我国会计标准建设与国际协调问题研究
|
摘要
随着经济全球化时代的到来,国际协调已经成为我国会计标准建设中不可回避的重要问题。截至2004年7月,国内相关课题项目已完成对我国会计标准(CAS)和国际财务报告准则(IFRS)差异的研究,下一步的科研任务是为即将进入的“实质”协调阶段做好准备。目前,国内会计界人士已经达成的共识是:我国会计标准建设不是被动和全盘接受IFRS,而是根据我国实际情况,争取主动、逐步与IFRS协调的过程。但是,具体该如何协调,仍存在一些悬而未决,但又迫切需要解决的问题,例如,我国会计标准的国际协调中存在哪些瓶颈问题?如果根据IFRS修改CAS,将会产生怎样的潜在影响?如何准确判断对某项会计标准差异是加以保留、中和、还是修正?本文正是以此为主要研究内容,在已有研究成果的基础上,通过对会计标准建设与国际协调中的变迁路径分析,和对CAS与IFRS差异的深入剖析,提供解决上述问题的思路。这对推进我国会计标准建设、顺利实现与IFRS的协调、扩大对外开放和争取我国在国际经济中的合理利益,都具有较强的实际意义和理论意义。
科学地认识相关的背景、历史和存在的问题,是合理推进我国会计标准建设与国际协调的前提。二十多年来,国际协调在我国会计标准建设的历程中一直占据重要地位,我国会计标准国际协调取得的进展是有目共睹的。但随着我国加入WTO和经济对外依存度越来越高,在资本跨国流动、国际贸易发展、跨国公司经营效率要求和国际性机构组织的推动下,我国进一步深化会计标准建设与国际协调的任务日显紧迫。与此同时,IASB在本世纪初完成了战略重组,于国际会计准则公告前言(2002)中明确提出推动“该准则在世界范围内被接受和遵循”的目标。随着越来越多的国家和地区与IASB展开合作,已经采用、允许采用或承诺采用IFRS,这一目标正逐步得到实现。在这种全球范围内会计标准协调的浪潮中,我国已将CAS建设的基本目标定位为:在立足我国国情和我国会计环境的情况下,除了与我国的法律法规存在冲突或明显不切合我国实际的情况之外,努力促使我国会计标准与国际财务报告准则相协调或者一致(冯淑萍,2003)。但是,在这一过程中,存在阻碍国际协调进一步深化的四个瓶颈问题:一是会计标
Along with the coming of the economic globalization times, international accounting standards harmonization has already become an unavoidable important problem for our accounting standards construction. Up to July 2004, the related domestic researching projects have completed the researches on the differences between the CAS (Chinese Accounting Standards) and the IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards), and the following main researching task is to prepare for the substantive harmonization between the CAS and the IFRS. Now, the common ground having already been reached is that the construction of Chinese accounting standards is not a process to accept the IFRS passively and completely but a process to harmonize with the IFRS actively and step by step. However, there are still some urgent problems that are not resolved, for example, what are the bottle-necks in our accounting standards' international harmonization? What are the latent influences if we modify the CAS according to the IFRS? How to decide accurately whether we should remain, mix or modify the differences between the CAS and the IFRS? This paper is just the research on these questions. Based on the existing literature, this paper provides the answers through the analysis of the path of accounting standards construction and international harmonization, and through the thoroughly study of the specific differences between the CAS and the IFRS. It is important for promoting our accounting standards construction, for realizing the international harmonization with the IFRS, for expanding the opening policy to the foreign countries, and for obtaining our reasonable profits in the international economy.The premise of discussing this topic is to understand the relevant background, history and problems of the CAS construction and international harmonization. For more than twenty years, the international harmonization has been significant during our construction of accounting standards, and the obvious progress has been gained. However, promoting further the international harmonization of our accounting
standards is urgent under the force of international capital flowing, the development of international trade, the demand of TNCs on operating efficiency and the requirement of international organizations. In addition, the IASB completed its strategic reorganization at the beginning of this century, and declared that they would promote the IFRS to be accepted and followed in the world. Since then, a new leaf has been turned over for the international accounting harmonization. More and more countries and districts have cooperated with the IASB. They have accepted the IFRS, or have permitted the use of the IFRS, or have committed to accept the IFRS. Under the circumstances of global accounting standards harmonization, we set up the primary goal of our accounting standards construction as the following: on the basis of the primary environment and accounting environment of our country, we should try to promote the harmonization between the CAS and the IFRS except for those conflicting with our laws and regulations obviously (Feng-Shuping, 2003). However, to gain this goal, we must understand and resolve the four bottle necks that prevent the progress of our international harmonization with the IFRS: firstly, the conflict between international harmonization and the special characteristics of the Chinese environment; secondly, the negative economic results that will be caused if we modify the CAS according to the IFRS; thirdly, the conflict among countries during the process of international accounting standards harmonization; fourthly, whether the IFRS is high quality or not.Around these problems, this paper gives the literature review, and combed the conclusions of the researches on the construction and international harmonization of accounting standards, from which we can get some revelations. For example, as a developing country, China must consider the difference of the accounting environment during the harmonization with the IFRS; the net reporting profit is descending with a lower degree when the domestic B-stock companies adopt IFRS, which implies that the negative economic results of harmonization are decreasing; the IFRS can supply no more information than the present CAS, etc. As a whole, however, the current researches cannot answer all the questions above satisfactorily. Therefore,
this paper comes back to the nature of accounting standards, and points out that the nature of accounting standards is an institution. Based on this point, this paper discusses the CAS construction and international harmonization by the theory of institutional economics, and proposes the "Path—analyzing Approach" to the research of relevant problemsFrom the view of institutional economics, accounting standard is a kind of institution under the accounting environment composed of multiple factors such as economy, politics, law and culture. The international harmonization of accounting standards is corresponding to the development of the accounting environment. On the scope of the CAS international harmonization, we should harmonize with the IFRS on the technology principles but not on the specific regulations so as to avoid conflicting with the differences between our accounting environment and the developed countries' accounting environment. During the construction and the international harmonization of CAS, government should be the main force, and should adopt the way of harmonizing step by step. When judging whether the international harmonization is necessary, we should analyze the profit curve and cost curve of the new harmonized accounting standards. In general, only when the degree is above a certain point can the international harmonization be feasible. When implementing international harmonization, we should notice that the influences of the new harmonized accounting standards are different in four stages: in the first stage, foreign trade and foreign investment can increase, but the new harmonized accounting standards will cause negative influence on domestic capital market, and government will confront with innovation pressure during this stage; in the following stages, the domestic capital market will adapt to the new harmonized accounting standards slowly, and the total welfare will increase. Therefore, breaking the "deadlock" in the first stage is most important for implementing the new harmonized accounting standards successfully. By building a model, this paper proposes two kinds of ways of resolving the deadlock: One is that new element appears outside the system and causes the change favorable to harmonization. For example, we persists on
