Cheryl S. McWatters

ACCOUNTING REPRESENTATION AND THE SLAVE TRADE: THE GUIDE DU COMMERCE OF GAIGNAT DE L'AULNAIS

The Guide du commerce occupies a distinctive place in the French-language literature on accounting. Passed over by most specialists in the history of maritime trade and the slave trade, the manual has never been the subject of a documented historical study. The apparent realism of the examples, the luxury of details and their precision, all bear witness to a deep concern to go beyond a simple apprenticeship in bookkeeping. Promoting itself essentially as “un guide du commerce,” the volume offers strategic examples for small local businesses, as well as for those engaged in international trade. Yet, the realism also demonstrated the expertise of the author in the eyes of potential purchasers. Inspired by the work of Bottin [2001], we investigate the extent to which the manual reflects real-world practices and provides a faithful glimpse into the socio-economic context of the period. Two additional questions are discussed briefly in our conclusion. First, can the work of Gaignat constitute a source document...

Merchant networks and accounting discourse: the role of accounting transactions in network relations

Adopting an archival-based, historical methods approach to the study of eighteenth-century merchant trading networks, we analyse base accounting transactions to demonstrate how accounting discourse was a critical conduit via which these commercial networks developed and were sustained. This study contributes to the extant literature on the place of social networks in fostering the growth of merchant capitalism by introducing the crucial role of accounting in this process. The use of social network analysis is novel in accounting history and reinforces the value of a combined qualitative–quantitative approach to historical studies of accounting.

Family Business Development in Mainland China: From 1872 to 1949

Abstract This study reviews family business in mainland China from 1872 to 1949 and provides evidence of its early development and its origins in 1872 when the first modern manufacturing firm was founded. We analyse the social, economic, and political environment in which family firms in mainland China were embedded to improve our understanding of how this unique organisational form was established and developed. Our analyses cover the late Qing Dynasty and the period from 1912 to 1949 during which the Republic of China (ROC) ruled mainland China. Implications for current family business theory and practice are discussed.

Speculation, history, speculative history

Speculations, conjectures, suppositions, opinions – we encounter them all in history and everyday life. Yet do speculations land us chiefly in the realm of Carr’s ‘parlour games’ and ‘mighthave-been’s’? To what extent does our historical reasoning admit multiple possibilities of what might have occurred at a point in time? When offering explanations and interpretations of events, actions, and processes, we make such claims through the use of selective evidence, choosing to pursue one angle over another, one alternative over other ones that might not fit as harmoniously with what we consider plausible possibilities. Our willingness to accept one explanation over another or our decision to accept several possible explanations at the same time are linked to our ‘ability to accept the rationality of the unobserved’ (Okasha 2000, 693) and emphasise our bounded rationality. From inference to the best explanation may seem like child’s play but it also grounds much of what we do as historians (Gelfert 2010; van der Dussen 2016). The question of the validity or goodness of an explanation relates to broader questions of historical judgement and the philosophy of historiography. The concept of a best explanation can be interpreted usefully in terms of Lipton’s concept of loveliness versus likeliness of an explanation (Lipton [1991] 2004; Bird 2010; van der Dussen 2016). When choosing between potential explanations, Lipton outlines two stages. First, we filter out explanations that are less plausible from all others that we have imagined or developed. Next, we examine the remaining potential explanations and rank them according to our evaluation of explanatory goodness.

Management Accounting in a Dynamic Environment

Why Accounting is Important in Organizations. Cost Behavior and Activity Costs. Measuring and Analyzing Product Costs. Managing Activities. Managing Organizations. Decentralized Organizations. Budgeting. Cost Allocations. Absorption Costing Systems. Variable Costing and Capacity Costs. Standard Costs and Variance Analysis. Short-Term Decisions and Constraints. Investment Decisions. Management Accounting In Agile Organizations. Answers to Organizational Analyses. Answers to Concepts Reviews.

Historical accounts, conversations and contexts

Three years ago, my predecessor’s inaugural editorial in Accounting History Review (Walker 2011) outlined the decision to refocus Accounting, Business and Financial History (ABFH) as Accounting History Review (AHR). At the time, it was judged a bold step with certain scholars interpreting the name change as a narrowing of the journal’s ambit. To the contrary, this refocus has recognised the increasing maturity and vitality of our discipline. The resulting broadening of AHR’s scope has also inspired historical research and writing that push and extend the boundaries of time and space. We have seen the encouraging connection of accounting history with emerging areas of scholarship, and with the intellectual interests of other disciplines and research domains. Three years later, we can reflect on this decision and its impacts with quiet satisfaction and evidence of positive achievement and outcomes. When journal rankings and journal quality (two items that are not, by definition, necessarily synonymous) are highly contested by researchers, university administrators and research funding agencies, AHR has established its disciplinary leadership. I assume the journal editorship, therefore, with gratitude for the heavy lifting undertaken by my predecessor, Professor Stephen Walker. While a new editor brings customary changes in terms of editorial style and sensibilities, nonetheless important continuities remain. Quiet satisfaction cannot translate into complacency. We have yet to achieve a level of maturity in our publishing patterns such that we can sit back and rest on past laurels. AHR will continue to seek out and to privilege historical accounts which inform and are informed by broader historiographical debates and cross-disciplinary engagement. This preferential shift acknowledges that accounting history is no longer a discipline primarily centred inwardly on how accounting’s past demonstrates present-day utility, but a history that looks outwardly into novel directions and into arenas with which accounting interacts, and which presumes without hesitation, accounting’s embeddedness within a multi-faceted institutional and social context. The first months of my editorship have included considerable time to review and re-read past issues of ABFH and AHR, and to take note of trends with respect to prevalent topics, theoretical persuasions and research methodologies. While trends and themes have emerged, dominated, changed and resurfaced over time, clear evidence exists of AHR’s consistency with respect to highquality scholarship that challenges our disciplinary boundaries of what is ‘accounting history’. Indeed, accounting history, especially for those who are not engaged in historical research, conjures up fascination for double-entry ledgers, counting houses and a frequent propensity for historicism. While the divisive debates of the 1990s about the new and old accounting history

