Making up users
Joni J. Young *
Anderson Schools of Management, MSC 05 3090, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, United States
Abstract
Within recent years, financial statement users have been accorded great significance by accounting standard-setters.
In the United States, the conceptual framework maintains that a primary purpose of financial statements is to provide
information useful to investors and creditors in making their economic decisions. Contemporary accounting textbooks
unproblematically posit this purpose for accounting. Yet, this emphasis is quite recent and occurred despite limited
knowledge about the information needs and decision processes of actual users of financial statements. This paper
unpacks the taken-for-grantedness of the primacy of financial statement users in standard-setting and considers their
use as a category to justify and denigrate particular accounting disclosures and practices. It traces how particular ideas
about financial statement users and their connection to accounting standard setting have been constructed in various
documents and reports including the conceptual framework and accounting standards.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The conceptual framework of the Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB) specifies a
very particular and narrow purpose for financial
reports: the provision of information useful in
making economic decisions. Consider the following definitions or descriptions of accounting that
are found within two widely used intermediate
accounting textbooks:
. . .the objectives of financial reporting are to provide (1) information that is useful in investment
and credit decisions, (2) information that is useful
in assessing cash flow prospects, and (3) information about enterprise resources, claims to those
resources, and changes in them (Kieso, Weygandt,
& Warfield, 2004).
The primary function of financial accounting is to
provide relevant financial information to users
external to the business enterprise. The focus of
financial accounting is on the information needs
of investors and creditors. These users make critical
resource allocation decisions that affect the nation’s
economy (Spiceland, Sepe, & Tomassini, 2001).
Most contemporary accounting textbooks con

0361-3682/$ – see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aos.2005.12.005
www.elsevier.com/locate/aos
Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600
decision usefulness) as a guide in the construction
of external financial statements. Indeed, these
financial statements are said to exist primarily to
serve user information needs. To individuals
trained in or teaching accounting during the last
two decades, statements such as these about the
purposes for accounting are perhaps unremarkable. However, connections between financial
statement users, decision usefulness and standard-setting were forged relatively recently and
were initially controversial.1 More than 60% of
the respondents to the FASB’s (1974) discussion
memorandum on the objectives of financial reporting opposed adopting the provision of information
for economic decision making as an objective for
accounting (Armstrong, 1977; Schuetze, 1983;
Van Riper, 1994). In part the opposition arose
from an emphasis in accounting practice that
defined an acceptable accounting in terms of
‘‘what accountants do’’ with relatively little effort
expended on examining the logic or ‘‘usefulness’’
of accounting practices (Spiller, 1964, p. 851).
However, even prominent academics such as Moonitz explicitly rejected usefulness as a purpose for
accounting reports. In Accounting Research Study
No. 1, he argued that an emphasis upon the ‘‘pragmatic aspect of accounting’’ required answering to
whom it was to be useful and for what purpose:
And herein lies the danger. We could easily be
trapped into defining accounting and formulating
its postulates, principles, and rules in terms of
some special interest. . . We cannot proceed on
the premise that accounting is the monopoly of
any one group whether that group is concerned
mainly with the development of the accounting
process or with its end-product in the form of
financial statements and reports (Moonitz, 1961,
p. 4).
Despite initial resistance, the significance of
users as a guide in shaping financial accounting
standards has achieved a taken-for-grantedness
in the intervening years. Particular accounting
requirements are frequently justified by references
to user needs or wants or interests. However, these
assertions are rarely connected to specific evidence.
As Agrawal (1987, p. 175) has noted usefulness
tends to be asserted rather than based on ‘‘systematic study of user decision models and needs.’’
Indeed, Miller (1990, p. 31) has advocated the
adoption of a different objective for financial statements as it would provide ‘‘relief for FASB from
dependence on user support and from embarrassment when users do not participate in its process.’’
In this paper, I examine how financial statements users were connected to the standard-setting
process as central concerns despite relatively little
participation by physical readers of financial statements. Specifically, I explore how various committees, academics, and others have constructed the
category of financial statements users. While this
category, like many other categories, may be filled
by flesh and blood individuals (Hacking, 1986), it
gathers much of its utility through its abstraction
from these same individuals. When the term financial statement user is invoked in various accounting publications including accounting standards,
the user appears as a resource to justify or dismiss
a particular accounting disclosure or practice. It is
the category that is referenced rather than individual persons.
In the United States, the construction of this
category has been an ongoing and continuing
effort, one that has involved standard-setters, committees, academics, and many others. These individuals and entities have published various
documents through which we can observe the production of ideas about what users of accounting
information should be like and how they should
connect to accounting information. In particular,
several conceptual framework documents—A
Statement of Basic Accounting Theory (ASOBAT), the Report of the Study Group on Objectives of Financial Statements and Statement of
Financial Accounting Concepts No. 1 (SFAC 1)
were significant in developing and promoting these
ideas and connections. The accounting standards
of the FASB continue this work by depicting the
user as being of a particular kind and employing
this depiction as a justification for its various
accounting choices.
1 This change to an informational approach was called a
financial reporting revolution by Beaver (1981). Also see Puxty
and Laughlin (1983) and Williams (1987) for extended critiques
of the decision usefulness concept.
580 J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600
The exploration undertaken in this paper falls
under the umbrella of social construction studies.
While some (e.g., Hacking, 1999) have suggested
these studies are a philosophical or methodological
flavor of the decade, they are typically aimed at
reminding or showing us that the reality we experience today might easily have been different.
These studies question the ‘‘givens,’’ the unstated
and often unrecognized assumptions that underlie
ideas, situations or practices. They highlight how
such ‘‘givens’’ are more aptly named ‘‘takens’’
(to use Dewey’s term, see West, 1989, p. 90). By
altering our perception so that we can see how
an idea we thought was given (or natural) is
instead taken or chosen from a myriad of possibilities, questions that might otherwise remain
unthought can begin to be asked. Specific objects
and ideas can no longer form an unexamined
background against which other ideas and activities may occur. It is this opening of possibilities
for questions that provides social construction
work with its liberating potentialities.
We are reminded that the ideas, classifications,
concepts and goals that we use in science, daily
life, commerce and accounting are ours rather
than nature’s. They are shaped by us not found
(Rorty, 1982, p. 166) and are neither finalities
nor fixities. Ideas and theories are to be regarded
as hypotheses, the usefulness of which are to be
determined by use: ‘‘There is no infallible source
of ideas and ideas themselves are tools to be
rejected, accepted or remade in the light of the
consequences of their use’’ (Dewey cited in Rockefeller, 1991, p. 405). Carefully attending to these
ideas and goals is necessary as otherwise they
may unduly constrain what it is possible for us
to think as well as limit the activities, institutions
and products we believe are possible and feasible
(Douglas, 1986). Specific objects that might otherwise remain unquestioned are instead seen as
products of historical events, social processes and
ideologies (Hacking, 1999).
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, I outline the absence of
connections between financial statement users
and the selection of accounting practices and disclosures in the earlier accounting literature. This
section is followed by an exploration of the environment in which connections between users and
financial statements began to gain increasing purchase. After this, I describe the issuance of the various conceptual framework documents and their
emphasis upon financial statement users and the
purposes they ascribed to accounting. The irony
that little was known about the relationship(s)
between users and financial statements is then
explored and, in particular, how this ignorance
was mitigated by models and normative assertions
that could replace interactions with flesh and
blood users. After considering how the various
conceptual framework documents have contributed to the construction of users, I examine the
contribution of the FASB’s on-going standard-setting process to these efforts. I end the paper with a
few concluding comments.
Accounting is what accountants do
Lists of possible readers of financial statements
are found in many early accounting monographs
and textbooks. Sanders, Hatfield, and Moore
(1938, p. 4) stated that a function of accounting
was to prepare statements to satisfy ‘‘the need
for information of all the parties in interest, especially (a) the management of the business, (b) outside groups such as investors and creditors and (c)
government in such matters as taxation and regulation.’’ Paton and Littleton (1940, pp. 2–3) similarly described corporation reports as the ‘‘basic
data for the investor, the employee, the consumer,
and the government.’’ Paton (1926, 1938) detailed
the various types of economic actors that were
interested in financial statements including employees, creditors, customers, prospective investors,
trade associations and the state. Finney and Miller
(1951, p. 134) stated that ‘‘Financial statements are
receiving increasing attention from management,
credit grantors, stockholders, governmental agencies, and the general public. They provide a basis
for the formulation of many business decisions.’’
Meigs and Johnson (1967, p. 3) described accounting reports in comparable terms indicating that
‘‘this information is needed by the business
manager to help him [sic] plan and control the
activities of his organization. It is also needed by
J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600 581
outsiders—owners, creditors, investors and the
public. . .’’2
Each of these monographs and textbooks specifically mentions particular readers of financial
statements. However, the readers referenced in
these texts were not yet constructed as a particular
kind of decision-maker that could (or should) be
connected to a process of selecting specific
accounting practices or disclosures. For these
authors, the readers of financial statements did
not serve as a justification in selecting particular
accountings. Spacek (1964, cited in Zeff, 1972, p.
188) maintained that
If one reviews the statements on accounting principles issued by the profession, one can hardly find
an instance where the accounting is being recommended for the purpose of providing adequate
investor information. . .
Rather than being defined in terms of their usefulness to economic decision-makers, ‘‘appropriate’’ accounting practices were those that
adhered to desirable accounting conventions such
as conservatism, consistency, historical cost and
matching. These accounting texts were primarily
concerned with the measurement of income, the
recording of various economic transactions and
the proper preparation of specific accounting
reports.
The objectives and/or definitions of accounting
found in these texts were not specified in relation
to any ‘‘why’’ or ‘‘who’’ (i.e., purpose) for
accounting but instead were defined by reference
to the ‘‘what’’ of accounting (i.e., its practices).