communicating with the IASB, and persuades the IASB to consider our country's conditions, or even to adopt part of our accounting standards in the IFRS, Which can reduce the gap between new harmonized accounting standards and our previous accounting standards, and can be benefit for investors and listed companies on our capital market to adapt to new standards; the other is an amelioration in the system. For example, resolving the "deadlock" by taking some steps to enhance the stability of the capital market, such as enhancing the reliability of accounting information on the capital market, or pushing forward the ideological preparation for new harmonized accounting standards on the capital market.Up to now, this paper has applied the theory of institution economics to complete the analyzing framework of the path and the problems coming up on the path of the construction and international harmonization of our accounting standards. Next, this paper will discuss how to dispose the specific differences between the CAS and the IFRS. From the annual financial reports of listed companies and some conclusions of the existing researches, we can summarize twenty main differences between the CAS and the IFRS, such as the affiliated enterprise reporting requirement, debt restructuring, subsidiary company amalgamation. To investigate the effects that the differences may have, this paper avoids the statistical method that is commonly used in current empirical research, and selects three kinds of listed companies on B-stock market for case analyzing. The net profit differences of these sample companies under the CAS and the IFRS were great. The author finds that, when these companies modulated their net profit under the CAS to the net profit under the IAS/IFRS in the financial reports, the items that increased the net profit were mainly the debt restructuring and the affiliated enterprise transaction, and the items that decreased the net profit were mainly the value-decreasing preparation for the assets and the depreciation of the otiose capital assets in 2001 and in 2002, but these items were no longer important in 2003. The effect of the difference between the CAS and the IFRS on the subsidiary company amalgamation stood out when tyre-B(900909) modulated its net profit. Based on the accounting standards' double natures of technology and
causing economic results, this paper sets up a "four-zone" model to deal with the accounting standards differences: for differences in the first zone, we can directly accept the IFRS; for differences in the forth zone, we can mixing the CAS and the IFRS, or partly modifying the CAS according to the IFRS, in order to get some positive economic results without lowering the quality of our accounting standards; for differences in the second zone, we can delay harmonization until the accounting environment changes into a favorable situation; for differences in the third zone, we can refuse harmonization. According to the four-zone model, this paper sorts the differences between the CAS and the IFRS, and analyzes several accounting standards differences as examples.Finally, this paper brings forward the countermeasures of the construction and international harmonization of our accounting standards. As the total strategy, we need reduce unnecessary accounting standards differences steadfastly and step by step, to get a system of accounting standards serving the development of economy properly; we should take part in the setting process of the IFRS, urge the IFRS to consider our country's instances, and realize the mutual harmonization; the government should exert its authority, should resolve the problem of market failure during international harmonization, should balance the economic effects of international harmonization , and should create conditions for international harmonization. During the process of international harmonization, we should start with the harmonization of accounting principles but not the specific regulations. As the substantial measures, we should avoid sorting and disposing the differences from only one dimension of consideration, because accounting standards have multiple natures; the organization that setting accounting standards should remain independent to make sure that the setting procedure is fair and the standards can reach some technological degree; the due process should be enhanced in accounting standards setting, which helps the setters and the users of accounting standards know each other in time by publishing information to the society. Last but not least, we should enhance the construction of relevant laws and regulations, the occupational morality of accountants, the company
governance mechanism and capital market mechamsm, in order to supply a perfect implementing system for the engineering of accounting standards construction and international harmonization.In general, both the challenges and the opportunities exist on the future road of the construction and international harmonization of our accounting standards. What we need do is to take an active attitude, and to catch the opportunities to carry forward the construction and international harmonization of our accounting standards, and to make this project exert its positive influences on promoting socialism market economy.
科学地认识相关的背景、历史和存在的问题,是合理推进我国会计标准建设与国际协调的前提。二十多年来,国际协调在我国会计标准建设的历程中一直占据重要地位,我国会计标准国际协调取得的进展是有目共睹的。但随着我国加入WTO和经济对外依存度越来越高,在资本跨国流动、国际贸易发展、跨国公司经营效率要求和国际性机构组织的推动下,我国进一步深化会计标准建设与国际协调的任务日显紧迫。与此同时,IASB在本世纪初完成了战略重组,于国际会计准则公告前言(2002)中明确提出推动“该准则在世界范围内被接受和遵循”的目标。随着越来越多的国家和地区与IASB展开合作,已经采用、允许采用或承诺采用IFRS,这一目标正逐步得到实现。在这种全球范围内会计标准协调的浪潮中,我国已将CAS建设的基本目标定位为:在立足我国国情和我国会计环境的情况下,除了与我国的法律法规存在冲突或明显不切合我国实际的情况之外,努力促使我国会计标准与国际财务报告准则相协调或者一致(冯淑萍,2003)。但是,在这一过程中,存在阻碍国际协调进一步深化的四个瓶颈问题:一是会计标
