19.04.2014 Views

Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series: Budgeting and ...

Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series: Budgeting and ...

Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series: Budgeting and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

188 Paul Boothe<br />

Accrual accounting poses some significant challenges to public sector<br />

managers because it requires estimation of the value of assets that have no<br />

market <strong>and</strong> of the current effect of programs that may make payments far<br />

into the future. Blöndal (2003) notes that the valuation of so-called heritage<br />

assets (museums, national monuments, <strong>and</strong> so forth); military assets; <strong>and</strong><br />

public infrastructure (such as transportation <strong>and</strong> health care facilities) is<br />

likely to be contentious. Programs like public pensions that make uncertain<br />

payments far into the future are also difficult to value. The required judgment<br />

by public servants in these cases leaves them open to political pressure<br />

<strong>and</strong> more difficult to hold accountable.<br />

As a result of these concerns, some experts have urged caution in the<br />

move to accrual accounting in the public sector. For example, in a recent piece<br />

in a respected accounting journal, Hepworth (2003: 37) writes,“One purpose<br />

of this article is to urge caution on those who are contemplating or encouraging<br />

the change to accrual accounting in central government, unless the<br />

conditions are absolutely right.<br />

Wynne (2004: 3) focuses on the gap between the theoretical benefits<br />

claimed for accrual accounting <strong>and</strong> the experience to date:<br />

A wide range of benefits [is] often claimed to arise from making this fundamental<br />

change to financial accounting in the public sector. These include<br />

improved accountability, management of assets, <strong>and</strong> generally increased<br />

efficiency. These advantages have yet to be clearly demonstrated in practice, but<br />

the costs of such reforms are clear <strong>and</strong> significant.<br />

Accounting Regimes <strong>and</strong> Incentives for Policy Makers<br />

Over the past couple of decades, scholars have invested a good deal of effort in<br />

studying the economic, political, <strong>and</strong> institutional determinants of fiscal<br />

policy. 2 Part of that literature has focused on fiscal rules: commitments by<br />

political leaders to certain norms of fiscal behavior. The creation of the<br />

European Monetary Union <strong>and</strong> the related Stability <strong>and</strong> Growth Pact<br />

provided strong motivation to examine all aspects of fiscal rules <strong>and</strong> their<br />

effects on fiscal policy in Europe. However, this literature has focused on other<br />

OECD countries <strong>and</strong> developing countries as well.<br />

With the economic effects of various fiscal rules now relatively well<br />

understood <strong>and</strong> the political determinants of fiscal policy extensively studied,<br />

attention has turned to the effect of budget institutions on fiscal policy outcomes<br />

(for example, see Poterba <strong>and</strong> von Hagen 1999). This section looks at this<br />

emerging literature to examine the interaction of accounting regimes <strong>and</strong><br />

fiscal rules. 3 The particular focus is the incentives for policy makers that are

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!