著者

全 在紋

出版者

桃山学院大学

雑誌

桃山学院大学環太平洋圏経営研究 (ISSN:13455214)

巻号頁・発行日

no.15, pp.73-93, 2014-01

---

The conclusions reached in this paper can be summarized as follows: (1) In terms of the minuteness or roughness of accounting standards, it may be said that the vector of a rules-based approach in U.S. and Japanese accounting standards lengthens towards modern disciplinary systems, when we take into consideration the relative numerousness (forced character) of rules and the domestic narrowness in the number of companies they apply to. On the other hand, it may be said that the vector of a principlesbased approach in the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) lengthens towards contemporary systems through the promotion of environmental awareness, when we take into consideration the relative fewness (arbitrary character) of rules and the international broadness in the number of companies they apply to. (2) We cannot approve of both the supporting and opposing arguments for the International Accounting Standards (IFRS). According to a convincing opposing argument, the asset and liability view (IFRS, FAS) is considered unsound because it is only suitable for financial industry. The revenue and expense view (Japanese Accounting Standards) is considered sound because it is suitable for manufacturing industry. In our opinion, both views are accounting discourses which are competitive in the vortex of the ?struggle for power?. A strong (sound) one wins in common-sense terms, but ?the strong one doesn?t win, the one that wins is strong (sound)? in the struggle for power. (3) On the other hand, our objection to the supporting arguments is as follows: The philosophy of the International Accounting Standards (IFRS) originates from neoliberalism, leads to a widening of the gap between rich and poor and social uneasiness. Speaking on the significance of the International Accounting Standards (IFRS), the assumption that the introduction of IFRS is inevitable is unconsciously induced, not only in strong firms (the very few large multinational companies), but also in weak firms (medium- and small-sized businesses which make up an overwhelming majority). In it, we find the shadow of Foucault?s power theory in contemporary accounting practice. (4) IFRS was forcibly adopted in Korea from 2011. There is a difference between the ordinary Japanese language in the old Korean society under the Empire of Japan and the language of business (accounting) in present-day Korean society. But the two languages belong to the same category as unified languages. As an aside, it should be noted that the ordinary Japanese language under the Empire of Japan was a heteronomous (violent) unified language in the Classical Age. On the other hand, IFRS in present-day Korean society is an autonomous (neoliberal) unified language in the contemporary age. (5) If accounting is ?the language of business?, money is ?the language of the economy?. Two different money views can be identified, viz., ?money veil theory? and ?money illusion theory?. The former corresponds with the theory of meaning as substance, and the latter corresponds with the theory of meaning as relation. Money illusion is a phenomenon in which the nature of language behind the theory of meaning as relation occasionally appears on the surface. If this is correct, money illusion is more likely to be ?proper perception? than ?illusion?. (6) The achievement of one common language is a dream of humankind, but it is hard for us to expect this dream to be realized. This is because the meaning of words depends on relation, not on substance. The euro is one common currency (one common language) in the economy of Europe. The International Accounting Standards (IFRS) aim to become the one common language of business in the world. When we examine our attitude towards the International Accounting Standards (IFRS), today?s economic crisis in the EU does not seem to be ?someone else's problem? for accountants.

著者

全 在紋

出版者

桃山学院大学総合研究所

雑誌

桃山学院大学経済経営論集 = ST.ANDREW'S UNIVERSITY ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW (ISSN:02869721)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.63, no.1, pp.83-124, 2021-07-27

