THE POLITICAL PROCESSES AND ROLE OF GATEKEEPERS IN SETTING ACCOUNTING STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURE

Many accounting regulations are introduced in response to crises of some kind, arising from a corporate collapse or claims that published financial reports have been misleading. In contrast, the IASC’s IAS 41 Agriculture standard was developed from the mid-1990s and issued in 2000, two years after the Australian AASB 1037 Self-Generating and Regenerating Assets (SGARA) standard, followed in 2004 by New Zealand’s NZ IAS 41 Agriculture. There had been no prior crisis or public expression of concern about shortcomings in existing practice. This study considers the background to the emergence of accounting for agriculture onto the agenda of standard-setting bodies, and the role played by different insiders. Here, they are collectively termed ‘gatekeepers’, the key staff, expert technical advisers and decision-makers who were members of standard-setting boards. Examination of the development of these new standards extends beyond consideration of technical accounting issues. Several case studies identify the regulatory and political processes each standard-setting agency adopted to consider and then progress the topic through all rule-making stages and resulting lobbying activities by significant users. These political processes are examined using the Cobb and Elder (1972, 1983) agenda-building framework and the Cobb, Ross and Ross (1976) analysis of institutional dynamics. The history of accounting for agriculture, in Australia and New Zealand, is traversed to explain the historical background to the new omnibus agricultural standards promulgated in Australasia. Significant events described include the AASB staff recommendation to the IASB in 2003 to split IAS 41 in two before its designated 2005 commencement date – a recommendation which, so far, has been ignored. New research material includes unpublished documents relating to the initial AASB Project Brief and IASC Point Outline background proposals for each standard, the IASC’s Field Test Report prior to adopting its IAS 41 standard and the AASB 1037 standard post implementation review – possibly the first ever to be undertaken.