EMT2-40- masurarea armonizarii

8/2/2019 EMT2-40- masurarea armonizarii

1/7

Econometric Tools Used in Measuring Accounting

Harmonization: A Necessity Imposed Through

Globalization

RAZVAN V. MUSTATADUMITRU MATISCARMEN GIORGIANA BONACI

Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationBabes-Bolyai University

T. Mihali 58-60, 400591 Cluj-NapocaROMANIA

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

JI STROUHALDepartment of Financial Accounting and Auditing

University of Economics PragueW. Churchill Sq. 4, 130 67 Prague 3CZECH REPUBLIC

[email protected]

Abstract: - Paper focuses on emphasizing the manner in which econometric instruments can serve thedevelopment of accounting research. While empirical studies are mainly associated with mainstreamresearch, we have chosen to introduce our discussion on the process of globalization and its interrelationwith accounting by making reference to critical accounting literature. This approach is also helpful in settingthe stage on the development of accounting research. Nevertheless, the positive potentiality of globalizationis further exploited within the paper. Our introductory thoughts are set on offering an overview on current

realities and underline the effects of such a complex process, as globalization. It is therefore shown how theability to measure accounting harmonization can be helpful from the perspective of a globalized world. Themain part of the paper reviews empirical studies in accounting literature in order to document the roleeconometric tools play in this regard. Summing up, our paper starts by following how globalization andaccounting interrelate and then document how accounting research, more precisely studies measuringaccounting harmonization, and econometric instruments also interrelate in harmony, adding value toscientific knowledge.

Key-Words: - globalization, accounting harmonization, similarity coefficients, measurement systems,econometric models

1 Introductory Thought onAccounting in Relation to

GlobalizationGlobalization is defined by previous studies througha large variety of approaches, from simple viewsthat consider it to represent the extension of socialrelations over the globe [16] and economicprocesses of internationalization, global referring tothe expansion of trade and commerce betweencountries [15]. The later approach is very similar to[12] definition referring to large and growing flows

of trade and capital investment between countries.More elaborate versions define globalization as thewidening, deepening and speeding of worldwide

interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporarysocial life, from the cultural to the criminal, thefinancial to the spiritual [10] and an inherentlytemporal process whose history - arguably a verylong one [13] - either puts at risk, or requiresspecification of, any claim to novelty [22].

[8] document that globalization in effect equatesto the governance of a problematic hegemony andshapes a context witness to related problematicprocesses and outcomes. All approaches anddefinitions arising during history in order to bettercharacterize the process of globalization point its

interdisciplinary coverage. [22] acknowledge how[10] documented the expansion beyond the national

Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS International Conference on Economy and Management Transformation (Volume II)

ISSN: 1792-5983 670 ISBN: 978-960-474-241-7


2/7

and regional levels of governance mechanisms,trade, markets, financial flows, production networks,migration, organized violence and environmentaldegradation, in conjunction with a series ofdecisive shifts in the geographical scale, immediacyand speed of cultural interaction andcommunication [10].

While globalization processes have not beenfound to act uniform or unidirectional, both whenconsidering space and time dimensions, [10] stillprovide convincing evidence of a tendency towardsa thick globalization taking place during the lasthalf of century. The authors document this tendencyas being characterized by high extensity, intensity,velocity and impact. [22] presents extensity,intensity, velocity and impact as dimensions alongwhich to track how what happens there affects what

happens here, and vice versa. The dynamic of theinteraction then becomes complicated because insome circumstances we might think about analyzinghere and there in conjunction, as forming a globalobject of analysis. Furthermore we inevitably askourselves exactly what kind of object have weformed, the relation between the components of ournew object most surely becoming problematic.

