Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Explanatory study examines single-entry bookkeeping's effectiveness for decision-making in a mining firm.
Purpose This paper examines the accounting system used by the Real Compañía Asturiana de Minas during its purely mining stage (1833–1853). It studies whether single-entry bookkeeping, supported by auxiliary records, could satisfy the information needs of partners and managers in a relatively large firm with few owners and no bank financing. Design/methodology/approach An explanatory study was conducted using primary evidence from the company's Historical Archive. Accounting books were identified and examined, including the prime entry book, general ledger, letter-copying books and several auxiliary records. Practices were assessed against the requirements of the 1829 Spanish Commercial Code, and the relationships between books and the usefulness of the recorded information for decision-making were evaluated. Findings The company relied on a single-entry system with a double-page layout in key books and extensive use of auxiliary ledgers for cash control, purchases, wages and coal movements. Despite inconsistencies and incomplete coordination between the prime entry book and the general ledger, as well as the absence of a trial balance and a complete inventory book, the system produced information useful for stakeholders. This included cash control, client monitoring, sales seasonality, product-grade pricing and broad operating results. Evidence suggests that accounting data supported the 1852 suspension of operations following renewed losses. Research limitations/implications Incomplete double-entry features and missing or partial records limit verification and full financial reconstruction. Originality/value The paper provides rare archival evidence of early nineteenth-century Spanish industrial accounting. It shows how single-entry bookkeeping remained relevant for decision-making under specific governance and financing conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lorca-Fernández et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: