(No) Limits to Anglo-American Accounting? Reconstructing the History of the 
International Accounting Standards Committee ; A Review Article

Botzem, Sebastian; Quack, Sigrid

doi:10.1016/j.aos.2009.07.001

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

(No) Limits to Anglo-American Accounting? Reconstructing the History of the International Accounting Standards Committee ; A Review Article

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons41272

Quack, Sigrid
Grenzüberschreitende Institutionenbildung, MPI for the Study of Societies, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.07.001
(Publisher version)

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

AOS_34_2009_Botzem.pdf
(Any fulltext), 288KB

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Botzem, S., & Quack, S. (2009). (No) Limits to Anglo-American Accounting? Reconstructing the History of the International Accounting Standards Committee; A Review Article. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(8), 988-998. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2009.07.001.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0012-44D8-B

Abstract

The development of the current International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) from the earlier International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) provides insight into many issues of international financial reporting, among them the characteristics of international accounting standards themselves. This article reviews Camfferman and Zeff’s [Camfferman, K., & Zeff, S. A. (2007). Financial reporting and global capital markets. A history of the international accounting standards committee 1973–2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press] volume on the organizational development of the IASC and contextualizes it in the broader literature of cross-border standardization in accounting. While having produced a seminal piece, the authors take a clear Anglo-American perspective. The downsides are insufficiencies regarding a simplistic understanding of experts and expertise, a neglect of the role of auditing firms, and only an imbalanced integration of different stakeholders.