Lucia Biondi

Purpose: This paper aims to contribute to the debate over the desirability of introducing an accrual-based accounting system in the public sector by examining whether accrual-based accounting information is superior to cash-based information in the context of public sector entities.Design/methodology/approach: This paper applies a quantitative research method to assess the degree of smoothness and relevance of the accrual components of income recorded by 302 entities of the Italian National Health Service (INHS) over the period 2014–2020.Findings: The analysis reveals that net income is smoother than cash flows as a summary measure of economic results and that accounting for accruals improves the predictability of future cash flows. However, the authors' novel disaggregation of accrual accounts reveals that those accounts that contribute the most to making income smoother than cash flows – noncurrent assets and liabilities – are also those that contribute the least to predicting future cash flows.Originality/value: The disaggregation of accrual accounts allows to identify the sources of the informational benefits of accrual accounting, and to document the existence of an informational “trade-off” between smoothness and relevance in the context of public sector entities.

IMPACT This article will help preparers and users of public sector accounting information understand why there is a need to ‘translate’ accounting information into fiscal information, and how this translation takes place through several ‘adjustments’. Readers will learn that, in the EU, it is uncommon for fiscal information to be grounded on accrual-based accounting data—particularly in the central government where cash data remain the preferred input. Readers will also learn that, while cash accounting bases generate a somewhat greater need for adjustments before fiscal information is produced, no accounting basis fully embraces the selective interpretation of the accrual principle that underlies the construction of fiscal aggregates. The information produced by fiscal and accounting information systems is unlikely to overlap fully, even if the public sector were to adopt an accrual basis of accounting.

Over time, public universities have been involved in a process of modernisation based on a new concept of governance and managerial methods for increasing efficiency and effectiveness, as well as transparency and accountability. This paper aims to investigate the link between strategic planning systems and performance management systems in Italian universities by answering the following research question: to what extent do strategic planning tools contribute to performance management systems and, vice versa, to what extent can performance management systems help in the reshaping of universities’ strategies? To this end, we adopt a qualitative approach by conducting a multiple case-study analysis in the Italian context. Data are gathered through documentary analysis and interviews as primary research methods. Since scholars have mainly focused their attention on strategic planning or performance management in universities in isolation, the originality of this research lies in the attempt to connect these two important research fields, whose mutual interdependences are still to a certain extent unexplored. The implications of this study concern recommendations and suggestions for universities’ governance bodies to support their decision-making processes in the definition of their long-term objectives and performance management systems.

In recent years, the urge to make public sector organizations accountable has resulted in a wide range of citizen‐centered financial reporting tools that aim to overcome the limits of traditional financial reporting. To date, the debate on these public accountability innovations has mainly focused on the reasons underpinning their adoption from the users’ perspective, while how preparers affect accountability in the process of constructing such documents is empirically less investigated. By drawing on Callon's concept of translation, this paper aims to analyze how the preparers of citizens‐centered financial reports perceive and translate public accountability into practice. In fact, localized translation of public accounting innovation may reveal divergences and ambiguity inherent in the public accountability principles shaped by concurring actors, events, and technologies. The research is qualitative and interpretative, through a longitudinal case study in a municipality, observing the process of construction of a citizen‐centered financial reporting tool (i.e., Popular Financial Reporting—PFR). The originality of the paper lies in its contribution to the debate about how public accountability tools are translated into practice by providing evidence of the dynamics that lead an organization along the implementation path. Our findings confirm that the output of the process is the result of the interaction of different networks of interest. Consequently, the final document may vary consistently from the initial project and the general principles of the framework followed.

Purpose: Within the stream of research on public sector accounting standards, heritage asset accounting represents a difficult and challenging issue. This paper intends to join the debate on heritage reporting by carrying out a critical review of the Consultation Paper (CP) “Financial Reporting for Heritage in the Public Sector” issued by the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) in order to highlight its strengths and weaknesses and to make recommendations.Design/methodology/approach: To this end, the current study adopts document analysis as a qualitative research method by referring to Italy as a typical and critical case study. Moreover, the authors actively took part in the Italian working group on heritage assets reporting, so they are well-informed people about the Italian point of view as well as the broad discussion underpinning the Italian response.Findings: Evidence demonstrates that, although the proposals included in the CP represent a new step towards an organic regulation of heritage asset reporting, if these preliminary views are confronted with the reality of an emblematic context, as in the Italian case, much room for improvement remains regarding the definition, recognition, measurement and disclosure of such assets.Originality/value: The originality of the paper lies in its contribution to overcoming the current controversial aspects of heritage assets reporting and the issuing of an accounting standard. In doing so, the authors also attempt to answer the call made by Anessi-Pessina et al. (2019) to investigate in detail an individual country experience to better understand the state of the art in national and international accounting standards on heritage assets.

This paper provides a comparative analysis of different public accountability means used in the public sector - namely sustainability reporting, popular financial reporting and integrated reporting - in order to highlight their similarities and differences, and reflect on their development, with specific reference to the Italian context. In particular, we speculate about the practical and research implications of their emergence, through the lenses of accountability and managerial fad and fashion literature. The main novelty of the paper is that it is one of the first studies providing a comparative analysis of the three reporting tools debated both in practice and in research. We argue about their diffusion patterns, the commonalities and differences, which suggests different stages of evolution, different actors and forces at play. We provide some preliminary evidence on the risk that accountability innovations may end up just in a fad and fashion uptake, creating inefficiencies and not achieving the aims they are intended for. We also show how the available frameworks and standards have more in common than not, and that there is a risk of creating only new labels, without real innovation or improvement of public accountability.