本文選題：會計穩(wěn)健性 + 制度��； 參考：《南京大學(xué)》2013年博士論文

【摘要】：不確定性是會計穩(wěn)健性的前提,而天下最為確定的就是存在不確定性。FASB以西方財務(wù)會計理論集大成者和會計準(zhǔn)則建設(shè)者合二為一的身份,在1983年頒布的第2號財務(wù)會計概念框架中明確提出對會計穩(wěn)健性的認(rèn)可,指出財務(wù)會計和報告領(lǐng)域里,像對計量上可能的誤差,寧愿少計資產(chǎn)和收益而不愿多記的會計穩(wěn)健性(意為審慎性)這樣的慣例是有地位的,因?yàn)槠髽I(yè)和經(jīng)濟(jì)活動在到處都有不肯定因素的環(huán)境中進(jìn)行,但是近30年來,以投資者利益導(dǎo)向?yàn)槭滓赶虻腇ASB一直認(rèn)為,會計穩(wěn)健性雖然具有根深蒂固的歷史地位,但是編制財務(wù)報表的會計穩(wěn)健性,應(yīng)不含有蓄意地、一貫地少計凈資產(chǎn)和凈利之意,否則有違中立性。2008年,FASB在其和IASB頒布的聯(lián)合概念框架的征求意見稿中最終決定將會計穩(wěn)健性(包括會計審慎性)徹底清除,但是爭議并未因此而停止,因?yàn)闀嫹�(wěn)健性悠久的歷史說明,其并非因?yàn)檎街贫鹊恼J(rèn)可而出現(xiàn),也就不會因?yàn)檎街贫鹊姆穸ǘА?當(dāng)前有關(guān)會計穩(wěn)健性話題是針對以資本市場為主要服務(wù)對象的財務(wù)會計而言,主要的研究成果來自美國這樣一個盡管具有難以撼動的經(jīng)濟(jì)地位但是會計歷史卻極為短暫的國家。從演化進(jìn)程來看,美國的會計源自英國,而英國會計又可依次向前溯至荷蘭、意大利會計,而這僅僅涉及復(fù)式會計的發(fā)展脈絡(luò),在復(fù)式簿記之前還有中世紀(jì)歐洲會計、四大文明古國會計、甚至?xí)嫷脑搭^即原始計量記錄。歷史中的會計穩(wěn)健性是經(jīng)過上述這樣一個發(fā)展脈絡(luò)產(chǎn)生并演化至今,當(dāng)前作為主流的英美會計理論所論及的會計穩(wěn)健性僅僅是一個復(fù)雜制度現(xiàn)象的冰山一角。 對于中國而言,會計穩(wěn)健性一詞完全是從西方移植而來的概念,了解會計穩(wěn)健性究竟為何產(chǎn)生,又是如何演化至當(dāng)前的狀態(tài)極為迫切。中國自20世紀(jì)80年代開始建立會計制度以來,被動地經(jīng)歷了會計穩(wěn)健性從無到有(1983-1997年)、從弱到強(qiáng)(1998-2005)、從全面到適度(2006-至今)三個階段。每一次的調(diào)整都是因?yàn)榕f制度產(chǎn)生的負(fù)面影響,這種被動調(diào)整的代價極為巨大,中國不同于美國,后者是普通法系國家,其制度源自市場中的習(xí)俗與慣例,因此會計穩(wěn)健性的制度化實(shí)質(zhì)上是市場運(yùn)行中的內(nèi)部規(guī)則自發(fā)外化的結(jié)果,其制度調(diào)整所產(chǎn)生的后果完全由系統(tǒng)內(nèi)部消化。但是中國不同,作為一種制定法國家,每一次制度的制定或者調(diào)整都會發(fā)生巨大的社會成本。因此我國在移植會計穩(wěn)健性制度時需要采取三思而后行的態(tài)度。但是事實(shí)上并非如此,會計穩(wěn)健性原則最初的運(yùn)用完全是我國會計改革與國際接軌的顯著表現(xiàn),制度建設(shè)者并未從歷史的視角關(guān)注會計穩(wěn)健性的來龍去脈。被移植的制度以是否適用作為接受標(biāo)準(zhǔn),上述三個發(fā)展階段就是我國制度建設(shè)被動適應(yīng)結(jié)果。 在中國,會計穩(wěn)健性制度頻頻變動調(diào)整之際,FASB和IASB又作出其會計信息質(zhì)量框架中徹底清除會計穩(wěn)健性的決策,在會計準(zhǔn)則國際化趨同的大環(huán)境下,我國會計制度建設(shè)者又一次面臨是否跟從的挑戰(zhàn)。會計穩(wěn)健性究竟是什么?中西方迄今并無統(tǒng)一認(rèn)識。在美國會計理論獨(dú)步天下的今天,其觀點(diǎn)對于各國會計界的影響頗深。在FASB的“目標(biāo)-準(zhǔn)則-實(shí)務(wù)”理論邏輯指引下的會計穩(wěn)健性理論很難深入,因?yàn)槟繕?biāo)是純主觀的產(chǎn)物,缺乏一個客觀見之主觀的邏輯起點(diǎn)來統(tǒng)領(lǐng)理論的發(fā)展,必然會產(chǎn)生目標(biāo)與實(shí)務(wù)之間的分歧。會計穩(wěn)健性在實(shí)務(wù)中的普遍性和多樣性及其對準(zhǔn)則制定目的的偏離,促使理論研究的不足亟待解決。多樣性是演化的動力,故而從制度演化視角對會計穩(wěn)健性理論研究成為一個重要而又迫切的研究課題。 本文基于制度演化視角對會計穩(wěn)健性問題進(jìn)行研究,試圖重點(diǎn)解決三個基本問題,一是為什么需要從制度演化視角進(jìn)行會計穩(wěn)健性問題的研究,二是如何進(jìn)行演化分析,三是本研究成果如何彌補(bǔ)當(dāng)前會計穩(wěn)健性理論的不足。 在回答這三個問題之前,首先需要借助于會計與經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的理論基礎(chǔ)。從會計研究文獻(xiàn)來看,自現(xiàn)代會計理論產(chǎn)生伊始,演化思想就出現(xiàn)端倪,主要表現(xiàn)在早期會計研究者均試圖從歷史中尋找會計穩(wěn)健性慣例的不同原因,采用“存在的就是適合的”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)完成準(zhǔn)則構(gòu)建,這種基于因果追溯的演化研究在新古典均衡范式占據(jù)會計研究陣地后就不復(fù)存在,將根本上是異質(zhì)的、不可逆的會計穩(wěn)健性慣例納入統(tǒng)一的主觀目的導(dǎo)向下的會計準(zhǔn)則范疇,混亂的結(jié)果不言而喻。 不同于制度均衡觀所持的經(jīng)驗(yàn)實(shí)在論的本體論和個體主義的認(rèn)識論,制度演化觀堅(jiān)持批判實(shí)在論的本體論和個體群主義,假設(shè)制度主體具有認(rèn)知理性、強(qiáng)調(diào)制度的累積因果和回溯法的運(yùn)用�；谥贫妊莼^,本文將會計穩(wěn)健性的歷史沿革置于“本能-行為-習(xí)慣-習(xí)俗-慣例-制度”的制度演化路徑之中,向上因果探討得出會計穩(wěn)健性的終極原因是“至善”,向下因果探討得出會計穩(wěn)健性的多樣性源自異質(zhì)的能動主體與其所在社會結(jié)構(gòu)間互動。 當(dāng)前會計準(zhǔn)則制定者認(rèn)為會計穩(wěn)健性慣例是一種自動的、重復(fù)的、緘默的,“時間無涉”的“實(shí)在”,在這種均衡觀指導(dǎo)下構(gòu)建的會計準(zhǔn)則無法完成鏈接主觀會計目標(biāo)和客觀會計實(shí)務(wù)的任務(wù)。要解決這一問題就需要研究者將視角從制度均衡走向制度演化：首先,將研究關(guān)注點(diǎn)從均衡觀下的“會計秩序”轉(zhuǎn)向演化觀下的“因果機(jī)制”,通過向上溯因分析制度形成的終極原因,向下溯因分析制度如何制約個體行為,實(shí)現(xiàn)因果累積鏈條在邏輯上的完整性。其次,重構(gòu)會計穩(wěn)健性理念,在當(dāng)前“目標(biāo)-準(zhǔn)則-實(shí)務(wù)”的理論邏輯順序中添加一個客觀見之主觀的“本質(zhì)”起點(diǎn),使主觀的“目標(biāo)”更具有客觀的立論基礎(chǔ),從而不再游離于客觀需要之外。第三,本文指出會計的發(fā)展必須適應(yīng)社會需要,因此權(quán)變地適應(yīng)社會需要是會計穩(wěn)健性的發(fā)展方向。