Along with the coming of the economic globalization times, international accounting standards harmonization has already become an unavoidable important problem for our accounting standards construction. Up to July 2004, the related domestic researching projects have completed the researches on the differences between the CAS (Chinese Accounting Standards) and the IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards), and the following main researching task is to prepare for the substantive harmonization between the CAS and the IFRS. Now, the common ground having already been reached is that the construction of Chinese accounting standards is not a process to accept the IFRS passively and completely but a process to harmonize with the IFRS actively and step by step. However, there are still some urgent problems that are not resolved, for example, what are the bottle-necks in our accounting standards' international harmonization? What are the latent influences if we modify the CAS according to the IFRS? How to decide accurately whether we should remain, mix or modify the differences between the CAS and the IFRS? This paper is just the research on these questions. Based on the existing literature, this paper provides the answers through the analysis of the path of accounting standards construction and international harmonization, and through the thoroughly study of the specific differences between the CAS and the IFRS. It is important for promoting our accounting standards construction, for realizing the international harmonization with the IFRS, for expanding the opening policy to the foreign countries, and for obtaining our reasonable profits in the international economy.The premise of discussing this topic is to understand the relevant background, history and problems of the CAS construction and international harmonization. For more than twenty years, the international harmonization has been significant during our construction of accounting standards, and the obvious progress has been gained. However, promoting further the international harmonization of our accounting
standards is urgent under the force of international capital flowing, the development of international trade, the demand of TNCs on operating efficiency and the requirement of international organizations. In addition, the IASB completed its strategic reorganization at the beginning of this century, and declared that they would promote the IFRS to be accepted and followed in the world. Since then, a new leaf has been turned over for the international accounting harmonization. More and more countries and districts have cooperated with the IASB. They have accepted the IFRS, or have permitted the use of the IFRS, or have committed to accept the IFRS. Under the circumstances of global accounting standards harmonization, we set up the primary goal of our accounting standards construction as the following: on the basis of the primary environment and accounting environment of our country, we should try to promote the harmonization between the CAS and the IFRS except for those conflicting with our laws and regulations obviously (Feng-Shuping, 2003). However, to gain this goal, we must understand and resolve the four bottle necks that prevent the progress of our international harmonization with the IFRS: firstly, the conflict between international harmonization and the special characteristics of the Chinese environment; secondly, the negative economic results that will be caused if we modify the CAS according to the IFRS; thirdly, the conflict among countries during the process of international accounting standards harmonization; fourthly, whether the IFRS is high quality or not.Around these problems, this paper gives the literature review, and combed the conclusions of the researches on the construction and international harmonization of accounting standards, from which we can get some revelations. For example, as a developing country, China must consider the difference of the accounting environment during the harmonization with the IFRS; the net reporting profit is descending with a lower degree when the domestic B-stock companies adopt IFRS, which implies that the negative economic results of harmonization are decreasing; the IFRS can supply no more information than the present CAS, etc. As a whole, however, the current researches cannot answer all the questions above satisfactorily. Therefore,
this paper comes back to the nature of accounting standards, and points out that the nature of accounting standards is an institution. Based on this point, this paper discusses the CAS construction and international harmonization by the theory of institutional economics, and proposes the "Path—analyzing Approach" to the research of relevant problemsFrom the view of institutional economics, accounting standard is a kind of institution under the accounting environment composed of multiple factors such as economy, politics, law and culture. The international harmonization of accounting standards is corresponding to the development of the accounting environment. On the scope of the CAS international harmonization, we should harmonize with the IFRS on the technology principles but not on the specific regulations so as to avoid conflicting with the differences between our accounting environment and the developed countries' accounting environment. During the construction and the international harmonization of CAS, government should be the main force, and should adopt the way of harmonizing step by step. When judging whether the international harmonization is necessary, we should analyze the profit curve and cost curve of the new harmonized accounting standards. In general, only when the degree is above a certain point can the international harmonization be feasible. When implementing international harmonization, we should notice that the influences of the new harmonized accounting standards are different in four stages: in the first stage, foreign trade and foreign investment can increase, but the new harmonized accounting standards will cause negative influence on domestic capital market, and government will confront with innovation pressure during this stage; in the following stages, the domestic capital market will adapt to the new harmonized accounting standards slowly, and the total welfare will increase. Therefore, breaking the "deadlock" in the first stage is most important for implementing the new harmonized accounting standards successfully. By building a model, this paper proposes two kinds of ways of resolving the deadlock: One is that new element appears outside the system and causes the change favorable to harmonization. For example, we persists on
communicating with the IASB, and persuades the IASB to consider our country's conditions, or even to adopt part of our accounting standards in the IFRS, Which can reduce the gap between new harmonized accounting standards and our previous accounting standards, and can be benefit for investors and listed companies on our capital market to adapt to new standards; the other is an amelioration in the system. For example, resolving the "deadlock" by taking some steps to enhance the stability of the capital market, such as enhancing the reliability of accounting information on the capital market, or pushing forward the ideological preparation for new harmonized accounting standards on the capital market.Up to now, this paper has applied the theory of institution economics to complete the analyzing framework of the path and the problems coming up on the path of the construction and international harmonization of our accounting standards. Next, this paper will discuss how to dispose the specific differences between the CAS and the IFRS. From the annual financial reports of listed companies and some conclusions of the existing researches, we can summarize twenty main differences between the CAS and the IFRS, such as the affiliated enterprise reporting requirement, debt restructuring, subsidiary company amalgamation. To investigate the effects that the differences may have, this paper avoids the statistical method that is commonly used in current empirical research, and selects three kinds of listed companies on B-stock market for case analyzing. The net profit differences of these sample companies under the CAS and the IFRS were great. The author finds that, when these companies modulated their net profit under the CAS to the net profit under the IAS/IFRS in the financial reports, the items that increased the net profit were mainly the debt restructuring and the affiliated enterprise transaction, and the items that decreased the net profit were mainly the value-decreasing preparation for the assets and the depreciation of the otiose capital assets in 2001 and in 2002, but these items were no longer important in 2003. The effect of the difference between the CAS and the IFRS on the subsidiary company amalgamation stood out when tyre-B(900909) modulated its net profit. Based on the accounting standards' double natures of technology and
