UFRS İLE FİNANSAL RAPORLAMAYA İLİŞKİN TEORİK ÇERÇEVE

Öz

UFRS’ye adaptasyon sürecinde ve sonrasında muhasebe kalitesinde yaşanan değişimde ülkeler arasında farklılıklar olduğu görülmektedir. Muhasebe standartlarının yanı sıra ülkede süre gelen yasal ve politik sistem, kültürel değerler, vergi uygulamaları, finansal raporlama güdüleyicileri gibi faktörler de muhasebe kalitesini etkilediğinden konuya ilişkin değerleme yaparken tüm bu unsurlar da göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır. Bu bağlamda bu çalışmada UFRS’nin küresel ölçekte yayılma sürecinde kurumsal faktörlerin oynadığı rolü daha iyi kavrayabilmek amacıyla, UFRS adaptasyonu; kurumsallaşma teorisi, vekâlet teorisi gibi farklı teorik çerçeveler içinde irdelenmiştir. Literatür taraması yoluyla edinilen bulgularla desteklenen bu teorik inceleme neticesinde UFRS adaptasyonunda ekonomik önceliklerden daha ziyade toplumsal meşruiyet baskılarının güdüleyici olduğu; zorlayıcı, taklitçi ve normatif baskıların süreçte önemli rol oynadığı görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• UFRS adaptasyonu,kurumsal teori,vekalet teorisi

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF FINANCIAL REPORTING WITH IFRS

Öz

It is apparent that there are differences between countries in their IFRS adoption processes and improvement in the quality of their financial reports after IFRS adoption. So, beside the accounting standards all the other factors affecting accounting quality, such as legal and political systems, cultural values, tax practices, financial reporting incentives, should also be considered in the assessment of IFRS adoption. In this context, in order to comprehend the role of the institutional factors in the global diffusion of IFRS, IFRS adoption is reviewed through different theoretical frameworks such as agents and institutional theories. This theoretical review which is corroborated with the findings of relevant literature review suggests that legitimization pressures have a more active role than economic reasons in the IFRS adoption process.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• IFRS adoption,institutional theory,agency theory

Kaynakça

1. Akgül, B. A. ve Akay, H. 2006. Uluslararası Muhasebe Standartları ve Türkiye’deki Uygulama Etkinliğine İlişkin Bir Araştırma, Türkmen Kitapevi, İstanbul.
2. Ashworth, R., G. Boyne ve R. Delbridge. 2007. “Escape from the Iron Cage? Organizational Change and Isomorphic Pressures in the Public Sector”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1).
3. Barth, M. E. 2015. “Commentary on Prospects for Global Financial Reporting”, Accounting Perspectives, 14(3).
4. Bushman, R. ve W. R. Landsman. 2010. “The Pros and Cons of Regulating Corporate Reporting: A Critical Review of the Arguments”, Accounting and Business Research, 40(3).
5. Deegan, C. 2014. Financial Accounting Theory, McGraw-Hill Education, Australia.
6. DiMaggio, P.J. ve W.W. Powell. 1983. ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’, American Sociological Review, 48.
7. Dillard, J. F., J. T. Rigsby ve C. Goodman. 2004. “The Making and Remarking of Organization Context – Duality and the Institutional Context”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(4).
8. Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. “Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review”, Academy of Management Review, 14(1).

9. Elitaş, C., M. Karakoç ve S. Özdemir. 2011. “Muhasebe Meslek Mensupları Perspektifinden Türkiye Muhasebe Standartları”, World of IFRS Dergisi.
10. Gordon, M. J. 1964. “Postulates, Principles and Research in Accounting”, The Accounting Review, 39(2).
11. Gornik-Tomaszewski, S. ve Y. C. Choi. 2018. “The Conceptual Framework: Past, Present, and Future”, Review of Business, 38(1).
12. Habib, A. 2007. “Legal Environment, Accounting Information, Auditing and Information Intermediaries: Survey of the Empirical Literature”, Journal of Accounting Literature, 26(1).
13. Holthausen, R. W. ve R. L. Watts. 2001. “The Relevance of the Value-Relevance Literature for Financial Accounting Standard Setting”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1-3).
14. Hope, O. K., J. Jin ve T. Kang. 2006. “Empirical Evidence on Jurisdictions that Adopt IFRS”, Journal of International Accounting Research, 5(2).
15. IFRS Foundation. 2016. Constitution Effective From 1 December 2016, London. https://www.iosco.org/about/monitoring_board/pdf/IFRS-Foundation-Constitution-December-2016.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 06.07.2018).
16. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). 2006. Discussion Paper—Preliminary Views on an Improved Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting: The Objective of Financial Reporting and Qualitative Characteristics of Decision-Useful Financial Reporting Information.
17. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). 2018. Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting.
18. Irvine, H. 2008. “The Global Institutionalization of Financial Reporting: The Case of the United Arab Emirates”, Accounting Forum, 32(2).
19. Koning, M., G. Mertens ve P. Roosenboom. 2018. “Drivers of Institutional Change Around the World: The case of IFRS”, Journal of International Business Studies, 49(3).
20. Jensen, M. C. ve W. H. Meckling. 1976. “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4).
21. Judge, W., S. Li ve R. Pinsker 2010. “National Adoption of International Accounting Standards: An Institutional Perspective”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(3).
22. Kothari, S. P., K. Ramanna ve D. J. Skinner. 2010. “Implications for GAAP from an Analysis of Positive Research in Accounting”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50(2-3).
23. Kurt G. ve T. Uçma. 2011. Kavramsal Çerçeve US GAAP ve IFRS Yakınsama Projeleri, Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara.
24. Lasmin, R. 2011. “An Institutional Perspective on International Financial Reporting Standards Adoption in Developing Countries”, Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal,15(2).
25. Melis, A. 2007. “Financial Statements and Positive Accounting Theory: The Early Contribution of Aldo Amaduzzi”, Accounting, Business & Financial History, 17(1).
26. Morais, A. I. ve J. D. Curto. 2009. “Mandatory Adoption of IASB Standards: Value Relevance and Country-Specific Factors”, Australian Accounting Review, 19(2).
27. Nurunnabi, M. 2015. “Tensions Between Politico-Institutional Factors and Accounting Regulation in a Developing Economy: Insights from Institutional Theory”, Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(4).
28. Pricope, C. F. 2016. “The Role of Institutional Pressures in Developing Countries. Implications for IFRS”, Theoretical and Applied Economics, 23(2).
29. Rodrigues, L. L. ve R. Craig. 2007. “Assessing International Accounting Harmonization Using Hegelian Dialectic, Isomorphism and Foucault”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(6).
30. Scott, W. R. 1987. “The Adolescence of Institutional Theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly,32.
31. Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and Organizations, Thousande Oakes, Sage.
32. Scott, W. R. 2015. Financial Accounting Theory, Pearson Education, Toronto.
33. Soderstrom, N. S. ve K. J. Sun. 2007. “IFRS Adoption and Accounting Quality: A Review”,European Accounting Review, 16(4).
34. Sultanoğlu, B. 2014. “UFRS’nin Borsa İstanbul’daki Şirketlerin Finansal Tabloları Üzerindeki Etkisi: Finansal Bilginin İhtiyaca Uygunluğu ve Finansal Tablolar Analizi”, Başkent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
35. Taplin, R., G. Tower ve P. Hancock. 2002, “Disclosure (Discernibility) and Compliance of Accounting Policies: Asia-Pacific Evidence”, Accounting Forum, 26(2).
36. Turner, B.S. 1993. “Talcott Parsons, Universalism and the Educational Revolution: Democracy Versus Professionalism”, British Journal of Sociology, 44(1).
37. Uçma, T. 2012. “Türkiye’deki Muhasebe Sisteminin Gelişiminin Kurumsal Teori Çerçevesinde Açıklanması”, Muhasebe ve Finans Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, (2).
38. Watts, R. L. 1977. “Corporate Financial Statements, a Product of the Market and Political Processes”, Australian Journal of Management, 2(1).