Gary John Previts CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
and
Richard E. Brown KENT STATE UNIVERSITY

THE DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF THE JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTANCY, 1905 TO 1989

Abstract: This content analysis of Journal of Accountancy items relating to governmental accounting spans a period of nine decades which included two world wars, a severe economic depression, and conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, These decades marked the departure from simpler local government accounting concerns alone to national governmental issues and the call for consistent accountability among the myriad federal agencies and programs.

Considering the growth of the public sector, its importance to all other spheres of American life, the complexity of governmental financial administration, and the events of the times, governmental accounting received only a modest amount of attention in the AICPA’s journal — probably less than five percent of published content over the period. This limited coverage suggests a minimal amount of attention to governmental accounting matters within the profession which may be due in part to the fact that governmental accounting, until recently, was not a principal component of the profession’s scope of services.

From a content perspective, the Journal did a more than adequate job of keeping its readers abreast of current developments through short news items. From a substantive viewpoint, however, the major papers were often reactive rather than forward-looking, or calling for positive change. Perhaps in part because of these realities, today, three quarters of a century after some of the early papers were published on related issues, the GASB continues to struggle with basic financial accounting and reporting issues for state and local government.

Several events of the late 1970s and the 1980s had signifi-cant influence on governmental accounting in the United States. These included the following:

The authors acknowledge the research assistance of Yvonne Fisher and Aldo Romeo.

1. Legislation of the Inspector General Act (1978), the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (1982), and the Single Audit Act (1984).

2. Establishment of a distinctive standards setting body, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) (1984).

3. Revision of the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) Comptroller General’s Government Auditing Standards, the “Yellow Book” (1988; a revised exposure draft was also released in July 1993).

4. A campaign by the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) for federal fiscal reform, including a federal chief financial officer, which resulted in the passage during 1990 of
the Chief Financial Officers Act.

Related to these events has been the development and strengthening of government accounting organizations includ-ing the National State Auditors Association, the National Association of Local Auditors, and the National Intergovernmental Audit Forum, as well as the growing prominence of the GAO itself. The Audit Forum has served to bring together private sector accountants and local, state, and federal accounting officials.

The GASB’s research agenda spans the issues of govern-mental accounting, including fundamental concerns such as the financial reporting model, basis of government accounting, and the capacity of governmental accounting systems to help measure performance. The Single Audit Act resulted in a great increase in state and local government audits; the revised “Yellow Book” identifies an expanding role for the auditor in specifying illegal acts. In addition, the GAO and Congressional committees continue inquiries into what they consider to be substandard audits of governmental entities and programs (Brown, 1987).

Given the importance of these developments, this paper examines the background, prologue events, and the role that the accounting profession played in influencing these events. By examining specific published materials that appeared both before and after the watershed of events of the early 1980s, the extent to which the profession participated in, or initiated, the developments is weighed. The Journal of Accounting and the contents of its pages are used as an approximate or “proxy” representation of “the profession.”
It is a fact of professional history that substantive accounting developments of today, whether measured by legislation or the content of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), are the products of preceding research and experience. Given this progression, the need to better understand the timing and origin of such precedents in this case as they apply to governmental accounting should be a worthwhile endeavor.

The paper begins with a methodology section that describes the content analysis procedures employed. Next the content of materials published during three distinct periods is reviewed. Finally, an attempt is made to assess the impact of the profession, as represented by the Journal of Accountancy, on the evolution and development of governmental accounting.

METHODOLOGY

To examine and describe the role of the public accounting profession in the evolution of governmental accounting, the, content of the Journal of Accountancy, the “journal of record” so to speak, of the AICPA, was analyzed. The research premise was that content analysis of all published government accounting materials in the Journal provides an important basis from which to at least partially assess the profession’s role.

It may be argued that the Journal of Accountancy reflects a supply and demand equilibrium for issues being addressed by the profession at a given point in time. The AICPA, of course, as with any professional organization, has many ways to inform its members, and it need not rely exclusively on a monthly journal. For example, the Institute uses a variety of newsletters, news bulletins, and training programs. However, the Journal of Accountancy is the profession’s principal published organ and therefore an appropriate source for evaluating relative communication to and from members. The subjects that the Journal emphasized, or deemphasized, suggest what the Institute considered important. Therefore, Journal content was analyzed from the date of its inception in 1905 to 1989, a period of nearly nine decades.

