia and Africa who reshaped the functions and identity of the Commonwealth.


2020 ◽  
Vol 384 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-118
Author(s):  
Y. E. Putihin ◽  
Y. N. Akimova ◽  
N. V. Ostrovskaya ◽  
I. A. Manvelova ◽  
E. V. Negashev

International Accounting Practice Accounting is multifaceted and heterogeneous. First distinguish between international standards and national standards. National accounting standards for each country is being developed independently. The leading countries in the field of national accounting standards are the United Kingdom and the United States, which is determined by the role of these countries in international financial markets. In different countries, national accounting standards are called differently; in addition, various bodies are involved in their development: in some these are state bodies, in other countries professional organizations. International accounting standards are implemented and developed at 2 levels: international, global and regional. In the regional aspect, the main role belongs to the EU Accounting Commission, which regulates these matters in the EU countries. World standards are developed by several organizations: International Federation of Accountants, Committee on International Accounting Standards, Intergovernmental Group of Experts on International Standards Reporting and Accounting Center for Transnational United Nations Corporation, Economic development and cooperation. There is a great variety of accounting systems around the world. The differences between them are explained mainly by the different business environments in which they operate. Among many classifications, which are based on various principles, two main classifications can be distinguished. The first one is based on the “geographical” principle, i.e.: the UK-US system, the Continental system, the Latin American system. In the second classification, systems are clustered based on their typical properties and hierarchy. The upper level defines the objectives that the accounting system focuses on. Next, systems are rated based on whether the state insists on applying the theoretical approach or the actual legislative requirements and business needs. It might be difficult to classify a system as belonging to a specific group if the country’s accounting system is unstable. Thus, in the 60s of the 20th century, New Zealand started to separate from the UK, although many provisions of its accounting system were taken directly from the standards developed by the English Institute of Financial Accountants. In view of the existing challenges and various approaches to the classification of national accounting systems, the importance of such classification can hardly be overestimated. The proximity of national accounting systems in countries that belong to the same model suggests the possibility of harmonization of accounting principles at the international level. Based on the above: - the possibility of grouping national accounting systems into clusters makes it possible to level out the differences between them during standardization; - the convergence of economies of different countries due to the globalization of the world economy contributes to the unification of accounting principles at the global level.


2021 ◽  
pp. 002085232110600
Author(s):  
Karoline Helldorff ◽  
Johan Christiaens

This paper analyses the powers and competences of the EU to standardise public sector accounting of the member states and to take other EU action in the field of public sector accounting. We argue that public sector accounting forms part of the administrative organisation of the member states that is not a core EU competence. EU initiatives such as the European Public Sector Accounting Standards project, which aim to increase transparency and comparability, therefore need to follow the rules set out for administrative matters in general. The study reveals on the one hand that EU actions are essentially limited to voluntary cooperation and influences of other policy areas. But on the other hand, it shows that they do not need to be limited to the initiatives currently driven by Eurostat. Points for practitioners The future of the European Public Sector Accounting Standards project is uncertain. However, it is very unlikely that it will take the shape of a top-down set of readymade EU accounting standards that will force public administrations to adjust their inner workings. Public sector accounting is not (yet) a (typical) European policy, but simply a national one that the EU can support. The EU initiative can be considered as an opportunity for collaboration and knowledge sharing on how to increase transparency of public sector accounting.


Author(s):  
Vincenzo Sforza ◽  
Alessandro Mechelli ◽  
Riccardo Cimini

In the field of comparative international governmental accounting research, this chapter participates to the growing debate around the EPSAS-project that according to the EU Commission has a political priority. In this vein, it demonstrates that considering all the governmental subsectors of public administration (central government, state government, local government, social security funds) of the 28 EU Member States, proximity of national regulation to the IPSAS affects the magnitude of total adjustments. These are a proxy of fiscal fragility and are the difference between the non-harmonized data of governmental accounting and the harmonized ESA-2010 national accounting. Findings show that adjustments are significant in magnitude in countries whose regulation has low proximity to IPSAS; opposite, their magnitude is low in countries with high proximity to the IPSAS. Even if they have not provided the anticipated level of harmonisation, the process of modernising the EU public sector accounting standards cannot ignore that the future EPSAS should not diverge much from the IPSAS.


2019 ◽  
pp. 154-177
Author(s):  
Sijbren Cnossen

Chapter 11 discusses the EU legacy of taxing public bodies, illustrated by the African experience. The EU’s out-of-scope approach is bedevilled by distortions arising from the self-supply bias, the investment disincentive, and, somewhat more remotely, unfair competition vis-à-vis the private sector. Outside Africa, countries with VAT have addressed these issues differently. Various EU countries and Canada, for example, have designed input tax refund mechanisms to eliminate the self-supply bias and the investment disincentive. Still other countries, such as New Zealand, tax governments and activities in the public interest in full and have thus come to terms with the unfair competition issue, too. A concluding section summarizes the characteristics and effects of the various approaches and attempts to formulate a recommendation for African countries.


2010 ◽  
Vol 213 ◽  
pp. R43-R51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Barrett ◽  
Jean Goggin

Using data from a large-scale survey of employees in Ireland, we estimate the extent to which people who have emigrated from Ireland and returned earn more relative to comparable people who have never lived abroad. In so doing, we test the hypothesis that migration can be part of a process of human capital formation. We find through OLS estimation that returners earn 7 per cent more than comparable stayers. We test for the presence of self-selection bias in this estimate but the tests suggest that the premium is related to returner status. The premium holds for both genders, is higher for people with postgraduate degrees and for people who migrated beyond the EU to the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The results show how emigration can be positive for a source country when viewed in a longer-term context.


Subject Outlook for the Five Eyes alliance. Significance The stability of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing partnership between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States is under stress over Chinese participation in the members’ 5G telecommunications networks. Impacts Possible US concessions on the supply chains of Chinese firms would ease strain within the Five Eyes alliance. European corporates will redouble efforts to burnish their security credentials to capture 5G market share. London’s eventual decision on Huawei will influence the EU and Asian democracies.


Author(s):  
Phillip R. Clark ◽  
Teresa E. Dana
Keyword(s):  

2007 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon Anderson

On 7 August 2007, Gordon Anderson delivered his inaugural lecture after becoming a professor in the Law Faculty of Victoria University of Wellington. Gordon took as his theme the protection of employees employed on an individual contract of employment. Following the repeal of the award system by the Employment Contracts Act 1991 the majority of New Zealand employees ceased to be covered by collectively negotiated instruments. Instead the contract of employment became dominant. The lecture argued that the common law contract of employment provides little protection for employees. Instead protection depends on some critical statutory interventions that provide a degree of balance within the employment relationship. While not perfect, these protections may be the best that can be expected in the real world of employment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document