Indeed, ‘they do things differently there’

‘Why study the past? Those of us who pursue historical research or teach courses in history will not be lost for a response to this question. It is a question frequently posed to authors who submit manuscripts, re-phrased more pointedly as ‘why is your study of interest?’ At some stage, every researcher must respond with more than ‘because it is’. One might respond with citation counts, downloads and the ‘impact’ metrics that litter the research landscape as indicators of value and interest. On a more basic level, the response to ‘why history’ is dynamic as we confront and navigate the past. In his introduction to The Past is a Foreign Country – Revisited, David Leventhal (2015) discusses how the past became foreign, arguing that until recently – in historical terms – historians viewed the past as something ‘as though just then occurring (p. 6)’. As Leventhal notes, ‘the past ain’t what it used to be (p.9).’ Indeed, our own discipline and this journal bear witness to this truism. Nonetheless, where dynamism exists, there is also continuity. History may interface with other disciplines, adopt and adapt theories from areas of social science, dabble (or more than dabble) with Cliometrics, but it remains history. We can look to the many hyphenated histories, some of which have come and gone, been transformed or drifted in and out of fashion. Patrick Manning (2003) has expressed thoughtful optimism about history’s continuity amidst on-going debates, change and innovation. In this issue, we have studies which represent the diversity of our scholarship and the space for such diversity within our journal. In their examination of community building amidst the amalgamation of Milan and Corpi Santi, Enrico Guarini, Francesca Magli and Alberto Nobolo demonstrate how accounting change and innovation took place due to external forces but also underscore the role played by internal actors engaged in this institutionalisation process. When discussing this study with the author team, I suggested that they reflect on their conclusion. While I am not a huge proponent of ‘lessons for today’, it was a question that I asked them to contemplate. The final paragraph of their study encapsulates their response. Its emphasis on community building in light of efforts to restrict boundaries and borders is a thoughtful commentary and one which makes their study all the more relevant in current circumstances. In a very different study, Martin E. Persson and Stephan Fafatas bring renewed and welcome attention to the work of Harold C. Edey, thanks to a chance encounter in the archive, specifically Edey’s one-act play used to explore the issues of profit determination during periods of changing prices. The play is of interest on many levels from its treatment of on-going issues of accounting measurement, its innovative pedagogy, and as a reminder of how accounting theory and ‘big questions’ do matter – elements that appear lost in the current training of accounting (doctoral) students. The study has benefitted from engagement with Edey’s colleagues and former students, enabling the authors to take advantage of their insights and perspectives on both Edey and the development of accounting thought, in particular with respect to the place of the London School of Economics and Political Science in this development in the period following World War II.

Historians but not necessarily so

Recently, I was asked to take part in a conference panel entitled ‘Historians but not necessarily so’. While the intentions of the organisers remain uncertain, it was clear that the panel members interpreted this title as rather condescending – the organisers did not deem ‘we panellists’ to be real historians! All of us had pursued graduate studies in history, work primarily in the history of a specific discipline – accounting, management, nursing, education, performing arts – yet judged to be outsiders, one of those hyphenated historians. This outsider status results from the fact that we do not presently find ourselves situated in departments of history. Moreover, we frequently publish in journals that are discipline based. By the end of the session and from comments thereafter, it was reassuring to learn that we had opened a few eyes, perhaps broken down some disciplinary walls and stereotypes, and even fostered interest in our respective specialties. From another angle, we might ask ourselves as ‘accounting historians’ how often we make concrete and determined efforts to move beyond our disciplinary boundaries and engage with historians in other areas of the academy, whether in departments of history or other disciplinary homes. Furthermore, how warm is our welcome to those whose investigations examine issues and topics that make use of accounting materials and data but which are not what some of us consider to be the history of accounting. It is clear that opinions are diverse on the extent to which research in accounting history must make some tie, explicit or tangential, to the development of the accounting profession and techniques. While many – likely most – of us have been adept and creative in our borrowings from other disciplines, particularly social theory, we have less frequently engaged in interdisciplinary work with scholars not part of the accounting milieu. The infiltration of these scholars into our conferences and journals has received mixed reaction, particularly when these researchers challenge our preconceived notions with disciplinary debates and theoretical perspectives which are not our own or with which we are less familiar. I should note, however, that accounting historians have been less isolated than others in terms of strong links forged with business and economic history, including members of the Accounting History Review (AHR) editorial board. Bringing theories and approaches from other disciplines into our research has become standard operating procedure for us. We also are rather catholic in our borrowings, adopting the perspective or approach considered best suited to the research question at hand. Studies, which ground their analyses in social and economic theories (amongst others), are no longer the exception but rather the rule, especially for those who seek novel ways to examine old and long-standing questions and debates. Indeed, members of our editorial board are recognised well beyond the accounting academy for their expertise in a variety of theoretical approaches and their scholarly application. Our editorial board also deliberately includes scholars whose disciplinary and research expertise extends well beyond the history of accounting to include other areas of history, accounting and management.