An abstract was prepared for each published item identified as relating to governmental accounting regardless of length. An attempt was made to differentiate between the many news or update items, usually 1-2 pages or less in length, and the more substantive papers, four pages or more in length. It seemed relevant to the task at hand to distinguish between those items published simply to keep readers informed of developments and those which in a substantive way attempt to record, even influence, the extent and direction of such developments. As might be expected, this task was made more difficult by the changing Journal formats over the nearly 90-year period. The file of abstracts was then analyzed for content to classify developments in governmental accounting by topic and by time period. Therefore, the analysis is an evaluation of materials based on their relationship to current governmental accounting developments, the perceived stature of the author(s), and other qualitative aspects.

The content analysis is divided into three periods: the four decades preceding the outbreak of World War II (1900-1939); the four decades of the war years and the years following World War II (1940-1979); and the 1980s.

It was deemed important to analyze the 1980s separately since it was in this period when so many of the important changes, delineated above, were actually taking place. This period’s published papers tend to reflect the changes of the time, rather than influence these changes.

CONTENT ANALYSIS: PRE-WORLD II

The Journal of Accountancy began monthly publication in 1905 under the auspices of a forerunner association of what today is the AICPA. The first papers on governmental accounting were published in 1906. Throughout the early years of the Journal, the papers on governmental accounting addressed concerns of municipalities, mostly as they pertained to technical accounting treatments and subjects, This level of attention continued throughout the pre-World War II period. A 1906 item was an account of the work of a committee of the American Association of Public Accountants, today’s AICPA, to recommend improvements in the methods and practices of governmental accounting (AAPA, 1906). Papers appearing in the period 1900-1909 dealt with attempts to design uniform classification systems for accounts and technical accounting problems, usually in specific cities—New York, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Minneapolis, and San Francisco, among others. The first decade of the 1900s also produced papers on governmental auditing. The June 1907 issue of the Journal includes J. Goodloe’s report on investigations of governmental entities in western states; the investigations exposed gross neglect, bribery, and corruption, as well as the lack of records. Goodloe suggested that the American Association of Public Accountants should lead a campaign for mandatory audits of all public entities (Goodloe, 1907). A 1909 auditing paper discussed problems with the selection process for and qualifications of those conducting governmental audits (Smith, 1909). Additional papers in 1906, 1907, and 1908 touched on a broader range of familiar issues, such as recognizing differences between governmental and commercial accounting; the need for the postal service to raise rates; and New York City’s poor accounting practices and credit concerns.

The attention to municipal accounting continued in the next decade, the 1910s. Municipal accounting papers addressed the need for recognition of the role of a CPA, the problem of municipal debts, the need for a municipal general ledger, and the desirability of a uniform classification system for municipal accounts. Cases specific to other cities were also included. The focus on municipal accounting was supplemented during the period as papers began to appear on accounting needs in counties and states (Rawlings, 1916; Fullington, 1916). During these years authors continued to explore familiar issues including comparability of compensation for accounting work and comparative procedures between the governmental and commercial sectors.

About this time a significant shift in topics toward the fi-nancial framework for the U.S. federal government began to appear, For example, papers addressed the need for a national budget. One of the most notable of these, “What is involved in the Making of a National Budget? by Frederick Cleveland, ap-peared in May 1913. Cleveland, a scholar and practitioner of public financial management during this era, led efforts to achieve passage of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which created the Office of Management and Budget as well as the GAO (H. S. Chase, 1914). Editorials in 1921 indicated the profession’s hopes for the adoption of the new national budget act and continued to express concerns about waste in the federal government. The submission of a budget for the federal government became a legal requirement in 1921.

Another significant topic addressed in these early issues concerned the difficulty in determining whether, in the absence of the profit motive, public entities effectively used taxpayer funds. Recognizing this difficulty, one Journal article specified that the accounting system capture statistics on program results. Another paper noted the need to develop cost accounting systems that assist in evaluating the efficiency and “quality” of public programs. A third author explored the use of unit costs,

including a “person-day” measure for several public programs. The similarity of such issues to those of performance auditing found in the 1960s and of the GASB’s current research into “service efforts and accomplishments” is apparent (Tanner, 1914; Staub, 1912; Mucklow, 1917).