A fair list of globalizations negatives can easilybe found in critical accounting research andincludes: economic re-structuring and volatility, forsome meaning increased poverty, social inequality,

job and pension loss; facilitation of massive frauds;possibility of developing elaborate tax avoidanceschemes generating a retreat from progressivetaxation and welfare statism; global trade regimesworking against the poor in poor countries, thereforeenhancing the rich-poor divides; and posing threatsto traditional cultures. Increased global ecologicalawareness is also considered by some to haveincreased insecurity, while increased economicactivity and re-structuring can contribute pollutionand exert some downward pressure onenvironmental as well as social standards [8].

Smaller nation state can become constrained byglobal capital flows, economic and systemicinterdependency and the power of big business.

[8] on one hand summarize what are commonlyunderstood as negative dimensions of globalization,which they see as a political, economic,technological and cultural process, characterized bythe growth and spread of suprastatism,supranationalism or supraterritoriality [8]. On theother hand, they acknowledge that globalization is adialectical context, a context of tension andcontradiction, wherein lies much of its positivepotentiality. Therefore, some critical researcherstake globalization positively by accepting the fact

that within its developments and context there isalso potential for progressive and emancipatorychange.

As [22] was noting, the word globalization orits derivatives are for some time now being usedwhen approaching broad topic areas including: theacademy and pedagogy; post-modernism; capitalmarkets; the critical accounting project itself;transfer-pricing; the future and nature of work;privatization and the public sector; the accountingprofession; and accounting practice.

2 Trends in Accounting

Harmonization ResearchThe accelerating pace of globalization also led to theappearance of a significant number of free-market

global accounting institutions, while analyzing thedemand for international accounting regulation stillbrings difficulties. [14] urges researchers to considerinternational accounting with all its implicitprocesses and impacts. The free market internationalaccounting reform can be looked at as part of aproblematic globalization process. [15] goes furtherand challenges international accounting research tofocus on accounting impacts which are associatedwith governance and harmonization processes. Thedominant model of harmonizing internationalaccounting is considered to be based on decision-usefulness accounting assumptions. Therefore,entities should be able to continue their operations ifthey achieve efficient and effective outcomes [15,21, 33].

Critical accounting nevertheless brings its ownvision on how it might help the understanding ofaccounting harmonization, its dynamics andprocesses. It is brought to our attention thatinternational accounting can be characterized by avery skilful orchestration of the world-widelobbying pressures of the audit industry that have

the power to control agendas and create technologiesof control [14]. [8] also worry over the fact that inthe context of the universalistic forces shapingcorporate accounting, even the alternative corporatesocial accounting being strongly promoted throughthe UNs Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and theInstitute of Social and Ethical Accountabilitys(ISEAs) global initiatives can be influenced by theproblematic mainstream.

Coming back to posing the accent on thepositive, critical accounting researchers come toconclude that the accounting harmonization process

has the ability to facilitate more progressive globaldemocratic governance [3, 8, 14]. Those questions


ISSN: 1792-5983 671 ISBN: 978-960-474-241-7


3/7

being raised in order to clarify the global object ofanalysis, this being created through the accountingharmonization process as a result of the interactionstaking place, ironically generate significant concernson valued differences.

If we are to further focus on the literature dealingwith accounting harmonization we must makereference to [20] who showed that starting with themature period (1990-2004, according to [18]) in thedevelopment of this category of studies, two majorgroups of researches can be observed. One wouldfocus particularly on analyzing the internationalaccounting harmonization process, while the otheron measuring the harmonization degree. It is the firstgroup that better suits the above discussed type ofresearch, raising a series of questions that haverevelatory power. Meanwhile, results being obtained

through those studies that aim at measuringaccounting harmonization must also be interpretedand analyzed within a more complex setting thatconsiders all implicit processes and impacts.

