Professionalism versus amateurism in grass-roots sport: associated funding needs

Considerations of professionalization within sport are typically limited to the commercialization processes that generate the funding regimes and impact the expenditure patterns of professional sports teams. By contrast, using historical data, this article analyses how professionalism and the professionalization of elite rugby has impacted the amateur game, in general, and challenged the core values of amateurism and the associated funding needed for the amateur/grass-roots game, in particular. It compares funding and expenditure patterns in amateur sports clubs for a particular sport – rugby football union, aka rugby. This article utilizes a case study analysis of amateur clubs in the Wellington Rugby Football Union, a provincial union of the New Zealand Rugby Union. It finds that professionalism is exhibited in the amateur game both as a top-down phenomenon and a bottom-up phenomenon as new actors have entered the institutional field. The study also notes that whilst such changes have been gradual, the costs of these changes are now outpacing clubs’ ability to fund them

From community to public ownership: A tale of changing accountabilities

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine changes in accountability as the provision and control of education moved from private nonprofit organisations to a public sector provider. Design/methodology/approach: Analysis of nineteenth century archival documents from significant primary educational providers in a major early New Zealand settlement. Findings: The nonprofit education provider utilised public meetings including public examinations, whose effect was to develop trust based on the education values it shared with its community of stakeholders. It also published financial reports which, along with inspections and statistical returns, were preferred once the government became the education provider. Such publications and inspections indicated bureaucracy and control. Nevertheless, government funding, rather than the nonprofit organisation's dependence on its community, made education provision sustainable. Research limitations/implications: It has been suggested that the differences between public sector and private sector accounting and accountability are not always sharply defined (Carnegie and Napier, 2012). However, this case study shows that a change of education provider did lead to a marked difference in accountability. While theory suggests that public sector accountability should enhance democracy, the party best meeting this brief was the nonprofit provider, with the public sector provider preferring hierarchical accountability. It could be argued that funding dependence drove these different approaches as community accountability was traded for financial security. Originality/value: Distinctive study of accountability practices to external stakeholders, in a mid-nineteenth century education context

Regulatory reform:distinguishing between mutual-benefit and public-benefit entities

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyse nonprofit regulation through comparing and contrasting mutual-benefit and public-benefit entities. It ascertains how these entities differ in size, publicness, tax benefits and whether these differences might suggest regulatory costs should be differentiated. Design/methodology/approach: This mixed-methods study utilises financial data, submissions and interviews. Findings: There are stark differences in these two types of regulated nonprofit entities. Members should be the primary monitoring agency/ies for mutual-benefit entities, but financial reports should be understandable to these members. Nevertheless, the availability of tax concessions, combined with the benefits of limited liability, suggest mutual-benefit entities should be regulated and monitored by government in a way sympathetic to their size. Research limitations/implications: As with most research, a limitation is this study’s focus on a single jurisdiction. Practical implications: The differences in these entities’ characteristics are important for designing regulation. Social implications: Better regulation is likely to require a standard set of financial reporting standards. Government has the right to demand disclosures due to benefits mutual-benefit entities enjoy. Originality/value: In comparison to studies utilising only public benefit data, this study uses unique datasets to compare public-benefit and mutual-benefit entities and presents nonprofit sector participant’s perceptions of these differences in context. This enables analysis of how better regulation could be achieved

How might normative and mimetic pressures improve local government service performance reporting?

Increasingly, public sector organisations are being encouraged or required to provide service performance information in addition to financial statements. Yet, reporting is often inferior, as shown by this example of local governments in New Zealand. Poor quality reporting has led to different initiatives to improve service performance reporting quality, and this study investigates the effectiveness of three initiatives undertaken by the Auditor-General. Drawing on contemporary institutional and legitimacy theories, we find that normative pressure in tandem with threats to legitimacy is influential in improving service performance reporting. However, despite mimetic examples also being used, the analysis shows it is an ineffective tool in the New Zealand local government context

Financial reporting standards for the public sector: New Zealand’s 21st-century experience

New Zealand was seen as world-leading when public sector financial reports were prepared using sector-neutral accounting standards from 1995 onwards. The decision in 2002 to adopt IFRS was disruptive, effecting new understandings of ‘sector- neutral’, and the standard-setter’s approach was unsuccessful in meeting public sector users’ needs. The development of a new strategy finalized in 2012 has created a multi- standards framework, including adapted IPSASB standards applicable from 1 July 2014. While neutrality is still prized, it is within a framework of meeting users’ needs. This paper traces the influences expediting these changes

Theological perspectives on accounting: worldviews don’t change overnight

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the 2004 AAAJ special issue (SI): “Accounting and theology, an introduction: Initiating a dialogue between immediacy and eternity,” the relative immediate impact of the call for papers and the relevance of the theme to address issues in accounting today and in the future. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is a reflection and is framed around three different modes of engagement with new perspectives as identified by Orlikowski (2015). These are religion as phenomenon, as perspective and as a worldview. The authors draw on Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) framework in order to explore the ontological and epistemological blinkers that have limited the attempts to explore accounting from a theological perspective. Findings: The paper argues that historical and current structures can limit the manner in which accounting research uses theological perspectives. Indeed, the concerns of the initial SI remain – that the contemporary economic and knowledge system is in crisis and alternative ways of questioning are required to understand and respond to this system. Research limitations/implications: As a reflection, this paper is subject to limitations of author bias relating to our beliefs, ethnicities and culture. The authors have sought to reduce these by drawing on a wide range of sources, critical analysis and the input of feedback from other scholars. Nevertheless, the narrative of impact remains a continuing story. Originality/value: In drawing on both an original SI guest editor and a scholar for whom the 2004 SI has become a touchstone and springboard, this paper provides multiple viewpoints on the issue of accounting and theology

