Accounting change: explaining
the outcomes, interpreting the
process
Mariannunziata Liguori
Queen’s University, Belfast, UK and SDA Bocconi, Milan, Italy, and
Ileana Steccolini
Public Management and Policy Department, Bocconi University, SDA Bocconi,
Milan, Italy
Abstract
Purpose – The issue of accounting change, why and how accounting evolves through time and
within specific organisational settings, has been addressed by an important body of literature. This
paper aims to explain why, in processes of accounting change, organisations confronting similar
environmental pressures show different outcomes of change.
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on archetype theory, the paper analyses the case of
two Italian local governments. Comparative case studies were carried out, reconstructing a period of 15
years.
Findings – Although confronted with similar environmental pressures, the two cases show two
different patterns of accounting change, where only one case is able to finally reach radical change.
Accounting change can be prompted by external stimuli, but, once the change is prompted, the
outcomes of the change are explained by the dynamics of intra-organisational conditions.
Originality/value – The study contributes to accounting change literature by adopting an approach
(i.e. archetype theory) that overcomes some of the limitations of previous studies in explaining
variations in organisational change. Through this, the authors are able to explain different outcomes
and paces of accounting change and point out the intra-organisational factors also affecting them in
the presence of similar environmental pressures. A specification of the theoretical framework in a
particular setting is also provided.
Keywords Accounting change, Archetype theory, Local government, Accounting
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
The issue of accounting change, why and how accounting evolves through time and
within specific organisational settings, has been addressed by an important body of
literature (e.g. Libby and Waterhouse, 1996; Burns and Scapens, 2000; Townley et al.,
2003; Covaleski et al., 2003; Ezzamel et al., 2007). Many authors have tried to explain
the different results and antecedents of change by considering institutional dimensions
of organisations and their environment. In order to do so, they often draw on
institutional theories, i.e. new-institutionalism and old institutional economics
(Covaleski and Dirsmith, 1988; Cobb et al., 1995; Burns, 2000; Burns and Vaivio,
2001; Collier, 2001; Baxter and Chua, 2003; Ribeiro and Scapens, 2006; Nor-Aziah and
Scapens, 2007; Al-Omiri and Drury, 2007; Lukka, 2007; Moll et al., 2006). They see
accounting systems as linked to rules and norms structuring social and organisational
life (Covaleski and Dirsmith, 1988; Ribeiro and Scapens, 2006). Existing studies,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm
Accounting
change
27
Received 22 July 2009
Revised 10 February 2010
20 October 2010
Accepted 11 January 2011
Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal
Vol. 25 No. 1, 2012
pp. 27-70
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-3574
DOI 10.1108/09513571211191743