For example, Eggleston (1930) maintained that
the purpose of accounting was to record assets, liabilities and proprietorship; to show due froms and
due tos; and to reveal profit or loss. Finney (1933,
p. 1) described accounting as a ‘‘body of legal,
industrial, commercial and financial principles
which must be taken into consideration in determining how and to what extent the transactions
of a business affect the value of its assets and the
amount of its liabilities, profits and capital.’’ Both
authors discussed accounting in terms of the activities performed by accountants as did Finney and
Miller (1951, p. 117) who specified the basic principles of accounting as those that helped to produce accounting results that were uniform and
consistent. Indeed, the ‘‘official’’ definition of
accounting provided by the American Institute of
Accountants’ Committee on Terminology also
defined accounting solely in terms of its performance: ‘‘Accounting is the art of recording, classifying and summarizing in a significant manner and
in terms of money, transactions and events which
are, in part at least, of a financial character, and
interpreting the results thereof’’ (cited in Grady,
1965, p. 2).
Each of these definitions exhibits circular reasoning in that accounting is defined in terms of
what accountants do. Accounting methods are justified based upon accounting activities including
recording, classifying, and interpreting or upon
its conventions such as matching or conservatism
rather than in terms of how the method may or
may not produce information useful to particular
types of users. Although accounting reports were
described as communicating the results of corporate activities to interested parties, the justifications for accounting practices were not connected
to specific types of financial statement readers or
their decisions. Staubus (1999, p. iii) states that
‘‘At mid-century, a researcher could have found
no evidence of its existence [a decision usefulness
objective for accounting].’’ For the authors of
these texts and monographs, improvements in
accounting reports and practices would be
achieved by refining the answers to issues that
accountants had addressed for decades3 rather
than through any explicit focus upon satisfying
‘‘user needs.’’ They presumed that if income was
‘‘properly’’ measured and financial position was
‘‘properly’’ reported, then accounting reports
would, of course, be useful. The usefulness of
accounting information and reports was thought
to emerge as a byproduct of their ‘‘correctness’’,
2 Also see Holmes, Maynard, Edwards, and Meier (1958) and
Niswonger and Fess (1965).
3 According to The Accountants’ Handbook (1956, pp. 1–1),
these questions were: ‘‘(1) What has been the income result of
the company’s activities for a specific period of time? (2) What
is the company’s financial position at a specific time?’’
582 J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600
a correctness that was unconnected to any specific
ends to which accounting information might be
used. Useful practices were those that resulted in
‘‘more practicable, more reliable’’ measurements
(Broad, 1957, p. 32) or that were useful in reflecting profit (e.g., LIFO, see Broad, 1957). As such,
usefulness emerged from specific accounting practices rather than served as a basis for their
selection.4
An environment of transition
Connections between the financial statement
user depicted as an economic decision maker and
the standard-setting process were made amid a
confluence of various events, ideas, and people.
In this section, I outline how interactions between
a demand for accounting uniformity, the perceived
failure of existing accounting institutions to
achieve such uniformity and the science of decision
contributed to the construction of an environment
in which these connections became feasible.
Demand for uniformity
During the 1950s, patterns of equity investment
began changing and investor focus slowly shifted
from dividend yields towards capital gains (Baskin
& Miranti, 1997, p. 233). Small investors who had
fled the equity markets during the Great Depression began to return to these markets in increasing
numbers. Institutional investors were also increasingly significant participants in equity markets.
During this same decade, hundreds of large companies adopted defined benefit pension plans.5
These companies typically made a periodic contribution into a pension trust. Initially, the pension
trusts primarily invested funds in bonds; however,
by the end of the 1950s, approximately 40–45% of
trust investments consisted of equity securities
(Lambourne, 1961; Reierson, 1960). As patterns
of equity investment changed, the numbers of
financial analysts grew with analysts founding a
professional organization, the Financial Analysts
Federation, in 1947 and commencing publication
of a professional journal, Financial Analysts Journal, in 1945.
Each of these changes contributed to increased
scrutiny of company financial statements. Practicing accountants predicted that these changes would
increase the significance of audited financial statements (Corbin, 1958) as well as the importance of
ensuring the comparability of financial statements
for companies operating in the same industry
(West, 1959).6 Yet, as one business executive pointedly stated, this comparability was absent:
Comparisons between two companies in the same
industry, and to a greater extent between two companies in different industries and between entire
industries, are so arbitrary as to be not only worthless but dangerous (Knauth, 1957, p. 32).
In part, the lack of comparability arose from
the failure of accountants to specify a single
accounting method for such basic areas as inventories and depreciation. The changing business environment also contributed additional areas in
which multiple accounting methods were proliferating including mergers and consolidations, goodwill, research and development expenditures,
leases, sales-leasebacks, and the treatment of
exploration costs (Blough, 1959; Eaton, 1957; Uniformity in Accounting, 1964).
Criticisms about accounting flexibility frequently appeared in business press outlets including Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, The
New York Times, Barron’s, Dun’s Review, Fortune
and Forbes (Zeff, 1972). Criticisms also appeared
in the Journal of Accountancy as practitioners
argued the respective merits of uniformity and
flexibility in the selection of accounting methods
(see e.g., Catlett, 1964; Gaa, 1961; Jennings,
1958a, 1958b; Kemp, 1963; Spacek, 1961, 1964).
Further highlighting this issue, US Congress held
4 Such presumptions were criticized even at that time. Dein
(1958, p. 393) commented that it was ‘‘an easy and convenient
assumption’’ that ‘‘conventionally prepared accounting
reports’’ were ‘‘adequate for any and all purposes which called
for accounting data.’’
5 General Motors has been credited with adopting the first
such plan in the United States. 6 Also see Catlett (1960a, 1960b) and Corbin (1958).
J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600 583
a hearing in February 1964 to explore the lack of
uniformity in accounting. During the hearing,
SEC Chairman, William Carey was bluntly asked
whether the SEC accepted ‘‘. . .financial statements
from various companies following alternative
accounting practices with materially different
results for similar transactions. . .’’ (Uniformity
in Accounting, 1964, p. 56). Upon answering affirmatively, Carey was told to submit a statement
detailing alternative practices in use that might
yield materially different results.
The issue of uniformity continued to concern
another SEC Chairman, Manuel Cohen. In
speeches and articles, Cohen frequently stressed
the importance of reducing accounting alternatives. Because financial statements formed the
‘‘keystone’’ of investor confidence, he maintained
that the integrity and completeness of financial
reporting was essential (Cohen, 1966a). As he criticized existing flexible practices, Cohen often
reminded accountants that the statutory authority
for accounting choice rested with the SEC. The
SEC had recently exercised its authority to require
the use of a specific method in accounting for the
deferred tax consequences of installment sales.
Cohen (1966b, p. 59) indicated that this authority
was always available: ‘‘I do not believe it will be
necessary for us to use that device with great frequency—although the option is always open to
us.’’ Thus, the failure of accountants to increase
uniformity and decrease flexibility renewed the
perceived threat of a government takeover of the
standard-setting process.
Difficulties in standard-setting
In 1959, the AICPA replaced the Committee on
Accounting Procedure (CAP) with a new standard-setting group, the Accounting Principles
Board (APB). CAP had often been criticized for
its slowness in resolving accounting issues and
eliminating accounting alternatives. In establishing
the APB, the AICPA initially attempted to connect practice, research (science) and standard-setting by indicating its intention to embark upon a
research program that would regard the ‘‘. . .development of accounting principles. . . as in the nature of pure research’’ (Jennings, 1958a, p. 32).
With the assistance of various researchers from
academia and practice, the APB would develop
postulates to ‘‘provide a meaningful foundation
for the formulation of principles and the development of rules. . .’’ (Powell, 1960, p. 35). This
research was to provide a solid conceptual basis
to use in improving and narrowing accepted
accounting principles (Philips, 1963a, 1963b) on
a consistent and logical basis (Queenan, 1962).
Despite its ‘‘scientific’’ charge, the APB almost
immediately began to follow the more familiar
ad hoc methods of the CAP. Although two
research studies (Accounting Research Studies
Nos. 1 and 3) had been commissioned to provide
a conceptual or ‘‘scientific’’ basis for the APB’s
standard-setting efforts, the Board refused to
approve the studies because they were ‘‘too radically different from present GAAP for acceptance
at this time’’ (News Report, 1962, p. 10).7
Throughout the 1960s, the APB was criticized
for its slowness in reaching decisions and its inability to address many of the critical issues confronting accounting practitioners.
The science of decision
Following World War II, the science of decision
increasingly permeated the business world. The
war had engaged mathematicians, economists,
statisticians and industrial engineers with logistical, planning and managerial issues (Gore, 1959).
Bedford, Griffin, and Williams (1962, p. 35) summarized the impact of this engagement:
The last decade has given rise to many new developments in the application of mathematical techniques to business decision-making. The impetus
for this significant advance in the rigorous analysis
of problem situations was provided by World War
II. The success in applying mathematical techniques to problems of war motivated attempts to
extend the methodology into the business world.
Business schools both contributed to and were
impacted by this emphasis upon science (Whitley,
7 The APB not only rejected these studies, they also commissioned Paul Grady to prepare an inventory of existing GAAP.
584 J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600
1986). Curricula were dramatically revised to
lessen the previous emphasis upon ‘‘learning
institutional facts’’ and to focus instead upon
learning ‘‘enough about mathematics, statistics
and the computer to be able to understand and
use decision models from the management sciences
and operations research’’ (Cyert & Dill, 1964,
p. 4).
The content of accounting education was subjected to similar scrutiny when the AICPA commissioned a study to define a common body of
knowledge for beginning CPAs. Along with other
recommendations, the study’s authors called for
extensive knowledge of economics, especially
micro-economics and for ‘‘substantially more
knowledge of mathematics, statistics and probability. . .’’ (Roy & MacNeill, 1966, p. 48). The recommendation was justified by reference to the
increasing application of these domains in organizational decision making and their consequent
impact on the practice of CPAs.
