Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Regulatory reform: distinguishing between mutual-benefit and public-benefit entities

Regulatory reform: distinguishing between mutual-benefit and public-benefit entities PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyse nonprofit regulation through comparing and contrasting mutual-benefit and public-benefit entities. It ascertains how these entities differ in size, publicness, tax benefits and whether these differences might suggest regulatory costs should be differentiated.Design/methodology/approachThis mixed-methods study utilises financial data, submissions and interviews.FindingsThere are stark differences in these two types of regulated nonprofit entities. Members should be the primary monitoring agency/ies for mutual-benefit entities, but financial reports should be understandable to these members. Nevertheless, the availability of tax concessions, combined with the benefits of limited liability, suggest mutual-benefit entities should be regulated and monitored by government in a way sympathetic to their size.Research limitations/implicationsAs with most research, a limitation is this study’s focus on a single jurisdiction.Practical implicationsThe differences in these entities’ characteristics are important for designing regulation.Social implicationsBetter regulation is likely to require a standard set of financial reporting standards. Government has the right to demand disclosures due to benefits mutual-benefit entities enjoy.Originality/valueIn comparison to studies utilising only public-benefit data, this study uses unique data sets to compare public-benefit and mutual-benefit entities and presents nonprofit sector participant’s perceptions of these differences in context. This enables analysis of how better regulation could be achieved. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management Emerald Publishing

Regulatory reform: distinguishing between mutual-benefit and public-benefit entities

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/regulatory-reform-distinguishing-between-mutual-benefit-and-public-eoE5gU1giB
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
1096-3367
DOI
10.1108/JPBAFM-12-2018-0148
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyse nonprofit regulation through comparing and contrasting mutual-benefit and public-benefit entities. It ascertains how these entities differ in size, publicness, tax benefits and whether these differences might suggest regulatory costs should be differentiated.Design/methodology/approachThis mixed-methods study utilises financial data, submissions and interviews.FindingsThere are stark differences in these two types of regulated nonprofit entities. Members should be the primary monitoring agency/ies for mutual-benefit entities, but financial reports should be understandable to these members. Nevertheless, the availability of tax concessions, combined with the benefits of limited liability, suggest mutual-benefit entities should be regulated and monitored by government in a way sympathetic to their size.Research limitations/implicationsAs with most research, a limitation is this study’s focus on a single jurisdiction.Practical implicationsThe differences in these entities’ characteristics are important for designing regulation.Social implicationsBetter regulation is likely to require a standard set of financial reporting standards. Government has the right to demand disclosures due to benefits mutual-benefit entities enjoy.Originality/valueIn comparison to studies utilising only public-benefit data, this study uses unique data sets to compare public-benefit and mutual-benefit entities and presents nonprofit sector participant’s perceptions of these differences in context. This enables analysis of how better regulation could be achieved.

Journal

Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial ManagementEmerald Publishing

Published: Sep 2, 2019

There are no references for this article.