The Journal did not contain extensive coverage of governmental accounting topics in the 1920s and 1930s, but from a substantive viewpoint, the concerns during the 1920s remained issues of municipal accounting. Illustrative of these was the 1923 paper “Municipal Accounting” by J. O. McKinsey. An accounting faculty member of the University of Chicago, McKinsey was president of the American Accounting Association (1924) and founder of the consulting firm of McKinsey & Co.

One of the first papers addressing substandard work in governmental accounting and auditing appeared in 1926. It re-counted the disagreements between the Department of Treasury and two accounting firms whose members were not associated with the American Institute.

The 1930 editions of the Journal included relatively few items on governmental accounting. Municipal accounting, in-cluding auditing municipal accounts, remained a dominant theme. Addressing the differences between governmental and commercial accounting also continued to be emphasized. Two 1937 papers described the work and progress of the National Committee on Municipal Accounting. This group was a prede-cessor to the National Council on Governmental Accounting (NCGA) and the GASB.

During the 1930s, one new issue, competitive bidding, was identified. Two papers criticized the movement toward, and the dangers of, competitive bidding by accountants for government engagements.

A brief overview of the key topics occurring with some degree of regularity in the Journal during these four decades is presented in Table 1.

CONTENT ANALYSIS: 1940-1979

Only a limited number of papers dealing with the public sector appeared in the 1940s. The first papers on the subject of governmental accounting (as contrasted with wartime topics) were published in 1947. However, a subtle, definite shift began thereafter; although about half of the papers addressed issues of

Table 1
Key Governmental Accounting Topics Appearing in the Journal of Accountancy 1900 – 1939

Financial Accounting and Reporting 74%

— Focus Almost Exclusively on State and Local

Governments, Including Specific U.S. “Cities” Beginnings of Attention to Federal Financial Practices 16%

— Need For a National Budget
— 1921 Budget and Accounting Act

Auditing, Especially Municipal Auditing 6%

— Needed Qualifications of Auditors
— Need for Municipal Audits

Other, Including Beginnings of Interest In Performance 4%
Measurement (now Service Efforts and Accomplishments) 100%

municipal accounting, most others concerned federal financial management. Of the latter papers, most dealt with the deliberations of the first Hoover Commission1 and its report. Significantly, one paper dealt with accounting control in the national military establishment, a theme that gained importance from this point. A 1948 comment paper discussed a recurring problem of audit independence. The paper asserted that it is not enough to have governmental units audited; audits must be provided by officials independent of those who prepare the accounts (AICPA, 1948).

The shift toward federal financial management topics was “fashionable” in the 1950s; such topics offered evidence that the CPA profession was engaged in addressing the consequences of the massive structural changes to society and economic institutions and markets brought about by the great depression, the New Deal, and World War II. Infrequent papers did appear on
‘Popularly known as the Hoover Commission, the Commission on the Orga-nization of the Executive Branch is the formal title of two commissions headed by former President Herbert Hoover.

126 The Accounting Historians Journal, December 1993

state and local accounting; among the more significant was a report on a study by the American Institute on audit practices in states. The study reported that state laws were not uniform and generally did not specify that professional independent audits be performed by trained/qualified personnel (AICPA, 1950). Federally-related topics covered during the 1950s included:

— Accounting in federal government agencies (U.S. Mari
time Commission, Economic Cooperation Commission).
— Accounting and auditing for defense agencies and related industries.
— Commentaries on the two Hoover Commissions.
— Federal government internal activities such as the Joint

Financial Management Improvement Program.

Several papers presented topics that were the forerunners of issues that would arise during subsequent decades, including inefficiency in federal government operations and controlling federal expenditures. In the early 1950s, the Institute called for the creation of a committee of accountants, representing the various national accounting groups, to study and make recommendations to help control federal expenditures (AICPA, 1951, 1952). Anticipating the difficulties of dealing with the federal bureaucracy, the Institute also cautioned practitioners to prepare and keep memoranda on all important discussions that occurred during engagements since a review of their actions could occur many years later (AICPA, 1953). An April 1959 paper commented on a model policy promoted by the AICPA regarding accounting and auditing for public funds. The proposal “protecting the Public Purse” recommended that legislation re-quiring independent audits include specifications of the professional qualifications of the auditors, and further that audits be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS).