Decision models, statistics and probability also
began to enter auditing and accounting practice
more directly. In 1956, the AICPA established a
committee, chaired by Robert Trueblood, to
explore the applicability of statistical sampling
methods to audit testing.8 Articles explaining the
use of statistical sampling occasionally appeared
in the Journal of Accountancy (e.g., Obrock,
1958; Stringer, 1961; Trueblood, 1957; Trueblood
& Cyert, 1954). In the emerging managerial
accounting area, techniques such as discounted
cash flows began to receive significant attention
in the 1950s as a means for improving capital
allocation and other management decisions
(AAA, 1962; Christensen, 1955; Miller, 1991)
and contributed to the formation of a economicfinancial calculus approach to situations defined
as decision-making (Miller, 1991). Leading practitioners such as Trueblood (1958, p. 37) maintained
that operations research would allow accounting
to move away from a role of historical recordkeeping to become an ‘‘. . .important part of the
decision making process in business operations.’’9
Corbin (1962, p. 626) referred to the integration
of the new decision-making material into managerial accounting as a ‘‘revolution’’ and lamented its
absence in financial accounting, particularly the
absence of the economist’s forward looking
approach. Economics and financial accounting
had previously intersected as various accounting
theorists drew upon economic theories of income
and value in their writing. Now some academic
accountants began to connect financial accounting
to economic decision-making. Specific accounting
practices were criticized for their purported failures to provide information useful for decision
making (e.g., Bierman, 1960; Corbin, 1961; Solomons, 1961). These authors argued that accounting could no longer be considered as an end in
itself but must instead be assessed by reference to
its usefulness in making decisions (Bevis, 1961;
Birnberg, 1964; Marple, 1963; Sprouse, 1963).
Accounting should not provide ‘‘. . .a chronicle
of financial transactions; it [should] provide relevant economic information’’ (Sprouse, 1963, p.
689) and, especially, information useful in making
investment decisions (Dyckman, 1964; Sprouse,
1963).
The study of decisions in various far-ranging
contexts and the development of decision theory
also gained considerable momentum during the
1950s in various social science fields (Wilson &
Alexis, 1962). Micro-economics, statistics, game
theory and other mathematical techniques were
combined in this development. Seen from these
perspectives, decision making was typically framed
as a rational choice problem and conceptualized as
an intentional, consequential, optimizing activity
(March, 1988). This view of decision making also
envisioned the process as sequential: after recognizing the existence of a problem, the decision
maker specified the goals that would define an
optimal solution, considered all alternatives and
finally selected the alternative that maximized the
likelihood of achieving the desired goal (Feldman,
1989). Goals and objectives were considered critical to ‘‘good’’ decision making processes. As
March (1988, p. 286) notes: ‘‘Conventional
notions about intelligent choice often begin with
the presumption that good decisions require clear
goals, and that improving the clarity of goals
8 See Power (1992) for a pre-history of audit sampling.
9 Also see Churchman and Ackoff (1955).
J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600 585
unambiguously improves the quality of decisionmaking.’’10
This emphasis upon the clarity of goals or
objectives entered discussions about the means of
selecting accounting methods or principles and
reducing accounting diversity. As discussed previously, considerable pressure was exerted on
accountants by the SEC, some practitioners, the
press and others to increase the uniformity of
accounting practices—to choose one (or more)
accounting practices as better than others. The
concept of general acceptance as a justification
for the use of accounting methods had often
resulted in diversity and the use of practices
deemed unsound by some (Catlett, 1969; Spacek,
1968). The process of choosing or deciding upon
a best or better practice had proved to be slow
and contentious for both the CAP and the APB.
A more ‘‘scientific’’ approach to standard-setting
had seemed to offer the possibility of allowing
the APB to better defend its accounting choices
and resolve accounting problems (e.g., Catlett,
1960b; Queenan, 1962). Instead, the APB also
approached accounting problems on an ad hoc
basis.
Several practitioners and academics now argued
that the absence of clear objectives for and purposes of accounting was the major obstacle to
resolving accounting issues effectively and
quickly.11 From this perspective, the research studies earlier rejected by the APB as too radical had a
further flaw as they had also failed to establish
objectives for accounting (Comments, 1963; Metcalf, 1964; Rappaport, 1964).12 Spacek (1964, pp.
275–276) charged that the AICPA research program had
. . .lost sight of the problem. We started acting as if
the fundamental objective of accounting was
already known and accepted, without having first
determined what that objective was. Had it been
known, it would have guided us in a course of
action that would have been more effective.
In 1965, the AICPA pressured the APB to ‘‘set
forth its views as to the purposes and limitations of
published financial statements’’ (AICPA Special
Committee on the Opinions of the APB quoted
in Pacter, 1983, pp. 77–78). Catlett (1969, p. 62)
argued that the APB could attain its goal of establishing sound principles ‘‘. . .only if there is a clear
and concise statement of the objectives and concepts which should be used to build a solid set of
principles.’’13 Discussing the APB experiment, Oliphant (1971, p. 94) similarly maintained that
rather than criticizing the APB, ‘‘. . .criticism
should have been focused more often and more
clearly on our failure to develop and define the
true objectives of financial statements.’’ Defliese
(1977, p. 62), former chairman of the APB, later
reflected: ‘‘. . .it was believed that if we could reach
agreement on the objectives, everything else would
fall into place.’’ In this process of establishing
objectives for accounting, the financial statement
user began to be constructed as a particular kind
and connected closely to the standard-setting
process.
Connecting users to accounting principles14
The AAA had issued a ‘‘Tentative Statement of
Accounting Principles,’’ in 1936 and subsequently
revised this statement in 1941, 1948 and 1957.
These documents primarily described existing
accounting conventions for assets, costs, revenues,
and liabilities. In 1964, amid the various concerns
about accounting uniformity, the AAA Executive
Committee authorized the appointment of another
committee ‘‘. . .to consider. . . the role, nature and
limitations of accounting, . . .the appropriate conceptual framework for a coordinated statement
of accounting theory. . .’’ (AAA, 1966, p. v). This
committee produced A Statement of Basic
10 Some decision models such as Simon’s satisficing model
relax some of the requirements of the rational choice model but
still maintain the significance of pre-specified goals and preferences (Feldman, 1989).
11 See Gerboth (1973) for a critique of this position.
12 As noted earlier, Moonitz explicitly rejected usefulness as a
basic purpose for accounting.
13 Also see Skinner (1968) and Spacek (1968).
14 See the appendix for a chronological listing of the various
documents and events discussed in the following two sections.
586 J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600
Accounting Theory (ASOBAT) that was described
as a ‘‘marked departure from previous publications of the AAA, as well as from various AICPA
statements. . .’’ (Fertig, 1967, p. 663).15
ASOBAT had no authoritative weight. It was
issued as a committee document rather than as
an official pronouncement of the AAA and the
APB rather than the AAA was responsible for
writing accounting principles or standards. The
significance of ASOBAT lay not in its immediate
impact upon the process of altering accounting
standards but in providing an alternative approach
to use in criticizing existing practices. Rather than
continuing the piecemeal approach of the CAP
and APB in resolving individual accounting problems, ASOBAT represented an effort to develop a
framework for evaluating existing practices and
justifying the selection of one practice as ‘‘better.’’
It articulated a theory of accounting that began by
asserting a basic purpose or objective for accounting: accounting was to be useful for judgments and
decisions. As such, ASOBAT was the first conceptual framework-like document to emphasize the
significance of users and their decisions to
accounting practices (Staubus, 1999; Zeff,
1999).16 It defined accounting in terms of its usefulness and described it as ‘‘the process of identifying, measuring, and communicating economic
information to permit informed judgments and decisions by users of the information’’ (AAA, 1966, 1,
emphasis added). ASOBAT was an effort ‘‘. . .to
implement the full significance of the definition
by interpreting it literally’’ (Fertig, 1967, p. 664).
In other words, the authors of this statement
attempted to develop a theory of accounting that
was not connected solely to the measurement of
income and assets.
The definition of accounting forwarded in
ASOBAT retained some of the earlier emphasis
upon the activities of accounting that Paton and
Littleton (1940), Sanders et al. (1938) and the
American Institute of Accountants had stressed
in their definitions. At the same time, the ASOBAT definition significantly amended earlier
descriptions with its inclusion of an explicit statement of purpose for external accounting. While
maintaining that accounting must be useful, ASOBAT did not declare any particular user group
such as investors to be of primary significance.
Instead, it indicated that useful information was
required for both internal and external purposes
and classified users of accounting information into
two broad groups: external users which include
‘‘present and potential investors, creditors,
employees, stock exchanges, governmental units,
[and] customers. . .’’ (p. 20) and internal management (p. 37).
Dissatisfaction with the APB’s piecemeal
approach to resolving accounting issues and the
contents of its opinions continued. Several Big 8
accounting firms were especially critical of the
compromises reached by the APB in its opinions
outlining accounting guidance for business combinations and goodwill (Zeff, 1972). These firms
(particularly, Arthur Andersen & Co and Touche
Ross) questioned the ability of the Board to deal
effectively with difficult accounting problems. In
1971, the AICPA formed two study groups—one
to study the process to follow in establishing
accounting standards17 and the other to develop
the objectives of financial statements to facilitate
improving accounting and financial reporting.18
15 Fertig was a member of the AAA committee that produced
ASOBAT.
16 Previously, the 1957 Revision of Accounting and Reporting
Standards for Corporate Financial Statements (AAA, 1957)
had defined the primary function of accounting as accumulating
and communicating information essential to understanding
enterprise activities. Only in regards to disclosure did the
committee indicate the importance of financial statements users:
the ‘‘use by investors of published financial statements in
making investment and credit decisions and in exercising
control over management should be considered of primary
importance’’ (AAA, 1957, p. 542 emphasis added). In contrast,
the 1948 Revision simply indicated in the concluding comments
that financial statements ‘‘must supply dependable information
for the formulation of judgments’’ (AAA, 1948, p. 344).