3 Measuring Accounting

Harmonization: Past Practices in

ReviewInternational accounting harmonization must belooked at from two distinctive perspectives when

referring to implementation aspects. The first onerelates to accounting regulations, and the second oneto accounting practices and financial reportingpractices. From an historical point of view we noticethat measuring accounting harmonization was in itsbeginnings done by using different systems.Nowadays making a clear distinction of systemsbeing used in current research is no longer possible.Preoccupations for quantifying the compatibilitydegree between accounting systems were firstoriented towards accounting practices. Nevertheless,accounting regulation gradually gain significant

ground in the area of accounting harmonizationstudies.

3.1. Measurement instruments based on

measuring options concentrationAmong the first instruments measuringcompatibility of accounting practices we mustmention the indicators being used by [30, 31, 32].These indicators have been developed due todescriptive statistics and comparative analysisincapacity to provide relevant information on thecompatibility degree between different accountingsystems, both from a time and space perspective[17]. The new measurement systems are based on

the concentration of options regarding accountingpractices and come to contribute to the developmentof research measuring accounting harmonization,being started through studies such as [6, 19].

Therefore, [30] started this scientific demarcheby using a first indicator that was called H Index(Herfindahl Index), whose purpose was to be used inmeasuring the harmonization degree of a certainnational accounting system. Van der Tas furtherdeveloped two derivatives of this indicator [30, 31,32]. The first one is the C Index that can be used inorder to quantify the harmonization degree within acountry having more than one financial reportingsystems. If the existent two indicators wereanalyzing accounting systems national dimension,the second derivative from the H Index offers thepossibility to quantify accounting practices

harmonization degree between two or more nationalaccounting systems. Therefore, through I Indexmeasuring accounting harmonization receivesinternational dimensions.

H Index is based on two distinctive elements. Thefirst one is the frequency of using a certain accountingmethod or option, being quantified through the numberof entities opting for a certain accounting treatment.The second element is relative frequency of accountingoptions, being obtained by dividing the number ofentities applying a certain accounting treatment to thewhole number of entities within the considered sample

[30]. The computation formula for H Index can bedeveloped as follows:

=

=n

i

ipH1

2 (1)

where H is Herfindahl Index, n the number ofalternative accounting methods and pi the relativefrequency of method i.

H Index can record values from 1/n to 1, whilechanges of its value can be interpreted as anevolution, positive or negative, in the harmonizationdegree. The usefulness of this indicator is limited

through the fact that it can be applied when there is aconcentration of accounting treatments around oneor around a limited number of possible options.Determining the significance degree of changestaking place in the therefore measured accountingharmonization is also difficult [29]. Another limit inusing the H Index is that in does not allow theanalysis of multiple financial reporting or of thatoffering supplementary information through thenotes to the financial statements [18].

In order to respond toH Indexs limitation and toobtain more information regarding the level of

accounting harmonization at a certain moment intime, [31] develops the C Index.


ISSN: 1792-5983 672 ISBN: 978-960-474-241-7


4/7

Through this indicator it is proven that there is adirect association between accounting practicesharmonization degree and their compatibilitydegree. This is also due to the fact that C Index hasthe ability of simultaneously considering moreaccounting and financial reporting systems thatmight be used at a certain time within an entity.Moreover, C Index offers the possibility ofcalculating the significance of changes taking placein the level of harmonization, based on relevant testof significance.

Starting with a clear example, [31] establishedthe final form of this indicator as follows:

nn

na

C

m

t

t

=

=

21

2

(2)

where C is C Index, m the number of alternativeaccounting methods, n the number of consideredfinancial reporting and at the number of entitiesapplying the taccounting method.

Based on this computation formula we can assesthat changes recorded in the level of harmonizationare associated with changes in the number of entitiesapplying the same accounting treatment. This is alsovalid when the number of accounting treatmentsstays the same or modifies.

The main shortcoming of these two indicators istheir exclusive national dimension when it comes to

their implementation. This limit is solved throughthe development of the third indicator, the I Index[30].

The computation formula for this index is [11]:1

1

.1 1

NNM

m n

m n

I p

= =

=

(3)where I is I Index, m the number of alternativeaccounting methods, n the country number, pm.n therelative frequency of method ms use within country n.