[Abstract]:Uncertainty is the precondition of accounting conservatism, and the world's most determinant is the identity of the existence of uncertainty.FASB, with the integration of western financial accounting theories and accounting standards builders. In the second financial accounting concept framework promulgated in 1983, the recognition of the conservatism of the financial accounting and the reporting of financial accounting and reporting is clearly pointed out. In the field, the practice of accounting conservatism, which would rather be measured than the measurement of possible errors, preferring less assets and earnings rather than remembering the accounting conservatism (meaning prudence) is status, because the business and economic activities are carried out in an environment of uncertainty everywhere, but in the past 30 years, FASB has been recognized as the principal point directed by investor interest. For, although accounting conservatism has a deep-rooted historical position, the accounting conservatism of financial statements should not contain deliberately, consistently less net assets and net benefits, otherwise it is contrary to neutrality in.2008, and FASB finally decided to make accounting conservatism in the draft of the joint conceptual framework promulgated by IASB and the meeting. Prudence) thoroughly cleared, but the dispute has not stopped because of the long history of the accounting conservatism that is not due to the approval of the formal system, and it will not be disappearing because of the denial of the formal system.
The current topic of accounting conservatism is aimed at financial accounting for the main object of the capital market. The main research results are from the United States, a country with an unshaken economic status but a very short accounting history. From the evolutionary process, American accounting comes from Britain, and British accountants are available. In turn, it goes back to Holland and Italy accounting, which only involves the development of the compound accounting. Before the double entry, there are medieval European accountants, accounting of the four ancient civilizations and even the source of the accounting. Accounting conservatism as the mainstream British and American accounting theory is just the tip of the iceberg of a complex institutional phenomenon.
For China, the term "accounting conservatism" is entirely a concept transplanted from the West. It is very urgent to understand why accounting conservatism has come into being and how to evolve to the current state. Since China began to establish the accounting system in 1980s, China has passively experienced the ability to measure conservatism from scratch (1), from weak to strong (1983-1997 years). 998-2005), from the three stages of the overall to the moderate (2006-). Each adjustment is due to the negative effects of the old system. The price of this passive adjustment is extremely large. China is different from the United States and the latter is the common law country. The system derives from the custom and Practice in the market. Therefore, the institutionalization of accounting conservatism is essentially the market. As a result of the spontaneous externalization of the internal rules in the operation, the consequences of the system adjustment are completely digested by the internal system. However, China is different. As a country of law making, the establishment or adjustment of each system will have a huge social cost. But in fact, it is not so. The initial application of the principle of accounting conservatism is the remarkable performance of China's accounting reform and international integration. The institutional builders did not pay attention to the background of the accounting conservatism from the historical perspective. The three development stages mentioned above are the system of our country. Build the result of passive adaptation.
