Reviewed by Wesley T. Andrews, Jr. Texas A&M University
Collectively, the papers presented at the Third Charles Waldo Haskins Accounting Seminar (held April 20, 1979 at the Atlanta Hilton), represent another step forward in our attempt to gain an understanding of the extremely complex issues involved in inter-national accounting. The participants, each having a well-developed sense of the value of the study of history as a point of departure for the understanding of contemporary problems, would probably agree in unison with Santa Anna that “he who fails to study history is doomed to repeat his mistakes.” It is this historically based insight that the seminar participants seek in their scholarly deliberations.
The four papers each reflect their authors’ appreciation of his-torical perspective in their own way. Professor Paul Garner’s “Comparative Accounting Education: A Neglected Area of Research for Accounting Historians” suggests that an understanding of the differences in accounting disciplines in various countries may be gained through research into the nature of the “accounting educational features of the several dozen countries of the world.” Professor Baxter, in “Accounting’s Roots—and Their Lingering Influence,” presents the traditional historian’s perspective, tracing through time and from a macro point of view, the broad currents of human history and their impact upon the development of the accounting craft.
To this reviewer, the primary insight furnished by the seminar papers is eloquently summarized by Professors Hopwood, Burchell and Clubb in their paper “The Development of Accounting in Its International Context: Past Concerns and Emergent Issues,” who add the international dimension to historic analysis. In their words, this is a view of accounting as “. . . a heterogeneous phenomenon, varying in form, content, organization and function across both time and space. As a consequence, accounting is not seen to include a multitude of different practices, the nature of which has changed quite radically over time.” Rather, accounting is a universal phenomenon with certain ubiquitous qualities; historical and geographical differences in systems of accounting thought are therefore merely different manifestations of the same force, each manifestation tempered by the socio-economic and cultural influences of a specific region at a specific time. Hopwood, Burchell and Clubb review the attempts of scholars in the field of international accounting to classify different systems of accounting thought on the basis of (a) the institutional contexts from which they spring, (b) specific conditions (such as war) which shape their development, and (c) varying societal needs to which the accounting craft attempts to respond.
Professor Schoenfeld’s paper, “Major Influences Which Shape Accounting Systems: An Attempt of an International Historical Analysis,” utilizes this perspective to “model” the phenomenon of development of accounting systems by suggesting a taxonomy of “variables” which influence the development process. The resulting taxonomical scheme identifies forces related to international differences in the development of ideas and knowledge, differences related to the effect of diverse economic systems, differences in the mode of societal development between countries, as well as differ-ences between countries in the degree of development of accounting related technology.
And yet each of the presenting scholars is aware of the limitations of their efforts in the light of the enormous complexity of the problems which they address. Each, in his own way, recognizes implicitly that, before we can seek meaning from the order of things, we must first identify and describe such order as exists. Hence, each attempts to describe our efforts to categorize the events of history so that we may gain insights into the forces that influence the development of accounting. In addition, Garner calls for research into comparative accounting education systems while Schoenfeld attempts to systematize those influences which history shows to be meaningful.
In conclusion, I must agree with Professor Flamholtz in her discussion of the Hopwood, Burchell and Clubb paper, when she notes that “Too often, . . . accounting history becomes a glorification of the present, written from a perspective . . . which studies the past with references to the present and therefore searches for similarities between past and present.
. . . Hopwood, Burchell and Clubb’s paper illustrates that a comparative or international approach can help to dispel [this] ‘Whig’ type of perspective. This type of research, by its very nature, breaks down absolute standards.” Thus, the papers presented at the third Haskins Seminar offer a broadened perspective, based upon historical investigation applied across international boundaries, to our attempts at understanding the complexities of international accounting problems—perhaps this is the main contribution of the highly capable scholars who presented their work at the seminar in Atlanta.