17 Earlier that year, another AAA committee had recommended establishing such a group to explore alternative
methods of selecting accounting principles (AAA, 1971).
18 The APB finally issued its statement of basic concepts and
principles for accounting in 1970. However, the statement
received relatively little attention. While the new study group on
objectives for financial reporting was directed to regard this
statement as ‘‘a logical starting point’’ for its work, it was also
not to be limited to refining the APB statement (Study Group,
1973, p. 67).
J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600 587
The chair of the objectives study group, Robert
Trueblood, had strongly advocated using the concepts and methods of other disciplines such as statistical sampling and operations research to enrich
accounting and auditing practice. He had also supported the development of accounting objectives
as a means to improve accounting practice (e.g.,
Trueblood, 1970, p. 62) and favored exploring
the possible contribution of other disciplines in
this development. Writing for a Journal of
Accounting Research Conference, Trueblood
argued (1966, p. 189):
I believe there has been a tendency for accountants in discussing basic concepts to limit their
discussions to other accountants. . . It seems unlikely that basic concepts of accounting can ever be
developed without taking into consideration
developments in other fields such as the law,
economics, mathematics and the behavioral
sciences.
George Sorter, a former member of the ASOBAT committee, was appointed research director
for the Study Group. Sorter had also advocated
a decision usefulness position in some of his earlier
work arguing that for ‘‘accounting to be of optimal utility,’’ it must provide information to predict
cash flows and to assess their risks (Ronen & Sorter, 1972, p. 259). In the course of establishing its
accounting objectives, the Study Group staff conducted a ‘‘theoretical investigation of the literature
and the economic decision making process’’ (Sorter, 1973, p. 33).
Based on this and other work, the Study
Group asserted in its report that the ‘‘basic objective of financial statements is to provide information useful for making economic decisions’’
(Study Group, 1973, p. 13). The recording, classifying and interpreting activities included in the
AIA and ASOBAT definitions had disappeared.
Now the ‘‘boundaries of accounting [were to] be
influenced primarily by users, their goals and their
needs for information’’ (p. 16, emphasis added).
The Study Group also reduced the types of users
deemed of interest by maintaining that useful
financial statements were ‘‘to serve primarily
those users who have limited authority, ability
or resources to obtain information. . .’’ (p. 17).
Managers and various regulatory authorities
were thereby pushed into the background as
investors and creditors were given center stage
(p. 20).
Based on recommendations made by the other
AICPA-sponsored study group, the FASB was
formed in 1973 to replace the APB and included
a conceptual framework project on its agenda. In
1974, the FASB issued a discussion memorandum
that drew
almost exclusively upon the Objectives Study
[Study Group Report]. Views [were] sought on
the objectives of financial statements and on the
qualitative characteristics of reporting set forth
in the Objectives study (FASB, 1974, p. 2).
Several years later, the FASB issued its final
statement on the objectives of financial reporting
in which it maintained that the objectives of financial reporting were to ‘‘provide information that is
useful in making business and economic decisions—for making reasoned choices among alternative uses of scarce resources in the conduct of
business and economic activities’’ (FASB, 1978,
–9). The statement detailed a veritable laundry list
of possible users of these reports including owners,
lenders, suppliers, potential investors and creditors, employees, management, customers, financial
analysts, regulators, labor unions and the generic
‘‘public’’ (–24). While this lengthy list suggests
greater inclusiveness than that from the Study
Group report, the list was almost immediately
shortened to emphasize the information needs of
investors and creditors.
The Study Group report and SFAC 1 were
described as enacting a shift from ‘‘a produceroriented view (that of an accountant preoccupied
with procedures) to a user-oriented emphasis on
decisions. . .’’ (Goetz & Birnberg, 1976, p. 18).
In doing so, these documents had heeded the
advice of various accounting critics that accounting could no longer be practiced for its own sake.
(See e.g., Bevis, 1961; Cannon, 1962; Spacek,
1958; Spiller, 1964; Sprouse, 1963). Indeed, the
Study Group Report (1973, p. 13) clearly stated:
‘‘The objective [of financial statements] is not
directed toward recording or reporting for their
own sake.’’ Criticizing earlier accounting writers
588 J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600
like Paton, Littleton and Vatter, Sorter (1978/
1979, p. 2) argued for the importance of these
objectives:
What issues did these [authors] deal with? The
major, burning questions seem to be, would we
use cost or value, is goodwill an asset, and should
the accounting unit be thought of as a proprietorship or as an entity? But how can such questions
be answered absent the specification of what
the purpose of accounting is and how it is to be
used?
To help reduce diversity in accounting practices, hopes were now being pinned on a conceptual framework. For many, decision usefulness
with its focus on the users of financial statements
was the conceptual framework (Sterling quoted
in Miller, 1990 & Van Riper, 1994).
With the issuance of each of these documents,
accounting became increasingly less focused upon
accounting activities and upon defining a ‘‘good’’
accounting in terms of its adherence to matching
or a particular income measurement theory.
Accounting practices and their selection became
explicitly connected to financial statement users
and economic decisions. However, while each
report listed particular groups that might find
accounting useful, they also shared a common
irony in that little was known about the very users
towards which standard-setting efforts were now
to be directed.
Getting to know users?
ASOBAT, the Study Group Report and SFAC
1 each stressed the significance of users to accounting and the selection of accounting practices and
disclosures. However, as described in this section,
the user accorded this role was an idea or a type
rather than a physical being. Physical beings
(which I will now refer to as readers) remained
enigmas in these reports even as their importance
to accounting was emphasized and advocated.
The ways these readers used accounting information in reaching their decisions were essentially a
black box, an unknown, in the documents that
accorded them a central place in defining a useful
or good accounting. Although ASOBAT outlined
the decisions of various external users—to invest
or not, to extend credit or not, to remain employed
by the company or not, to alter existing government policy, etc., the study (1966, p. 19) admitted
that: ‘‘Ideally more should be known about what
does and should affect their decisions.’’ The Study
Group Report (1973, p. 13) was even blunter
in admitting its lack of knowledge: ‘‘. . .users’
needs for information. . . are not known with any
degree of certainty. No study has been able to
identify precisely the specific role financial statements play in the economic decision-making
process.’’
ASOBAT (1966, p. 19) indicated the importance of research to reduce this ignorance: ‘‘As
more is learned about external users, . . .and as
their decision models are refined and become better known, accounting theory and practice will
change.’’19 However, the necessary research would
require a time consuming and lengthy process and
it was argued that actions to enhance accounting
uniformity and to ease criticisms of accounting
were needed now. In order for users and their
information needs to serve as an accounting
objective, these reports now began to connect
users to financial statements in specific ways and
to construct them as being of a particular kind.
This work involved a two-pronged effort. First,
the reports effaced differences between the various
possible readers of financial statements. Second,
the reports questioned the competence and/or
reliability of these readers to serve as a resource
for standard-setting and thereby justified the substitution of other ideas or models to guide this
process.
Effacing differences
With the exception of the Study Group
Report, each document detailed a long list of
19 APB Statement 4 (1970, –48) also commented that
‘‘Improving financial accounting requires research on the
nature of user needs, on the decision processes of users, and
on the information that most effectively serves user needs.’’
J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600 589
possible financial statement readers. However,
such diverse readers would likely desire different
and perhaps conflicting information. These
conflicts would inhibit rather than assist the standard-setting process. As Burke (1976, p. 10)
commented:
. . .the trouble is that it is not always clear which
type of user and which level of user we are trying
to serve for surely, different types of users have different needs.
. . .It would be impossible to provide information
useful to all. One user’s needs may in fact conflict
with those of another. . .
Rather than attempting to reconcile these possibly conflicting differences, each report chose a similar strategy—to stress the presumed similarities of
readers of financial statements while suppressing
their possible differences.
In making this move, ASOBAT (AAA, 1966, p.
19) stated that knowing the detailed needs of
diverse users was not necessary as ‘‘certain classes
of information are relevant to many decisions.’’
The Study Group Report (1973, p. 17) made a
similar assertion in noting that ‘‘Though users
who rely on financial statements are of different
types, they have certain similar information
needs.’’ This report (p. 18) later restated this
point: ‘‘Classifying users as investors, creditors
and managers is helpful in discussing their principal activities. While users may differ, their economic decisions are similar.’’ The FASB (1978,
–30) made a similar assumption in SFAC 1:
‘‘. . .information provided to meet investors’ and
creditors’ needs is likely to be generally useful to
members of other groups who are interested in
essentially the same financial aspects of business
enterprises as investors and creditors.’’ Even as
these reports stressed the significance of various
readers to the construction of financial statements, they simultaneously claimed that knowledge about the multiple and possibly conflicting
decision needs of these various readers was unnecessary. In effacing the differences between these
possible readers, the standard-setting process
was distanced from the unruly and conflicting
readers of financial statements and became
focused upon users who were like investors and
creditors and would thereby require similar
information.
Questioning competence
Simultaneously, the reports questioned the
competence and/or consistency of various financial statement readers. ASOBAT asserted that
readers were ‘‘often not competent to determine
what information is most useful to them or at least
not articulate in stating their needs’’ (AAA, 1966,
p. 3). In the background papers to the Study
Group Report, Ronen and Sorter (1974) questioned the utility of developing descriptive models
of the relationships between readers and accounting statements as such models would only change
over time. For them, inconsistent readers would
prove a hindrance to the standard-setting process.
This underlying distrust of readers’ competence
was perhaps best expressed in another AAA document issued by the Committee on External
Reporting. In reporting on the merits of external
accounting practices ‘‘in light of the standards
for accounting information suggested in the
AAA Statement of Basic Accounting Theory’’,
the committee (AAA, 1969, p. 79) bluntly stated
that ‘‘. . .decision makers may continue to utilize
what appears to be irrelevant or misleading
information. Such information should be brought
into the models only when and if further research
finds it to be, in fact, relevant in the decision
process to meet the real or apparent goals of the
decision makers.’’ In its concepts statement, the
FASB insisted that only the deserving reader
should be considered in the standard-setting
process—the reader who had made a ‘‘proper’’
effort to understand the contents of financial statements. The Board (1978, –36) indicated that
‘‘financial information is a tool and, like most
tools, cannot be of much direct help to those
who are unable or unwilling to use it or misuse
it. . .[it] should provide information that can be
used by all. . .who are willing to learn to use it
properly.’’
