This paper examines the historical development and practical differences between normative and positive accounting theories, tracing their origins from economic theory and early accounting practices. It reviews the evolution of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) in the context of the conceptual framework and analyzes how major financial scandals—most notably the Enron collapse—drove regulatory reform. The paper explores the core debate between the two theories, highlighting where positive theory's emphasis on empirical testing contrasts with normative theory's prescriptive approach. It concludes by recommending an integrated framework that draws on the strengths of both theories while incorporating ethical principles to guide the accounting profession forward.
In the past few decades, accounting theory has slowly evolved; as a result, various research methodologies have been utilized to study the development of accounting theory. As accounting theory has developed, debates have emerged regarding the manner in which financial theory should be developed and applied in the accounting profession. This has been essentially a normative, philosophical exercise, imposing a view of how actuarial practice should progress (Thomas & Smith, 1997). In recent years, the differences in application between normative and positive accounting theories have become the subject of much debate, raising the awareness of those involved in the accounting profession.
The underlying basis of normative theory is that it assists in standardizing practice and thus facilitates the teaching of practice in a more coherent manner. The underlying basis of positive theory is intellectual justification; models are derived from observed behavior. This paper discusses all aspects of accounting theory and the history of regulation in the accounting profession that has been implemented as a result of notable financial accounting scandals. It analyzes and synthesizes the normative and positive accounting theories, beginning with the historical background of each theory and a discussion of the suggested changes and problem areas revealed in the debate. It also analyzes GAAP in relation to the conceptual framework and concludes with recommendations toward an appropriate course of action.
Normative and positive accounting theories grew out of economic theory as tools for understanding relationships in the economy. Economic theory can be used to explain the behavior of market actors, but it cannot determine which public policies are desirable and which are not. Economic and accounting theories have been traced very far back by researchers searching for a correlation between the cultural significance of accounting and the discipline's substantial impact on society.
According to research by Mattessich (1995), the origins of accounting go back to prehistoric times and actually precede the invention of writing. Mattessich (1995) explains that hollow clay tokens were transferred in and out of a clay envelope. This practice originated over 8,000 years ago and is evidence of a form of double-entry recording (Mattessich, 1995). Other researchers attribute the origins of accounting to the 1914 work of John Dewey's "pragmatic" educational philosophy, which led to both the laboratory method and the case method used to study accounting (Mitchell, 2005). Comparable to present-day "practice sets," the accounting laboratory contained bookkeeping machines, records, minute books, "model" sets of books and collateral records, stock certificate books, transfer books, organization charts, statistical data, and other documents.
In 1916, academicians formed their own group called the Accounting Academicians, concurrently with the American Economic Association. Practitioners belonged to the American Association of Public Accountants, while academicians felt more comfortable with other faculty. This organization later became known as the American Accounting Association (Mitchell, 2005).
Positive accounting theory has been traced back to the research conducted by Watts and Zimmerman (1978), which provided the theoretical basis for a number of social disclosure studies. Their research concluded that individuals acted to maximize their own utility, and that managers have greater incentives to choose accounting standards that report lower earnings, thereby increasing cash flows, firm value, and their welfare. Watts and Zimmerman's research was based on three main hypotheses: (1) managers of firms with bonus plans are more likely to choose accounting procedures that shift reported earnings from future periods to the current period; (2) the larger a firm's debt/equity ratio, the more likely the firm's manager is to select accounting procedures that shift reported earnings from future periods to the current period; and (3) the larger the firm, the more likely the manager is to choose accounting procedures that defer reported earnings from current to future periods (Milne, 2001).
In 1989, researchers Belkaoui and Karpik tested Watts and Zimmerman's arguments through the use of an index of social disclosure. Belkaoui and Karpik's (1989) research remained consistent with that of Watts and Zimmerman, arguing that levels of social spending are a way for self-interested managers to reduce current period income; however, this proposition was not tested in their research. Many other researchers built on the work of these and other researchers from prior decades.
