Accounting history and the emperor\u27s new clothes: A response to Knowing more as knowing less?...

Hoskin and Macve (H&M) continue to accredit certain events in the early 1840s as enabling the creation of norm-based accounting and its use to control labor and improve productivity at the Springfield Armory (SA). Although critics have refuted H&M\u27s interpretation of these events and reproached their use of inflated language, H&M maintain their unique perspective with undiminished fervor. This rejoinder further questions the validity of H&M\u27s perspective of U.S. accounting history. It identifies the many conventional business historians who refute it and emphasizes that no other evidence has been presented to indicate that norm-based accounting was ever employed in the U.S. before the early 1900s. It also describes how H&M have tried to bolster their position by citing several contemporary and more critical scholars who in fact refute it. More substantively, the paper emphasizes that the core debate between H&M and their critics is not simply over the timing of particular events at SA. Rather, it centers on the nature of historical evidence and the distinction between history and historicism

Rendering the unfamiliar intelligible: Discovering the human side of accounting\u27s past through oral history interviews

Two paradigmatic schools are presently exploring twentieth century accounting history. Conventional historians typically examine archival data to determine the origin and development of modern accounting practices. Alternatively, more critical scholars often question the motives of accountants and managers in the design, collection, and use of this same data. Although each school has a different primary objective, both focus on documented events and both usually ignore the more personal, human side of history : the attitudes and perceptions of accountants, managers, and workers regarding accounting numbers and reports. This undocumented, human aspect of accounting history is best revealed through oral history interviews. This paper initially discusses the benefits and limitations of oral history interviews. It then includes examples from a recently completed oral history project to illustrate how recollections about the past help illuminate aspects of twentieth century cost accounting history that neither conventional nor critical historians have clearly revealed. The paper concludes by identifying three current accounting topic areas that appear befitting of oral history investigations

Nature and function of cost keeping in a late nineteenth-century small business

J. Henry Rushton was the preeminent American builder of canoes and small pleasure boats in the late nineteenth-century. Beginning in the mid 1890s, Rushton personally maintained books of cost records and cost finding rules for his boat-building operations. In conjunction with the company\u27s product catalogs and Rushton\u27s personal letters, these books reveal the nature and function of cost keeping for this enterprise. They also suggest that pressures from increased competition and an economic depression may have stimulated Rushton to undertake detailed costing procedures. (See Vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 215-218 for correction of figures 1 and 2.

Accounting for labor in the early 19th century: The U.S. arms making experience

The Springfield armory was the largest and among the most important prototypes of the modern factory establishment, and its accounting controls were the most sophisticated in use before the 1840\u27s (Chandler, 1977). Until that time, the armory\u27s accounting system did not integrate piece-rate accounting and a clock-regulated workday into prespecified norms of output. Hoskin & Macve (1988) have argued that accounting was unable to establish norms, increase labor productivity, and thus attain its full disciplinary power until a West Point managerial component was established in the 1840\u27s. They then called for further discourse to verify or refute this contention

Nature and environment of cost management among early nineteenth century U.S. texitle [i.e. textile] manufacturers

Several authors have suggested that a particular managerial component was needed before cost accounting could be fully used for accountability and disciplinary purposes. They argue that the marriage of managerialism and accounting first occurred in the United States at the Springfield Armory after 1840. They generally downplay the quality and usefulness of cost accounting at the New England textile mills before that time and call for a re-examination of original mill records from a disciplinary perspective

Accounting for labor in the early 19th century: The U.S. arms making experience

The national armory at Springfield was the largest prototype of the modern factory establishment and its accounting controls were described by Alfred Chandler [1977] as the most sophisticated in use before the early 1840s. In spite of that, armory management did not integrate piece-rate accounting and a clock-regulated workday to produce prespecified norms of output. Hoskin & Macve [1988] have recently suggested that the armory\u27s accounting controls were unable to attain disciplinary power over labor and increase labor productivity until a West Point trained managerial component had been established at the armory after 1840. They called for a reexamination of the historical record from a disciplinary rather than economic perspective to validate this doctrine. The paper presents the findings of this reexamination and indicates that West Point management training was a relatively minor determinant in the evolving nature of accounting. Several economic and social factors are found to better explain why integration did not occur any sooner than it did at the Springfield armory

Straw men and old saws -- An evidence-based response to Sy and Tinker\u27s critique

In a recent Accounting History article, Sy and Tinker (S&T) [2005] critique accounting history for its support of archivalism and empiricism in light of irrefutable arguments against these antiquarian epistemes. While tempted to lambaste S&T\u27s article as unfettered social activism rather than evidence-based historical inquiry, we focus instead on the more substantive questions S&T raise. We initially summarize their essential arguments, although some of the statements they make are contradictory in nature. We then discuss fundamental issues and genuine challenges to accounting history posed by the post-Kuhnian critique that S&T and others represent, as well as the nature and purpose of historical enquiry. We reviewed the accounting history journal articles published between 2001 and 2005 and use our findings to evaluate the broad assertions that S&T make about accounting history. We conclude that S&T\u27s critique is unwarranted and unjust, especially when the subject matter of the most recent accounting history articles is considered

Archival researchers: An endangered species?

In recent years accounting historiography has been enriched by a considerable volume of debate surrounding the chronology and evolution of accounting theory and practice. By virtue of their attempts to explain the processes of change, accounting historians have become identified with a paradigm or world view that constitutes the theoretical context within which their research findings are couched. Scholars have either self-avowed their paradigmatic affiliations or have had their work so classified in the writings of others. Fleischman et al. [1996a], for example, trichotomized the field of industrial revolution cost accounting into three schools : the Neoclassical (economic rationalist), the Foucauldian, and the Marxist (labor process). A dichotomized schemata might be employed to distinguish critical and traditional historians. Critical historians tend to question the objectivity of much primary source material, particularly accounting documents, which can serve the self-interest of those in positions of power. Traditionalists have more faith that surviving business records provide a less partisan approximation of some sort of objective reality. A distinction can likewise be made between the new accounting history and older approaches, typically with a narrower focus. The new genre casts a wider net, deploying a variety of contexts to coexist with those economic aspects traditionally privileged in much accounting historiography. Many new accounting historians attempt to amplify the voices of suppressed groups (women, the poor, the illiterate) which have not been heard in mainstream literature

Editors correction to volume 15, no. 1, spring, 1988; Nature and function of cost keeping in a late nineteenth-century small business

An error was made in printing Figures 1 and 2 of The Nature and Function of Cost Keeping in a Late Nineteenth-Century Small Business. The front page of the article and the corrected figures are printed on the following pages. The editors regret any inconvenience caused by the error

Accounting for interned Japanese-American civilians during World War II: Creating incentives and establishing controls for captive workers

On February 19, 1942, following the attack on Pearl Har­bor and the declaration of war against Japan, President Roosevelt is­sued Executive Order 9066 which empowered the Secretary of War to exclude any and all persons from designated areas in the United States. Shortly thereafter, some 120,000 civilians of Japanese descent were prohibited from living, working, or traveling on the West Coast. By October 1942, over 100,000 evacuees were relocated and con­fined to ten remote internment camps for the duration of the war. The War Relocation Authority (WRA) administered these camps and had the responsibility to feed, house, educate, and provide em­ployment for the evacuees. This article describes the WRA\u27s use of ac­counting information and situates the role of accounting within a la­bor-process framework. It initially discusses labor-process theory and provides an overview of the internment episode and cooperative ac­counting in the U.S. It then focuses on particular accounting policies, procedures, and reports that were used by the WRA to manage en­terprises, monitor internment activities, and socialize evacuees with American capitalistic values