When more than two national accounting systemsor countries are being considered for analysis usingthe I Index (3) we must include a correction factor,namely (1/n-1) as exponent within the previouscomputation formula.


measuring the distanceThe above presented category of measurementinstruments is based on an approach that involvestwo accounting systems that record a high degree ofharmonization, a high number of entities applying acertain accounting method or treatment. Implicitly,

this category of measurement instruments explicitlyrefers to accounting practice.

Forming a distinctive dimension of internationalaccounting harmonization, accounting regulationbecame a significant source of data and informationfor studies measuring the compatibility degreebetween accounting policies and systems. The rootsof this type of research are based on the concept orphilosophy of distance between elements beingconsidered at a certain moment.

The first studies being developed in thisparticular research area have their econometricgrounding in two distinctive methods: theMahalanobis Distance Method [24] and theEuclidian Distances [7, 9]. The study developed by[24] is the first scientific demarche to be using anaccounting harmonization measurement instrumentthat is based on the philosophy of distance betweenconsidered elements. On the other hand, Euclidian

Distances represent a particular form of theMahalanobis Distance Method.Moreover, [9] was the first to use this instrument

for measuring accounting harmonization in order toquantify the harmonization degree betweendistinctive sets of accounting regulation. From aconceptual point of view, the Euclidian Distancebetween two points X and Y, having the coordinatesX = (x1,x2,x3, ...,xk) and Y= (y1,y2,y3, ...,yk) it isdefined as follows [7]:

2/1

1

2 ])([),( =

=p

k

kk yxYXD (4)

where: in the considered pattern, xk represents theanalyzed value of the variable k for the element x;and kmay take values from 1 to p (where p is thenumber of order of the characteristic attributeattached to the analyzed element).

If we are to particularize this computationformula in the field of accounting by also using thestudy developed by [7], the Euclidian Distance isbetter suited by the following computation formula:

=

=n

i

NDID

mk

NDID

m dD1

/,

/(5)

where: NDIDmD/ = represents the harmony degree

between ID and ND periods, m = represents theanalyzed period (international periods and nationalperiods), k = the four categories of featurescharacteristic to the considered accounting methodsand treatments, n = the number of accounting elementsbeing considered within the pattern.

Euclidian Distances can record values frominfinite to zero, therefore lacking a maximumpossible value in certain circumstances. The zero

value of this indicator represents the existence of thesame number of accounting methods or treatments


ISSN: 1792-5983 673 ISBN: 978-960-474-241-7


5/7

within both considered sets of accounting regulation.Therefore, the lower the ED value the highest is thedegree of harmonization between the two sets ofaccounting regulation [9]. Moreover, a decrease inEDs value from one period to another reflects anincrease of the compatibility degree between the twoconsidered sets of accounting regulation.


measuring the similitude degreeThe main problem in using measurementinstruments based on measuring the distancebetween the considered elements is that in onlyconsiders quantitative aspects without consideringthe qualitative dimension of accountingharmonization. Therefore, the Euclidian Distancedoes not consider which accounting treatment or

method is adopted at one moment in time, while alsoneglecting its character (e.g. mandatory,recommended, etc.) [7].

After a series of studies trying to measureaccounting harmonization based on the indicatorsthat were developed by [30, 31, 32], it was naturallyto feel the need of using other instruments that werecapable of eliminating or at least diminishingprevious limitations and shortcomings. The mainproblem being identified for the previouslydiscussed indicators is the lack of some associatedrobustness tests, as well as of a confidence interval

for the obtained results [17]. Actually, through thestudies developed by [1, 4, 5, 23, 28] we witness themovement to using the correlation and associationcoefficients in measuring the degree of accountingharmonization.