causing economic results, this paper sets up a "four-zone" model to deal with the accounting standards differences: for differences in the first zone, we can directly accept the IFRS; for differences in the forth zone, we can mixing the CAS and the IFRS, or partly modifying the CAS according to the IFRS, in order to get some positive economic results without lowering the quality of our accounting standards; for differences in the second zone, we can delay harmonization until the accounting environment changes into a favorable situation; for differences in the third zone, we can refuse harmonization. According to the four-zone model, this paper sorts the differences between the CAS and the IFRS, and analyzes several accounting standards differences as examples.Finally, this paper brings forward the countermeasures of the construction and international harmonization of our accounting standards. As the total strategy, we need reduce unnecessary accounting standards differences steadfastly and step by step, to get a system of accounting standards serving the development of economy properly; we should take part in the setting process of the IFRS, urge the IFRS to consider our country's instances, and realize the mutual harmonization; the government should exert its authority, should resolve the problem of market failure during international harmonization, should balance the economic effects of international harmonization , and should create conditions for international harmonization. During the process of international harmonization, we should start with the harmonization of accounting principles but not the specific regulations. As the substantial measures, we should avoid sorting and disposing the differences from only one dimension of consideration, because accounting standards have multiple natures; the organization that setting accounting standards should remain independent to make sure that the setting procedure is fair and the standards can reach some technological degree; the due process should be enhanced in accounting standards setting, which helps the setters and the users of accounting standards know each other in time by publishing information to the society. Last but not least, we should enhance the construction of relevant laws and regulations, the occupational morality of accountants, the company
governance mechanism and capital market mechamsm, in order to supply a perfect implementing system for the engineering of accounting standards construction and international harmonization.In general, both the challenges and the opportunities exist on the future road of the construction and international harmonization of our accounting standards. What we need do is to take an active attitude, and to catch the opportunities to carry forward the construction and international harmonization of our accounting standards, and to make this project exert its positive influences on promoting socialism market economy.
引文
1.冯淑萍:《关于中国会计标准的国际化问题》,《会计研究》2001年第1期。
2.冯淑萍:《关于我国当前环境下的会计国际化问题》,《会计研究》2003年第2期。
3.冯淑萍:《中国对于国际会计协调的基本态度与所面临的问题》,《会计研究》2004年第1期。
4.冯淑萍、应唯:《我国会计标准建设与国际协调》,《会计研究》2005年第1期。
5.刘玉延:《贯彻科学民主决策要求完善我国会计准则体系》,《会计研究》2004年第3期。
6.刘玉延:《论中国会计国际协调》,《商业研究》2005年第1期。
7.葛家澍:《建立中国财务会计概念框架的总体设想、财务概念框架研究的比较与综述》,《会计研究》2004年第1期。
8.葛家澍:《关于高质量会计准则的几个问题》,《会计研究》2002年第10期。
9.葛家澍:《关于我国会计制度和会计准则的制定问题》,《会计研究》2001年第1期。
10.葛家澍、陈守德:《财务报告质量评估的初探》,《会计研究》2001年第11期。
11.葛家澍:《关于高质量会计准则和企业财务业绩报告改进的新动向》,《会计研究》2000年第12期。
12.葛家澍:《美国关于高质量会计准则的讨论及其对我们的启示》,《会计研究》1999年第5期。
13.葛家澍:《财务会计概念框架研究的比较与综评》,《会计研究》2004年第6期。
14.葛家澍、刘峰:《新中国会计理论研究50年回顾》,《会计研究》1999年第10期。
15.葛家澍、刘峰,《从会计准则的性质看会计准则的制订》,《会计研究》,1996年第2期。
16.郭道扬:《论经济全球化中会计改革的新视角》,《湖北财税》(理论版) 2000年第8期。
17.郭道扬:《试论会计史研究》,《财会月刊》1997年第12期。
18.郭道扬:《论统一会计制度》,《会计研究》2005年第1期。
19.廖洪:《我国会计制度改革20年回顾与展望》,《财会通讯》1999年第10期。
20.廖洪:《保留行业会计制度的必要性》,《会计研究》1996年第4期。
21.廖洪:《会计改革·会计准则·会计制度》,《财会月刊》2001年第16期。
22.廖洪、张娟:《加强内部审计完善公司治理》,《财会通讯》2004年第5期。
23.陈毓圭:《认真研究和解决中国会计国际化进程中局限的问题》,《财会通讯》2002年第1期。
24.陈毓圭:《论财务制度·会计准则·会计制度和税法诸关系》,《会计研究》1999年第2期。
25.常勋:《解读国际会计协调化》,《会计研究》2003年第12期。
26.常志安、Sarah Perrin:《非上市公司自愿采用国际会计准则的利弊》,《中国注册会计师》2003年第12期
27.綦好东:《会计制度变迁:特征及解释》,《当代财经》2000年第8期。
28.綦好东、杨志强:《中国会计准则制定:利益相关者的态度》,《会计研究》2003年第9期。
29.綦好东、杨志强:《我国会计准则质量:利益相关者的态度》,《当代财经》2004年第3期。
30.杜兴强:《我国上市公司管理当局对会计准则制定的态度及对策探讨》,《会计研究》2003年第7期。
31.盖地:《大同小异:中国企业会计标准与国际会计准则》,《会计研究》2001年第7期。
32.盖地、刘慧凤:《会计原则协同:会计准则国际趋同的切入点》,《会计研究》2004年第3期。
33.方诚:《欧洲理事会批准有关采用国际会计准则的法案》,《中国注册会计师》2003年第11期。
34.冯巧根:《会计准则国际化中的权益失衡及其对策》,《会计研究》2003年第2期。
35.冯巧根:《从倾销标准认定和国际会计准则趋同看会计准则的规范》,《商业会计》2004年第11期。
36.郭永清、高伟:《我国会计标准与国际会计标准的差异分析及国际趋同的思考》,《会计研究》2004年第5期。
37.韩美华:《对我国会计国际化问题的初步研究》,《税务与经济》2002年第2期。
38.洪剑峭、娄贺统:《会计准则导向和会计监管的一个经济博弈分析》,《会计研究》2004年第1期。
39.郝振平、林薇:《会计准则制定机构发展的国际趋势及其影响》,《财务与会计》2002年第9期。
40.黄世忠、李忠林、邵蓝兰:《国际会计准则改革:回顾与展望》,《会计研究》2002年第6期。
41.李慧萍、高璐:《英国会计国际化进程与启示》,《会计研究》2003年第3期。
42.李占国、李瑞生:《会计模式基本问题研究》,《会计研究》1998年第11期。
43.李晓强:《国际会计准则和中国会计准则下的价值相关性比较——来自会计盈余和净资产账面值的证据》,《会计研究》2004年第7期。
44.林斌、黄婷晖、杨德明:《会计准则的定位:一项调查的分析性研究》,《会计研究》2004年第3期。
45.林钟高、赵宏:《会计准则经济论纲》,立信会计出版社2001年版。
46.凌春华、陈雪萍:《中外会计准则差异的实证研究》,《上海会计》2004年第2期。
47.刘峰、吴风、钟瑞庆:《会计准则能提高会计信息质量吗——来自中国股市的初步证据》,《会计研究》2004年第5期。
48.刘峰、李少波:《会计理论研究对我国会计准则制定的影响》,《当代财经》2000年第6期。
49.刘小年、吴联生:《会计规则的制定目标:信息中立还是经济后果》,《会计研究》,2004年第6期。
50.刘笑霞:《我国中期财务报告规范与国际会计准则的比较分析》,《贵州财经学院学报》2004年第6期。
51.刘用铨:《有关会计准则制定模式的比较》,《财会月刊》2003年第B7期。
52.娄尔行:《论会计准则完善》,《财经研究》1994年第3期。
53.陆建桥:《后安然时代的会计与审计》,《会计研究》2002年第10期。
54.路军伟:《会计准则国际化的制度经济学解析》,《中国矿业大学学报》2003年第4期。
55.潘琰、陈凌云、林丽花:《会计准则的信息含量:中国会计准则与IFRS之比较》,《会计研究》2003年第7期。
56.庞靖麒:《我国会计准则模式的研究》,《财会研究》2005年第3期。
57.平来禄、刘峰、雷科罗:《后安然时代的会计准则:原则导向还是规则导向》,《会计研究》2003年第5期。
58.裘宗舜、李粟:《美国后安然时代会计准则的制定:目标导向》,《审计与经济研究》2004年第3期。
59.裘宗舜、韩洪灵:《国际会计准则委员会重组前后目标及结构之比较》,《上海会计》2002年第6期。
60.曲晓辉:《我国会计国际化进程刍议》,《会计研究》2001年第9期。
61.曲晓辉、陈瑜:《会计准则国际发展的利益关系分析》,《会计研究》2003年第1期。
62.曲晓辉、李明辉:《论会计准则的法律地位》,《会计研究》2004年第5期。
63.曲晓辉、陈建煌:《关于我国会计准则建设问题的问卷调查及分析》,《会计研究》1998年第9期。
64.邵蓝兰:《日本会计准则的改革背景与问题分析》,《会计研究》2003年第1期。
65.邵林: 《会计制度与会计准则关系探究》,《财会研究》2005年第2期。
66.孙铮、刘浩: 《反倾销会计研究中的若干问题辩析》,《会计研究》2005年第1期。
67.王春燕、余榕:《解读谨慎性原则的国际协调》,《中国合作经济》2004年第12期。
68.王立彦、高展:《对A股和H股会计信息差异的会计技术因素分析》,《山西财经大学学报》2002年第4期。
69.王建新:《我国会计准则制定的主要参与方作用及其表现》,《财务与会计》2005年第2期。
70.王建新,《会计准则制定的博弈过程与我国会计准则》,《中南财经大学学报》2001年第1期。
71.王瑞华、张奇渊:《美国会计准则制定模式变迁对我国的启示》,《中央财经大学学报》2004年第4期。
72.王松年:《会计准则的国际协调》,《会计论坛》2002年第1期。
73.王松年、戴继雄:《经济全球化与国际会计》,《上海会计》,2002年第2期。
74.王雄元、严艳:《会计回归与会计外部化——会计国际化的一种途径》,《会计研究》2002年第5期。
75.王跃堂、钟蕾:《美国会计准则制定模式的发展动向及其对我国的启示》,《外国经济与管理》2003年第10期。
76.王跃堂:《经济后果学说对会计准则制定理论的影响》,《财经研究》2000年第8期。
