Financial Reporting in an International Environment: A Look at Regulatory Models and the Case for a Market Approach
本文回顾了会计原则国际协调的争论，探讨市场能否解决政府和私人监管未能解决的财务报告问题，并论证市场驱动方法优于集中式自上而下的监管体系。
The debate on harmonization of accounting principles usually centers around whether harmonization -- adoption of uniform reporting rules for corporations in all countries -- is desirable, and if so, how goal can be achieved. This paper presents an overview of harmonization debate and looks at literature to determine whether market might be able to solve financial reporting problems that governmental and private regulatory groups have been unable to solve. This paper also argues that a market-driven approach to international financial reporting, which utilizes a bottom-up approach, is inherently superior to a centralized, top-down system because of its flexibility and its ability to convey wants and needs from consumers to producers. INTRODUCTION Harmonization of accounting principles has been discussed in accounting literature for decades. As capital markets become more international, there is an increasing need for financial information that is understandable to investors in many different countries. The debate usually centers around whether harmonization -- adoption of uniform reporting rules for corporations in all countries -- is desirable, and if so, how goal can be achieved. Once it is agreed that harmonization is desirable to some extent, debate usually centers around whether harmonization should be achieved by government intervention in financial reporting process, or whether some private group like Financial Accounting Standards Board, International Accounting Standards Committee or other group should set rules. However, such reasoning involves a non sequitur, a form of One problem inherent in any top-down approach to financial reporting harmonization is that forced harmonization requires compromise. If there are three ways to report a certain item, for example, and if each of three ways is in widespread use, it must be because a substantial segment of financial reporting community thinks that each method is the best way to report a certain item. If harmonization requires two of three methods to be discarded in interests of uniformity, it is fair to say that a substantial philosophically flawed reasoning. If harmonization is desirable, it does not logically follow that government or some private group should be impetus. There is a third alternative -- market. The market -- unregulated, invisible hand of Adam Smith -- has solved many important problems over centuries without any central direction. It solved question of railroad gauge, computer operating systems, VCR v. Beta, language and numerous other important problems without top-down intervention. The possibility that market could solve relatively minor problems, like problems of financial reporting to an international audience has not been explored in finance or accounting literature, perhaps because regulators do not trust market, or perhaps because they are unaware of market's role in solving problems. segment of financial reporting community will have to be content with a method that they deem less than best. Otherwise, they all would have adopted method voluntarily without need for forced harmonization. In other words, suboptimization will often be result if substantial segments of financial reporting community have to settle for less than their first choice. A danger that is always inherent in top-down planning is that regulators will make wrong choice. Indeed, if decisions are made by political process rather than by economic process, there is a substantial probability that decision made will be wrong one. Forced harmonization of financial reporting process involves all dangers that are inherent in any one-size-fits-all system. Even if bureaucrats always choose method that majority prefers, which is often not case, a one-size-fits-all system must necessarily ignore or discount views of minority. …