Provisions of AAS 27 significantly expanding the recognition of assets in local government financial statements have proven to be controversial, particularly through their application to items of infrastructure. In one instance, state legislation was amended to overrule the standard. More recently, the standard itself has been amended to extend the relevant transitional provisions. To assist in explaining why an accounting issue ostensibly resolved through the due process of standard‐setting continues to generate controversy, the responses to the exposure draft (ED 50) that preceded the standard were reviewed and analysed. This led to the conclusion that any inference that respondents to ED 50 generally supported the proposals relating to accounting for infrastructure items is, at best, problematic. This paper provides insights to standard‐setting processes, particularly the workings of the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board and the extent of its responsiveness to parties affected by its deliberations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carnegie et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: