CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS OF IPSAS & IFRS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Yıl 2023, , 277 - 296, 12.01.2023

İklim Elif Umut , Özgecan Özer

https://doi.org/10.55322/mdbakis.1135538

Öz

IPSASB has taken the IFRS conceptual framework as a basis while creating the conceptual framework.
Due to the fact that the establishment and operational goals and objectives between public institutions
and private sector enterprises are completely different from each other, the IFRS compliance of the
IPSAS conceptual framework initially disturbed academics and practitioners and forced them to
express their concerns on this issue. At the same time, there are doubts about the applicability of accrual
accounting in public institutions. The aim of this study is to compare the Conceptual Framework
for Financial Reporting, which forms the basis of accounting policies in IFRS, and the Conceptual
Framework for General Purpose Financial Reporting in Public Sector Enterprises, which forms the
basis of accounting policies in IPSAS, and to reveal the similarities and differences. As a result, it
is clear that IPSAS has been prepared with the aim of minimum deviation from IFRS, it also has
regulations that take into account sectoral differences. The IFRS conceptual framework was published
and entered into force earlier than IPSAS. Since IFRS has been in effect for a longer period of time, it
has been subject to updating due to the change in other standards, and therefore it has become highly
compatible with the standards. It is too early to comment on IPSAS yet.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Governmental Accounting, Conceptual Framework

IFRS VE IPSAS KAVRAMSAL ÇERÇEVELERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI OLARAK İNCELENMESİ

Öz

IPSASB, kavramsal çerçeveyi oluştururken, IFRS kavramsal çerçevesini esas olarak almıştır. Kamu
kuruluşları ve özel sektör işletmeleri arasındaki kuruluş ve işleyiş amaç ve hedeflerinin birbirinden
tamamen farklı olması nedeniyle IPSAS kavramsal çerçevesinin IFRS uyumu ilk zamanlar
akademisyenleri ve uygulamacıları rahatsız etmiş ve bu konudaki endişelerini dile getirmek zorunda
bırakmıştır. Aynı zamanda tahakkuk esaslı muhasebenin kamu kuruluşlarında uygulanabilirliği
konusunda da şüphe duyulmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, IFRS’lerdeki muhasebe politikalarının
temelini oluşturan Finansal Raporlamaya İlişkin Kavramsal Çerçeve ile IPSAS’lardaki muhasebe
politikalarının temelini oluşturan “Kamu Sektörü İşletmelerinde Genel Amaçlı Finansal Raporlamaya
İlişkin Kavramsal Çerçevenin karşılaştırılarak ele alınması ve benzerlikler ile farklılıkların ortaya
konmasıdır. Sonuç olarak IPSAS’ın IFRS’den minimum sapma amacıyla düzenlenmiş olduğu açıktır,
aynı zamanda sektörel farklılıkları dikkate alan düzenlemeleri de mevcuttur. IFRS kavramsal çerçevesi
IPSAS’dan daha erken bir tarihte yayınlanmış ve yürürlüğe girmiştir. IFRS daha uzun bir süredir yürürlükte olması nedeniyle diğer standartlarda meydana gelen değişiklikle sebebiyle güncellemeye
tabi olmuş ve dolayısıyla da standartlar ile son derece uyumlu bir şekil almıştır. IPSAS için henüz aynı
yorumda bulunmak için erkendir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Devlet Muhasebesi, IPSAS, IPSASB, IFRS, Kavramsal Çerçeve, Governmental Accounting, Conceptual Framework