In China, when the accounting conservatism system is changing frequently, FASB and IASB make the decision to completely eliminate accounting conservatism in the framework of accounting information quality. Under the international convergence of accounting standards, China's accounting system builders face the challenge again. What is the accounting conservatism? China and the West have so far There is no unified understanding. Today, in the world of American accounting theory, its views have a profound influence on the accounting circle of various countries. The theory of accounting conservatism guided by the theory of "goal criterion practice" in FASB is difficult to go deep in, because the goal is a purely subjective product, and it lacks an objective subjective logical starting point to command the theory. Development will inevitably lead to differences between goals and practices. The universality and diversity of accounting conservatism in practice and its deviation to the purpose of formulating principles urge the shortage of theoretical research to be solved urgently. Diversity is the motive force of evolution. Therefore, it is an important and urgent study of the theory of stability of accounting from the perspective of institutional evolution. Research topic.
This paper studies the accounting conservatism from the perspective of institutional evolution, and attempts to focus on three basic problems. One is why we need to study the accounting conservatism from the perspective of institutional evolution, the two is how to carry out the evolutionary analysis, and the three is how to make up for the deficiency of the current accounting conservatism theory.
Before answering these three questions, first of all, we need the help of the theoretical basis of accounting and economics. From the literature of accounting research, from the beginning of the emergence of modern accounting theory, evolution ideas appear. The main manifestation is that early accounting researchers are trying to find out the different reasons for Accounting Conservatism from the history, and adopt the "existence" It is suitable for the construction of standard completion criteria, and this evolutionary study based on causal traceability will not exist after the new classical equilibrium paradigm occupies the position of accounting research. It is fundamentally heterogeneous and irreversible accounting conservatism into the unified subjective goal oriented category of accounting standards, and the chaotic results are self-evident.
Different from the ontological theory of empirical realism and individualist epistemology held by institutional equilibrium, the concept of institutional evolution adheres to the ontological and individual groups of critical realism, assuming that the institutional subject has cognitive rationality, emphasizes the cumulative cause and effect of the system and the application of backtracking. In the evolutionary path of "instinct behavior habit custom custom practice system", the ultimate cause of accounting conservatism is the "best good". Downward causal discussion shows that the diversity of accounting conservatism derives from the interaction between the heterogeneous active body and its social structure.
The current accounting standards makers believe that accounting conservatism is an automatic, repetitive, silent, "time no" "reality". The accounting standards constructed under the guidance of this equilibrium cannot complete the task of linking subjective accounting goals and objective accounting practices. The equilibrium trend towards the evolution of the system: first, the focus of the study is shifted from the "accounting order" under the equilibrium view to the "causal mechanism" under the evolution view. Through the ultimate cause of the analysis of the system, it is traced back to the analysis system how to restrict the individual behavior and realize the logical integrity of the chain of causal accumulation. Secondly, reconstructing the accounting system. The concept of conservatism is to add an objective "essential" starting point in the theoretical logical sequence of the current "objective - Criterion - practice", which makes the subjective "goal" more objective and not free from the objective needs. Third, this paper points out that the development of accounting must adapt to the social needs and therefore adaptative. Social needs are the development direction of accounting conservatism.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：F233

