对中国政府会计制度改革的研究——从收付实现制到权责发生制
摘要
随着社会主义市场经济体制改革的不断深入，财政预算管理体制改革的逐步完善，以及政府职能的转变和政府对于财政风险防范意识的确立，现有的政府会计体系在会计核算和会计信息披露方面出现严重的不适应性。现行政府会计不能全面完整的反映政府的受托责任，无法客观真实的反映政府的财务活动和绩效状况，提供的会计信息也不能充分满足政府部门及政府信息使用者的需求。加入WTO后的中国面临着同其他国家的激烈竞争，如果不尽快解决政府会计面临的问题，势必影响我国的国际竞争力。在这样的内忧外患下，政府会计改革势在必行。
本文对现行政府会计面临的严重问题进行深入分析。研究发现对政府危害严重的“隐性债务”问题，是由于政府会计采用收付实现制会计核算基础造成的。收付实现制核算基础以现金的实际收付作为收入和支出确认基础，使得那些当期已经发生只是未以现金实际支付的债务不被确认为当期的预算支出，不在政府会计报表中体现，成为了政府隐性的债务。目前“隐性债务”主要表现在中央政府发行的中、长期国债带来的隐性债务，各级地方政府的隐性债务，社保基金缺口产生的隐性债务以及政府提供担保产生的隐性债务等方面。隐性债务带来的直接后果是低估财政支出，导致政府会计数据失真，影响政府部门的决策和信息使用者对政府业绩的评价。目前政府会计“实际赤字、账面结余”现象时有发生，通过分析得知这种结余并非政府的真实财政结余，只是由于收付实现制核算基础对应付未付款项不予核算和记录所带来的账面结余。这样的结余严重影响会计信息的真实性，为以后年度的财政预算资金安排带来误导。随着政府职能的转变，政府由关注投入转到关注其为社会提供的产品和服务的数量、质量
和价格等产出，现行的收付实现制核算基础由于不将收入与费用进行配比，也不进行成本核算，因而不能满足以产出和结果为导向的政府职能的需要。
我国政府会计面临的这些问题在西方国家的历史上也曾经出现过。当时在财政预算管理体制改革和以结果为导向的新公共管理改革的共同推动下，西方国家间掀起了一场政府会计和预算改革的浪潮。这些国家认为导致政府会计出现问题的根本症结在于收付实现制会计核算基础下提供的会计信息不能反映政府真实、全面的财务状况，不能满足新公共管理的需要，于是普遍采取用权责发生制代替收付实现制作为政府会计核算基础的改革思路。从1992年新西兰率先在政府会计中全面实施权责发生制至今，已有澳大利亚、英国、美国等20多个OECD成员国和马来西亚、斐济等非OECD成员国在不同层次的政府机构中运用权责发生制。这些国家的改革实践证明权责发生制能从根本上解决原有收付实现制的局限，提高政府对资源的有效管理，并提供充分、详实的会计信息作为评价政府绩效的基础。
在借鉴国外权责发生制改革经验的基础上，结合我国的具体国情，指出权责发生制可以解决我国目前政府会计面临的问题。但是从现有法律法规的规范程度、会计人员的自身能力素质以及所需的技术投入等角度考虑，现阶段还不具备全面推行权责发生制的条件。通过对改革成本和改革收益进行衡量，从稳定性和可行性的角度出发，本文建议采用循序渐进的改革方式，不动摇收付实现制的核算基础地位，在局部领域先期引入权责发生制核算基础。
本文对先期实行权责发生制改革的具体领域提出如下的改革建议：
1、对政府发行的国债及其还本付息项目和政府提供的贷款担保项目中已明确需由政府承担还款责任的项目等重大债务单独反映。采用权责发生制核算并记录债务负担，反映政府债务的真实成本, 并以会计报告附表或单设账户的形式披露。
2、对中央财政总预算中跨期支付事项和政府采购中普遍出现的跨期支付事项，建议采用权责发生制核算基础，通过“暂存款”科目核算当期应当支付而由于某些原因在当期未能支付现金的款项，以真实反映各期政府负担的财政支出责任。
3、采用权责发生制基础进行计量，并以适当的形式反映政府的隐性债务，将其合理量化和显性化。改革后能降低潜在的政府财政风险，准确的评价各届政府绩效。
4、将容易区分的经营性支出和资本性支出进行划分，在附表中反映资本性支出的真实成本，并采用权责发生制核算基础对固定资产计提折旧和预提修理费用。这样划分期间成本，为正确评价政府绩效提供保证。
China has ceaselessly made systematic reforms towards the goal of establishing a socialist market economy. The reform of financial budget is being perfected progressively. The conversion of governmental function makes good progress. And Chinese government takes precautions against financial risk. On the conditions, existing government accounting in measurement and disclosure appears serious inadaptability. Now government accounting can’t reflect the responsibility of government. The information about the performance of government activities can’t be disclosed fully in government accounting reports. And accounting information that be offered can’t meet the demand of government department and government information users fully. After entering into WTO, China is facing the keen competitions with other countries in the world. We must solve these problems of government accounting as soon as possible. If not, the problems will influence our international competitiveness. So we must reform our government accounting system immediately.
This paper analyses the serious problems that Chinese government accounting is facing now. The writer finds that cash basis is the origin of the “recessive debt” which dangerous government seriously. On the cash basis revenues are recognized when cash is received and deposited. Expenses are recorded in the accounting period when bills are paid. So the debt that took place at that time but not been paid at the same time is not recognized as the expenditure and not recorded on accounting report. Then the debt becomes governmental recessive one. At present there are many kinds of
recessive debts. For example some recessive debts are caused by the central government long-term treasury bonds or local governments at all levels brings. Others are caused by the shortfall of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF). These recessive debts lead to underestimate expenditures, cause government accounting information distortion, influence government decision and information users’ appraisal on the government performance. Recently the phenomenon of “actual deficit, book balance” often takes place in government accounting. After researching, we know this kind of balance is not the true budget balance of government, but the book balance caused by the foundation of cash basis that does not recognize and record those expenditures that should be paid but has not been paid in financial statement. Such balance will influence the authenticity of accounting information seriously, and mislead the arrangement of the budget funds during the year. With the transition of governmental function, government pays close attention to quantity, quality and price of service that is offered for society. Because cash basis neither matches revenue and expenditure nor checks the cost, it can’t meet the need of governmental function that takes output and result as orientation.
These problems that the government accounting of our country is facing have ever appeared in the history of the western countries. Drive in the reform of management system of financial budget and new public management that taking result as orientation, has raised the tide of government accounting and budget reforming among the western countries. Those countries believe the basic crux that government accounting goes wrong lies in cash basis. The information from cash basis can neither reflect the government financial situation nor meet the demands of new public management system. So they
replace cash basis by accrual basis as the foundation of government accounting. New Zealand took the lead in implementing accrual basis so far in an all- round way in governmental accounting since 1992. More than twenty OECD member states such as Australia, Britain, U.S.A, have also carry out accrual basis in government organs of the different levels. The reform practices of these countries prove that accrual basis can solve the limitation of cash basis fundamentally, improve the effective management on resources of the government, and offe
本文对现行政府会计面临的严重问题进行深入分析。研究发现对政府危害严重的“隐性债务”问题，是由于政府会计采用收付实现制会计核算基础造成的。收付实现制核算基础以现金的实际收付作为收入和支出确认基础，使得那些当期已经发生只是未以现金实际支付的债务不被确认为当期的预算支出，不在政府会计报表中体现，成为了政府隐性的债务。目前“隐性债务”主要表现在中央政府发行的中、长期国债带来的隐性债务，各级地方政府的隐性债务，社保基金缺口产生的隐性债务以及政府提供担保产生的隐性债务等方面。隐性债务带来的直接后果是低估财政支出，导致政府会计数据失真，影响政府部门的决策和信息使用者对政府业绩的评价。目前政府会计“实际赤字、账面结余”现象时有发生，通过分析得知这种结余并非政府的真实财政结余，只是由于收付实现制核算基础对应付未付款项不予核算和记录所带来的账面结余。这样的结余严重影响会计信息的真实性，为以后年度的财政预算资金安排带来误导。随着政府职能的转变，政府由关注投入转到关注其为社会提供的产品和服务的数量、质量
和价格等产出，现行的收付实现制核算基础由于不将收入与费用进行配比，也不进行成本核算，因而不能满足以产出和结果为导向的政府职能的需要。
我国政府会计面临的这些问题在西方国家的历史上也曾经出现过。当时在财政预算管理体制改革和以结果为导向的新公共管理改革的共同推动下，西方国家间掀起了一场政府会计和预算改革的浪潮。这些国家认为导致政府会计出现问题的根本症结在于收付实现制会计核算基础下提供的会计信息不能反映政府真实、全面的财务状况，不能满足新公共管理的需要，于是普遍采取用权责发生制代替收付实现制作为政府会计核算基础的改革思路。从1992年新西兰率先在政府会计中全面实施权责发生制至今，已有澳大利亚、英国、美国等20多个OECD成员国和马来西亚、斐济等非OECD成员国在不同层次的政府机构中运用权责发生制。这些国家的改革实践证明权责发生制能从根本上解决原有收付实现制的局限，提高政府对资源的有效管理，并提供充分、详实的会计信息作为评价政府绩效的基础。
在借鉴国外权责发生制改革经验的基础上，结合我国的具体国情，指出权责发生制可以解决我国目前政府会计面临的问题。但是从现有法律法规的规范程度、会计人员的自身能力素质以及所需的技术投入等角度考虑，现阶段还不具备全面推行权责发生制的条件。通过对改革成本和改革收益进行衡量，从稳定性和可行性的角度出发，本文建议采用循序渐进的改革方式，不动摇收付实现制的核算基础地位，在局部领域先期引入权责发生制核算基础。
本文对先期实行权责发生制改革的具体领域提出如下的改革建议：
1、对政府发行的国债及其还本付息项目和政府提供的贷款担保项目中已明确需由政府承担还款责任的项目等重大债务单独反映。采用权责发生制核算并记录债务负担，反映政府债务的真实成本, 并以会计报告附表或单设账户的形式披露。
2、对中央财政总预算中跨期支付事项和政府采购中普遍出现的跨期支付事项，建议采用权责发生制核算基础，通过“暂存款”科目核算当期应当支付而由于某些原因在当期未能支付现金的款项，以真实反映各期政府负担的财政支出责任。
