政府会计规则执行机制问题研究——基于契约理论的视角
|
摘要
会计规则执行机制是在会计规则制定权安排给第三方机构之后,为了解决经济组织接受和公允地、不偏不倚地执行通用会计规则两个问题的备选方案的集合。有效的会计规则执行机制应能使经济组织的信息成本和代理成本总和达到"经济点"。会计规则执行机制包含强力机制和压力机制,前者依赖于立法和行政权威,后者依靠经济组织的"资源依赖"压力,两者各具优缺点。政府契约集合特征决定了政府会计规则的二元性,即收付实现制的预算会计制度和权责发生制的政府会计准则,前者适宜刚性的强制机制,后者适宜柔性的压力机制。在我国,政府预算契约具有同质性而债务契约存在异质性,且政府层级多、数量大、规模差异悬殊。为提升我国政府会计规则的执行效率和效果,应按照政府层级、契约结构特点等对政府预算会计和政府财务会计实行差异化的执行机制选择和构建。
The implementation mechanism of accounting rules is a set of alternatives to solve the problems of economic organizations' accepting and implementing the general accounting rules fairly and impartially after the right to formulate accounting rules is assigned to third-party institutions. From the perspective of contract theory,it is found that effective accounting rule implementation mechanism should make the sum of information cost and agency cost of every economic organization reach"economic point". The implementation mechanism of accounting rules include coercive mechanism and pressure mechanism. The former relies on legislative and administrative authority while the latter relies on the pressure of economic organizations' resource dependency and,both of which have their own advantages and disadvantages. The set characteristics of government contracts determine the dual feature of government accounting rules,i. e. cash-based budgetary accounting system and accrual-based government accounting standards,with the former suitable for rigid coercive mechanism and the latter for flexible pressure mechanism. In China,the government budget contract has homogeneity while the debt contract has heterogeneity. Moreover,the government has more levels,large in quantities and the scale varies greatly. In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government accounting rules,we should choose and build differentiated implementation mechanisms for government budgetary accounting and government financial accounting separately according to government levels,contractual structure characteristics,etc.
The implementation mechanism of accounting rules is a set of alternatives to solve the problems of economic organizations' accepting and implementing the general accounting rules fairly and impartially after the right to formulate accounting rules is assigned to third-party institutions. From the perspective of contract theory,it is found that effective accounting rule implementation mechanism should make the sum of information cost and agency cost of every economic organization reach"economic point". The implementation mechanism of accounting rules include coercive mechanism and pressure mechanism. The former relies on legislative and administrative authority while the latter relies on the pressure of economic organizations' resource dependency and,both of which have their own advantages and disadvantages. The set characteristics of government contracts determine the dual feature of government accounting rules,i. e. cash-based budgetary accounting system and accrual-based government accounting standards,with the former suitable for rigid coercive mechanism and the latter for flexible pressure mechanism. In China,the government budget contract has homogeneity while the debt contract has heterogeneity. Moreover,the government has more levels,large in quantities and the scale varies greatly. In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government accounting rules,we should choose and build differentiated implementation mechanisms for government budgetary accounting and government financial accounting separately according to government levels,contractual structure characteristics,etc.
引文
[1]夏恩·桑德.会计与控制理论[M].方红星,王鹏,李红霞,译.大连:东北财经大学出版社,2000:163-176.
[2]KOTHARI S P. Discussion of the relation between analysts’forecasts of long-term earnings growth and stock price performance following equity offerings[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research,2000,17(1):33-39.
[3]王跃堂,孙铮,陈世敏.会计改革与会计信息质量——来自中国证券市场的经验证据[J].会计研究,2001(7):16-26.
[4]姜英兵.会计准则执行框架构建[J].管理世界,2004(11):150-151.
[5]路军伟,牛子凯.政府会计改革的弱动力现象及其原因解析[J].中国矿业大学学报(社会科学版),2014(2):74-78.
[6]雷光勇.会计契约论[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004:105-155.
[7]JENSEN M C,MECKLING W H. Theory of the firm:managerial behavior,agency costs and ownership structure[J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1976,3(4):305-360.
[8]谢德仁.会计规则制定权合约安排的范式与变迁——兼及会计准则性质的研究[J].会计研究,1997(9):23-29.
[9]谢德仁.中国会计规则制定权合约安排之变迁[J].会计研究,2000(12):14-25.
[10]雷光勇.企业会计契约:动态过程与效率[J].经济研究,2004(5):98-106.
[11]CARPENTER V L,FEROZ E H. Institutional theory and accounting rule choice:an analysis of four US state governments’decisions to adopt generally accepted accounting principles[J]. Accounting,Organizations and Society,2001,26(7/8):565-596.
[12]ROYBARK H M,COFFMAN E N,PREVITS G J. The first quarter century of the GASB(1984—2009):a perspective on standard setting(part one)[J]. Abacus,2012,48(1):1-30.