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐虹;;會計信息質(zhì)量的產(chǎn)權(quán)博弈分析——基于相關(guān)性與可靠性的均衡視角[J];安徽大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2008年04期

2 王曉梅;論資產(chǎn)計價基礎(chǔ)的變遷[J];安徽農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2002年04期

3 李孝林;會計產(chǎn)生于原始社會后期說[J];北京工商大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2004年06期

4 劉建秋;陳惠瓊;;謹(jǐn)慎性原則的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)詮釋[J];商業(yè)研究;2007年07期

5 侯榮華;制度經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)方法論[J];財經(jīng)研究;2000年07期

6 徐華新;孫錚;;我國股市周期與企業(yè)會計穩(wěn)健性的實(shí)證研究[J];財經(jīng)研究;2008年12期

7 鄭鳴;倪玉娟;劉林;;公允價值會計制度對金融穩(wěn)定的影響——兼論美國金融危機(jī)的啟示[J];財經(jīng)研究;2009年06期

8 劉舒文;伍中信;;關(guān)于會計穩(wěn)健問題的理論探討[J];財會通訊(學(xué)術(shù)版);2007年02期

9 嚴(yán)瑾;;會計穩(wěn)健性原則的應(yīng)用分析[J];財會通訊(學(xué)術(shù)版);2007年03期

10 王利娜;郭葆春;;有條件會計穩(wěn)健性與無條件會計穩(wěn)健性分析——理解穩(wěn)健性的新切入點(diǎn)[J];財會通訊(學(xué)術(shù)版);2007年07期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 薛為昶;倫理學(xué)與經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的離分與復(fù)歸[D];東南大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 郭應(yīng)霞;西歐中世紀(jì)莊園的經(jīng)營管理[D];河北師范大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：1798086