arbiter
JournalsAccount

Stakeholder Perspectives on the IPSAS Conceptual Framework: A Comment Letter Meta-Analysis Concerning ED76, ED77 and ED on Key Characteristics

Natalia Aversano et al.

Accounting, Economics and Law – A Convivium2025https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2024-0101article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Our comment letter content analysis sheds light on stakeholder perspectives and positions on conceptual matters related to the IPSASB’s conceptual framework, covering: primary users and main objectives; qualitative characteristics; public sector specificities; financial accounting bases; and financial reporting. On aggregate, responding stakeholders did not favor a straightforward move toward a full accrual basis of accounting relying upon current value accounting measurements. Instead, they pointed to a mixed approach that combines accrual-based statements with budgetary reports, as well as historical cost and current value accounting measurements. Concerning the accounting basis (model), standard-setters appeared to prefer historical cost rather than current value, according to our clustering analysis. The evergreen principle of accountability was acknowledged as paramount, while the more recent focus on users’ information needs remained relatively neglected.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2024-0101

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{natalia2025,
  title        = {{Stakeholder Perspectives on the IPSAS Conceptual Framework: A Comment Letter Meta-Analysis Concerning ED76, ED77 and ED on Key Characteristics}},
  author       = {Natalia Aversano et al.},
  journal      = {Accounting, Economics and Law – A Convivium},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2024-0101},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Stakeholder Perspectives on the IPSAS Conceptual Framework: A Comment Letter Meta-Analysis Concerning ED76, ED77 and ED on Key Characteristics

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.