Through the 1960s, the majority of Journal items again addressed governmental accounting for federal issues. This offered a contrast to the relative emphasis of content items published prior to World War II. Among the few items on the subject of local accounting was a comment announcing the release in 1968 by the Municipal Finance Officers Association (MFOA) of its “Blue Book” on Governmental Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting. The “Blue Book” was the forerunner in many respects to current GAAP for government. The item pointed out that the MFOA directs auditors to be in conformity with the “Blue Book.

The focus of the 1960s was so concentrated on federal is-sues that by the end of the decade, a paper appeared that re-minded accountants that federal accounting was only one part of the field. Local accounting, the paper stressed, was equally important to the nation’s welfare (Joplin, 1967).

The comprehensive scope of the topic coverage during the 1960s related to federal accounting included the following:

— The federal budget.
— The Joint Financial Management Improvement Program.
— The introduction to accrual accounting.
— The need to improve governmental accounting systems while upgrading accounting skills.

A 1962 item described the creation, by Agriculture Secre-tary Orville Freeman, of an Office of Internal Audit and Inspec-tion, headed by an inspector general, in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, one of a series of early developments that would lead to the passage of the Inspector General Act in 1978 (Bryan, 1962).

A significant development suggested by the writings during the 1960s was the rapid increase in the audits of federal grant entitlement programs. A series of papers estimated that the number of government-related audits increased from 12,000 per year in the 1950s to nearly 50,000 annually by the later 1960s. Some authors prophesied that this would become one of the most significant sources of demand for CPA audit practice (Lytle, 1964; Bryan, 1963). With this growth came corresponding concern as to who could competently perform the services. Several items noted that audit-related provisions called for CPAs or licensed public accountants to conduct federal audit work.

A 1967 item, “Social Accounting,” commented on a bill pending in Congress to create a council of social advisors. The concept was received favorably, at least with regard to accoun-tants participating, and served to point out that until that time, little attention had been given to the subject of social accounting.

Also during the 1960s, there was a return to a theme begun many years earlier in the literature, the rationale for the devel-opment of performance measures and performance auditing in the public sector. Today this topic is among those on GASB’s research agenda (Morse, 1961; Fluckiger, 1963).

During the 1970s, the Journal’s governmental accounting literature had two principal themes. First, the rapid increase in federal program audits received wide coverage; this interest re-sulted in the identification of difficulties in conducting those audits and the need for more relevant and useful audit stan-dards. Second, a concern over accounting problems associated with local governmental entities was once again expressed. The Journal also covered an important event of the 1970s, the re-lease in 1972 of the initial version of the GAO “Yellow Book,” the manual of generally accepted governmental auditing stan-dards. This document expanded the concept of governmental auditing from traditional financial audits to audits and tests of legal compliance, as well as program efficiency and effective-ness. A 1974 report in the Journal reviewed and interpreted these standards for the readership. During the decade, the Journal included more materials on this topic.

In 1975, the GAO reaffirmed its position, after an inquiry by the Congress, that only CPAs (and a “grandfathered” group of licensed public accountants) should perform governmental financial audits (AICPA, 1975). The GAO’s expansive view of gov-ernmental auditing, including performance auditing, was re-lated to the concept of performance measurement. Given this impetus, the Journal in the 1970s published several articles that renewed and extended the discussion of performance measurement and auditing (Henke, 1972; Staats, 1976; Pomeranz, 1978). Journal issues also reported a number of items on social accounting (Marlin, 1973) and an account of a Congressional hearing on problems of governmental auditing (Hrisak, 1979).
In the mid-1970s the GAO preached its “gospel” to state governments and developed a “model state auditing act” pat-terned after its own activities, for state audit functions. Some states copied the model, others borrowed portions of it, and another group of states rejected it. Also in 1975, an item de-tailed the 1974 release of the AICPA’s audit for state and local units, providing further evidence of the interest in extending national lessons to the state-local level (AICPA, 1975).

During the 1970s, local government accounting writers sought to develop consensus and once again addressed issues at the local level and to resolve issues that first arose fifty to sixty years earlier. This attempt toward resolution reflected two developments: (1) the progress being made at the federal level in areas of financial management and (2) a desire to transfer an emphasis on accountability to those cities that had experienced widely publicized financial problems. In the 1970s, the crises in New York City, as well as other state and local entities, were covered extensively by the media, including professional journals. Indicative of the reaction to such difficulties was the December 1976 Journal item “Governmental Financial Statements—A New Look,” which questioned the content of government financial statements (Hepp, 1976). At the same time, Coopers & Lybrand, working with researchers at the University of Michigan, documented problems with municipal accounting practices (AICPA, 1976). This attention to municipal government accountability in the late 1960s led to a series of papers related to settling general accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for municipal governments (see March 1979 edition). It seemed that the pendulum had completed its swing from fundamental topics, improving municipal accounting, to a consideration of federal matters and then back, again, to municipal essentials. It is important to note that GASB, which of course establishes accounting principles for state and local government, was established only a short time later, in 1984.