Moving forward we can observe that instrumentsmeasuring the compatibility degree of accountingpractices and of different sets of accountingregulation actually record a convergent timeevolution towards the common point given throughmeasurement instruments based on similarity.Moreover, a clearer dimensioning of the accountingharmonization degree is obtained when using eitherassociation coefficients (Jaccards Coefficients),either correlation coefficients (Pearson Coefficient,Spearman Coefficient).

Jaccards Coefficients are mostly known in theform being used by [7], as follows:

cba

aSij

++= (6)

and( )

( )cba

cbDij

++

+= (7)

where: Sij represents the similarity degree

between the two sets of analyzed accountingregulations or practices; Dij represents the degreeof dissimilitude or diversity between the two setsof analyzed accounting regulations or practices; a the number of elements which take the 1 valuefor both sets of regulations or practices; b thenumber of elements which take the 1 value withinthe j set of regulations or practices and the 0 valuefor the i set of regulations or practices; c thenumber of elements which take the 1 value withinthe i set of regulations or practices and the 0 valuefor thej set of regulations or practices [7, 25, 26].

The values that can be recorded by thesecoefficients go from 0 to 1, where 1 represents amaximum level of harmonization whenconsidering the similarity coefficient. Also, thesum of the two Jaccards Coefficients, Jaccard Sij

andDij,is obviously always equal to 1.As for the correlation coefficients, the studydeveloped by [7] appealed to using Spearmanscoefficient in order to dimension thecomparability degree between a set of nationalaccounting regulation and International FinancialReporting Standards. The correspondingcomputation formula is as follows:

( ) ( ) ( )( )

( ) ( )( )( ) ( ) ( )( )( ) 2/121

22/1

1

22

1

2

2/12/1

2/1

++

+=

==

=

nnICRnnNCR

nnICRNCRrs

n

i i

n

i i

n

i ii(8)

where: n = total number of accounting methodsincluded in the study; R(NC

i) = the rank of the

accounting method i within national accountingstandards (NC), i = 1, ..., n; R(ICi) = the rank of theaccounting method i within international accountingstandards (IC), i = 1, ..., n.

Being used in the field of accounting, Spearmanscoefficient can record values going from -1 to +1. Theclosest the value of the coefficient to +1 the higher is theharmonization degree between the considered elements.

4 Concluding Comments

If we are to conclude upon the above presentedstatistical indicators we can underline the fact thatinstruments being used in measuring accountingharmonization have known a continuousdevelopment in time, from simple to complex, butmeanwhile on convergent directions. Each newapproach of these measurement instruments bringsinnovative elements that are meant to respond to theshortcomings of previous instruments. Maintainingthis trend, current researches [2, 27] have been usingderivative forms of the above discussed indicators.Such an example would be [27] computationformula for theH Index:


ISSN: 1792-5983 674 ISBN: 978-960-474-241-7


6/7

( ) ( ) = =

+=n

i

n

i

iii nHE1 1

2 /1 (9)

where: E = estimation operator; n = number ofaccounting options; i = relative frequency of

accounting options within the population of elementsbeing analyzed.This manner of implementation of theH Index is

different from those being used by [30, 31, 32]because it represents a situation of implementing theindex from a different space dimension, while thefirst approach considered the time dimension [2].

When it comes to using instruments based onmeasuring the distance, namely the EuclidianDistance, literature appealed to formulating a newinstrument called theED Index [18]. This instrumentis related to the Euclidian Distance and allows

comparisons between successive temporalmeasurements even if the number of consideredelements changes from one observation moment toanother. Previous studies using Euclidian Distanceonly allowed temporal comparisons if the number ofconsidered elements was constant from one periodto another [7, 9, 24]. The computation formula fortheED Index is as follows:

n

EDValueEDIndex = (10)

where: ED Index = Euclidian Distance Index; EDValue = the absolute value of Euclidian Distance; n= the number of elements considered to determinethe absolute value of Euclidian Distance.