These authors distrusted the abilities of the very
reader they had designated as central to accounting and standard-setting. If the readers of financial
590 J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600
statements were ignorant, unreliable, inconsistent
and/or uneducated, then how could the standard-setter employ user needs as a guide to resolving accounting issues? ASOBAT adopted the tactic
of defining relevant accounting in terms of the
information already produced by accountants.
Although the report acknowledged the significance
of the amounts and timing of future cash receipts
to many theorists, it chose to place emphasis upon
existing accounting information given the difficulty
of knowing these cash receipts ‘‘exactly.’’ ASOBAT (1966, p. 23) stated that ‘‘almost all external
users. . .are involved in efforts to predict the earnings of the firm. . .’’ and that for ‘‘. . .some users
the effort to predict future financial position and
debt-paying power may be of greater importance. . .’’ (p. 24). Based on these observations,
the study urged the supply of relevant information
about the measurement of past earnings, financial
position and funds flow. ASOBAT assumed the
usefulness of this information, giving no consideration to the possibility that perhaps readers tried
to predict future earnings or financial position
because that was the information that accountants
had provided them in the past. The user envisioned
by ASOBAT was one who readily agreed that
existing accounting statements with appropriate
modifications would be useful in their decision
processes.
The Study Group Report also worked to distance readers from the standard-setting process
but elected to employ a somewhat different tactic.
While ASOBAT had assumed the usefulness of
various types of accounting statements to the user,
the Study Group report replaced readers with
assumptions that were ‘‘supported by research
available to the Study Group and are believed to
be consistent with economic and behavioral theory’’ (1973, p. 13). Even as the Study Group indicated its desire to provide information for those
who could not demand it on their own (p. 17),
its members chose to emphasize the information
that various models theorized was important
rather than the information that readers of the
financial statements might desire. Ronen and Sorter (1974) justified this choice in the background
materials to the study. They argued that normative models were preferable given their ready
availability as contrasted to the difficulty of gathering evidence to develop descriptive models.
Ronen and Sorter (1974, p. 81) also maintained
that primary emphasis should be given to normative models as ‘‘the normative model is the procedure that a rational man follows in making a
particular decision in a specified set of circumstances.’’20
These strategies distance the potentially messy
readers of financial statement from the standard
setting process. Rather than focusing on readers
who might be ‘‘irrational’’ in their selection of
what information to use and how to use this information, the models construct the financial statement user as a rational economic decision-maker.
Of course, the irrationality of the readers was
defined by reference to the very models used to
replace them. In drawing upon models, the Study
Group report suggested that these were a better
source of information about readers than were
readers themselves. The models became the users
or rather allowed ideas about users to be constructed in their image. Users existed as an
abstract type or kind rather than as flesh and
blood decision-makers. The complexity of readers
could thereby be reduced to the rational simplicity
of normative models. Readers who did not follow
20 Also see Birnberg (1976) and Brief and Owen (1975) for
similar justifications. The AAA Committee on External
Reporting provided an even more forceful statement regarding the importance of models in determining the information
that users should want. The committee chose to limit the users
of concern to two types—investors and creditors. These were
investors and creditors of an abstract kind. Rather than
consulting with actual investors and creditors, the committee
chose instead to rely upon ‘‘normative investor’s and creditor’s valuation models and a normative dividend model’’ (p.
79). It referred to this decision as both a choice and a
necessity. The effect of this choice was to accept normative
economic models as valid substitutes for readers of financial
statements. In justifying its use of normative models rather
than undertaking the development of more descriptive models, the committee stated that ‘‘. . .we are not interested so
much in how investors and creditors use accounting information in their decision processes as we are in what
information they should be using to meet their goals’’ (p.
79, emphasis added).
J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600 591
the model’s dictates could then be easily dismissed
as irrational and/or ignorant.
By relying upon ideas about users, accountants
and accounting researchers could, if they chose,
forego consultation with living and breathing
financial statement readers. They could instead
construct their ideas about users and the ways that
these users connected with financial statements to
align neatly with the dictates of normative models,
models that were held to be the epitome of rationality. Therefore, if such models declared that
future cash flows were important to investor decisions, then the report could declare that ‘‘An
objective of financial statements is to provide
information useful. . .for predicting, comparing
and evaluating potential cash flows. . .in terms of
amount, timing and related uncertainty’’ (Study
Group, 1973, p. 20). In other words, the information that the models indicated should be significant
was presumed to be useful for financial statement
users. No further inquiry was considered necessary
regarding the information needs of actual readers
as these were assumed to be represented by the
variables contained in various financial economic
models.
The FASB employed a similar tactic in SFAC
1. The statement envisions the financial statement
user as an individual who makes ‘‘rational investment, credit and similar decisions’’ (e.g., –34). By
taking rationality as given, the FASB could then
assume that the financial statement user would
require certain types of information—the information theorized as relevant in various normative
models. Consequently, the FASB emphasized the
importance of financial statements in providing
information to assess the amounts, timing and
uncertainty of future cash flows (–25, 37). By
assuming that readers desire this information, the
FASB also contributed to constructing the financial statement users as the rational economic actor
of financial economics models.
Each report asserted that accounting should be
useful to financial statement users. In making this
argument, each report acted to convince us that
because accounting provides information to
named financial statements users, it also assumes
a particular relevance, importance and usefulness.
Interestingly, accounting could serve this purpose
even though accountants and accounting academics knew little about the decision models of specific
readers. They could ignore differences between
various types of readers and assume common
information needs. Further, these information
needs could be determined by reference to the
types of statements already prepared by accountants or normative models. The messy, inconsistent, uneducated readers of financial statements
could be replaced. By effacing differences and
stressing the information that users ‘‘should’’ find
useful, users of financial statements were being
constructed as being of a particular kind—
rational, future-oriented, decision-making, calculative, predictive. In its standard-setting process,
the FASB has continued to connect and develop
this portrait of users.
Viewing the user in accounting standards
The accounting standards issued by the FASB
continue to accord prominence to the category of
financial statement user. The background sections
of these standards contain frequent references to
users and their wants, needs, interests, calculations.21 Occasional references to readers (i.e., flesh
and blood users) also occur within the pages of
accounting standards. Some times, these readers
indicate or state their desires for particular types
of information22 or comment on existing standards
and Board proposals.23 At other times, the FASB
21 The accounting standards, FAS 1 to FAS 133, were
considered in this paper. Usages of ‘‘user’’ or ‘‘investor and
creditor’’ identified by searches of the FARS database were
analyzed and categorized. Throughout the remainder of the
paper, I adopt a convention to reference the location of
particular evidence (e.g., 22–10). This convention can be read as
Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 22 paragraph
10. All references to accounting standards are from FASB
(1999).
22 See e.g., 2–54; 5–64; 13–96; 14–47, 56, 60; 15–67; 118–116;
130–52; 132–26; 133–503.
23 See e.g., 39–51; 94–58; 104–17; 109–155; 119–67, 68;
123–103; 128–88; 130–40; 131–59.
592 J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600
indicates it has scheduled meetings with or solicited the views of users.24 More frequently, however, the Board speaks for users and expresses its
beliefs about the information that they should
require and the accountings that should best serve
their interests. Statements about these beliefs act
as a partial justification for different accounting
and disclosure requirements. At times, the Board
may indicate that it believes particular information should be useful or helpful to the users of
financial statements. As examples, consider the
following:
The Board concluded that information about
depreciable assets and depreciation policies and
methods is useful to users of financial statements
of not for profit organizations. Therefore, this
Statement explicitly extends the requirements
of Opinion 12 to not-for-profit organizations
(93–41).
The Board concluded that. . .the usefulness of the
information to financial statement users justifies its
disclosure’’ (87–222).25
Similarly, proposals may be rejected when the
Board asserts that they will not provide useful
information (e.g., 115–68).
In Concepts Statement No. 2, relevance was
declared to be one of the two primary qualitative
characteristics of accounting information. In
deciding whether information is relevant, the
FASB need consider only whether it has the capacity to make a difference in the decisions of users
(FASB, 1980, –46) not whether it will make a difference. Again, it is the Board’s beliefs or conclusions about what information should be relevant
to users that serves as a justification for specific
disclosures or accountings. Consequently, statements such as the following are found in accounting standards:
That information is considered so useful in decision making that the lack of precision associated
with the estimate of proved oil and gas reserve
quantities is more than compensated for by the
added relevance to users’’ (69–62).
The Board decided not to change the accounting
by those enterprises because it believes that, for
those enterprises, that accounting provides more
relevant information for users of their financial
statements’’ (115–108).26
The Board also decides what actions will better
serve the needs or interests of users:
After considering the alternatives, the Board concluded that the needs of financial statement
users. . .necessitate establishing the plan, rather
than the fund, as the reporting entity (35–47).
The Board believes that the needs of users would
be better served by providing mutual life insurance
enterprises that elect to adopt generally accepted
accounting principles with a more timely resolution of insurance accounting and reporting issues
that is based on the existing framework of those
principles (120–25).27
These assertions are rarely connected to evidence within the pages of accounting standards.
Rather in accounting standards, the FASB
speaks for users and, in doing so, constructs a
particular type of user as the focus for the
24 See e.g., 7–49; 79–13; 87–207; 95–42; 96–200; 109–279;
115–36, 119; 128–130. Interestingly, most of these indications
of the activities of users have occurred in the more recently
issued accounting standards as criticism of FASB activities by
preparer groups has escalated. In 2002, the FASB established a
User Advisory Council ‘‘. . .to increase analyst participation in
the accounting standard-setting process. The purpose of the
UAC is to assist the FASB in raising awareness of how
investors and investment professionals, equity and credit
analysts, and rating agencies use financial information. The
UAC will serve as a resource to the FASB both in formulating
its technical agenda and in advising on specific agenda projects’’
(FASB, 2004).