Table 2 presents a brief synopsis of governmental accounting areas receiving most attention during the period 1940-1979.

CONTENT ANALYSIS: 1980-1989

The opening pages of this paper offer considerable detail on the many important developments in governmental accounting in the late 1970s and the 1980s, including passage of the Inspector General Act, Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act, Single Audit Act, and Chief Financial Officers Act (actually passed in 1990); substantial revision of the GAO’s “Yellow Book”; and creation of GASB and establishment of its research and working agenda. To a considerable extent, these developments represent the culmination of a lengthy period of research, political activity, and sheer historical evolution in governmental accounting. Thus, the content of the Journal in the 1980s largely reflects the nearing culmination and implementation of these events, rather than a building toward these changes.

In the 1980s, nearly all issues of the Journal reflect intensive, if brief, coverage of news items such as: the activities surrounding the creation and progress of GASB; bond rating firms’ advice and counsel to municipalities on accounting practices; the progress of legislation relating to single audit and other fi-

Table 2

Key Governmental Accounting Topics Appearing in the Journal of Accountancy 1940 – 1979

Important Shift to Federal Financial Topics 46%

— Two Hoover Commissions
— Accounting in Defense and Other Federal Agencies
— Articles about Joint Financial Improvement Program
— Federal Budgeting
— Inspector General

Auditing (Largely Federal) 29%

— Great Growth in Federal Programs and Need for Audits
— Qualifications of Auditors; Need for Independence;

Auditing Standards

— GAO’s “Yellow Book” of Generally Accepted Auditing

Standards for Government

— Performance and Compliance Auditing

Continuation of and Return to Concern with Municipal

Accounting (Especially Toward End of 1970s) 14%
— MFOA’s “Blue Book” of Accounting Principles
— Financial Crisis in U.S. Cities
— Renewed Attention to Municipal Accounting Practices

Performance Measures; Social Accounting; Other 11% 100%

nancially related bills before Congress; federal program audit quality problems; the release of various NCGA and GASB pronouncements; etc. In short, the Journal appears to have done an excellent job of keeping its members informed about current developments important to professional governmental accounting practice. Such coverage was usually a few paragraphs in length; on occasion a page or two of discussion was presented.

Viewed another way, however, a different story emerges. If an assumption is made that any given issue of the Journal of Accountancy contains only five major papers on all subjects (papers, that is, of at least 4-5 printed pages in length), then a year’s worth of Journal issues could include about 60 major papers (5 papers x 12 issues). Analysis of the 1980 issues of the Journal in this manner indicates that in any given year within this decade an average of only about three papers appeared in the Journal on governmental accounting. This is about five percent of a year’s major papers. This analysis includes reports on lengthy interviews with officials, but excludes papers in which there was only brief coverage of governmental accounting. Admittedly one cannot conclude too much from this statistic unless a comparative study were completed of Journal coverage of other industry groups. However, it is interesting to reflect upon this point since one may assume that it is through such substantive papers that the Journal and profession go beyond merely reporting accounting developments to inform members and instead influence the direction of the field itself.

From a content perspective, the papers appearing in the Journal in the 1980s offer a rather balanced blend of attention to financial accounting and reporting, and auditing, issues, and to federal government and state and local government accounting issues. The largest number of papers was in the auditing field, including extensive coverage of single audits, compliance audits, operational auditing, federal program grant audits, and relevant auditing standards. Illustrative of these papers is the article by Dale Flesher on operational auditing, and the papers during the decade by Steinberg and Broadus on single audits (Flesher, 1980; Steinberg, 1981; Broadus, 1985, 1987).

Financial accounting and reporting coverage was devoted largely to state and local issues and included papers on the im-portant differences between business and government accounting, defining the governmental reporting entity, the going concern concept as it relates to government, and recognition issues. Martin Ives’ piece, “Accountability and Governmental Financial Reporting,” and the paper by Freeman and Shoulders, “Governmental Fund Operating Results: Three Formats,” are indicative of this coverage (Ives, 1987; Freeman and Shoulders, 1985).