One of the limits in using Jaccards coefficientsis that it does not consider those situations when anaccounting treatment or method is absent from bothsets of considered accounting regulation or ispresent in both, but its practical implementation isnot a possibility. This shortcoming is taken care ofby using Sokal and Sneath's Coefficients. In otherwords, using the later coefficients considers conjointabsence and presence of a particular accounting

method or treatment. The computation formula thistime looks as follows:( )

( ) cbdada

SSij+++

+=

2

2 (11)

where: SSij represents the similarity degreebetween the two sets of analyzed accountingstandards (according with Sokal and Sneath'sCoefficients); a the number of elements whichtake the 1 value for both sets of accountingregulations or practices; b the number ofelements which take the 1 value within thej set of

accounting regulations or practices and the 0value for the i set of accounting regulations orpractices; c the number of elements which take

the 1 value within the i set of accountingregulations or practices and the 0 value for the jset of accounting regulations or practices; d thenumber of elements which take the 0 value withinthe i set of accounting regulations or practices andthe 0 value for the j set of accounting regulationsor practices.

Unlike in the case of Jaccards coefficients, thenew appeared element d is used precisely in orderto quantify conjoint absence and presence of aparticular accounting method or treatment. Inaddition, conjoint absence and presence are doubleweighted.

As previously mentioned within this paper, usingeconometric instruments in order to measureaccounting harmonization presents potentiality andshould generate benefits as long as obtained results

are correspondingly grounded and further correlatedand integrated with other dimensions characterizingthe global accounting environment as well as thediversity of accounting systems.

AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by CNCSISUEFISCSU,project number PNII IDEI 2571/2009 Developinga conceptual integrated and self sustainable modelregarding financial reporting within Romanianprivate sector entities. Paper is also one of theresearch outputs of the project GA402/08/P024

registered at Czech Science Foundation (GA R).

References:

[1] S. Aisbitt, Assessing the Effect of the Transitionto IFRS on Equity: The Case of the FTSE 100,Accounting in Europe, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2006, pp. 117133.[2] C.G. Bonaci, Fundamente teoretice si practiceale contabilitatii instrumentelor financiare. De la

Jonathans Coffee-house si Tontine Coffee House la

vremuri actuale de criza, Casa Cartii de Stiinta

Publishing House, 2008.[3] C. Calhoun, Critical social theory: culture,history and the challenge of difference, Oxford:Blackwell, 1996.[4] P. Delvaille, G. Ebbers, and C. Saccon,International Financial Reporting Convergence:Evidence from Three Continental EuropeanCountries, Accounting in Europe, Vol. 2, No. 1,2005, pp. 137164.[5] Y. Ding, O.K. Hope, T. Jeanjean, and H.Stolowy, Differences between Domestic AccountingStandards and IAS: Measurement, Determinants andImplications, Journal of Accounting and PublicPolicy, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2007, pp. 138.


ISSN: 1792-5983 675 ISBN: 978-960-474-241-7


7/7

[6] T.S. Doupnik, and M.E. Taylor, An EmpiricalInvestigation of the Observance of IASC Standardsin Western Europe, Management InternationalReview, Vol. 25, 1985, pp. 2733.[7] A. Fontes, L.L. Rodrigues, and R. Craig,Measuring Convergence of National AccountingStandards with International Financial ReportingStandards,Accounting Forum, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2005,pp. 415436.[8] S. Gallhofer, and J. Haslam, The accountingglobalisation interrelation: An overview with somereflections on the neglected dimension ofemancipatory potentiality, Critical Perspectives onAccounting, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2006, pp. 903934.[9] P. Garrido, A. Leon, and A. Zorio, Measurementof Formal Harmonization Progress: The IASCExperience, The International Journal of

Accounting, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2002, pp. 126.[10] D. Held, A. McGrew, D. Goldblatt, and J.Perraton, Global transformations. Cambridge,Policy Press, 1999.[11] D. Herrmann, and W. Thomas, Harmonizationof Accounting Measurement Practices in theEuropean Community, Accounting and BusinessResearch, Vol. 25, No. 100, 1995, pp. 253265.[12] P. Hirst, and G. Thomson, Globalisation inquestion, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996.[13] A.G. Hopkins (ed.), Globalization in worldhistory, London: Pimlico, 2002.

