Marilyn Neimark

The normative origins of positive theories: Ideology and accounting thought☆

Abstract “Positive”, “descriptive” and “empirical” theories are frequently promoted as being more realistic, factual and relevant than normative approaches. This paper argues that “positive” or “empirical” theories are also normative and value-laden in that they usually mask a conservative ideological bias in their accounting policy implications. We argue that labels such as “positive” and “empirical” emanate from a Realist theory of knowledge; a wholly inadequate epistemological basis for a social science. We use an alternative philosophical position (of Historical Materialism) together with a historical review of the concept of value to illustrate first, the partisan role played by theories and theoreticians in questions concerning social control, social conflict and social order; second, the ideologically conservative underpinnings of positive accounting theories; and last, some indications of alternative (radical) approaches to accounting policy.

Falling down the Hole in the Middle of the Road: Political Quietism in Corporate Social Reporting

This article critiques “middle‐of‐the‐road” approaches to corporate social reporting and their cautions against radicalising the subject. The historicity of the concept of middle ground is challenged philosophically, politically and socially, by suggesting that its foundations reside in relativism, quietism and pluralism. A counter‐theory is proposed: that the middle ground is a contested terrain that shifts over time with social struggles and conflicts. This proposition is supported by a periodisation analysis of five theoretical themes or trends in the last 30 years of US social responsibility accounting: the Brilovian Critique, the Caring Society Critique, the Caring Market Critique, the Market Re‐regulation Critique, and the Radical Critique. Even if adherence to the middle ground is deemed desirable, it requires a social analysis of the concrete circumstances of each period – today′s middle ground cannot be extrapolated into the future.

Disclosure regulation and public policy a sociohistorical reappraisal

This study questions contemporary precepts concerning the SECs disclosure system as being both ahistorical and asocial. The authors suggest that disclosure was but one of several modes for resolving the contradiction between an individualistic, market-based public philosophy and increasing economic concentration and centralization. When understood in these terms, the securities acts are seen not as fundamental changes in public policy but as part of an ongoing attempt to maintain an ideological, social, and economic status quo.

Identity and Non-Identity Thinking: Dialectical Critique of the Transaction Cost Theory of the Modern Corporation

Identity thinking is the dominant mode of thinking in the management and social sciences. This paper contends that identity thinking is a mode of reasoning that contains certain inherent biases that inevitably lead to a partisan construal of the management research agenda. The prejudicial tendencies of identity thinking are prevalent in Chandlers and Williamsons theories of the origins and evolution of the modern corporation. We use the theories both to highlight the operation of identity thinking, and to introduce an alternative: Adornos negative dialectics.

Displacing the Corporation with Deconstructionism and Dialectics

In 1932 Berle and Means observed that corporations were growing so large, and their ownership so diversified, that their managers could no longer be assumed to serve the interests of the shareholders; ownership and control were becoming disconnected. Their observations raised important questions of public policy: if management is autonomous from ownership, should that autonomy be allowed to persist? And if not, in whose interest should corporations be regulated, the shareholders or some broader social constituency? Berle and Means’s concerns periodically recur in the social accounting, management and economics literature and in the political arena (for example, debates over US anti-trust policy, plant closings, and regulations concerning employment, employee health and safety, consumer product safety, pollution and so on).