In addition, a few papers appeared on broader topics relat-ing to the role of the GAO and federal financial management. (Collins, 1987; Bowsher, 1987). The papers in this decade are authored by an impressive list of governmental officials, public accounting, academic, and other individuals. Many of the individuals are either current Board members of GASB or played a key role in its formation, or were instrumental in changing and improving governmental auditing during this decade.

132 The Accounting Historians Journal, December 1993
Table 3 presents a summary of the topics covered in the major papers included in the Journal during the 1980s.

Key Governmental Accounting Topics Appearing in the Journal of Accountancy 1980 – 1989

Auditing 41%

— Federal Grant Audits
— Operational Auditing
— Single Audit
— Auditing Standards
— Role of the GAO
— Improving Audit Quality
— Compliance Auditing

Financial Accounting and Reporting (Largely State and Local) 32%

— Differences Between Business and Government
— Defining the Entity
— Going Concern Concept
— Reporting Budget Information
— Reporting Formats
— Recognition Problems

Accountability of Government 27%

— Improving Efficiency
— Federal Financial Management
— General 100%

SUMMARY

This study of scores of Journal articles relating to govern-mental accounting spans an era which included two world wars, a severe economic depression, and conflicts in Korea and Vietnam. In general, these times marked the departure from simple local government accounting concerns to national governmental issues and consistent accountability within myriad federal agencies and programs.

Prior to World War II, most Journal items addressed the technical content of accounting for municipalities during the period when the U.S. was becoming urbanized. Items which

covered federal matters were chiefly concerned with the issues relating to the need for a national budget and similar concerns which were addressed in the passage of the Budget and Ac-counting Act of 1921 — a watershed event which established the Bureau of the Budget, the executive budget function, and the U.S. GAO, the congressional audit agency.

Following World War II, Journal literature began to reflect a preoccupation with federal financial management. The decades of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s witnessed an explosion of federal programs and expenditures, accompanied by a growing concern over the accounting for an auditing of the funds associated with these initiatives. By the later 1960s, the number of federal audit engagements per year was estimated to be 50,000, an increase from approximately 12,000 such audits a decade earlier. Such growth has had a profound impact on the profession’s economic structure and its expected base of skills, knowledge, and competence. An increased number of public accounting firms had begun to participate in governmental accounting opportunities. These developments also led to passage of federal legislation such as the Inspector General, Single Audit, and Chief Financial Officers acts.

By the close of the 1970s, as increased federal expenditures were receiving political attention, innovations were being experienced at the state and local levels rather than at the federal level. Journal authors again turned their attention to the state and local scenes. A series of papers on accounting standard setting for state and local governments appeared in the late 1970s in anticipation of, for example, the GASB.

The papers appearing in the 1980s, an average of about three a year, represent a rather even balance of federal, and state and local accounting issues, revolving around two main concerns: a continuation of the focus on federal grant program audits and related auditing matters; and considerable coverage of state-local accounting and reporting topics. Thus, papers of the 1980s often directly related to the major events of the period, including the creation of GASB in 1984 and its working agenda.

Those contributing much of the literature during this period of nearly nine decades reads like a list of “who’s who” in U.S. governmental accounting: comptrollers general, state auditors, other governmental officials, and leading academics and practitioners — individuals well-established in the profession contributed major papers. To this extent, the quality of the work appearing in the Journal is commendable, written as it was, by knowledgeable and experienced people.

However, considering the growth of the public sector, its importance to all other spheres of American life, the complexity of governmental financial administration, and the events of the times, governmental accounting does not appear to have received an overabundance of attention in the AICPA’s journal. A numeric computation of such coverage showed that during the 1980s major papers on governmental accounting topics averaged about three a year, out of a possible 60 papers, or about 5 percent of the total number. Estimates for earlier decades, while cruder, indicate percentages below even this level. This limited quantitative coverage suggests a minimal amount of attention to governmental accounting matters within the profession, which may be due in part to the fact that governmental accounting, until recently, was not a principal component of the profession’s scope of services. This was due to the fact that governmental auditing engagements were not initially mandatory, nor were they seen to be priced to be the most attractive economic option for accounting firms. As mentioned earlier, such conclusions must be tentative since it is nearly impossible to suggest an optimal amount of such coverage in the Journal. Also, government-related contract activities were often attended by publicity and more public attention than CPAs were accustomed to receiving. This, too, was a negative influence on CPA firm interest.

