IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jaecon/v75y2023i2s0165410122000787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The economic consequences of GASB financial statement disclosure

Author

Listed:
  • Dambra, Michael
  • Even-Tov, Omri
  • Naughton, James P.

Abstract

We examine whether Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) financial statement disclosure alters local governments' economic decision-making. To do so, we exploit a recent GASB standard that eliminated differences in the disclosure requirements for county governments' pension obligations. The standard, GASB 68, had no effect on pension economics or the annual budget—it affected only whether and how information was presented on GASB financial statements. Using a broad hand-collected dataset, we document that counties that did not disclose information about their pension obligations before GASB 68 reduced public welfare expenditures, employment, and salary expenses relative to those that had disclosed such information. We conduct extensive field research and employ several cross-sectional analyses to conclude that the effects we document are in part driven by increased awareness of the financial costs of pension obligations by newly disclosing counties.

Suggested Citation

  • Dambra, Michael & Even-Tov, Omri & Naughton, James P., 2023. "The economic consequences of GASB financial statement disclosure," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jaecon:v:75:y:2023:i:2:s0165410122000787
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2022.101555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165410122000787
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jacceco.2022.101555?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Naughton, James & Petacchi, Reining & Weber, Joseph, 2015. "Public pension accounting rules and economic outcomes," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 221-241.
    2. S.P. Kothari & Karthik Ramanna & Douglas J. Skinner, 2009. "Implications for GAAP from an Analysis of Positive Research in Accounting," Harvard Business School Working Papers 09-137, Harvard Business School, revised Sep 2010.
    3. Jeff L. McMullin & Bryce Schonberger, 2020. "Entropy-balanced accruals," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 84-119, March.
    4. Hainmueller, Jens, 2012. "Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 25-46, January.
    5. Riddha Basu & James P. Naughton, 2020. "The Real Effects of Financial Statement Recognition: Evidence from Corporate Credit Ratings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(4), pages 1672-1691, April.
    6. Chandra Kanodia & Haresh Sapra, 2016. "A Real Effects Perspective to Accounting Measurement and Disclosure: Implications and Insights for Future Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 623-676, May.
    7. James P. Naughton, 2019. "Regulatory oversight and trade-offs in earnings management: evidence from pension accounting," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 456-490, June.
    8. Barth, Mary E. & Beaver, William H. & Landsman, Wayne R., 2001. "The relevance of the value relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting: another view," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1-3), pages 77-104, September.
    9. Samuel B. Bonsall & Joseph Comprix & Karl A. Muller, 2019. "State Pension Accounting Estimates and Strong Public Unions†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1299-1336, September.
    10. Howard A. Frank & Gerasimos A. Gianakis, 2010. "What hath the gasb wrought? the utility of the new reporting model: A national survey of local government finance officers," Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 22(2), pages 178-204, March.
    11. Nolan Kido & Reining Petacchi & Joseph Weber, 2012. "The Influence of Elections on the Accounting Choices of Governmental Entities," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 443-476, May.
    12. Nemit Shroff, 2017. "Corporate investment and changes in GAAP," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 1-63, March.
    13. Amanda W. Beck, 2018. "Opportunistic financial reporting around municipal bond issues," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 785-826, September.
    14. Young Jun Cho, 2015. "Segment Disclosure Transparency and Internal Capital Market Efficiency: Evidence from SFAS No. 131," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 669-723, September.
    15. Christian Leuz & Peter D. Wysocki, 2016. "The Economics of Disclosure and Financial Reporting Regulation: Evidence and Suggestions for Future Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 525-622, May.
    16. Kothari, S.P. & Ramanna, Karthik & Skinner, Douglas J., 2010. "Implications for GAAP from an analysis of positive research in accounting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 246-286, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hans B. Christensen & Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, 2021. "Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 1176-1248, September.
    2. Rolf Uwe Fülbier & Thorsten Sellhorn, 2023. "Understanding and improving the language of business: How accounting and corporate reporting research can better serve business and society," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(6), pages 1089-1124, August.
    3. Tobias Witter & Thorsten Sellhorn & Jens Müller & Vicky Kiosse, 2022. "Balance sheet smoothing," Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers 0006, Berlin School of Economics.
    4. Thompson, Anne M., 2022. "Political connections and the SEC confidential treatment process," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1).
    5. Stephanie F. Cheng, 2021. "The Information Externality of Public Firms’ Financial Information in the State‐Bond Secondary Market," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 529-574, May.
    6. Sugata Roychowdhury & Suraj Srinivasan, 2019. "The Role of Gatekeepers in Capital Markets," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 295-322, May.
    7. Roychowdhury, Sugata & Shroff, Nemit & Verdi, Rodrigo S., 2019. "The effects of financial reporting and disclosure on corporate investment: A review," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(2).
    8. Christensen, Hans B. & Liu, Lisa Yao & Maffett, Mark, 2020. "Proactive financial reporting enforcement and shareholder wealth," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2).
    9. David B. Sutton & Carolyn J. Cordery & Tony Zijl, 2015. "The Purpose of Financial Reporting: The Case for Coherence in the Conceptual Framework and Standards," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 51(1), pages 116-141, March.
    10. Peter R. Demerjian & John Donovan & Chad R. Larson, 2016. "Fair Value Accounting and Debt Contracting: Evidence from Adoption of SFAS 159," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 1041-1076, September.
    11. Masaki KUSANO, 2022. "Recognition versus Disclosure and Managerial Discretion: Evidence from Japanese Pension Accounting," Discussion papers e-22-008, Graduate School of Economics , Kyoto University.
    12. Tong Lu & Konduru Sivaramakrishnan & Yanyan Wang & Lisheng Yu, 2021. "The Real Effects of Mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting in China," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(5), pages 1493-1516, May.
    13. Michel Magnan & Haiping Wang & Yaqi Shi(Sans nom), 2016. "Fair Value Accounting and the Cost of Debt," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-32, CIRANO.
    14. Cheng, Stephanie F. & De Franco, Gus & Lin, Pengkai, 2023. "Marijuana liberalization and public finance: A capital market perspective on the passage of medical use laws," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1).
    15. Michael Minnis & Nemit Shroff, 2017. "Why regulate private firm disclosure and auditing?," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(5), pages 473-502, July.
    16. Ying Zhou, 2022. "Proprietary Costs and Corporate Lobbying Against Changes in Mandatory Disclosure," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8483-8505, November.
    17. Darendeli, Alper & Fiechter, Peter & Hitz, Jörg-Markus & Lehmann, Nico, 2022. "The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) information in supply-chain contracting: Evidence from the expansion of CSR rating coverage," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2).
    18. Fargher, Neil & Wee, Marvin, 2019. "The impact of Ball and Brown (1968) on generations of research," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 55-72.
    19. Francesco Paolone & Fabrizio Granà & Laura Martiniello & Riccardo Tiscini, 2021. "Environmental risk indicators disclosure and value relevance: An empirical analysis of Italian listed companies after the implementation of the Legislative Decree 254/2016," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1471-1482, September.
    20. Miguel Duro & Jonas Heese & Gaizka Ormazabal, 2019. "The effect of enforcement transparency: Evidence from SEC comment-letter reviews," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 780-823, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jaecon:v:75:y:2023:i:2:s0165410122000787. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jae .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.