Research by Gaffikin (2007) indicates that for most of the twentieth century, the accounting profession sought to maintain a regime of self-regulation. Accounting professional bodies worked hard to avoid the imposition of regulation on the discipline (Gaffikin, 2007). The Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) were developed, followed by an attempt at a conceptual framework that would serve as the basis of an accounting theory. A review of the literature indicates that the search for GAAP and a theoretical framework has been a struggle for the discipline and its members, the result of widely differing viewpoints on the necessity and form of regulation. The financial accounting scandals of prior decades spurred the need for reform and strictly enforced accounting regulations. Public interest and awareness resulting from notable and widespread scandals demanded such regulations, and GAAP was amended and implemented accordingly.
The current GAAP is more "rules-based," with specific application guidance, than earlier versions. According to Deloitte (2007), the significance of the differences in the current GAAP varies with respect to individual entities depending on factors such as the nature of the entity's operations, the industry in which it operates, and the accounting policy choices it has made. Under first-time adoption of the current GAAP, there is no specific standard, and the practice is generally full retrospective application unless the transitional provisions of a specific standard require otherwise.
The current GAAP permits the use of historical volatility or industry index measurement for non-public entities when it is not practicable to estimate expected volatility (Deloitte, 2007). Under the current GAAP, for share-based payments with graded vesting features, an accounting policy choice exists for awards with a service condition only to either: (a) amortize the entire grant on a straight-line basis over the longest vesting period, or (b) recognize a charge similar to IFRSs (Deloitte, 2007).
Other examples of the current GAAP in practice include: a liability for a planned post-acquisition restructuring can be recognized if the restructuring relates to the acquired business and certain conditions are met; for purchased in-process R&D, the current GAAP determines the fair market value of in-process R&D and expenses it immediately unless it has an alternative future use; and for combinations of entities under common control, the current GAAP requires the pooling-of-interests method (Deloitte, 2007). For comparative prior-year financial statements, there is no specific requirement under the current GAAP to present comparatives, although at least one year of comparative financial information is generally presented (Deloitte, 2007). Public companies are subject to SEC rules and regulations, which generally require two years of comparative financial information for income statements, statements of equity, and cash flows (Deloitte, 2007).
A distinction is drawn by many between positive accounting theory and normative accounting theory, leading to an ongoing debate between the two. In discussing market failure and regulation, a similar distinction is made: there are analyses of regulation derived from positive economics and some derived from normative assumptions (Gaffikin, 2007).
Normative accounting theories are described as long-term values of economic parameters that cannot be confirmed or refuted by data. They cannot be confirmed by data because "the long term" refers to a time so far ahead that it is impractical to conduct any objective tests. Normative theory involves prescribing a "right" approach. Positive theory, on the other hand, is not concerned with prescribing a "right" approach (Thomas & Smith, 1997). Positive theory involves observing the environment in which actuarial decisions are made and seeks to model that environment and generate hypotheses that can be tested against data. Positive theory also considers factors such as risks faced by the actuary, including legal liability, professional censure, or the loss of a client.
Positive accounting theory aims to provide explanations of practice through observation and the generation of hypotheses. Normative accounting theory, on the other hand, aims to provide prescriptions for practice through the codification of practice and the derivation of prescriptions from stated premises. The methods of both theories differ: positive accounting theory places emphasis on testing, whereas normative accounting theory involves relatively little testing. The benefits of positive accounting theory include better understanding and better predictions. The benefits of normative accounting theory include the standardization of practice, training for practice, and the provision of a market for excuses.
"Political influences, weaknesses, and complementary potential"
"GAAP evolution, Enron scandal, and regulatory need"
"Integrating both theories with ethics for practice"
A review of the literature regarding the debate between the application of positive accounting theory and normative accounting theory to the profession indicates that the debate is far from over. Future courses of action would include integrating ethics into both theories, and more research is needed within the realm of combining both theories for the accounting profession to continue to prosper and grow.
You’re 47% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.