25 For other examples of information the Board concluded
was useful (see 14–85; 87–218, 221, 222; 96–144; 99–10; 102–20;
117–138; 118–18;129–16; 133–269).
26 Also (see 72–38; 80–39; 106–5, 148, 163; 113–72; 116–59,
68, 102, 132; 117–96; 128–93) for other examples of information
the FASB declared relevant.
27 See 8–198; 13–118, 120; 52–125; 71–107; 97–49; 113–104;
114–37; 131–74 for similar conclusions about user needs or
interests.
J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600 593
standard-setting process. Accounting standards
are not a mirror for some users’ realities (even
if this were possible) but instead they contribute
to constructing a particular viewpoint about
what financial statement users should be like.
User wants, needs, interests pass through the
Board’s standard-setting process and are interpreted through the prism of the conceptual
framework and its emphasis on rational economic decision-makers.
These rational economic beings are calculative
and so the users in accounting standards are frequently depicted as adept at making quantitative
estimates and in assessing diverse economic factors. They are said to require accounting information that will assist them in preparing their own
estimates of various financial items including
future cash flows (69–80, 82; 95–108), possible
future tax effects (71–89), operating cash flows
(95–121), or credit risk (105–100). The calculative
users found in accounting standards are also
described as needing disclosures that will assist
them in making their own judgments about or calculations of values and risks (125–226) and likely
earnings per share (128–137) as well as to form
predictions about the future (57–14).
In making their various calculations, users are
asserted to search for an understanding of the
economic transactions undertaken by an organization as well as the economic events that may
impact it. This understanding of the economic is
seen as necessary in helping users to improve the
quality of their calculations. Helping users ‘‘to
understand’’ is a frequently repeated purpose in
accounting standards. It (and similar phrases)
are reiterated in diverse contexts to justify many
different types of disclosures and accounting practices. So disclosures might be required to help the
user understand the effects of changing prices
(33–38; 39–8); the broader economic implications
of exchange rate changes (52–144); the economic
effects of providing pension (87–6, 105) or other
postemployment benefits (106–5) or to understand
the impacts of economic events (87–106;
106–144). Similarly, disclosures are said to assist
in understanding the effects of off-balance sheet
activities (105–93) including their magnitude
(119–55) and type [e.g.., risk management (119–
various) and derivatives (133–502)] as well as differences in accounting (120–33), financial activities (130–52), performance (131–90) or success
(133–522) and segments of business (131–106;
14–62).
Within accounting standards, user calculations
and their efforts at understanding the organization
are pictured as directed towards a single purpose,
that of economic decision making. This user calculates in order to make better economic decisions.
Consequently, users require disclosures or other
information in order to make better informed decisions.28 The already narrow picture of users as
decision makers is narrowed still further in that
only certain types of decisions are deemed of interest, specifically ‘‘rational investment, credit and
other decisions.’’29 These ‘‘other decisions’’ are left
unspecified and unexamined as the emphasis
within standards is placed upon investment and
credit decisions.
In keeping with the assumptions of neoclassical economics, the user conceptualized by the
FASB unquestioningly prefers more cash flows
(i.e., wealth) to less (with perhaps some allowance
for diminishing returns). Cash is cash and profit
is profit with sources of cash flows or profits considered to be irrelevant.30 These standards follow
the example of documents like the Study Group
Report by reducing the readers of financial statements to shadowy figures who are interested only
in the wealth they may receive at some future
moment through the receipt of dividends or other
types of monetary returns. All of their decisions
are predicated upon assessments of future cash
flows with the decision-makers/users depicted as
narrow economistic beings. Other matters that
might contextualize the decisions made by these
readers or that would acknowledge a potential
multiplicity of readers with divergent decision
interests and concerns are ignored. Issues other
28 See e.g., 106–161; 107–39, 54; 115–100; 124–72; 106–339.
29 See e.g., 133–220; 106–61; 115–39; 35–63; 69–56; SFAC 1
–34.
30 See Zelizer (1994) for an alternative perspective as to the
nonfungibility of cash.
594 J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600
than the narrowly economic which might enter
into the decision calculus of a specific reader
are removed. This reduction of diverse, multiple
‘‘flesh and blood’’ financial statement readers to
an economically rational and calculating decision
maker, the financial statement user, is significant as this construction forms the basis for
many of the assertions made by the FASB on
behalf of users within its financial accounting
standards.
Within accounting standards, the users referenced seem almost invariably to require the very
information that the conceptual framework has
stated is of interest to them. In SFAC 1, we are
told that users should be interested in assessing
the amounts, timing and uncertainty of future cash
flows. In the paragraphs of accounting standards,
we later observe various accounting practices or
disclosures being required as they may be useful
in assessing these very cash flows.31 SFAC 1 also
stated the significance of information about performance and financial position (economic
resources) in helping users to make their assessments of future cash flows (FASB, 1978, –41,
43). Unsurprisingly, various accounting standards
justify requiring particular disclosures and practices in view of their presumed utility in facilitating
assessments of performance (success) and financial
position.32 Because we assume users are interested
in assessing the uncertainty of future cash flows,
we can also assume they will likely require information to help them assess various risks and
uncertainties as well as management’s responses
to these. Such reasons have been given to justify
requirements for diverse disclosures including
those about oil and gas production (69–87), offbalance sheet risk (105–84), fair values of financial
instruments (107–65), and derivatives (119–28) as
well as accounting requirements and/or disclosures
for computer software costs (86–49) pensions
(87–218) and investments in debt and equity securities (115–119). The users envisioned within the
conceptual framework are forward-looking individuals. They are continually making decisions in
the present based upon their own predictions of
the future. Thus, they will require information to
be disclosed or provided when it possesses predictive value and can help them form estimates about
the future.33
Relevant, useful. Such information must be disclosed as it may impact the decisions of users. Yet,
as already noted, these assertions are seldom connected to any evidence provided by actual users (at
least within the pages of accounting standards).
Instead, the information is required based on the
Board’s beliefs, conclusions and judgments about
the information that users of a particular type
should require. In this way, the standard-setting
process becomes less about the information wants
of particular readers of financial statements, and
more about the FASB’s ideas concerning the
information that users should find useful in their
decision-making process. A 1994 AICPA report
on external financial reporting made a similar
point in criticizing accountants who ‘‘. . .have
developed concepts and frameworks they believe
are consistent with information needs and thus
usually judge ideas to improve reporting based
on the degree of their alignment with existing concepts rather than on more direct verification with
users.’’ Others including Jonas and Young (1998)
and Miller (1990) also argue that current standard-setting fails to focus on actual users needs.
While the conceptual framework and its precursors worked to construct financial statement users
as being of a particular type, this process did not
end with the issuance of these documents. The
standard-setting process also acts to maintain the
idea of the user constructed within the conceptual
framework even as this user is employed as a justification for specific requirements. In this way,
the construction of the user is never quite completed but is ongoing through the standard-setting
process.
31 See e.g., 33–121, 123, 130,etc.; 34–42; 39–51; 41–17, 18;
54–7; 63–21; 69–80, 83, 106; 70–62; 77–38; 95–51; 105–71;
106–343; 107–40; 115–40; 117–76; 131–3.
32 See e.g., 8–215, 224; 13–96, 103; 14–71, 75, 80; 33–various;
41–17; 52–144; 69–103; 86–49; 106–149; 107–41; 116–102;
119–63; 124–35. 33 See e.g., 35–68; 57–14; 69–93, 94; 71–89; 107–40; 128–80.
J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600 595
Concluding comments
To enhance uniformity and facilitate accounting choice, many accountants had urged the development of objectives for accounting and
accounting statements. In selecting a why or purpose for accounting, various committees chose to
connect accounting to financial statement users.
However, actual users were viewed as multiple,
conflicting, inconsistent, uneducated. Not only
were they unreliable but little was known about
their decision processes. To surmount these difficulties and still connect accounting to financial
statement users, other choices were made. One
such choice effaced differences between the various
types of readers and focused attention upon investors and creditors. Another choice resulted in the
substitution of normative models and assertions
for readers to determine the information that they
should want. The FASB (and other participants in
the standard-setting process) have constructed
(and continue to construct) a very specific and
quite limited image of the financial statement
user—a rational economic decision-maker. The
qualifier of ‘‘rational’’ is highly significant. In specifying that the decisions of interest are rational,
behavior that contradicts financial economics
models (i.e., irrational behavior) can be disregarded. Indeed, if disclosures can be connected
to the prediction of future cash flows (including
their uncertainty), they can be said to be needed
by rational decision makers.34 The decisions of
these rational economic users seemingly occur
within a timeless and static economic framework.
Timeless and static in that a ‘‘rational decision’’
requires no context but can be assumed to be the
same across time periods, economic situations
and decision makers. These presumptions remain
despite psychological research that suggests decision contexts impact decision makers (e.g., Einhorn & Hogarth, 1987; Tversky & Kahneman,
1987). An insistence upon the rationality of users
works to distance the flesh and blood readers
alluded to in certain standards from the information that should be provided by financial statements. In stressing the ‘‘rational,’’ users can be
seen more as hypothetical readers of financial
statements than as actual readers. Hypothetical,
as we can presume that they behave in particular
ways (otherwise they are irrational) and that they
are therefore interested in only particular types
of information.
The limited conception of the financial statement users allows (necessitates) an equally narrow
conception for the purpose of accounting reports.