Kaynakça

• Aggestam-Pontoppidan, C., Anderneck, I. (2015) Interpretation and Application of IPSAS, John Wiley & Sons, p.40
• Arnaboldi, M., & Lapsley, I. (2009). On the implementation of accrual accounting: A study of conflict and ambiguity. European Accounting Review, 18(4), 809–836.
• Auditor General (2009), The Auditor General’s Views on Setting Financial Reporting Standards for the Public Sector
• Baker, R., & Rennie, M. (2006). Forces leading to the adoption of accrual accounting by the Canadian federal government: An institutional perspective. Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 5(1), 83–112.
• Barton, A. (2005), Professional accounting standards and the public sector—a mismatch. Abacus, 41, 2, pp. 138–158.
• Barton, A. (2011). Why governments should use the government finance statistics accounting system. ABACUS, 47(4), 411–445.
• Biondi, Y. (2012), Should business and non-business accounting be different? A comparative perspective applied to the new French governmental accounting standards. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 9, pp. 603– 619.
• Biondi, Y. (2017). Harmonising European public sector accounting standards (EPSAS): Issues and perspectives, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, 7(2), 117–123.
• Bisogno, M., Aggestam Pontoppidan, C., Hodges, R., & Manes Rossi, F. (2019). Setting international public-sector accounting standards: Does ‘public’ matter? The case of revenue from non-exchange transactions. Accounting in Europe, 16(2), 219–235.
• Chan, J. L. (2003). Government accounting: An assessment oftheory, purposes and standards. Public Money & Management, 23(1), 13–20.
• Chan, J. L. (2006). IPSAS and government accounting reform in developing countries. In E. Lande, & J. C. Scheid (Eds.), Accounting reform in the public sector: Mimicry, fad or necessity? CIGAR Network.
• Christiaens, J., & van Peteghem, V. (2007). Governmental accounting reform: Evolution of the implementation in flemish municipalities. Financial Accountability & Management, 23(4), 375–99.
• Christiaens, J., Christiaens, V., Christophe, M.-R. F., Aversano, N., & van Cauwenberge, P. (2015). The effect of IPSAS on reforming governmental financial reporting: An international comparison. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(1), 158–177.
• Christiaens, J., Reyniers, B., & Rolle, C. (2010). Impact of IPSAS on reforming governmental financial information systems: A comparative study. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76, 537–554.
• Cordery, C. J. and Simpkins, K. (2016), Financial reporting standards for the public sector: New Zealand’s 21st-century experience. Public Money & Management, 36, 3, pp. 209–218.
• Cordery, C. J., Crawford, L., Breen, O. B., & Morgan, G. G. 2018). International practices, beliefs and values in notfor- profit financial reporting. Accounting Forum.
• Ellwood, S., & Newberry, S. (2016). New development: The conceptual underpinnings of international public sector accounting. Public Money & Management, 36(3), 231-234.
• Ernst & Young. (2012). Overview and comparison of public accounting and auditing practices in the EU member status. Eurostat.
• FASB (1978), Statement of Financial AccountingConcepts No. 1. Objectives of Financial Reporting by Business Enterprises.
• GASB. (2006). Why governmental accounting and financial reporting is—and should be—different (white paper).
• Gaa, J., (1988), Methodological foundations of standard setting for corporate financial reporting, Florida: American Accounting Association
• Hepworth, N. (2017). Is implementing the IPSAS an appropriate reform? Public Money & Management, 37(2), 141–148.
• IASB (2010), Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting Institude for Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) (2021) IFRS vs IPSAS in public sector financial reporting: Part II Measurement.
• IPSASB (2014), The Conceptual Framework for General Purpose Financial Reporting by Public Sector Entities (IFAC).
• IPSASB. (2018). Handbook of International Public Sector Accounting Pronouncements Volume I, International Federation of Accountants, New York.
• KGK. (2018). Finansal Raporlamaya İlişkin Kavramsal Çerçeve (2018 Sürümü).
• Mayston, D. (1992). Capital accounting, user needs and the foundations of a conceptual framework for public sector financial reporting. Financial Accountability & Management, 8(4), p.227-248.
• Monsen, N. (2002). The case for cameral accounting. Financial Accountability & Management, 18, 39–72.
• Monsen, N. (2019). Commercial accounting, fund accounting and cameral accounting: Introduction and comparison with a view to use in the governmental sector. Norwegian School of Economics (NHH).
• Moretti, D. (2018). Rationalising government fiscal reporting. lessons learned from Australia, Canada, France and the United Kingdom on how to better address users’ needs. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 2, 65–125.
• Müller, T., Berger, M. (2012) IPSAS Explained: A Summary of International Public Sector Accounting Standards, 2nd Edition ,John Wiley & Sons, p.19
• Oulasvirta, L. (2011). Do the IPSAS standards suit the public sector?. Tilintarkastus. 5. 18-21.
• Oulasvirta, L. (2021) A consistent bottom-up approach for deriving a conceptual framework for public sector financial accounting PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT, VOL. 41, NO. 6, 436–446
• Pallot, J. (1992). Elements of a theoretical framework for public sector accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 5(1), 38–59.
• Polzer, T., Reichard, C., Grossi, G. (2021). Organization of the IPSASB, Conceptual Framework and Claimed Benefits and Criticisms of IPSAS. In: Brusca, I., Gomes, P., Fernandes, M.J., Montesinos, V. (eds) Challenges in the Adoption of International Public Sector Accounting Standards. Public Sector Financial Management. Palgrave Pivot, Cham.
• Ricci P., Landi T. (2010), Governance and Accountability for Italian Listed Public Utilities Companies, Review of International Comparative Management, 11, 3:376-388.
• Sheila Ellwood & Susan Newberry (2016) New development: The conceptual underpinnings of international public sector accounting, Public Money & Management, 36:3, 231-234.