Whole of Government Accounts: A Comparative Study of Developments in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Sweden

In our comparative study, we surveyed an emerging literature on the use of consolidation in government accounting and develop a research agenda. We find heterogeneous approaches to the development of consolidation models across the five countries (Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada and Sweden) are influenced by constitutional or jurisdictional notions of consolidation boundaries. The localization of globalized or generic concepts of consolidation is driven largely by government priorities or preoccupations rather than necessarily user demand. We propose that we need to better understand the relevance of financial reporting (GAAP)-based reforms when compared with budget-centric systems of accounting, which dominate government decision-making. At a trans-national level, there is a need to examine the embedded or implicit contests or ‘trials of strength’ between nations and/or institutions jockeying for influence. We highlight three arenas where such contests are being played out: 1. Statistical versus GAAP notions of accounting value, which features in all accounting debates over the merits and costs of ex-ante versus ex-post notions of value (i.e., the relevance versus reliability debate); 2. Private versus Public sector divide; 3. National versus global standard-setters – witness the growing influence of IPSAS and the cooperation-competition tension between national standard-setters aware of the benefits of a more harmonized approach but also wary of conceding too much autonomy over their own jurisdictions. The European Union’s push for EPSAS is one emerging example.