[14] A.J. Hopwood, Some reflections on theharmonization of accounting within the EU,European Accounting Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, , 1994,pp. 241253.[15] G. Lehman, A critical perspective on theharmonization of accounting in a globalising world,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16, No. 5,2005, pp. 975992.[16] M. Mann, Globalisation and September 11,New left review 12, Nov/Dec, 2001, pp. 5172.[17] R.V. Mustata, and D. Matis, Systems formaterial harmonization measurement within the

changing global accounting environment: a review,Journal of Organisational Transformation and

Social Change, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2010, pp. 4787.[18] R.V. Mustata, Sisteme de masurare aarmonizarii si diversitatii contabile intre

necessitate si spontaneitate, Casa Cartii de StiintaPublishing House, 2008.[19] R.D. Nair, and W.G. Frank, The Harmonizationof International Accounting Standards: 19731979,The International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 17,No. 1, 1981, pp. 6177.[20] C.W. Nobes, On accounting classification andthe international harmonization debate, Accounting,Organisations and Society, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2004, pp.

189-200.[21] T. Peter, and M. Waterman, In search ofexcellence: lessons from Americas best run

companies, Sydney: Harper and Rowe, 1984.[22] C. Poullaos, Globalisation, accounting critiqueand the university, Critical Perspectives onAccounting, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2004, pp. 715730.[23] A.R. Rahman, H. Perera, and S. Ganesh,Accounting Practice Harmony, AccountingRegulation and Firm Characteristics, Abacus, Vol.38, No. 1, 2002, pp. 4677.[24] A.R. Rahman, H. Perera, and G. Tower,Accounting Harmonization between Australia andNew Zealand: Towards a Regulatory Union,International Journal of Accounting, Vol. 29, No. 3,1996, pp. 316333.[25] J. Strouhal, Testing the Compatibility between

national and International Accounting: Case ofCzech Republic, In. Recent Advances in E-Activities, Information Security and Privacy,WSEAS, 2009, pp. 252-256.[26] J. Strouhal, L. Mullerova, Z. Cardova, and M.Pasekova, National and International FinancialReporting Rules: Testing the Compatibility of CzechReporting from the SMEs Perspective, WSEASTRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS,Vol. 6, Issue 12, 2009, 620-629.[27] R. Taplin, Harmony, statistical inference withthe Herfindahl H Index and C Index, Abacus, Vol.

39, No. 1, 2003, pp. 82-94.[28] A. Tarca, International Convergence ofAccounting Practices: Choosing between IAS andUS GAAP, Journal of International FinancialManagement and Accounting, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2004,pp. 6075.[29] J.S.W. Tay, and R.H. Parker, MeasuringInternational Harmonization and Standardization,Abacus, Vol. 26, No. 1, 1990, pp. 7188.[30] L.G. Van der Tas, Measuring Harmonization ofFinancial Reporting Practice, Accounting andBusiness Research, Vol. 18, No. 70, 1988, pp. 157

169.[31] L.G. Van der Tas, Evidence of EC FinancialReporting Practice Harmonization: The Case ofDeferred Taxation, European Accounting Review,Vol. 1, No. 1, 1992, pp. 69104.[32] L.G. Van der Tas, Measuring InternationalHarmonization and Standardization: A Comment,Abacus, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1992, pp. 211216.[33] R.L. Watts, and J.L. Zimmerman, Positiveaccounting theory, EngelsWoods Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986.


ISSN: 1792-5983 676 ISBN: 978-960-474-241-7

EMT2-40- masurarea armonizarii

Documents

Transcript of EMT2-40- masurarea armonizarii