Regulatory competition among accounting standards within and across international boundaries
Most financial reporting jurisdictions across the world allow a local monopoly in financial reporting standards for publicly held corporation. In the United States, for example, the statutory authority over these standards is vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission, who delegates the task of writing standards to the Financial Accounting Standards Board, retaining an oversight function for itself. In some countries these standards are specified through statutes in varying levels of detail. Few countries permit their corporations to choose among two or more sets of competing standards; monopoly is the reigning norm. This paper examines regulatory competition as a model for writing and implementing corporate financial standards. Under this model, two or more approved standard-setting bodies are allowed to compete for the allegiance of the reporting entities. Each corporation can choose which of the two or more sets of competing standards it wishes to use in preparing its financial reports. Corporations must choose an entire set of standards in toto, clearly mark the reports with the set of standards used to prepare them, and pay a fee to the body who wrote the standards. We examine the consequences of such regulatory competition for the quality and efficiency of standards, quality of information provided to shareholders and other interested parties, and the efficiency of corporate governance
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Shyam NMI Sunder & Ronald A. Dye, 2001. "Why Not Allow the FASB and IASB Standards to Compete in the U.S.?," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm192, Yale School of Management.
- Titman, Sheridan & Trueman, Brett, 1986. "Information quality and the valuation of new issues," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 159-172, June.
- Plott, Charles R. & Sunder, Shyam., .
"Rational Expectations and the Aggregation of Diverse Information in Laboratory Security Markets,"
463, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Plott, Charles R & Sunder, Shyam, 1988. "Rational Expectations and the Aggregation of Diverse Information in Laboratory Security Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1085-1118, September.
- Huddart, Steven & Hughes, John S. & Brunnermeier, Markus, 1999.
"Disclosure requirements and stock exchange listing choice in an international context,"
Journal of Accounting and Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 26(1-3), pages 237-269, January.
- John S. Hughes & Steven Huddart & Markus K Brunnermeier, 1998. "Disclosure Requirements and Stock Exchange Listing Choice in an International Context," FMG Discussion Papers dp282, Financial Markets Group.
- Datar, Srikant M. & Feltham, Gerald A. & Hughes, John S., 1991. "The role of audits and audit quality in valuing new issues," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-49, March.
- Dodd, Peter & Leftwich, Richard, 1980. "The Market for Corporate Charters: "Unhealthy Competition versus Federal Regulation."," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 259-83, July.
- Gode, Dhananjay K & Sunder, Shyam, 1993. "Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero-Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 119-37, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jappol:v:21:y:2002:i:3:p:219-234. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.