---

Some conclusions reached in this paper within the scope of the treatisewriting rules are summarized as follows:(1)In the accounting community of Japan, “In most Japanese enterprises,double-entry bookkeeping system is widely used. It is used not only byglobal corporations but also by small taverns behind train stations.” Suchkind of discussion (recognition) is rampant. However, as far as the taxstatistics based on the “blue/white return” of the NTA, we cannot acceptsuch a recognition. Even more so, considering that there are not a fewundeclared enterprises (actual numbers unknown).(2)In so-called “modern accounting,” discourses that pretend to bemembers of modern science can be seen as they are. “Profit” (increase inwealth) and “loss” (decrease in wealth), which form the basic concepts inmodern accounting, are not the concepts of entities (objects) that can beobserved straightforwardly. They are not the concepts of entities (objects)that can be observed in a straightforward manner, like the basic conceptssuch as “atom” and “molecule” in physics and chemistry as modern science.In other words, modern accounting is unknowingly in line with the methodof modern science in terms of the basic concepts that make up the “frameof reference for recognition.”(3)According to tax statistics of Japan, in the case of about 2.86 millioncorporations, “blue/white return” is over 99%, and almost all of them arebased on blue return (mostly double-entry bookkeeping system). However,looking at the “percentage of deficient corporations” over the years, almosttwo-thirds of the corporations have not paid corporate tax. With this, itseems unlikely that double-entry bookkeeping system has been adoptedbecause it is useful for increasing corporate profits. Rather, is double-entrybookkeeping system a useful tool for “legal tax evasion” ? Such doubts donot go away.(4)If the current “spreading of double-entry bookkeeping system” was theresult of the controlling means by discipline and training under modernpower, the end of such system is near. Based on Foucault’s ideas, inpostmodernism, the “épistémè de l’homme” as a frame of reference forrecognition is going to disappear without a trace. In short, double-entrybookkeeping system will soon become unpopular. Double - entrybookkeeping system, which was born in modern times, will be obsolete inpostmodernism ! Whether or not our assertion is right or wrong is left tothe judgment of posterity.

著者

全 在紋

出版者

桃山学院大学

雑誌

桃山学院大学経済経営論集 (ISSN:02869721)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.56, no.4, pp.125-156, 2015-03-31

---

The conclusions reached in this paper are summarized as follows: (1)"Accrual basis" is an accounting method which books transactions as the standard when goods flow, as opposed to "cash basis" accounting, which books them as the standard when cash flows. According to this viewpoint, single-entry bookkeeping is not cash basis accounting immediately. And double-entry bookkeeping is not accrual basis accounting immediately. In other words, single-entry bookkeeping includes cash basis accounting and accrual basis accounting, and double-entry bookkeeping includes cash basis accounting and accrual basis accounting. (2)Sorting the three stages is common to Motegi and Foucault in discussing the history. Motegi asserts the "Theory of 3 stages in Accounting History," which is considered the best accounting art to be developed in a society where capitalism developed the most. It expresses the evolution theory of history, Darwinism, as a continuous conception of history. As opposed to Motegi, Foucault asserts the "Theory of 3 stages of Power History," which is a sudden change conception of history, paradigm shift thinking, and discontinuous conception of history. The two theories disagree fundamentally. (3)The relational theory without substance in "accounting" as the language of business does not remain only in the relation of double-entry bookkeeping and single-entry bookkeeping. Also regarding the relation of periodical accounting and accounting on the basis of separate ventures or lots of goods, as well as the relation of accrual basis and cash basis that were mentioned in Motegi's theory, the relational theory without substance represents the real state of accounting as the language of business. As long as accounting is "signe linguistique", all of the meanings of accounting words are delimited based on the theory of meaning as relation. (4)If we try to understand the meaning of the debit elements of trial balance, "asset" is a "non-expense" element, and "expense" is a "non-asset" element. Again if we try to understand the meaning of the credit elements of trial balance, "liability" is a "non-equity" and "non-revenue" element. "Equity" is a "non-liability" and "non-revenue" element. "Revenue" is a "non-liability" and "non-equity" element. (5)We consider that the shift to the double-entry bookkeeping method from the single-entry bookkeeping method is rather a sudden change (discontinuity) than evolution (continuity) in an accounting system. We agree with Foucault's power theory rather than Motegi's Round-the-World theory of accounting. Neoliberalism seems to be the background for asserting the shift to double-entry bookkeeping from single-entry bookkeeping in the accounting systems of administrative bodies (the Japanese government and local governments). If so, it will promote the worldwide phenomenon where the weak are victims of the strong in terms of the economy.