77.王子新、陈亚民:《从国际会计准则的变迁看我国会计体系的发展方向》,《商业研究》 2004第22期。
78.汪祥耀:《全球会计准则:离我们还有多远》,《会计研究》2001年第3期。
79.汪祥耀:《我国会计准则与国际会计准则差异分析及对策思考》,《四川会计》2003年第12期
80.汪祥耀、刘宁军:《当前美国会计准则的发展趋势及若干思考》,《会计研究》2003年第5期。
81.汪祥耀、骆铭民:《论我国会计准则与国际会计准则的趋同——我国会计准则与国际会计准则的差异、原因何对策分析》,《财经论从》2004年第1期第。
82.汪祥耀、邓川:《主权国家会计准则与国际财务报告准则趋同的经验及启示——以澳大利亚为例》,《会计研究》2005年第1期。
83.汪兴元:《完善会计准则制定模式建立健全会计准则体系》,《财会通讯》2004年第10期。
84.王雪梅、李国盛:《刍议我国会计准则建设的国际化和国家化问题——我国会计准则与国际会计惯例的差异比较》,《四川会计》2003年第2期。
85.万继峰、李静:《会计国际协调若干概念辨析》,《财会月刊》2004第18期。
86.吴群:《会计模式的深层次思考》,《会计研究》1998年第11期。
87.吴溪、程璐:《会计双重披露差异与中国会计标准的国际协调研究述评》,《中国注册会计师》2003年第10期。
88.伍中信、杨晴:《制度变迁·产权模糊·会计信息失真》,《财会月刊》2003年第A1期。
89.夏冬林、李晓强:《国际间会计准则和会计信息的差异、协调与制度环境》,《会计研究》2005年第1期。
90.夏冬林、李晓强:《会计国际协调及相关国家会计准则的进展》,《会计研究》2005年第2期。
91.谢德仁:《会计信息的真实性与会计规则制定权合约安排》,《经济研究》2000年第5期。
92.谢德仁:《中国会计规则制定权合约安排之变迁——描述与分析》,《会计研究》2000年第12期。
93.谢德仁:《会计规则制定权合约安排的范式与变迁》,《会计研究》1997年第9期。
94.谢诗芬、彭玉龙:《会计准则制定:一种机制设计观》,《会计论坛》2004年第1期。
95.徐经长、姚淑瑜、毛新述:《会计国际协调:一个新的分析视角》,《会计研究》2004年第4期。
96.徐经长、姚淑瑜、毛新述:《中国会计标准的国际协调——<企业会计制度>实施前后上市公司净利润双重披露的实证研究》,《会计研究》2003年第12期。
97.徐文华:《IASC和FASB关于会计准则制定机构设置的设想》,《会计研究》2000年第11期。
98.阎德玉:《会计准则制定模式的比较研究》,《会计研究》1999年第6期。
99.颜延:《中国会计国际化的路径选择——无形资产准则国际差异的制度背景与解决方案》,《财经研究》2004年第12期。
100.杨纪琬:《建立我国会计准则体系的原则》,《会计研究》1995年第1期。
101.于小旺译、朱海林校:《国际财务报告准则前言》,《会计研究》,2002年第7期。
102.张国清:《会计准则的国际协调—FASB和IASB的合作》,《财会月刊》2003年第19期。
103.张龙平、王清刚:《国际会计准则理事会与国际财务报告准则的新动向》,《中国注册会计师》2003第6期。
104.张立:《国际会计学科专业及课程体系设置的探讨》,《四川会计》2003年第11期。
105.张为国:《会计准则国际化动向及对策》,《上海证券报》2001年第11期。
106.张为国、李东平:《围绕国际会计准则前景的较量与对策》,《会计研究》1999年第8期。
107.张象至、李红霞:《<改进国际会计准则>项目13项》的系列论文,《会计研究》2004年。
108.周友梅:《我国企业受困国际反倾销的会计解读》,《四川会计》2003年第8期。
109.朱国泓、孙铮:《会计国际化的策略选择:会计信息的视角》,2004年第3期。
110.朱海林、刘刚:《会计准则国际趋同的报告》,《中国注册会计师》2003年第4期。
111.朱荣、章均:《合并会计方法的国际比较及其在中国的应用》,《世界经济与政治论坛》2004年第6期。
112.林毅夫、蔡防、李周: 《论中国经济改革的渐进式道路》,《经济研究》1993年第9期。
113.马骏、龙小海:《制度变迁与会计角色演变》,《会计研究》2002年第1期。
114.刘铁民,《制度变迁与中国经济体制改革》,《管理世界》1994年第5期。
115.庄子银、邹薇:《制度变迁理论的线索与发展》,《财经科学》1995年第4期。
116.财政部会计司:《积极开展会计国际协调完善我国会计准则体系》,东北财经大学出版社 2004年版。
117.道格拉斯·C·诺思著:《经济史中的结构与变迁》,上海三联书店,上海人民出版社 1980年版。
118.道格拉斯·C·诺思著;《制度、制度变迁与经济绩效》,上海三联书店 1994年版。
119.段文斌、陈国富、谭庆刚、董林辉著:《制度经济学——制度主义与经济分析》,南开大学出版社 2003年版。
120.科斯、阿尔钦、诺思著:《财产权利与制度变迁——产权学派与新制度学派译文集》,上海三联书店,上海人民出版社 1994年版。
121.凡勃伦:《有闲阶级论——关于制度的经济研究》,商务印书馆 1983年版。
122.樊纲著:《渐进改革的政治经济学分析》,上海远东出版社 1996年版。
123.康芒斯:《制度经济学》,商务印书馆 1983年版。
124.林毅夫、蔡昉、李周著:《中国的奇迹:发展战略与经济改革》,上海三联书店 1994年版。
125.胡震、宋海荣、胡君旸著:《过渡经济学》,湖北人民出版社 2002年版。
126.李雪松著:《博弈论与经济转型》,社会科学文献出版社 1999年。
127.常勋编:《国际会计》,东北财经出版社 2003年版。
128.曲晓辉等著:《会计准则研究——借鉴与反思》,厦门大学出版社 1999年版。
129.葛家澍、刘峰著:《会计理论——关于财务会计概念结构的研究》,中国财政经济出版社 2003年版。
130.郭永清著:《会计国际化——全球范围内的考察与中国的经验》,立信会计出版社 2003年版。
131.刘峰著:《会计准则变迁》,中国财政经济出版社 2000年版。
132.王跃堂著:《股份公司会计制度改革效果的实证研究》,复旦大学出版社 2001年版。
133.汪祥耀著:《会计准则的发展:透视、比较与展望》,厦门大学出版社 2001年版。
134.李占国、张学谦著:《国际会计准则与惯例》,中国商务出版社 2004年版。
135.谢德仁著:《企业剩余索取权:分享安排与剩余计量》,上海三联书店、上海人民出版社 2001年版。
136.Ahmed Riahi-Belkaoui著,钱逢胜译:《会计理论》,上海财经出版社 2004年版。
137.Stephen A.Zeff,Bala G.Dharan主编,夏冬林等译:《现代财务会计理论——问题与论争》,经济科学出版社 2000年版。
138.杰弗瑞·布伦南、詹姆斯M.布坎南著,冯克利等译:《宪政经济学》,中国社会科学出版社 2004年版。
139.会计国际协调网站,http://www.casc.gov.cn/internet/internet 2005年3月1日
140.巨潮资讯网,http://www.cninfo.com.cn/ 有关B股上市公司年报资料。
141.国际会计准则理事会网站,http://www.iasb.org.uk 2005年3月1日前的所有相关资料。
142. Aisbitt, S.,and Nobes, C. 2001.The true and fair view requirement in recent national implementations.Accounting and Business Research 31:83-90.
143. Alison J.Kirby. 2001.International compectitive effects of harmonization. The International Journal of Accouning 36:1-32.
144. Ann B.Murphy.2OOO.The Impact of Adopting International Accounting Standards on the Harmonization of Accounting Practices. The International Journal of Accounting 35:471-493.
145. Ann B. Murphy.1999.Firm Characteristics of Swiss Companies that Utilize International Accounting Standards.The International Journal of Accounting 34:121-131.
146. Ashbaugh, H, and M.Pincus.2OO1.Domestic accounting standards,international accounting standards,and predictability of earnings.Journal of Accounting Research 39:417-434.
147. Bao,B.,and Chow,L. 1999.The usefulness of earnings and book Value for equity valuation in emerging Capital Markets:evidence from listed companies in the People' s Republic of China. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting 10:85-104.
148. Canibano, L.,and Mora. 2000. A Evaluating the statistical significance of de facto accounting harmonization: A study of European global players. The European Accounting Review 9:349-369.
149. Cochrane J.L.1992.Helping to keep US capital markets competitive:Listing world-class non-US firms on US exchanges. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting 4: 165-170.
150. Doupnik, Timothy S. 1987. Evidence of International Harmonization of Financial Reporting. International Journal of Accounting 23(1): 47-67.
151. Edward E. Chamisa. 2002. The Relevance and Observance of the IASC Standards in Developing Countries and the Particular Case of Zimbabwe. The International Journal of Accounting 35(2): 267-286.
152. Hung, Ming-Yi. 2001. Accounting Standards and the Value Relevance of Financial Statements:An International Analysis. Journal of Accounting and Economics 30:401-420.
153. F. Robert Buchanan. 2003. International accounting harmonization: Developing a single world standard. Business Horizons (May-June): 61-70.
154.Judith A. Hora et al. 1997. International Accounting Standards in Capital Markets. Journal of International Accounting Auditing & Taxation 6: 171-190.
155.Kimberley A. Shaughnessy. 1998. The Quest for International Accounting Harmonization:A Review of the Standard Setting Agendas of the IASC,US, UK, Canada, and Australia. The International Journal of Accounting 33(2):179-209.
156. Mary E. Barth, Greg Clinch, Toshi Shibano. 1999. International accounting harmonization and global equity markets.Journal of Accounting and Economics 26:201-235.
157. Meek, G. K.., & Thomas, W. B. 2004. A review of markets-based international accounting research. Journal of International Accounting Research 13(1):21-41.
158. Nair, R. D. and Werner G. Frank. 1980. The Impact of Disclosure and Measurement Practices in International Accounting Classifications. Accounting Review 3(July): 426-450.
159. Nair, R. D. and Werner G. Frank. 1981. The Harmonization of International Accounting Standards:1973-1979. International Journal of Accountingl7(l): 61-77.
160. Nobes, C. W. 1991. Cycles in UK Standard Setting, Accounting and Business Research (Summer):265-274.
161. Nobes. C. 2004. On Accounting Classification and the International Harmonization Debate.Accounting,Organizations and Society 29:189-200.
162.Pascual Garridoa, Angel Leon, Ana Zorio. 2002. Measurement of Formal Harmonization Progress:The IASC Experience. The International Journal of Accounting 37:1-26.
163. Paul V. Dunmore and Haim Falk. 1998. Acceptance of Accounting Standards. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 10:173-191.
164. Pauline Weetman. 2001. The Convergence Handbook:A Comparison Between International Accounting Standards and UK Financial Reporting Requirements. The International Journal of Accounting 36:385-386.
165. Prem Lal Joshi and Sayel Ramadhan. 2002. The Adoption of International Accounting Standards by Small and Closely Held Companies: Evidence From Bahrain.The International Journal of Accounting 37:429-440.
166.Rahman, A., Perera, H.,and Ganesh, S.2002. Accounting Practice Harmony, Accounting Regulation and Firm Characteristics. Abacus 38(1):46-77.
167.Rahman, A., Perera, H.,and Ganesh, S. 1996. Measurement of Formal Harmonisation in Accounting: An Exploratory Study. Accounting and Business Research 3(4): 325-339.
168. R. K. Larson. 2004. Convergence with IFRS in an Eexpanding Europe:Progress and Obstacles Identified by Large Accounting firms' Survey. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 13:89-119.
169.Schultz, Joseph J., Jr. and Thomas J. Lopez. 2001. The impact of national influence on accounting estimates: Implications for international accounting standard-setters. International Journal of Accounting 36: 271-290.
170. SEC. 2003. Study pursuant to section 108(d) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 om the Adoption by the United States Financial Reporting System of a Principles-Based Accounting System, http://www. sec. gov/news.
171.Shahrokh M. Saudagaran Joselito G. Diga. 1998. Accounting Harmo -nization in ASEAN: Benefits, Models and Policy Issues. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing & Taxation 7: 21-45.
172. Shyam Sunder. 2002. Regulatory Competition Among Accounting Standards Within and Across International Boundaries. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 21:219-234.
173. Stephen A. Zeff. 2001.International accounting standards: survey 2000. The International Journal of Accounting 36: 376-377.
174. Stephen A. Zeff. 2002. "Political" Lobbying on Proposed Standards: A Challenge to the IASB. Accounting Horizons 16(March): 43-54.
175.Tay, J. S. and Parker, R. H. 1990. Measuring international harmo -nization and standardization. Abacus 26:71-88.
176. van der Tas, Leo G. 1988. Measuring Harmonization of Financial Reporting Practice. Accounting and Business Researchl8(70): 157-169.
177. Van Hulle.K. 1993. Harmonization of accounting standards in the EC:is it beginning or is it end?. The European Accounting Review vol. 2:387-396.
2.冯淑萍:《关于我国当前环境下的会计国际化问题》,《会计研究》2003年第2期。
3.冯淑萍:《中国对于国际会计协调的基本态度与所面临的问题》,《会计研究》2004年第1期。
4.冯淑萍、应唯:《我国会计标准建设与国际协调》,《会计研究》2005年第1期。
5.刘玉延:《贯彻科学民主决策要求完善我国会计准则体系》,《会计研究》2004年第3期。
6.刘玉延:《论中国会计国际协调》,《商业研究》2005年第1期。
7.葛家澍:《建立中国财务会计概念框架的总体设想、财务概念框架研究的比较与综述》,《会计研究》2004年第1期。
8.葛家澍:《关于高质量会计准则的几个问题》,《会计研究》2002年第10期。
9.葛家澍:《关于我国会计制度和会计准则的制定问题》,《会计研究》2001年第1期。
10.葛家澍、陈守德:《财务报告质量评估的初探》,《会计研究》2001年第11期。
11.葛家澍:《关于高质量会计准则和企业财务业绩报告改进的新动向》,《会计研究》2000年第12期。
12.葛家澍:《美国关于高质量会计准则的讨论及其对我们的启示》,《会计研究》1999年第5期。
13.葛家澍:《财务会计概念框架研究的比较与综评》,《会计研究》2004年第6期。
14.葛家澍、刘峰:《新中国会计理论研究50年回顾》,《会计研究》1999年第10期。
15.葛家澍、刘峰,《从会计准则的性质看会计准则的制订》,《会计研究》,1996年第2期。
16.郭道扬:《论经济全球化中会计改革的新视角》,《湖北财税》(理论版) 2000年第8期。
17.郭道扬:《试论会计史研究》,《财会月刊》1997年第12期。
18.郭道扬:《论统一会计制度》,《会计研究》2005年第1期。
19.廖洪:《我国会计制度改革20年回顾与展望》,《财会通讯》1999年第10期。
20.廖洪:《保留行业会计制度的必要性》,《会计研究》1996年第4期。
21.廖洪:《会计改革·会计准则·会计制度》,《财会月刊》2001年第16期。
22.廖洪、张娟:《加强内部审计完善公司治理》,《财会通讯》2004年第5期。
23.陈毓圭:《认真研究和解决中国会计国际化进程中局限的问题》,《财会通讯》2002年第1期。
24.陈毓圭:《论财务制度·会计准则·会计制度和税法诸关系》,《会计研究》1999年第2期。
25.常勋:《解读国际会计协调化》,《会计研究》2003年第12期。
26.常志安、Sarah Perrin:《非上市公司自愿采用国际会计准则的利弊》,《中国注册会计师》2003年第12期
27.綦好东:《会计制度变迁:特征及解释》,《当代财经》2000年第8期。
28.綦好东、杨志强:《中国会计准则制定:利益相关者的态度》,《会计研究》2003年第9期。
29.綦好东、杨志强:《我国会计准则质量:利益相关者的态度》,《当代财经》2004年第3期。
30.杜兴强:《我国上市公司管理当局对会计准则制定的态度及对策探讨》,《会计研究》2003年第7期。
31.盖地:《大同小异:中国企业会计标准与国际会计准则》,《会计研究》2001年第7期。
32.盖地、刘慧凤:《会计原则协同:会计准则国际趋同的切入点》,《会计研究》2004年第3期。
33.方诚:《欧洲理事会批准有关采用国际会计准则的法案》,《中国注册会计师》2003年第11期。
34.冯巧根:《会计准则国际化中的权益失衡及其对策》,《会计研究》2003年第2期。
35.冯巧根:《从倾销标准认定和国际会计准则趋同看会计准则的规范》,《商业会计》2004年第11期。
36.郭永清、高伟:《我国会计标准与国际会计标准的差异分析及国际趋同的思考》,《会计研究》2004年第5期。
37.韩美华:《对我国会计国际化问题的初步研究》,《税务与经济》2002年第2期。
38.洪剑峭、娄贺统:《会计准则导向和会计监管的一个经济博弈分析》,《会计研究》2004年第1期。
39.郝振平、林薇:《会计准则制定机构发展的国际趋势及其影响》,《财务与会计》2002年第9期。
40.黄世忠、李忠林、邵蓝兰:《国际会计准则改革:回顾与展望》,《会计研究》2002年第6期。
41.李慧萍、高璐:《英国会计国际化进程与启示》,《会计研究》2003年第3期。
42.李占国、李瑞生:《会计模式基本问题研究》,《会计研究》1998年第11期。
43.李晓强:《国际会计准则和中国会计准则下的价值相关性比较——来自会计盈余和净资产账面值的证据》,《会计研究》2004年第7期。
44.林斌、黄婷晖、杨德明:《会计准则的定位:一项调查的分析性研究》,《会计研究》2004年第3期。
45.林钟高、赵宏:《会计准则经济论纲》,立信会计出版社2001年版。
46.凌春华、陈雪萍:《中外会计准则差异的实证研究》,《上海会计》2004年第2期。
47.刘峰、吴风、钟瑞庆:《会计准则能提高会计信息质量吗——来自中国股市的初步证据》,《会计研究》2004年第5期。
48.刘峰、李少波:《会计理论研究对我国会计准则制定的影响》,《当代财经》2000年第6期。
49.刘小年、吴联生:《会计规则的制定目标:信息中立还是经济后果》,《会计研究》,2004年第6期。
50.刘笑霞:《我国中期财务报告规范与国际会计准则的比较分析》,《贵州财经学院学报》2004年第6期。
51.刘用铨:《有关会计准则制定模式的比较》,《财会月刊》2003年第B7期。
52.娄尔行:《论会计准则完善》,《财经研究》1994年第3期。
53.陆建桥:《后安然时代的会计与审计》,《会计研究》2002年第10期。
54.路军伟:《会计准则国际化的制度经济学解析》,《中国矿业大学学报》2003年第4期。
55.潘琰、陈凌云、林丽花:《会计准则的信息含量:中国会计准则与IFRS之比较》,《会计研究》2003年第7期。
56.庞靖麒:《我国会计准则模式的研究》,《财会研究》2005年第3期。
57.平来禄、刘峰、雷科罗:《后安然时代的会计准则:原则导向还是规则导向》,《会计研究》2003年第5期。
58.裘宗舜、李粟:《美国后安然时代会计准则的制定:目标导向》,《审计与经济研究》2004年第3期。
59.裘宗舜、韩洪灵:《国际会计准则委员会重组前后目标及结构之比较》,《上海会计》2002年第6期。
60.曲晓辉:《我国会计国际化进程刍议》,《会计研究》2001年第9期。
61.曲晓辉、陈瑜:《会计准则国际发展的利益关系分析》,《会计研究》2003年第1期。
62.曲晓辉、李明辉:《论会计准则的法律地位》,《会计研究》2004年第5期。
63.曲晓辉、陈建煌:《关于我国会计准则建设问题的问卷调查及分析》,《会计研究》1998年第9期。
64.邵蓝兰:《日本会计准则的改革背景与问题分析》,《会计研究》2003年第1期。
65.邵林: 《会计制度与会计准则关系探究》,《财会研究》2005年第2期。
66.孙铮、刘浩: 《反倾销会计研究中的若干问题辩析》,《会计研究》2005年第1期。
67.王春燕、余榕:《解读谨慎性原则的国际协调》,《中国合作经济》2004年第12期。
68.王立彦、高展:《对A股和H股会计信息差异的会计技术因素分析》,《山西财经大学学报》2002年第4期。
69.王建新:《我国会计准则制定的主要参与方作用及其表现》,《财务与会计》2005年第2期。
70.王建新,《会计准则制定的博弈过程与我国会计准则》,《中南财经大学学报》2001年第1期。
71.王瑞华、张奇渊:《美国会计准则制定模式变迁对我国的启示》,《中央财经大学学报》2004年第4期。
72.王松年:《会计准则的国际协调》,《会计论坛》2002年第1期。
73.王松年、戴继雄:《经济全球化与国际会计》,《上海会计》,2002年第2期。
74.王雄元、严艳:《会计回归与会计外部化——会计国际化的一种途径》,《会计研究》2002年第5期。
75.王跃堂、钟蕾:《美国会计准则制定模式的发展动向及其对我国的启示》,《外国经济与管理》2003年第10期。
76.王跃堂:《经济后果学说对会计准则制定理论的影响》,《财经研究》2000年第8期。
77.王子新、陈亚民:《从国际会计准则的变迁看我国会计体系的发展方向》,《商业研究》 2004第22期。
78.汪祥耀:《全球会计准则:离我们还有多远》,《会计研究》2001年第3期。
79.汪祥耀:《我国会计准则与国际会计准则差异分析及对策思考》,《四川会计》2003年第12期
80.汪祥耀、刘宁军:《当前美国会计准则的发展趋势及若干思考》,《会计研究》2003年第5期。
81.汪祥耀、骆铭民:《论我国会计准则与国际会计准则的趋同——我国会计准则与国际会计准则的差异、原因何对策分析》,《财经论从》2004年第1期第。
82.汪祥耀、邓川:《主权国家会计准则与国际财务报告准则趋同的经验及启示——以澳大利亚为例》,《会计研究》2005年第1期。
83.汪兴元:《完善会计准则制定模式建立健全会计准则体系》,《财会通讯》2004年第10期。
84.王雪梅、李国盛:《刍议我国会计准则建设的国际化和国家化问题——我国会计准则与国际会计惯例的差异比较》,《四川会计》2003年第2期。
85.万继峰、李静:《会计国际协调若干概念辨析》,《财会月刊》2004第18期。
86.吴群:《会计模式的深层次思考》,《会计研究》1998年第11期。
87.吴溪、程璐:《会计双重披露差异与中国会计标准的国际协调研究述评》,《中国注册会计师》2003年第10期。
88.伍中信、杨晴:《制度变迁·产权模糊·会计信息失真》,《财会月刊》2003年第A1期。
89.夏冬林、李晓强:《国际间会计准则和会计信息的差异、协调与制度环境》,《会计研究》2005年第1期。
90.夏冬林、李晓强:《会计国际协调及相关国家会计准则的进展》,《会计研究》2005年第2期。
91.谢德仁:《会计信息的真实性与会计规则制定权合约安排》,《经济研究》2000年第5期。
92.谢德仁:《中国会计规则制定权合约安排之变迁——描述与分析》,《会计研究》2000年第12期。
93.谢德仁:《会计规则制定权合约安排的范式与变迁》,《会计研究》1997年第9期。
94.谢诗芬、彭玉龙:《会计准则制定:一种机制设计观》,《会计论坛》2004年第1期。
95.徐经长、姚淑瑜、毛新述:《会计国际协调:一个新的分析视角》,《会计研究》2004年第4期。
96.徐经长、姚淑瑜、毛新述:《中国会计标准的国际协调——<企业会计制度>实施前后上市公司净利润双重披露的实证研究》,《会计研究》2003年第12期。
97.徐文华:《IASC和FASB关于会计准则制定机构设置的设想》,《会计研究》2000年第11期。
98.阎德玉:《会计准则制定模式的比较研究》,《会计研究》1999年第6期。
99.颜延:《中国会计国际化的路径选择——无形资产准则国际差异的制度背景与解决方案》,《财经研究》2004年第12期。
100.杨纪琬:《建立我国会计准则体系的原则》,《会计研究》1995年第1期。
101.于小旺译、朱海林校:《国际财务报告准则前言》,《会计研究》,2002年第7期。
102.张国清:《会计准则的国际协调—FASB和IASB的合作》,《财会月刊》2003年第19期。
103.张龙平、王清刚:《国际会计准则理事会与国际财务报告准则的新动向》,《中国注册会计师》2003第6期。
104.张立:《国际会计学科专业及课程体系设置的探讨》,《四川会计》2003年第11期。
105.张为国:《会计准则国际化动向及对策》,《上海证券报》2001年第11期。
106.张为国、李东平:《围绕国际会计准则前景的较量与对策》,《会计研究》1999年第8期。
107.张象至、李红霞:《<改进国际会计准则>项目13项》的系列论文,《会计研究》2004年。
108.周友梅:《我国企业受困国际反倾销的会计解读》,《四川会计》2003年第8期。
109.朱国泓、孙铮:《会计国际化的策略选择:会计信息的视角》,2004年第3期。
110.朱海林、刘刚:《会计准则国际趋同的报告》,《中国注册会计师》2003年第4期。
111.朱荣、章均:《合并会计方法的国际比较及其在中国的应用》,《世界经济与政治论坛》2004年第6期。
112.林毅夫、蔡防、李周: 《论中国经济改革的渐进式道路》,《经济研究》1993年第9期。
113.马骏、龙小海:《制度变迁与会计角色演变》,《会计研究》2002年第1期。
114.刘铁民,《制度变迁与中国经济体制改革》,《管理世界》1994年第5期。
115.庄子银、邹薇:《制度变迁理论的线索与发展》,《财经科学》1995年第4期。
116.财政部会计司:《积极开展会计国际协调完善我国会计准则体系》,东北财经大学出版社 2004年版。
117.道格拉斯·C·诺思著:《经济史中的结构与变迁》,上海三联书店,上海人民出版社 1980年版。
118.道格拉斯·C·诺思著;《制度、制度变迁与经济绩效》,上海三联书店 1994年版。
119.段文斌、陈国富、谭庆刚、董林辉著:《制度经济学——制度主义与经济分析》,南开大学出版社 2003年版。
120.科斯、阿尔钦、诺思著:《财产权利与制度变迁——产权学派与新制度学派译文集》,上海三联书店,上海人民出版社 1994年版。
121.凡勃伦:《有闲阶级论——关于制度的经济研究》,商务印书馆 1983年版。
122.樊纲著:《渐进改革的政治经济学分析》,上海远东出版社 1996年版。
123.康芒斯:《制度经济学》,商务印书馆 1983年版。
124.林毅夫、蔡昉、李周著:《中国的奇迹:发展战略与经济改革》,上海三联书店 1994年版。
125.胡震、宋海荣、胡君旸著:《过渡经济学》,湖北人民出版社 2002年版。
126.李雪松著:《博弈论与经济转型》,社会科学文献出版社 1999年。
127.常勋编:《国际会计》,东北财经出版社 2003年版。
128.曲晓辉等著:《会计准则研究——借鉴与反思》,厦门大学出版社 1999年版。
129.葛家澍、刘峰著:《会计理论——关于财务会计概念结构的研究》,中国财政经济出版社 2003年版。
130.郭永清著:《会计国际化——全球范围内的考察与中国的经验》,立信会计出版社 2003年版。
131.刘峰著:《会计准则变迁》,中国财政经济出版社 2000年版。
132.王跃堂著:《股份公司会计制度改革效果的实证研究》,复旦大学出版社 2001年版。
133.汪祥耀著:《会计准则的发展:透视、比较与展望》,厦门大学出版社 2001年版。
134.李占国、张学谦著:《国际会计准则与惯例》,中国商务出版社 2004年版。
135.谢德仁著:《企业剩余索取权:分享安排与剩余计量》,上海三联书店、上海人民出版社 2001年版。
136.Ahmed Riahi-Belkaoui著,钱逢胜译:《会计理论》,上海财经出版社 2004年版。
137.Stephen A.Zeff,Bala G.Dharan主编,夏冬林等译:《现代财务会计理论——问题与论争》,经济科学出版社 2000年版。
138.杰弗瑞·布伦南、詹姆斯M.布坎南著,冯克利等译:《宪政经济学》,中国社会科学出版社 2004年版。
139.会计国际协调网站,http://www.casc.gov.cn/internet/internet 2005年3月1日
140.巨潮资讯网,http://www.cninfo.com.cn/ 有关B股上市公司年报资料。
141.国际会计准则理事会网站,http://www.iasb.org.uk 2005年3月1日前的所有相关资料。
142. Aisbitt, S.,and Nobes, C. 2001.The true and fair view requirement in recent national implementations.Accounting and Business Research 31:83-90.
143. Alison J.Kirby. 2001.International compectitive effects of harmonization. The International Journal of Accouning 36:1-32.
144. Ann B.Murphy.2OOO.The Impact of Adopting International Accounting Standards on the Harmonization of Accounting Practices. The International Journal of Accounting 35:471-493.
145. Ann B. Murphy.1999.Firm Characteristics of Swiss Companies that Utilize International Accounting Standards.The International Journal of Accounting 34:121-131.
146. Ashbaugh, H, and M.Pincus.2OO1.Domestic accounting standards,international accounting standards,and predictability of earnings.Journal of Accounting Research 39:417-434.
147. Bao,B.,and Chow,L. 1999.The usefulness of earnings and book Value for equity valuation in emerging Capital Markets:evidence from listed companies in the People' s Republic of China. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting 10:85-104.
148. Canibano, L.,and Mora. 2000. A Evaluating the statistical significance of de facto accounting harmonization: A study of European global players. The European Accounting Review 9:349-369.
149. Cochrane J.L.1992.Helping to keep US capital markets competitive:Listing world-class non-US firms on US exchanges. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting 4: 165-170.
150. Doupnik, Timothy S. 1987. Evidence of International Harmonization of Financial Reporting. International Journal of Accounting 23(1): 47-67.
151. Edward E. Chamisa. 2002. The Relevance and Observance of the IASC Standards in Developing Countries and the Particular Case of Zimbabwe. The International Journal of Accounting 35(2): 267-286.
152. Hung, Ming-Yi. 2001. Accounting Standards and the Value Relevance of Financial Statements:An International Analysis. Journal of Accounting and Economics 30:401-420.
153. F. Robert Buchanan. 2003. International accounting harmonization: Developing a single world standard. Business Horizons (May-June): 61-70.
154.Judith A. Hora et al. 1997. International Accounting Standards in Capital Markets. Journal of International Accounting Auditing & Taxation 6: 171-190.
155.Kimberley A. Shaughnessy. 1998. The Quest for International Accounting Harmonization:A Review of the Standard Setting Agendas of the IASC,US, UK, Canada, and Australia. The International Journal of Accounting 33(2):179-209.
156. Mary E. Barth, Greg Clinch, Toshi Shibano. 1999. International accounting harmonization and global equity markets.Journal of Accounting and Economics 26:201-235.
157. Meek, G. K.., & Thomas, W. B. 2004. A review of markets-based international accounting research. Journal of International Accounting Research 13(1):21-41.
158. Nair, R. D. and Werner G. Frank. 1980. The Impact of Disclosure and Measurement Practices in International Accounting Classifications. Accounting Review 3(July): 426-450.
159. Nair, R. D. and Werner G. Frank. 1981. The Harmonization of International Accounting Standards:1973-1979. International Journal of Accountingl7(l): 61-77.
160. Nobes, C. W. 1991. Cycles in UK Standard Setting, Accounting and Business Research (Summer):265-274.
161. Nobes. C. 2004. On Accounting Classification and the International Harmonization Debate.Accounting,Organizations and Society 29:189-200.
162.Pascual Garridoa, Angel Leon, Ana Zorio. 2002. Measurement of Formal Harmonization Progress:The IASC Experience. The International Journal of Accounting 37:1-26.
163. Paul V. Dunmore and Haim Falk. 1998. Acceptance of Accounting Standards. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 10:173-191.
164. Pauline Weetman. 2001. The Convergence Handbook:A Comparison Between International Accounting Standards and UK Financial Reporting Requirements. The International Journal of Accounting 36:385-386.
165. Prem Lal Joshi and Sayel Ramadhan. 2002. The Adoption of International Accounting Standards by Small and Closely Held Companies: Evidence From Bahrain.The International Journal of Accounting 37:429-440.
166.Rahman, A., Perera, H.,and Ganesh, S.2002. Accounting Practice Harmony, Accounting Regulation and Firm Characteristics. Abacus 38(1):46-77.
167.Rahman, A., Perera, H.,and Ganesh, S. 1996. Measurement of Formal Harmonisation in Accounting: An Exploratory Study. Accounting and Business Research 3(4): 325-339.
168. R. K. Larson. 2004. Convergence with IFRS in an Eexpanding Europe:Progress and Obstacles Identified by Large Accounting firms' Survey. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 13:89-119.
169.Schultz, Joseph J., Jr. and Thomas J. Lopez. 2001. The impact of national influence on accounting estimates: Implications for international accounting standard-setters. International Journal of Accounting 36: 271-290.
170. SEC. 2003. Study pursuant to section 108(d) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 om the Adoption by the United States Financial Reporting System of a Principles-Based Accounting System, http://www. sec. gov/news.
171.Shahrokh M. Saudagaran Joselito G. Diga. 1998. Accounting Harmo -nization in ASEAN: Benefits, Models and Policy Issues. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing & Taxation 7: 21-45.
172. Shyam Sunder. 2002. Regulatory Competition Among Accounting Standards Within and Across International Boundaries. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 21:219-234.
173. Stephen A. Zeff. 2001.International accounting standards: survey 2000. The International Journal of Accounting 36: 376-377.
174. Stephen A. Zeff. 2002. "Political" Lobbying on Proposed Standards: A Challenge to the IASB. Accounting Horizons 16(March): 43-54.
175.Tay, J. S. and Parker, R. H. 1990. Measuring international harmo -nization and standardization. Abacus 26:71-88.
176. van der Tas, Leo G. 1988. Measuring Harmonization of Financial Reporting Practice. Accounting and Business Researchl8(70): 157-169.
177. Van Hulle.K. 1993. Harmonization of accounting standards in the EC:is it beginning or is it end?. The European Accounting Review vol. 2:387-396.