3、采用权责发生制基础进行计量，并以适当的形式反映政府的隐性债务，将其合理量化和显性化。改革后能降低潜在的政府财政风险，准确的评价各届政府绩效。
4、将容易区分的经营性支出和资本性支出进行划分，在附表中反映资本性支出的真实成本，并采用权责发生制核算基础对固定资产计提折旧和预提修理费用。这样划分期间成本，为正确评价政府绩效提供保证。
China has ceaselessly made systematic reforms towards the goal of establishing a socialist market economy. The reform of financial budget is being perfected progressively. The conversion of governmental function makes good progress. And Chinese government takes precautions against financial risk. On the conditions, existing government accounting in measurement and disclosure appears serious inadaptability. Now government accounting can’t reflect the responsibility of government. The information about the performance of government activities can’t be disclosed fully in government accounting reports. And accounting information that be offered can’t meet the demand of government department and government information users fully. After entering into WTO, China is facing the keen competitions with other countries in the world. We must solve these problems of government accounting as soon as possible. If not, the problems will influence our international competitiveness. So we must reform our government accounting system immediately.
This paper analyses the serious problems that Chinese government accounting is facing now. The writer finds that cash basis is the origin of the “recessive debt” which dangerous government seriously. On the cash basis revenues are recognized when cash is received and deposited. Expenses are recorded in the accounting period when bills are paid. So the debt that took place at that time but not been paid at the same time is not recognized as the expenditure and not recorded on accounting report. Then the debt becomes governmental recessive one. At present there are many kinds of
recessive debts. For example some recessive debts are caused by the central government long-term treasury bonds or local governments at all levels brings. Others are caused by the shortfall of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF). These recessive debts lead to underestimate expenditures, cause government accounting information distortion, influence government decision and information users’ appraisal on the government performance. Recently the phenomenon of “actual deficit, book balance” often takes place in government accounting. After researching, we know this kind of balance is not the true budget balance of government, but the book balance caused by the foundation of cash basis that does not recognize and record those expenditures that should be paid but has not been paid in financial statement. Such balance will influence the authenticity of accounting information seriously, and mislead the arrangement of the budget funds during the year. With the transition of governmental function, government pays close attention to quantity, quality and price of service that is offered for society. Because cash basis neither matches revenue and expenditure nor checks the cost, it can’t meet the need of governmental function that takes output and result as orientation.
These problems that the government accounting of our country is facing have ever appeared in the history of the western countries. Drive in the reform of management system of financial budget and new public management that taking result as orientation, has raised the tide of government accounting and budget reforming among the western countries. Those countries believe the basic crux that government accounting goes wrong lies in cash basis. The information from cash basis can neither reflect the government financial situation nor meet the demands of new public management system. So they
replace cash basis by accrual basis as the foundation of government accounting. New Zealand took the lead in implementing accrual basis so far in an all- round way in governmental accounting since 1992. More than twenty OECD member states such as Australia, Britain, U.S.A, have also carry out accrual basis in government organs of the different levels. The reform practices of these countries prove that accrual basis can solve the limitation of cash basis fundamentally, improve the effective management on resources of the government, and offe
引文
陈胜群, 陈工孟, 高宁. 政府会计基础比较研究—传统的收付实现制与崛起的权责发生制，孰优孰劣？[J]. 会计研究, 2002, (5): 34-39.
