مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد شیوه های افشای مالی در میان مقامات محلی مالزی – امرالد 2018

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand and explain the financial disclosure processes among Malaysian local authorities (MLAs). Design/methodology/approach – Employing semi-structured interviews, data were collected from 26 members in five case study organisations, and interpreted using Gibbins et al. (1990, 1992) framework of financial disclosure. Findings – The study finds that financial disclosure is influenced by a hierarchical structure consisting of accountants, the Financial Accounts Committee, the mayor and other managers. The decision to disclose or not disclose was influenced by how sensitive the issue was. External auditors and mediators influenced both the identification of issues, disclosure position and disclosure output. Though there are many laws governing financial accounting, MLAs opportunistically chose to apply the Federal Treasury Circular largely because the external auditors used it. Research limitations/implications – This study contributes to the literature by illuminating who makes disclosure decisions, what influences these decisions and how. The study reveals hitherto un-researched contextual factors that affect disclosure, namely, religion and external auditors and the opportunistic choice of which laws and regulations to apply in financial disclosure. Future studies might want to apply this approach in other contexts to see what we can learn from them. Originality/value – Using case studies in the study of financial disclosure provided valuable insights into the complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon of financial information disclosure. The application of Gibbins et al. (1990, 1992) framework in the public sector and in Malaysia is novel.

Introduction

This study investigates the processes of financial disclosure among Malaysian local authorities (MLAs). Financial disclosure refers to “any deliberate release of financial information, whether numerical or qualitative, required or voluntary, or via formal or informal channels” (Gibbins et al., 1990, p. 122). Studies investigating disclosure practices in the public sector have mostly focussed on the incentives for disclosure of financial information (e.g. Perez et al., 2008; Laswad et al., 2005); or on disclosure quality (Robbins and Austin, 1986). There is, however, paucity of studies that examine the organisational, social and environmental context within which financial disclosure occurs (Gibbins et al., 1990; Adams, 1997; Hopwood, 2000; Carpenter and Feroz, 2001). Those which have sought to address this issue have approached it from outside the context in which disclosure decisions are made by analysing financial reports, surveys or websites and speculating how the factors they study might have affected financial disclosure decisions (e.g. Garcia and GarciaGarcia, 2010). Who makes particular disclosure decisions and the range of influences on this decision process is an empirical question that this study seeks to answer. Furthermore, most previous studies have been conducted in western countries (e.g. Garcia and Garcia-Garcia, 2010; Laswad et al., 2005; Robbins and Austin, 1986; Serrano-Cenca et al., 2016). Little attention has been devoted to the issue of accounting disclosure in local governments in South East Asian countries (see exceptions Coombs and Tayib, 1999; Ghani and Said, 2010; Tooley et al., 2010a, b). Those studies which have been undertaken have not addressed how MLAs arrive at the information in the annual reports (Coombs and Tayib, 1999) or websites (Ghani and Said, 2010) that they analyse. This study was undertaken within the context of Malaysia, a rapidly emerging economy, and specifically on local authorities. Focus on public sector financial disclosure in Malaysia is thus timely because this sector has been criticised as inefficient, unaccountable and corrupt (Siddiquee, 2006; Tooley et al., 2010a, b; The Sun, 2006). But at the same time, the country has embraced new public management (NPM) reforms (Hood, 1995) which implies adoption of private sector-like practices in the public sector (Abdul Khalid, 2008)[1].