著者

全 在紋 Jae-moon Chun 桃山学院大学経営学部

出版者

桃山学院大学総合研究所

雑誌

桃山学院大学経済経営論集 = ST. ANDREW'S UNIVERSITY ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW (ISSN:02869721)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.44, no.3, pp.77-125, 2002-12-20

---

The conclusions reached in this paper can be summarized as follows : (1) We should distinguish meta-language from object language. Our thoughts become confused and lost in a maze when the ranks of the language are confused, which is the problem that often arises when addressing linguistic significance in international accounting. In order to think clearly, the distinction between the meta-language for control (accounting standards) and that for description (language for standards and language for disclosure) must be made clear. All three meta-languages mentioned above can be designed as uniform language or as auxiliary language. (2) There is very little chance that each of the above three meta-languages will ever be transformed into a world-wide uniform language in accounting, as suggested by the failure of linguistic imperialism and the delay in the popularization of Esperanto. The meta-languages may become the international auxiliary language, at most, because language is not only a means of communication but is also at one with the culture (values) to which the language speakers belong. (3) Professor Ijiri points out that the effort to establish a world-wide uniform language should be much easier in accounting than in Esperanto because of the fundamental commonality of accounting as a language. According to him, this is because there is no difference in the fundamental structure of the recording in double-entry bookkeeping that has been adopted by most nations. However, an analysis of Ijiri's international accounting theory using Saussure's linguistics reveals that while his theory addresses the syntagmatic relation (double-entry bookkeeping) in accounting language, it does not give any consideration to the paradigmatic relation. (4) The significance of double-entry bookkeeping is overestimated not only by professor Ijiri but also by accountants in general. It is especially overestimated by many accounting researchers, both inside and outside Japan. Double-entry bookkeeping, without a doubt, is often considered one of the accounting postulates (the premises of accounting). Meanwhile, the significance of other accounting systems, such as single-entry bookkeeping, is seldom given any consideration. Both the double-entry and single-entry bookkeeping systems have merits and demerits. Nevertheless, a deep-rooted tendency to blindly advocate double-entry bookkeeping is prevalent among accountants. (5) Language is not merely a means of communication. More importantly, it determines human perception, thought, and behavior. According to Saussure's linguistics, accounting as the language of business holds not only a decisionmaking function but also an accountability function that strictly controls the perception, thought, and behavior of businessmen. However, the executive officers of the International Accounting Standards Board do not fully acknowledge this issue. (6) In recent years, accounting fraud has been severely punished in many developed countries. This fact can unmistakably be attributed to intercultural conflicts, or conflicts between the values of everyday language (benefit of the general public) and the values of accounting language (performance of the corporation). Such conflicts arise because the perception, thought, and behavior of the businessmen are strongly bound by the accounting language. In other words, corporate scandals will arise as long as there is an accounting system in the company, just as traffic accidents will occur as long as there are vehicles on the road. (7) Linguistic imperialism in International Accounting Standards (IAS) arises when companies try to seek comparability and at the same time reduce cost. We must resist such imperialism. We cannot expect IAS to be accepted as the only accounting system in all countries (IAS Only). Instead, IAS should be adopted as an additional accounting system (IAS Plus). In short, listed companies should make two kinds of financial statements, i.e., one for domestic and the other for international stakeholders, because additional costs are inevitable when companies compete in a borderless capital market. (8) Each country has its own accounting standards. The international consensus is that there needs to be common accounting standards that can be applied to companies worldwide. However, no company should be forced to adopt such common standards exclusively. After all, the effort to promote the harmonisation and convergence of various accounting standards could only benefit a selected few borderless companies. Furthermore, it is likely that such an effort would result in the diversification of accounting standards. In other words, the development of common standards may be equivalent to the creation of another new language (another new culture).