陈立齐, 李建发. 国际政府会计准则及其发展评述[J]. 会计研究, 2003, (9): 49-52.
刘光忠. 改进我国预算会计制度的思考[J]. 会计研究, 2002,(1): 25-28.
陈志斌. 公共受托责任政治效应、经济效率与有效的政府会计[J]. 会计研究, 2003,(6): 37-39.
马翠荣, 余安志, 马庆宏. 关于改进我国预算会计核算基础的思考[J]. 财税与会计, 2003,(9): 25-26.
赵建勇. 关于中国预算会计若干问题的思考[J]. 上海财经大学学报, 2002,(4): 32-35.
陈工孟, 高宁, 陈胜群. 略论政府会计向权责发生制的转换[J]. 预算管理与会计, 2002,(2): 26 –27.
郭彤, 陈胜群, 陈工孟. 试论政府会计转换权责发生制的成因[J]. 预算管理与会计, 2002,(3): 37-39.
陈胜群, 陈工孟. 政府会计向权责发生制转换的前期准备工作[J]. 预算管理与会计, 2002, (7): 27-29.
陈胜群, 高宁, 郭彤. 政府会计收入与费用确认与计量问题研究[J]. 预算管理与会计, 2002,(11): 27-28.
陈胜群, 左龙佩兰, 高宁. 政府会计资产与负债确认和计量问题研究[J]. 预算管理与会计, 2002,(12): 35-36.
付芳. 关于完善我国部门预算改革的基本思路[J]. 山西财政税务专科学校学报, 2002,(4): 3-5.
冯淑萍.《试论构建我国现代政府会计体系》发言稿.
陈晓, 宋衍蘅. 西方国家政府会计的比较及其借鉴[J]. 会计研究, 2002,(9): 58-60.
周立宁. 关于财政国库管理制度改革后预算会计几个问题的思考[J]. 上海会计, 2002,(12): 19-20.
陈继初. 论政府会计引入权责发生制的必要性和可能性[J]. 事业财会, 2003,(3): 77-78.
张立秀. 初探政府会计方法之选择[J]. 山西财经,2003,(7): 14-16.
吴江. 从抗击SARS看政府职能转变[J]. 国家行政学院学报, 2003,(4): 8-10.
姚长, 郑于瑞. 对我国预算会计改革的思考[J]. 现代财经,
1995,(5): 39-41.
张跃旭. 我国政府会计引入权责发生制的思考[J]. 甘肃科技纵横, 2003,(4): 20 –21.
Charlie Tyer and Jennifer Willand. Public Budgeting in America：A Twentieth Century Retrospective [J]. Accounting & Financial Management, 1997, (summer): 189-219.
Katrin Spjinetta. Performance-based Funding and Budgeting [J]. NCRParameters, 1998, (October): 1-7.
Beryl A. Radin. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hudra-Headed Monster or Flexible Management Tools? [J]. Administration Review, 1998, (July/August): 307-315.
James R. Kautz, F. Ellen Netting, Ruth Huber, Kevin Borders, and Tamara S. Davis. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: Implication for Social Work Practice” [J]. Social Work, 1997, (July): 364-372.
Robert D.Lee. A Quarter Century of State Budgeting Practices [J]. Administration Review, 1997, ( March/April): 133-140.
Gao. Accrual Budgeting: experiences of other nations and implications for the United States [M]. 2000.
OECD. Governance in transition: Public management reforms in OECD counties [M]. 1995.
OECD. Accrual accounting and budgeting practices in member counties :Overview [M]. 2000.
Ian Ball, Tony Dale, and John Sacco. Reforming Financial Management in the public sector U.S Official can learn from New Zealand [J]. 1999, (May).
（30） 陈小悦, 陈立齐. 政府预算与会计改革——中国和西方国家模[M]. 中信出版社，2002: 57 –60, 27-35.
（31） 蒙丽珍. 预算会计[M]. 中国财政经济出版社, 1998: 17-24.
（32） 楼继伟. 政府预算与会计的未来——权责发生制改革纵览与探
[M]. 2001: 27 –41.
朱小平. 会计理论与方法研究[M]. 中国人民大学出版社,
2003: 43-57.
（34） 麦履康, 黄挹卿. 中国政府预算若干问题研究[M]. 中国金融
出版社, 1998: 386-410.