The rational economic decision maker that is the
current focus of standard-setting is primarily concerned with economic events and transactions and
with predicting their impacts upon an entity’s
future cash flows, future profitability and future
financial position. Meaningful, significant and useful information are defined only with respect to
their supposed utility in forming such predictions
and expectations. Other types of information that
might be construed as meaningful, significant or
useful under an alternative construction of the
financial statement user can be easily dismissed
as falling outside the ‘‘appropriate’’ purview of
financial statements. Consequently, the attention
of the standard-setting organization remains
firmly fixed on economic events and transactions
particularly those that are quantifiable.
In these ways, this conception/construction of
the financial statement user works to embed
accounting and accounting standard-setting more
deeply within an economic discourse that holds
efficiency and growth as the appropriate ends for
organizations. Corporate choices and results are
to be evaluated only in terms of their contributions
to these ends. This tight connection of accounting
to an economic decision-maker qua investor/creditor severely limits the possible accountability relationships that might be enacted through and
reported in accounting statements. As Shearer
(2002, p. 570) has forcefully argued the almost
exclusive focus of accounting on investors and
creditors precludes its employment in reporting
on any ‘‘moral responsibility that might be owed
by the economic agent to parties other than the
entity’s owners’’ (Shearer, 2002, p. 570). From
the perspective of a rational, economic decision-
34 Disclosures will then be required as long as their benefits are
claimed to exceed their costs.
596 J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600
maker, sweatshop labor is significant or meaningful only to the extent it reduces cash outflows (and
increases profits) by reducing labor costs. Likewise, the elimination of health care benefits or
the adoption of cash balance type pension plans
can be considered meaningful or significant only
to the extent that these actions may reduce an
entity’s future obligations (and thereby, decrease
its future cash outflows). An accounting focused
on the provision of information useful to economic claimants portrayed as rational economic
decision-makers has little utility for developing
reporting requirements that might help enact the
accountability relationships that exist between a
corporate entity and employees. Indeed, the
impact of corporate actions and choices upon the
lives of current and former employees, the environment, communities and almost anyone or anything
other than investors and creditors is likely to be
regarded as irrelevant, insignificant, meaningless
and inappropriate for inclusion in accounting
reports.
The current emphasis upon decision usefulness
and rational economic decision makers was not a
‘‘natural’’ and inevitable progression in the development of accounting practice and thought.
Other purposes for accounting could have been
selected and/or other users for accounting could
have been emphasized. By making other choices,
we might explore more fully how accounting
could contribute to reporting on an economic
accountability that is more broadly defined to
encompass the moral dimensions of economic life.
Other purposes for accounting can be defined/
other models of a financial statement user constructed—models in which reporting on the
‘‘health’’ of relationships between economic entities, employees, communities and the environment
are given as much or more emphasis than are the
measurement of cash flows, profits and financial
position. The difficulty of changing the purpose(s)
we assign to accounting within the existing political and economic environment cannot be overestimated. However, change certainly cannot occur
if decision usefulness remains taken for granted
as the primary purpose of accounting with its
assumption that financial statements users desire
only information of the type outlined in the conceptual framework.
Acknowledgements
My thanks to Michele Chwastiak, David Cooper, Yves Gendron, participants at the University
of Alberta Department of Accounting and MIS research seminar and two anonymous reviewers for
their helpful comments on previous drafts.
Appendix. Chronological listing of reports and
various events
1964 AAA appoints committee to develop conceptual framework for accounting
1966 AAA Committee produces ASOBAT. Committee members include Norton Bedford,
R. Lee Brummet, Neil Churchill, Russell Morrison, Roland Salmonson, George Sorter, Lawrence
Vance and Charles Zlatkovich, chair
1971 AICPA forms two study groups:
1. Wheat Commission to examine process of establishing accounting standards
2. Trueblood Committee to develop objectives of financial statements. The committee members
include Richard Cyert, Sidney Davidson, James Don Edwards, Oscar Gellein, C. Reed Parker,
Andrew Reinhart, Robert Trueblood, Chairman; Howard Wagner and Frank T. Weston.
George Sorter is appointed research director
1973 Trueblood Committee issues its report, Objectives of Financial Statements
FASB is formed to replace the APB
1978 FASB issues SFAC 1, Objectives of Financial Reporting by Business Enterprises
J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600 597
References
Accounting Principles Board (1970). APB statement no. 4:
Basic concepts and accounting principles underlying financial statements of business enterprises. Printed in Accounting
Standards: Original Pronouncements. Issued Through June
1973. Stamford: FASB.
Agrawal, S. (1987). On the conceptual framework of accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature, 6, 165–178.
American Accounting Association (AAA) (1971). The role
of the American Accounting Association in the development of accounting principles. Accounting Review, 46(3),
609–616.
American Accounting Association (AAA), Committee on
External Reporting (1969). An evaluation of external
reporting practices. Accounting Review, 44(Suppl.), 78–123.
American Accounting Association (AAA) Committee to Prepare a Statement of Basic Accounting Theory (1966). A
statement of basic accounting theory. Evanston, IL: AAA.
American Accounting Association (AAA) (1962). Report of the
Management Accounting Committee. Accounting Review,
37(3), 523–537.
American Accounting Association (AAA) (1957). Accounting
and reporting standards for corporate financial statements—1957 revision. Accounting Review, 32(4), 536–546.
American Accounting Association (AAA) (1948). Accounting
concepts and standards underlying corporate financial
statements: 1948 revision. Accounting Review, 23(4),
339–344.
Armstrong, M. (1977). Politics of establishing accounting
standards. Journal of Accountancy, 143, 76.
AICPA Special Committee on Financial Reporting (1994).
Improving business reporting—A customer focus. November
22, 2000. Available on AICPA website: www.aicpa.org.
Baskin, J. B., & Miranti, P. J. (1997). A history of corporate
finance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Beaver, W. (1981). Financial reporting: An accounting revolution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bedford, N., Griffin, C. H., & Williams, T. H. (1962). Emerging
role of mathematical methodology in accountancy. NAA
Bulletin, 43(10), 33–38.
Bevis, H. W. (1961). Riding herd on accounting standards.
Accounting Review, 35(1), 9–16.
Bierman, H. (1960). Measuring financial liquidity. Accounting
Review, 35(4), 628–632.
Birnberg, J. (1976). In J. J. Cramer, Jr., & C. A. Neyhart, Jr.
(Eds.). Conceptual framework for financial accounting and
reporting, present and future. Papers and discussions presented at a symposium sponsored by the Arthur Andersen
Faculty Fellow, College of Business Administration, the
Pennsylvania State University. College Station: Pennsylvania State Press.
Birnberg, J. (1964). An information oriented approach to the
presentation of common stockholders’ equity. Accounting
Review, 39(4), 963–971.
Blough, C. G. (1959). Challenges to the accounting profession
in the US. Journal of Accountancy(December), 37–42.
Brief, R. P., & Owen, J. (1975). The role of the accountant in
investment analysis. Financial Analysts Journal, 52–56.
Broad, S. J. (1957). The applicability of generally accepted
accounting principles. Journal of Accountancy(September),
31–37.
Burke, M. (1976). Response to ‘‘The conceptual framework for
financial accounting and reporting: Historical approach’’.
In J. J. Cramer, Jr., & C. A. Neyhart, Jr. (Eds.). Conceptual
framework for financial accounting and reporting, present and
future (pp. 6–13). Papers and discussions presented at a
symposium sponsored by the Arthur Andersen Faculty
Fellow, College of Business Administration, the Pennsylvania State University. College Station: Pennsylvania State
Press.
Cannon, A. M. (1962). Discussion notes on ‘‘The basic
postulates of accounting’’. Journal of Accountancy(February), 42–53.
Catlett, G. R. (1969). Statements in quotes: Better objectives
needed to improve accounting principles. Journal of
Accountancy(October), 62–65.
Catlett, G. R. (1964). Controversy over uniformity of accounting principles. Journal of Accountancy(December), 37–43.
Catlett, G. R. (1960a). Relation of acceptance to accounting
principles. Journal of Accountancy(March), 33–38.
Catlett, G. R. (1960b). Factors that influence accounting
principles. Journal of Accountancy(October), 44–50.
Christensen, C. (1955). Construction of present value tables for
use in evaluating capital investment opportunities. Accounting Review, 30(4), 666–672.
Churchman, C. W., & Ackoff, R. L. (1955). Operational
accounting and operations research. Journal of Accountancy(February), 33–39.
Cohen, M. F. (1966a). Statements in quotes: The SEC and
accountants: Cooperative efforts to improve financial
reporting. Journal of Accountancy(December), 56–60.
Cohen, M. F. (1966b). Statements in quotes: Analysts, accountants, and the SEC—Necessary joint efforts. Journal of
Accountancy(August), 57–62.
Comments on the ‘‘Basic Postulates of Accounting’’ (1963).
Journal of Accountancy(January), 44–55.
Corbin, D. A. (1962). The revolution in accounting. Accounting
Review, 37(4), 626–635.
Corbin, D. A. (1961). Proposals for improving funds statements. Accounting Review, 35(3), 398–405.
Corbin, D. A. (1958). Accounting for stockholder growth.
Journal of Accountancy(May), 63–69.
Cyert, R. M., & Dill, W. R. (1964). The future of business
education: 1. Introduction. Journal of Business, 37(3),
221–238.
Defliese, P. (1977). The search for a new conceptual framework
of accounting. Journal of Accountancy(July), 59–67.
Dein, R. C. (1958). The future development of accounting
theory. Accounting Review, 33(3), 389–400.
Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University Press.
Dyckman, T. R. (1964). On the investment decision. Accounting
Review, 39(2), 285–295.
598 J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600
Eaton, M. G. (1957). Financial reporting in a changing society.
Journal of Accountancy(August), 25–31.
Eggleston, C. D. (1930). Modern accounting: Theory and
practice. New York: Wiley.
Einhorn, H., & Hogarth, R. (1987). Decision making under
ambiguity. In R. M. Hogarth & M. W. Reder (Eds.),
Rational choice: The contrast between economics and psychology (pp. 41–66). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
FASB (1980). SFAC No. 2: Qualitative Characteristics of
Accounting Information. Stamford, CT: FASB.