CONCLUSIONS

Aside from any quantitative considerations, what might one conclude with regard to the Journal’s coverage of governmental accounting topics? First, in terms of keeping its readership informed as to current developments which would likely influence those in the practice of governmental accounting, the Journal appears to have performed at a rather high level. Most issues contained brief updates on pronouncements, legislation, and other occurrences of importance to the practitioner.

From a more substantive viewpoint, the record is less clear. A professional or academic journal would seem to be many things, but it surely reflects to a considerable extent what its readers or members believe to be important as measured by the papers they submit for review. Moreover, a journal also makes a statement about what it thinks is important by the decisions it makes with regard to the acceptance or rejection of certain pa-pers or topics. In addition, most journals selectively, if quietly, seek out manuscripts on topics they deem timely and important. Thus, the content of the Journal of Accountancy in the area of governmental accounting is a rough approximation of what at least a significant part of the profession believes to be worthwhile at the time. Tables 1, 2, and 3, presented earlier, summarize the recurring topics covered between 1905 and 1989.

The pre-World War II coverage of the Journal clearly was devoted in large measure to the details of municipal accounting. The national mobilization and events of global conflict caused this momentum to be transformed by World War II and it is significant that only now, even in the 1990s, is the profession returning to basic municipal accounting issues raised in the early part of the century, including the appropriate basis of governmental accounting (accrual, modified accrual, etc.), and the format of financial reporting. Indeed, the GASB even now continues to struggle with issues raised early in the century. In any event, following the War, the Journal’s attention largely turned to federal financial matters. It is interesting to speculate about the status and evolution of state and local accounting if the nation’s economy had not been so abruptly changed.

The explosion of the federal government following the War diverted the attention of the profession, and perhaps all professions, to things federal in nature. The Journal’s coverage reflects this preoccupation — papers included extensive detail and advice on, among other things, successfully conducting federal program audits. This attention by the profession, at least in part, led to the passage of several pieces of important financial legislation during and around the decade of the 1980s. Then, without necessarily abandoning federal accounting issues, the 1980s witnessed a return to state and local accounting matters.

As significant as the materials included in the pages of the Journal during this period were, the material not included, or at least included in very limited amounts, is at least as important as that published. Although some papers, reports, and editorials advised readers of the ways to perform high-quality governmental engagements prior to the 1980s, little, if any, coverage was given to reporting concerns or critical reports on substandard audit work or of those penalized for performing such substandard work. Yet this issue was a significant concern in the 1970s and continues even today, given the recent GAO and Congressional inquiries into this problem.

Similarly, one of the major developments of the 1960s and 1970s was performance auditing at all governmental levels. Due to the interest on the part of officials and the electorate to have such information, auditors were engaged to assess efficiency and effectiveness, often without adequate background education or an information base to assist them. However, the pre-World War II attention to performance measurement was not fully developed by the leaders of the education and practice communities (Brown, 1982). The Journal supplied few papers on the topic of performance measurement and auditing, most occurring late in the evolution of performance auditing. That this is not an unrealistic expectation is shown by the leadership exerted by the profession in Canada in the area of value-for-money auditing. And, finally, minimal Journal coverage was provided on topics such as social accounting and social responsibility.

As evidenced by this research, the Journal of Accounting seems to have served its readers-members by keeping them current on the happenings of the time. It is not at all clear that the Journal has served the profession as well as to identifying more controversial and unsettled issues.

This paper has provided a fundamental outline of the development of professional accounting literature in the United States as it relates to governmental accounting. The methodology used was an archival content analysis methodology to assess the topical and qualitative significance of items published in the Journal of Accountancy over most of the twentieth century. Future research to affirm or refute the initial assessments of this content outline should assist scholars and policy makers in developing a better understanding of the origins of governmental accounting in the United States. Such research could include similar analyses using other practice and academic journals and could also include a breakout of topic coverage by funded and unfunded research. Additional projects could raise in even more basic ways the fundamental question of the extent to which the profession should lead or simply react to needed and sweeping changes in governmental accounting.