（35） 上海财经大学公共政策研究中心. 2003中国财政发展报告——重
建中国公共预算体系研究[M]. 上海财经大学出版社， 2003:
651-663.
陈立齐, 李建发. 国际政府会计准则及其发展评述[J]. 会计研究, 2003, (9): 49-52.
刘光忠. 改进我国预算会计制度的思考[J]. 会计研究, 2002,(1): 25-28.
陈志斌. 公共受托责任政治效应、经济效率与有效的政府会计[J]. 会计研究, 2003,(6): 37-39.
马翠荣, 余安志, 马庆宏. 关于改进我国预算会计核算基础的思考[J]. 财税与会计, 2003,(9): 25-26.
赵建勇. 关于中国预算会计若干问题的思考[J]. 上海财经大学学报, 2002,(4): 32-35.
陈工孟, 高宁, 陈胜群. 略论政府会计向权责发生制的转换[J]. 预算管理与会计, 2002,(2): 26 –27.
郭彤, 陈胜群, 陈工孟. 试论政府会计转换权责发生制的成因[J]. 预算管理与会计, 2002,(3): 37-39.
陈胜群, 陈工孟. 政府会计向权责发生制转换的前期准备工作[J]. 预算管理与会计, 2002, (7): 27-29.
陈胜群, 高宁, 郭彤. 政府会计收入与费用确认与计量问题研究[J]. 预算管理与会计, 2002,(11): 27-28.
陈胜群, 左龙佩兰, 高宁. 政府会计资产与负债确认和计量问题研究[J]. 预算管理与会计, 2002,(12): 35-36.
付芳. 关于完善我国部门预算改革的基本思路[J]. 山西财政税务专科学校学报, 2002,(4): 3-5.
冯淑萍.《试论构建我国现代政府会计体系》发言稿.
陈晓, 宋衍蘅. 西方国家政府会计的比较及其借鉴[J]. 会计研究, 2002,(9): 58-60.
周立宁. 关于财政国库管理制度改革后预算会计几个问题的思考[J]. 上海会计, 2002,(12): 19-20.
陈继初. 论政府会计引入权责发生制的必要性和可能性[J]. 事业财会, 2003,(3): 77-78.
张立秀. 初探政府会计方法之选择[J]. 山西财经,2003,(7): 14-16.
吴江. 从抗击SARS看政府职能转变[J]. 国家行政学院学报, 2003,(4): 8-10.
姚长, 郑于瑞. 对我国预算会计改革的思考[J]. 现代财经,
1995,(5): 39-41.
张跃旭. 我国政府会计引入权责发生制的思考[J]. 甘肃科技纵横, 2003,(4): 20 –21.
Charlie Tyer and Jennifer Willand. Public Budgeting in America：A Twentieth Century Retrospective [J]. Accounting & Financial Management, 1997, (summer): 189-219.
Katrin Spjinetta. Performance-based Funding and Budgeting [J]. NCRParameters, 1998, (October): 1-7.
Beryl A. Radin. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hudra-Headed Monster or Flexible Management Tools? [J]. Administration Review, 1998, (July/August): 307-315.
James R. Kautz, F. Ellen Netting, Ruth Huber, Kevin Borders, and Tamara S. Davis. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: Implication for Social Work Practice” [J]. Social Work, 1997, (July): 364-372.
Robert D.Lee. A Quarter Century of State Budgeting Practices [J]. Administration Review, 1997, ( March/April): 133-140.
Gao. Accrual Budgeting: experiences of other nations and implications for the United States [M]. 2000.
OECD. Governance in transition: Public management reforms in OECD counties [M]. 1995.
OECD. Accrual accounting and budgeting practices in member counties :Overview [M]. 2000.
Ian Ball, Tony Dale, and John Sacco. Reforming Financial Management in the public sector U.S Official can learn from New Zealand [J]. 1999, (May).
（30） 陈小悦, 陈立齐. 政府预算与会计改革——中国和西方国家模[M]. 中信出版社，2002: 57 –60, 27-35.
（31） 蒙丽珍. 预算会计[M]. 中国财政经济出版社, 1998: 17-24.
（32） 楼继伟. 政府预算与会计的未来——权责发生制改革纵览与探
[M]. 2001: 27 –41.
朱小平. 会计理论与方法研究[M]. 中国人民大学出版社,
2003: 43-57.
（34） 麦履康, 黄挹卿. 中国政府预算若干问题研究[M]. 中国金融
出版社, 1998: 386-410.
（35） 上海财经大学公共政策研究中心. 2003中国财政发展报告——重
建中国公共预算体系研究[M]. 上海财经大学出版社， 2003:
651-663.