Small GAAP: a large jump for the IASB

In the last fifteen years, many national standard setters have introduced differential reporting for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Internationally, SMEs are a diverse and dynamic group which are described under broad characteristics in different countries. SMEs are not issuers or public sector entities and therefore frequently the qualitative criteria of not being publicly accountable may define these entities. Acceptance and imposition of International Accounting Standards (IASs) has reignited the debate on differential reporting, especially since the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) issued a discussion document in June 2004 on SME reporting. It is apparent the majority of national standard setters support an IASB-generated alternative reporting regime for SMEs, citing that IFRS developed specifically for listed entities are not relevant for SMEs. Benefits would include lower compliance costs for reporters who would face reduced disclosure due to simplified presentation. This would encourage continuing compliance to the IAS regime thus benefiting users when SMEs produce comparable financial information. It is the objective of this paper to provide a review of the diversity in jurisdictional approaches to resolve these issues. This includes a discussion of the two approaches: the ‘top-down’ or the ‘bottom-up’ approach, with examples of each. This research has been motivated by the absence in academic literature of sufficient studies examining the underlying issues fundamental to redefining the balance between the accountability and decision-usefulness functions of general purpose financial reporting. To achieve this objective, this paper considers relevant academic and practitioner literature before undertaking an analysis of the issues this literature raises. Unique SME factors, including close-knit agency relationships, and a tendency to aim for survival and stability over profit maximisation and growth suggest a distinctly different focus to the IASB conceptual framework is required. The prevalence of an unsubstantiated view that SMEs are ‘small entities on the way to becoming large entities’ overshadows the argument on whether and how SMEs should be offered relief from highly technical IAS. Some countries have regulation for SMEs already or are developing a Best Practice Guide for their SMEs. Exemptions may be based on a public accountability test (as in Canada), but Finland finds the Canadian example ‘too vague’ and New Zealand’s sector-neutral stance made the application of this definition too broad. The IASB may limit definition to broad qualitative and quantitative SME boundaries in its struggle to provide a useful suite of SME accounting standards to nation states. Managing different worldviews and the demands of both preparers and users who are unused to lobbying at a high level, will be challenging for the IASB. Although the IASB originally aimed for a single set of conceptually robust SME standards, they must revisit the specific stewardship focus of SME reporting to gain traction in this project. The SME debate appears as a crucible in which the resolution of such tensions may in time be resolved

The development of incorporated structures for charities:a 100 year comparison of England and New Zealand

This article contrasts the emergence of two specific incorporated structures for non-profit organizations which came into being more than a century apart. We compare the ability for charities to form as “incorporated societies” under the New Zealand Incorporated Societies Act 1908 (effective from 1909), and to form as “charitable incorporated organizations” (CIOs), which were enacted in England and Wales under the Charities Act 2006 (effective from 2013). The article emphasizes the need for charitable non-profit organizations to incorporate for effective operation. This issue is rarely discussed, but the chosen legal form brings specific financial accounting obligations, affecting organizations’ accountability to third parties. Taking a comparative international history approach and drawing on a range of sources, we explore the socio-legal processes which led to the relevant legislation in each country. In particular, this diffusion study investigates why a specific corporate form for charitable non-profit organizations came into effect more than 100 years later in England as compared to New Zealand, with “place” emerging as the most significant comparative dimension

Heritage reporting by the Australian Public sector:possibilities from the concepts of new public governance

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the future development of heritage reporting in Australia. Public sector reporting of heritage has been a long-standing issue, due to shortcomings in (sector-neutral) for-profit-based financial reporting standards. Australia’s sector-neutral approach does not meet public sector users’ information needs. The authors develop a heritage reporting model to balance community and other stakeholders’ interests and address prior critiques. Design/methodology/approach: The paper reviews heritage reporting requirements in Anglo-Western Countries, and analyses commentaries and research publications. It evaluates the existing reporting requirements in the context of new public management (which focusses on information and efficiency) and new public governance (NPG) (focussing on balancing interests and quality). Findings: The paper proposes an NPG-based heritage reporting model which includes indicators of performance on the five UNESCO (1972) dimensions and operational guidelines issued by UNESCO (2015). These are identification, presentation, protection, conservation and transmission. The proposed model is consistent with the notion of US SFFAS 29 (the standard for Federal entities). Not all heritage must be capitalised and hence attachment of monetary value, but detailed disclosures are necessary. Research limitations/implications: The authors expect the proposed heritage reporting model to better serve users of heritage information compared to the present Australian Accounting Standards Board 116: Property, Plant and Equipment. Originality/value: The authors’ proposed model of heritage reporting attempts to answer Carnegie and Wolnizer’s (1995, 1999) six questions, addresses decades of concerns raised in previous literature and provides a new perspective to heritage reporting based on NPG that should better serve users’ needs