REFERENCES

American Association of Public Accountants (AAPA), “The American Association’s Committee on the Business and Accounting Methods of the U.S. Government,” Journal of Accountancy (June 1906): 142-146.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), “Auditing State and Local Governmental Units,” Journal of Accountancy (August 1975): 87-91.
, “Audits of Governmental Units,” Journal of Accountancy (June 1950): 464-465.
_, “Can Federal Expenditures be Controlled,” Journal of Accountancy(May 1952): 545-549.
“Controlling Government Expenditures,” Journal of Accountancy (July 1951): 34-35.
, “Financial Disclosure Practices of American Cities,” Journal of Accountancy (December 1976): 79-86.
_, “GAO Reaffirms Its Position on Auditor Qualifications,” Journal of Accountancy (August 1975): 40-43.
“GAO’s Suggested State Auditing Acts,” Journal of Accountancy (February 1975): 33-34.
“Protecting the Public Purse,” Journal of Accountancy (April 1959): 27-28.
, “Records of Oral Discussion May Be Useful,” Journal of Accountancy (March 1953): 293-294.
“The Need for Audits of Governmental Units,” Journal of Accountancy (October 1948): 270. Bowsher, C. A., “Federal Financial Management: Evolution, Challenges, and the
Role of the Accounting Profession,” Journal of Accountancy (May 1987):
280-294. Broadus, W. A., Jr., “Tools for the Single Audit,” Journal of Accountancy (April 1985): 73-81.
, “The Single Audit: A Progress Report,” Journal of Accountancy
(July 1987): 92-100, Brown, R. E., Auditing Performance in Government, New York: John Wiley & Sons (1982).
, “The Expectations Gap: An Added Dimension — The Case of Governmental Auditing,” Research in Accounting Regulation (1987): 139-164.
Bryan, L., “Department of Agriculture Establishes Central Audit Office,” Journal of Accountancy (August 1982): 22.
, “Increase in Independent Audits,” Journal of Accountancy (May 1963): 28. Collins, S. H., “The Role of the GAO,” Journal of Accountancy (April 1987): 58-
70, Chase, H. S., “The National Budget,” Journal of Accountancy (February 1914): 85-96.
Freeman, R. J., “Governmental Fund Operating Results: Three Formats,” Journal of Accountancy (November 1985): 110-121. Flesher, D. L., “Operational Auditing,” Journal of Accountancy (November 1980):
110-114. Fluckiger, W. L., “A Philosophy of Fund Accounting,” Journal of Accountancy (August 1963): 66-71.
Fullington, E. M., “The Budget System in Ohio,” Journal of Accountancy (February 1916): 114-124.
Goodloe, J., “Compulsory Auditing of Municipal Accounts,” Journal of Accoun-tancy (June 1907): 162-164.
Henke, E. O., “Performance Evaluation for Not-for-Profit Organizations,” Journal of Accountancy (June 1972): 51-55.
Hepp, G. W,, “Governmental Financial Statements — A New Look,” Journal of Accountancy (December 1976): 60-68.
Hisak, D. M,, “Eagleton Hearings,” Journal of Accountancy (September 1979): 68-71.
Ives, M., “Accountability and Governmental Financial Reporting,” Journal of Accountancy (October 1987): 130-134.
Joplin, B., “Local Government Accounting: It’s Your Responsibility Too,” Journal of Accountancy (August 1967): 38-43,
Lytle, R. C, “Government Reliance on Independent Auditors,” Journal of Ac-countancy (February 1964): 74-75.
Marlin, J. T., “Accounting for Pollution,” Journal of Accountancy (February 1973): 41-46.
Morse, E. H., Jr., “GAO Audits of Management Performance,” Journal of Ac-countancy (October 1961): 42-48.
Mucklow, W., “Measuring Financial Efficiency of Institutions,” Journal of Ac-countancy (February 1917): 81-98.
Pomeranz, F., “Public Sector Auditing: New Opportunities for CPAs,” Journal of Accountancy (March 1978): 48-54.
Rawlings, A. L., “County Audits,” Journal of Accountancy (August 1916): 112-121.
Staats, E. B., “Governmental Auditing — Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” Journal of Accountancy (October 1976): 101-105.
Steinberg, H. I., “The Single Audit In Government,” Journal of Accountancy (June 1981): 56-66.
Staub, E. E., “Municipal Cost Accounts,” Journal of Accountancy (February 1917): 99-108,
Tanner, J. B., “Governmental Profit and Loss,” Journal of Accountancy (April 1914): 264-270.