Feldman, M. S. (1989). Order without design: Information
production and policy making. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Fertig, P. E. (1967). A statement of basic accounting theory.
New York Certified Public Accountant(September), 663–
671.
Financial Accounting Standards Board (2004). Information
obtained from FASB website: http://www.fasb.org/
user_advisory_council/index.shtml.
Financial Accounting Standards Board (1999). Financial
accounting research system for windows. New York: Wiley.
Financial Accounting Standards Board (1978). Statement of
financial accounting concepts no. 1. Stamford, CT: FASB.
Financial Accounting Standards Board (1974). Conceptual
framework for accounting and reporting: Consideration of
the report of the study group on the objectives of financial
statements. Stamford, CT: FASB.
Finney, H. A. (1933). Principles of accounting (vol. 1, revised
ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall.
Finney, H. A., & Miller, H. E. (1951). Principles of accounting:
Intermediate (4th ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall.
Gaa, C. J. (1961). Uniformity in accounting ‘‘Principles’’.
Journal of Accountancy(April), 47–51.
Gerboth, D. J. (1973). ‘‘Muddling through’’ with the APB.
Journal of Accountancy(May), 42–49.
Goetz, B., & Birnberg, J. (1976). A comment on the Trueblood
report. Management Accounting(April), 18–20.
Gore, W. J. (1959). A bibliographical essay on decision making.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 4(1), 97–121.
Grady, P. (1965). Accounting research study no. 7: Inventory of
generally accepted accounting principles for business enterprises. New York: AICPA.
Hacking, I. (1986). Making up people. In T. C. Heller & M.
Sosna (Eds.), Reconstructing individualism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Holmes, A. W., Maynard, G. P., Edwards, J. D., & Meier, R.
A. (1958). Intermediate accounting (3rd ed.). Homewood,
IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Jennings, A. R. (1958a). Present-day challenges in financial
reporting. Journal of Accountancy(January), 28–34.
Jennings, A. (1958b). Accounting research. Accounting Review,
33(4), 547–554.
Jonas, G., & Young, S. (1998). Bridging the gap: Who can bring
a user focus to business reporting? Accounting Horizons,
12(2), 154–159.
Kemp, P. S. (1963). Controversies on the construction of
financial statements. Accounting Review, 38(1), 126–132.
Kieso, D., Weygandt, J., & Warfield, T. (2004). Intermediate
accounting (11th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Knauth, O. (1957). The executive looks at accounting. The
Journal of Accountancy(January), 29–32.
Lambourne, R. W. (1961). Institutional investing. Financial
Analysts Journal, 17(6), 61–64, 67–68.
March, J. G. (1988). Decisions and organizations. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Marple, R. P. (1963). Value-itis. Accounting Review, 38(3),
478–482.
Meigs, W. B., & Johnson, C. E. (1967). Accounting (2nd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Metcalf, R. W. (1964). The ‘‘Basic Postulates’’ in perspective.
Accounting Review, 39(1), 16–21.
Miller, P. (1991). Accounting innovation beyond the enterprise:
Problematizing investment decision and programming economic growth in the UK in the 1960s. Accounting Organizations and Society, 16, 733–762.
Miller, P. B. W. (1990). The conceptual framework as reformation and counterreformation. Accounting Horizons(June), 23–32.
Moonitz, M. (1961). The basic postulates of accounting. New
York: AICPA.
News Report (1962). Accounting principles board comments on
‘‘Broad Principles’’. Journal of Accountancy(May), 9–10.
Niswonger, C. R., & Fess, P. E. (1965). Accounting principles
(9th ed.). Cincinnati: Southwestern Publishing Co.
Obrock, R. F. (1958). A case study of statistical sampling.
Journal of Accountancy(March), 53–59.
Oliphant, W. J. (1971). The search for accounting principles:
Empirical research in accounting: Selected studies. Journal
of Accounting Research, 9, 93–98.
Pacter, P. A. (1983). The conceptual framework: Make no
mystique about it. Journal of Accountancy(July), 76–78.
Paton, W. A. (1938). Essentials of accounting. New York: The
MacMillan Co.
Paton, W. A. (1926). Accounting. New York: The MacMillan
Co.
Paton, W. A., & Littleton, A. C. (1940). An introduction to
corporate accounting standards [Monograph 3]. New York:
American Accounting Association.
Philips, G. E. (1963a). The accretion concept of income.
Accounting Review, 38(1), 14–25.
Philips, G. E. (1963b). The revolution in accounting theory.
Accounting Review, 38(4), 696–708.
Powell, W. (1960). The challenge to research. Journal of
Accountancy(February), 34–41.
Power, M. (1992). From common sense to expertise: Reflections
on the prehistory of audit sampling. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(1), 37–62.
Puxty, A., & Laughlin, R. (1983). A rational reconstruction of
the decision usefulness criterion. Journal of Business,
Finance and Accounting, 10(4), 543–559.
Queenan, J. W. (1962). Postulates: Their place in accounting
research. Journal of Accountancy, 29–33.
J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600 599
Rappaport, A. (1964). Establishing objectives for published
corporate accounting reports. Accounting Review, 39(4),
951–962.
Reierson, R. L. (1960). The changing capital markets. Journal
of Finance, 15(2), 289–298.
Rockefeller, S. C. (1991). John Dewey. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Ronen, J., & Sorter, G. (1972). Relevant accounting. Journal of
Business, 45(2), 258–282.
Ronen, J., & Sorter, G. (1974). The descriptive and the
normative. Objectives of financial statements, Vol. 2:
Selected papers (pp. 24–29). New York: American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.
Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Roy, R. H., & MacNeill, J. B. (1966). Horizons for a
profession: The common body of knowledge for CPAs.
Journal of Accountancy(September), 38–50.
Sanders, T. H., Hatfield, H. R., & Moore, U. (1938). A
statement of accounting principles (reprinted). New York:
American Accounting Association.
Schuetze, W. P. (1983). The significance and development of the
conceptual framework. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and
Finance, 254–262.
Shearer, T. (2002). Ethics and accountability: From the foritself to the for-the-other. Accounting, Organizations, and
Society, 27, 541–573.
Skinner, R. M. (1968). Statements in quotes: Generally
accepted accounting principles. Journal of Accountancy(March), 51–53.
Solomons, D. (1961). Economic and accounting concepts of
income. Accounting Review, 35(3), 374–383.
Sorter, G. H. (1978/1979). Beyond emptiness and blindness: Is
there a hope for accounting research. The Saxe lectures in
accounting. Available: http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/digital/saxe/saxe_1978/sorter_79.htm.
Sorter, G. H. (1973). An inside view. CA Magazine(November),
31–33.
Spacek, L. (1968). Statement in quotes: The outlook for
eventual agreement on accounting principles. Journal of
Accountancy(October), 61–63.
Spacek, L. (1964). A suggested solution to the principles
dilemma. Accounting Review, 39(2), 275–284.
Spacek, L. (1961). Are accounting principles generally
accepted? Journal of Accountancy(April), 41–46.
Spacek, L. (1958). The need for an accounting court. Accounting Review, 33(3), 368–379.
Spiceland, J. D., Sepe, J. F., & Tomassini, L. (2001).
Intermediate accounting (2nd ed.). Boston: Irwin McGrawHill.
Spiller, E. A. Jr., (1964). Theory and practice in the development of accounting. Accounting Review, 39(4), 850–
859.
Sprouse, R. T. (1963). Historical costs and current assets—
Traditional and treacherous. Accounting Review, 38(4),
687–695.
Statements in Quotes (1964). Uniformity in accounting. Journal
of Accountancy(June), 56–61.
Staubus, G. (1999). The decision usefulness theory of accounting:
A limited history. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Stringer, K. W. (1961). Some basic concepts of statistical
sampling in auditing. Journal of Accountancy(November),
63–69.
Study Group on the Objectives of Financial Statements (1973).
Objectives of financial statements. New York: AICPA.
Trueblood, R. M. (1970). Statements in quotes: Ten years of the
APB: One practitioner’s appraisal. Journal of Accountancy(January), 61–64.
Trueblood, R. M. (1966). Accounting principles: The board and
its problems, empirical research in accounting: Selected
studies 1966. Journal of Accounting Research, 4, 183–191.
Trueblood, R. M. (1958). Accounting and the new management
attitudes. Journal of Accountancy(October), 37–42.
Trueblood, R. M. (1957). Auditing and statistical sampling.
Journal of Accountancy(April), 48–52.
Trueblood, R. M., & Cyert, R. M. (1954). Statistical sampling
applied to aging of accounts receivable. Journal of Accountancy(March), 293–298.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1987). Rational choice and the
framing of decisions. In R. M. Hogarth & M. W. Reder
(Eds.), Rational choice: The contrast between economics and
psychology (pp. 67–94). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Van Riper, R. (1994). Setting standards for financial reporting.
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
West, C. (1989). The American evasion of philosophy. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
West, P. L. (1959). The reporting of earnings to stockholders.
Journal of Accountancy(February), 27–32.
Whitley, R. (1986). The transformation of business finance into
financial economics: The roles of academic expansion and
changes in US capital markets. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 11(2), 171–192.
Williams, P. (1987). The legitimate concern with fairness.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(2), 169–189.
Wilson, C. Z., & Alexis, M. (1962). Basic frameworks for
decisions. The Journal of the Academy of Management, 5(2),
150–164.
Wixon, R. (Ed.). (1956). Accountants’ handbook (4th ed.). New
York: Ronald Press Co.
Zeff, S. A. (1999). The evolution of the conceptual framework
for business enterprises in the United States. Accounting
Historians Journal, 26(2), 89–131.
Zeff, S. A. (1972). Forging accounting principles in five countries.
Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co.
Zelizer, V. A. (1994). The social meaning of money. New York:
Basic Books.
600 J.J. Young / Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (2006) 579–600