Sorting and comparing: Standard-setting and “ethical” categories

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) describes its public interest function as “…developing standards that result in accounting for similar transactions and circumstances in a like manner and different transactions and circumstances…in a different manner (Facts about FASB).” This statement implies that rule-makers possess an expertise that makes analogizing transactions or circumstances to other transactions or circumstances unproblematic. In this paper we utilize two instances of standard-setting, SFAS 123R and SFAS 143, to demonstrate from FASB's analogic reasoning in these cases that similarity and dissimilarity are not so easily ascertained. A judgment about similarity invariably involves ignoring some perspectives of similarity that would lead to substantially different conclusions about the appropriate accounting. We also illustrate via the two examples the inherent value judgments that underlie the conclusions reached by FASB and how these value judgments raise questions about the ethics of the current standard-setting process.

[1]  R. Friedland.  Bringing Society Back In : Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions , 1991 .

[2]  J. Rawls,et al.  Justice as Fairness: A Restatement , 2001 .

[3]  R. D. Hines,et al.  Financial accounting: In communicating reality, we construct reality , 1988 .

[4]  Steven J. Burton.  An introduction to law and legal reasoning , 1985 .

[5]  J. Searle.  The Construction of Social Reality , 1997 .

[6]  Kevin J. Murphy,et al.  Performance Pay and Top Management Incentives , 1990 .

[7]  Guy B. Adams,et al.  Unmasking Administrative Evil , 2019 .

[8]  Todd L. Sayre.  The Myth of Shareholder Ownership and Its Implications for Accounting , 2009 .

[9]  Paul F. Williams.  Accounting and the Moral Order: Justice, Accounting, and Legitmate Moral Authority , 2002 .

[10]  Joni J. Young,et al.  Metaphors and accounting for stock options , 2008 .

[11]  Thomas A. Lee.  The FASB and Accounting for Economic Reality , 2006 .

[12]  K. Greenfield.  The Failure of Corporate Law , 2007 .

[13]  B. West.  Professionalism and Accounting Rules , 2003 .

[14]  Paul F. Williams,et al.  Making imaginary worlds real : the case of expensing employee stock options , 2009 .

[15]  The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy , 2001 .

[16]  C. Sunstein,et al.  The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes , 2000 .

[17]  L. Boltanski,et al.  De la justification : les économies de la grandeur , 1991 .

[18]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences , 1999 .

[19]  Joni J. Young.  Outlining regulatory space: Agenda issues and the FASB , 1994 .

[20]  Patricia H. Werhane,et al.  Moral imagination and management decision-making , 1999 .

[21]  D. Vaughan.  THE DARK SIDE OF ORGANIZATIONS: Mistake, Misconduct, and Disaster , 1999 .

[22]  L. Moore.  Economic “Reality” and the Myth of the Bottom Line , 2009 .

[23]  Andrew Abbott,et al.  Chaos of disciplines , 2001 .

[24]  G. Lakoff.  Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think , 1996 .

[25]  Mark L. Johnson.  Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics , 1993 .

[26]  W. Powell,et al.  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis , 1993 .

[27]  Don Slater,et al.  From calculation to alienation: disentangling economic abstractions , 2002 .

[28]  John Roberts.  The possibilities of accountability , 1991 .

[29]  Lawrence Busch,et al.  The moral economy of grades and standards , 2000 .

[30]  Joni J. Young.  Institutional thinking: The case of financial instruments , 1996 .

[31]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind , 1988 .

[32]  W. Bratton.  Private Standards, Public Governance: A New Look at the Financial Accounting Standards Board , 2010 .

[33]  Peter Collett.  Standard Setting and Economic Consequences: An Ethical Issue , 1995 .

[34]  S. Sunder.  Social Norms Versus Standards of Accounting , 2005 .