286.F捷开通讯公司的税务筹划探讨 外文推荐.docVIP

Positive Accounting Theory and Science Md Humayun Kabir Senior Lecturer Faculty of Business Auckland University of Technology Auckland, New Zealand Abstract: This paper examines the development of positive accounting theory (PAT) and compares it with three standard accounts of science- Popper (1959), Kuhn (1996) and Lakatos (1970). PAT has been one of the most influential accounting research programs during the last four decades. One important comparison to which Watts and Zimmerman (1986) have appealed to popularize and legitimize their approach is that their view of accounting theory is the same as that in science. Thus, it is important to examine how far accounting could have been studied in the mould of science and how the development of PAT compares with the three standard accounts of science. Such a comparison will enhance our understanding of how PAT progressed over the last decades and what methodological gaps remain. This paper shows that there are some limits to the study of accounting in the mould of natural science. Furthermore, the methodological position conforms to none of the standard accounts of science. Rather it contains elements of all three. Finally, it identifies some methodological gaps in PAT. Keywords: Positive Accounting Theory, Science, Methodology, Philosophy of Science, Methodological Controversies 1. Introduction This paper examines the development of positive accounting theory (hereinafter PAT) and compares it with three standard accounts of science. There is some confusion about what PAT is. If the definition of accounting theory (i.e., accounting theory seeks to explain and predict accounting and auditing practice) given in Watts and Zimmerman’s (W Z) 1986 book is taken to mean PAT, studies of accounting choices and auditing practices constitute PAT. This theory is discussed in Chapters 8-14 of W Z (1986). At the same time, W Z (1986: 1) also say that their book seeks to explain the economics-based empirical literature in account