[13]ROYBARK H M,COFFMAN E N,PREVITS G J. The first quarter century of the GASB(1984—2009):a perspective on standard setting(part two)[J]. Abacus,2012,48(2):147-198.
[14]刘慧凤.企业会计准则强制实施制度效率的二元分析[J].山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007(3):92-98.
[15]于国旺.政府会计的契约本质、有效边界及其对我国的启示[J].中国矿业大学学报(社会科学版),2015(1):69-73.
[16]路军伟.制度环境、信息需求与政府财务报告[J].北京工商大学学报(社会科学版),2014(5):15-22.
[17]BABER W R,SEN P K. The role of generally accepted reporting methods in the public sector:an empirical test[J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,1984,3(2):91-106.
[18]路军伟,于国旺.政府会计的“双轨制”现象及成因研究——基于契约理论视角[J].会计研究,2015(12):31-37.
[19]路军伟,陈希晖.法国政府预算与政府会计改革:评介与借鉴[J].审计与经济研究,2009(3):78-81.
[20]路军伟,田五星.政府会计改革:驱动因素与变革效率——基于政治伦理、市场逻辑与组织行为的视角[J].会计研究,2014(2):20-26.
[21]JOHNSON G L,KIOKO S N,HILDRETH W B.Government-wide financial statements and credit risk[J].Public Budgeting&Finance,2012,32(1):80-104.
[22]刘尚希.中国财政风险的制度特征:“风险大锅饭”[J].管理世界,2004(5):39-44.
[23]PLUMMER E,HUTCHISON P D,PATTON T K.GASB No. 34’s governmental financial reporting model:evidence on its information relevance[J]. The Accounting Review,2007,82(1):205-240.
[24] BABER W R,GORE A K. Consequences of GAAP disclosure regulation:evidence from municipal debt issues[J]. The Accounting Review,2008,83(3):565-591.
(1)这6项具体准则包括:存货准则、投资准则、固定资产准则、无形资产准则、公共基础设施准则、政府储备物资准则。
(2)因为本部分是从一般意义上探讨会计规则的制定与执行问题,所以此处不对政府、企业等不同类型组织加以区分,统一以“经济组织”代替。
(3)如果是会计规则制定仍采用由缔约各方共同享有并制定的方式,这一问题显然是不存在的,但当会计规则制定权安排给第三方机构时,这一问题将随之产生。
(4)比如,政府组织的契约结构与企业组织的就差别很大,在世界上大多数国家,政府组织并不执行企业会计准则制定机构所制定的通用会计准则。即便同样是企业组织,单个业主制企业、合伙企业与公司制企业在契约结构上也有很大差异,这些单个业主制的古典企业也多不必执行所谓的通用会计准则。
(5)当会计规则制定权安排给独立的第三方机构后,“生产”会计规则就会成为这一机构的主要任务。为了生存或从外部获取更多的资源投入,毋庸置疑,这一机构经常会出现过度供给的冲动。
(6)以购买固定资产为例,政府预算契约需要的是收付实现制信息,会计处理为“借:支出;贷:银行存款”;债务契约需要的是权责发生制信息,会计处理为“借:固定资产;贷:银行存款”,之后,每期折旧时为“借:费用;贷:累计折旧”。这两种契约形态对会计信息的需求截然不同,导致预算会计和财务会计往往双轨并行。
(7)固定资产折旧、无形资产摊销、预计负债的确认计量等新的会计业务的出现,都会给会计系统的运行增加新的成本,比如财务人员的培训成本、财务流程和业务流程的变更成本、会计信息化系统升级成本等。
(8)预算会计形态高度契合政府预算契约,但财务会计源自商业组织,其技术特征与生俱来地与旨在提供公共产品而不追求经济剩余的政府组织存在排斥性,执行政府会计准则往往需要业务流程的改变,其所带来的信息成本是巨大的。
(9)GASB在颁布第34号准则时,由于准则较为复杂,实施成本高,为减少执行阻力,特根据政府的规模和财力水平提出了分步实施措施。
(10)尽管在我国的实践中,地方政府早已通过组建投融资平台公司的方式举借债务资金来规避举债的法律障碍,但从法律上来看,地方政府投融资平台公司的债务不应归入政府契约集合之中。
[2]KOTHARI S P. Discussion of the relation between analysts’forecasts of long-term earnings growth and stock price performance following equity offerings[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research,2000,17(1):33-39.
[3]王跃堂,孙铮,陈世敏.会计改革与会计信息质量——来自中国证券市场的经验证据[J].会计研究,2001(7):16-26.
[4]姜英兵.会计准则执行框架构建[J].管理世界,2004(11):150-151.
[5]路军伟,牛子凯.政府会计改革的弱动力现象及其原因解析[J].中国矿业大学学报(社会科学版),2014(2):74-78.
[6]雷光勇.会计契约论[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2004:105-155.
[7]JENSEN M C,MECKLING W H. Theory of the firm:managerial behavior,agency costs and ownership structure[J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1976,3(4):305-360.
[8]谢德仁.会计规则制定权合约安排的范式与变迁——兼及会计准则性质的研究[J].会计研究,1997(9):23-29.
[9]谢德仁.中国会计规则制定权合约安排之变迁[J].会计研究,2000(12):14-25.
[10]雷光勇.企业会计契约:动态过程与效率[J].经济研究,2004(5):98-106.
[11]CARPENTER V L,FEROZ E H. Institutional theory and accounting rule choice:an analysis of four US state governments’decisions to adopt generally accepted accounting principles[J]. Accounting,Organizations and Society,2001,26(7/8):565-596.
[12]ROYBARK H M,COFFMAN E N,PREVITS G J. The first quarter century of the GASB(1984—2009):a perspective on standard setting(part one)[J]. Abacus,2012,48(1):1-30.
[13]ROYBARK H M,COFFMAN E N,PREVITS G J. The first quarter century of the GASB(1984—2009):a perspective on standard setting(part two)[J]. Abacus,2012,48(2):147-198.
[14]刘慧凤.企业会计准则强制实施制度效率的二元分析[J].山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007(3):92-98.
[15]于国旺.政府会计的契约本质、有效边界及其对我国的启示[J].中国矿业大学学报(社会科学版),2015(1):69-73.
[16]路军伟.制度环境、信息需求与政府财务报告[J].北京工商大学学报(社会科学版),2014(5):15-22.
[17]BABER W R,SEN P K. The role of generally accepted reporting methods in the public sector:an empirical test[J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,1984,3(2):91-106.
[18]路军伟,于国旺.政府会计的“双轨制”现象及成因研究——基于契约理论视角[J].会计研究,2015(12):31-37.
[19]路军伟,陈希晖.法国政府预算与政府会计改革:评介与借鉴[J].审计与经济研究,2009(3):78-81.
[20]路军伟,田五星.政府会计改革:驱动因素与变革效率——基于政治伦理、市场逻辑与组织行为的视角[J].会计研究,2014(2):20-26.
[21]JOHNSON G L,KIOKO S N,HILDRETH W B.Government-wide financial statements and credit risk[J].Public Budgeting&Finance,2012,32(1):80-104.
[22]刘尚希.中国财政风险的制度特征:“风险大锅饭”[J].管理世界,2004(5):39-44.
[23]PLUMMER E,HUTCHISON P D,PATTON T K.GASB No. 34’s governmental financial reporting model:evidence on its information relevance[J]. The Accounting Review,2007,82(1):205-240.
[24] BABER W R,GORE A K. Consequences of GAAP disclosure regulation:evidence from municipal debt issues[J]. The Accounting Review,2008,83(3):565-591.
(1)这6项具体准则包括:存货准则、投资准则、固定资产准则、无形资产准则、公共基础设施准则、政府储备物资准则。
(2)因为本部分是从一般意义上探讨会计规则的制定与执行问题,所以此处不对政府、企业等不同类型组织加以区分,统一以“经济组织”代替。
(3)如果是会计规则制定仍采用由缔约各方共同享有并制定的方式,这一问题显然是不存在的,但当会计规则制定权安排给第三方机构时,这一问题将随之产生。
(4)比如,政府组织的契约结构与企业组织的就差别很大,在世界上大多数国家,政府组织并不执行企业会计准则制定机构所制定的通用会计准则。即便同样是企业组织,单个业主制企业、合伙企业与公司制企业在契约结构上也有很大差异,这些单个业主制的古典企业也多不必执行所谓的通用会计准则。
(5)当会计规则制定权安排给独立的第三方机构后,“生产”会计规则就会成为这一机构的主要任务。为了生存或从外部获取更多的资源投入,毋庸置疑,这一机构经常会出现过度供给的冲动。
(6)以购买固定资产为例,政府预算契约需要的是收付实现制信息,会计处理为“借:支出;贷:银行存款”;债务契约需要的是权责发生制信息,会计处理为“借:固定资产;贷:银行存款”,之后,每期折旧时为“借:费用;贷:累计折旧”。这两种契约形态对会计信息的需求截然不同,导致预算会计和财务会计往往双轨并行。
(7)固定资产折旧、无形资产摊销、预计负债的确认计量等新的会计业务的出现,都会给会计系统的运行增加新的成本,比如财务人员的培训成本、财务流程和业务流程的变更成本、会计信息化系统升级成本等。
(8)预算会计形态高度契合政府预算契约,但财务会计源自商业组织,其技术特征与生俱来地与旨在提供公共产品而不追求经济剩余的政府组织存在排斥性,执行政府会计准则往往需要业务流程的改变,其所带来的信息成本是巨大的。
(9)GASB在颁布第34号准则时,由于准则较为复杂,实施成本高,为减少执行阻力,特根据政府的规模和财力水平提出了分步实施措施。
(10)尽管在我国的实践中,地方政府早已通过组建投融资平台公司的方式举借债务资金来规避举债的法律障碍,但从法律上来看,地方政府投融资平台公司的债务不应归入政府契约集合之中。