This article catalogues the scores of profiles of accounting programs at U.S. and some non-U.S. universities published between 1957 and 1983 in the house organs of the audit firm of Arthur Andersen & Co. It also alerts readers to the Faculty Personnel directories published every five years between 1925 and 1975 by the American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business and to James R. Hasselback's Accounting Faculty Directories which have been published since 1974-1975. All of these sources throw useful light on the early and contemporary evolution of the accounting programs.
Accounting practices evolve in response to changing historical, economic, and institutional contexts, particularly during periods of social and political transformation. Previous studies have typically framed accounting change as a consequence of external institutional pressures, while overlooking the internal dynamics and resource dependences that can lead to resistance to change. This study addresses this gap through a historical case analysis of a major charitable organization in pre-unification Italy, using process tracing and a mixed institutional and resource-dependence framework. The study offers three main contributions. First, it suggests that conflicting external reforms and internal demands can generate active resistance and that the pressure-and-resistance process can be cumulative. Second, it expands accounting historiography by examining the understudied context of pre-unification Italy and showing public-sector accounting spillover into private nonprofit organizations. Third, it offers insights for policymakers and standard-setters, emphasizing that reform effectiveness depends on its alignment with organizational identity, legitimacy, and stakeholder expectations.
This study explores the management and accountability practices of the Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore (OSMF) during the construction of the Florence Cathedral from 1353 to 1382. Voluntary reporting practices and the engagement of interested parties are investigated through archival research, providing insights into the governance of hybrid organizations in the Middle Ages. Funded by public resources, the OSMF navigated pressures from political and religious authorities by fostering transparency. The analysis underscores three aspects: (1) the role of interested parties, (2) the implementation of early workplace welfare measures, and (3) the evolution of accounting practices in response to institutional pressures. Using institutional and legitimacy theories, the OSMF reporting is revealed to be an administrative tool and a mechanism for securing legitimacy in this study. The findings contribute to the field of accounting history and enhance our understanding of governance dynamics in complex environments, providing valuable lessons for modern management.
More than a century has passed since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. The early Republic faced some of the most challenging economic periods. This study examines the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey's (CBRT's) monetary measures and their relationship with macroeconomic performance between 1933 and 1939. Using panel data and correlation heatmap analyses, the findings reveal strong positive relationships among gross domestic product (GDP), CBRT's monetary assets, liabilities, and gold reserves, suggesting that asset management supported economic growth. Price stability was a critical factor because rising price levels are correlated with slower growth and lower CBRT profits. The results highlight the role of the CBRT in balancing growth, liquidity, and stability during the formative years of Turkey's financial system, offering a promising outlook for the future.
This paper introduces a replicable protocol for dissecting scientific controversies in accounting history, adapting McMullin's (1987) "anatomy of scientific controversies" into an explicit sequence of analytic steps. Applying the protocol to the Chambers-Onida debate in the early 1970s shows that what looks like a technical disagreement about measurement bases is sustained by deeper epistemic and philosophical divergences, especially claims about the neutrality of scientific knowledge, the legitimacy of financial statement valuation, and the possibility of a univocal versus plural representation of economic reality. By systematically distinguishing between standard and nonstandard epistemic factors and nonepistemic conditions, the method situates the controversy within the scientific, cultural, and social environment of its time and supports historically congruent interpretive keys, thereby mitigating the risk of presentism. Ultimately, the protocol allows for reconstructing the factors that may lead a given controversy to end in resolution, closure, or abandonment.
