Studies in accounting informed by a Gramscian approach have used hegemonic analysis to understand the transformative character of accounting practice in line with the historical transformation of ideological structures, as the outcome of complex interactions between the state and economy. Tinker (1980) used a hegemonic approach that can be interpreted as a reflection of conflicts and negotiations among various interests, and not merely as a measure of economic efficiency. Lehman and Tinker (1987) suggested that over the period 1960-1973 the discursive role of academic accounting journals altered with evolutions in the hegemonic environment. They explored accounting discourses and the conditions of social conflict in which they are embedded. Discourse practices were characterised by a hegemony of consent at the beginning of the period, oriented towards bearing the hallmarks of a hegemony of coercion. Richardson (1989) uses the notion of hegemony to conceptualise the relationship between the ‘corporatist structure’ of public accounting regulations and the ‘internal social
106
order’ of the profession in Canada. Cooper (1995), using the Gramscian notion of hegemony, studied accounting discourse in the National Union of Journalists and the historical and material explanations for the relationships between the state and accounting. She provided evidence of both the consensual aspect of hegemony and the coercive power of the state that influences accounting practice in the creation of a ‘financial consciousness’. Goddard (2002) adopted the theory of hegemony to explain the progress of the public sector accounting profession and accounting practices in the UK, since the nineteenth-century. He concluded that the professional body exerted significant hegemonic influence in constituting and reflecting ideologies, and also examined the coercive and consensual approaches adopted by the state. An empirical study, by Alawattage and Wickramasinghe (2008), based in a Sri Lankan tea plantation, drew on cultural-Marxist discourses on hegemony to explore the interaction between the political hegemony aspect of accounting at a structural and agential levels that exerted hegemonic governance and the labour control routines. Contrary to the Western experience, the political hegemony role of accounting reproduces and represents, rather than constitutes, labour control, aligning it to a calculated ‘truth’ or ‘nature’. Similarly, in Germany, Heidhues and Patel (2011) suggested that political and cultural elements are vital in analysing distinctive professional judgement, and enhance the reliability and comparability of cross-border financial reporting. Merino et al. (2010) used hegemony to explain how Sarbanes-Oxley was used as a tool to endorse the neo-liberal policy agenda of deregulation and to encourage a market-based ideology after the global recession that began in the US.
These studies illustrated that Gramsci’s notion of hegemony can be used in order to theorise the interrelation of accounting with the market, civil and political society. However, on some occasions, this accounting literature has also emphasised the ideological aspects of hegemony by focusing solely on the influence of the moral and intellectual leadership (Richardson, 1989) of accounting intellectuals, such as the accounting profession (e.g. Goddard, 2002;
Lehman & Tinker, 1987). As a result, although there are general references to structural aspects (e.g. Goddard, 2002, p. 662), the notion of hegemony should not be reduced to intellectual and moral leadership (see Cooper, 1995, p. 177; Richardson, 1989, p. 419), which gains consent solely by dispersing the ideology of the ruling classes. A common denominator in these accounting papers is the signification of the dialectical relationship between the superstructures of society and the economy, in particular historical conjunctures and the interaction of accounting with these dialectics. Based on empirical evidence and historical
107
material this strand of research attempts to theorise the way accounting contributes to reproducing coercive or consensual hegemonies. Following on from this, the role of political leadership, or the role of organic intellectuals, in shaping hegemonic structures of governance is significant. These studies established Gramscian analysis as a legitimate and valuable approach to accounting research. Hegemonic analysis recognises the important factors associated with the underlying economic relations of production and state practices with their concomitant power and ideological structures.
Based on the previous discussion about hegemony, accounting could be conceived of as operating at both coercive and consensual levels within the state. The accounting profession is one example of an institution that is both part of civil and political society. Many of the powers held by members of the accounting profession derive their effectiveness from the state’s more coercive abilities. The accounting profession, along with the media, churches, cultural and voluntary organisations could be considered as part of civil society, in the sense that they frequently promote the ideology of the status quo and act to uphold the existing social order. Through accounting, the state renders the ruling group homogeneous, tending to create social conformism, which is useful to the ruling group’s line of development.
Accounting, can act to a certain extent as a force binding society to the economy, and thereby to the vested interests, objectives and conceptions of the ruling class.
The accounting profession and those actors who are instrumental in maintaining the underlying premises and assumptions on which financial reporting and IFRSs rest operate as mediators. Cooper (1995) drawing on the work of the French literary critic and semiotician Roland Barthes (1972), and also Hall (1982), conceives of accounting as having a mythological meaning, a myth that naturalises its ideological intentions. Within accounting discourse, accounting’s ability to provide neutral, accurate and transparent financial information promises enhanced efficiency and effectiveness of capital markets. Accounting as a superstructure at the economic base draws on the discourse of neo-classical economics on which neo-liberal policies are based. For example, key actors that are interviewed in the current study make use of concepts such as comparability, transparency, fair values, legitimacy and so forth.
It is important to note that interview accounts are not analysed at the discursive level at which the actual expression mode and language are the objects of study, even though this could be an interesting area for further investigation. Instead, analysis takes place on the level of action
108
and social condition (Alvesson & Skửldberg, 2009) as the researcher’s aim is to observe and reflect on perceptions and social structures that exist out there, regardless of whether these can be described concretely and objectively by language. It is interesting to examine the degree to which individuals use certain concepts to neutralise the aberrations they encounter between practice and theory and how they justify such divergence. The analytical utility of Gramscian concepts, such as, historical bloc and hegemony can capture the consequences of international financial reporting regulation as an effective force in the constitution of the modern global political economy.