Consequences of the Failure to Account for Externalities

  • Martin Freedman
  • A. J. Stagliano


In many ways the conventional accounting and reporting model is limited by its focus on private costs and benefits. Inclusion of only these factors is, to some degree, a reflection of a reliance on traditional micro-economic theory for the underpinnings of accountancy. A justification for much of the current accounting model is its relationship to this theory.1 This supposedly value-free functional structural world view has recently come under increasing criticism, but it continues to represent the ‘mainstream’ status quo position of accountancy today.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc., et al. v. Raymond Donovan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, et al., 101 S.Ct. 2478 (1981).Google Scholar
  2. Batstone, E., ‘Systems of Domination, Accommodation and Industrial Democracy’, in T. R. Burns and V. Rus (eds) Work and Power (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1979).Google Scholar
  3. Burkhead, J. and J. Miner, Public Expenditure (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1971).Google Scholar
  4. Chua, W. F., ‘Radical Developments in Accounting Thought’, The Accounting Review (1986), pp. 601–32.Google Scholar
  5. Coase, R., ‘The Problem of Social Cost’, Journal of Law and Economics (1960), pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, D. J. and M. J. Sherer, ‘The Value of Corporate Accounting Reports: Arguments for a Political Economy of Accounting’, Accounting, Organizations and Society (1984), pp. 207–32.Google Scholar
  7. Kuhn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (University of Chicago Press, 1970).Google Scholar
  8. Lakatos, I., ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge University Press, 1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Laughlin, R. C., ‘A Comment on “Accounting and the Exportation of Externalities”’, paper presented at the Interdisciplinary Perspectives in Accounting Conference (University of Manchester, 1985).Google Scholar
  10. McHarg, J. L., ‘Values, Process, and Form’, in W. Johnson and J. Hardesty (eds), Economic Growth and the Environment (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1971).Google Scholar
  11. Mansfield, E., The Economics of Technological Change (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1968).Google Scholar
  12. Mansfield, E., Microeconomics: Theory and Applications (New York: W. W. Norton, 1970).Google Scholar
  13. Mathews, M. R., ‘Towards Multiple Justifications for Social Accounting and Strategies for Acceptance’, Discussion Paper Series No. 35 (Massey University, 1985).Google Scholar
  14. McHarg, I. L., ‘Values, Process and Forum’, in Fitness of Man’s Environment, Smithsonian Annual II: Papers Delivered at the Smithsonian Institution Annual Symposium (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1968) pp. 207–27.Google Scholar
  15. Mishan, E. J., Economics for Social Decisions: Elements of Cost-Benefit Analysis (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1973).Google Scholar
  16. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Occupational Exposure to Cotton Dust (Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1974).Google Scholar
  17. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Cotton Dust: Technological Feasibility Assessment and Final Inflationary Impact Statement (Washington: US Government Printing Office, 1976).Google Scholar
  18. O’Leary, T., ‘Observations on Corporate Financial Reporting in the Name of Politics’, Accounting, Organizations and Society (1985), pp. 87–102.Google Scholar
  19. Ratliff, J. R. and B. D. Merino, ‘Administrative Theory Versus Interest Group Pluralism — An Analysis of Alternative Public Interest Frameworks’, paper presented at the American Accounting Association Annual Meeting (New Orleans, 1983).Google Scholar
  20. Shue, H., ‘Exporting Hazards’, in P. G. Brown and H. Shue (eds), Boundaries: National Autonomy and Its Limits (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1981).Google Scholar
  21. Solomons, D., ‘The Politicization of Accounting’, The Journal of Accountancy (1978), pp. 65–72.Google Scholar
  22. Stigler, G. J., The Theory of Price, 3rd edn. (New York: Macmillan, 1966).Google Scholar
  23. Tinker, A. M., Paper Prophets (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985).Google Scholar
  24. Tinker, A. M., B. D. Merino, and M. D. Neimark, ‘The Normative Origins of Positive Theories’, Accounting, Organizations and Society (1982), pp. 167–200.Google Scholar
  25. Wallerstein, I., The Modern-World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Academic Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  26. Watts, R. L. and J. L. Zimmerman, ‘Towards a Positive Theory of the Determination of Accounting Standards’, The Accounting Review (1978), pp. 112–34.Google Scholar
  27. Worsley, P., ‘One World or Three? A Critique of the World-System Theory of Immanuel Wallerstein’, in R. Miliband and J. Saville (eds), The Socialist Register (London: Merlin Press, 1980).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© David J. Cooper & Trevor M. Hopper 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Freedman
  • A. J. Stagliano

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations