Theoretical and Methodological Trends in Public Sector Accounting Research (2017–2022): A Structured Literature Review of Six International Journals
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20961/akumulasi.v4i2.3005Keywords:
institutional theory, public sector accounting, research methodology, systematic mapping review, theoretical trendsAbstract
This study maps the trend of using theory and methodological approaches in public sector accounting research between 2017 and 2022. This research was conducted with a journal-bound sampling design from six international journals that consistently publish public sector accounting research. The total number of articles tabulated during the observation period was 975 articles. For the theory mapping, articles were screened based on the criteria of "explicit use of theory as an analytical framework", so 340 articles were analyzed. For methodological mapping, all articles in the journal sample were classified at the approach level (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed). The mapping results show that Institutional Theory is the most frequently used theory in almost all journals, while qualitative approach dominates in public sector accounting research publications. These findings confirm the importance of institutional context in public sector studies and show room for the development of the use of alternative theories as well as the expansion of methodological designs.
References
Abernethy, M.A., & Bouwens, J. (2005). Determining of accounting implementation. Abacus, 41(3), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2005.00180.x
American Accounting Association. (1972). Report of the committee on concepts of accounting applicable to the public sector, 1970–71. Accounting Review, 47 (Supplement), 75–108. https://www.jstor.org/stable/244880
Collier, P.M., & Woods, M. (2011). A comparison of the local authority adoption of risk management in England and Australia. Australian Accounting Review, 21(3), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2011.00126.x
Dabbicco, G., & Mattei, G. (2021). The reconciliation of budgeting with financial reporting: A comparative study of Italy and the UK. Money & Public Management, 41(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1708059
Dahan, M., & Strawczynski, M. (2020). Budget institutions and government effectiveness. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 32(2), 217–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-03-2019-0055
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage reviewed: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255482957_The_Iron_Cage_Revisted_Institutional_Isomorphism_and_Collective_Rationality_in_Organizational_Fields
Dobija, D., Górska, A.M., Grossi, G., & Strzelczyk, W. (2019). Rational and symbolic performance measurement: Experience from Polish Universities. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability, 32(3), 750–781. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2017-3106
Freeman, R.E. (1984). A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. Pitman. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=263511
Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 71 of 2010. Government Accounting Standards. 22 October 2010.
Hardies, K., Ohlrogge, F., Mentens, J., & Vandennieuwenhuysen, J. (2024). A guide for accounting researchers to conduct and report systematic literature reviews. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 36(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.2308/BRIA-2022-042
Hijal-Moghrabi, I., Sabharwal, M., & Ramanathan, K. (2020). Innovation in public organizations: do government reform matter? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 33(6–7), 731–749. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2020-0106
Hood, C.C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons. Public Administration, 69, 3-19.
Jensen, M.C., & Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structures. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2007). Aggregate and individual governance indicators, 1996–2006. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4280. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4280
Kurtz, M.J., & Schrank, A. (2007). Growth and governance: Models, sizes, and mechanisms. Journal of Politics, 69(2), 538–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00549.x
Landes, DS (1998). The wealth and poverty of nations: Why some are so rich and some so poor. W. W. Norton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_and_Poverty_of_Nations
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembly the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17 of 2003. State Finance. 2023 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363056416_The_Risk_Management_of_Everything_Rethinking_the_politics_of_uncertainty
Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organization: Formal structures as myths and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/226550
Moll, J., & Hoque, Z. (2011). Budgeting for legitimacy: The case of an Australian universities. Accounting, Organization and Society, 36(2), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2011.02.006
Mouritsen, J. (1994). Rationality, institutions and decision-making: Reflections on March and Olsen's rediscovering institutions. Accounting, Organisation and Society, 19(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(94)90018-3
North, DC (1981). Structure and changes in economic history. W. W. Norton. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232785
North, DC (1990). Institutions, institutional changes and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
Ntim, CG (2018). Governance and risk disclosure practices in UK higher education institutions in the era of austerity and reform. Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312373209_Governance_and_risk_disclosure_practices_in_UK_higher_education_institutions_in_an_era_of_austerity_and_reform
Otley, D.T. (1980). The contingency theory management accounting: Achievements and prognosis. Accounting, Organization and Society, 5(4), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(80)90040-9
Otley, D.T. (2003). Management control and performance management: where and whither? British Accounting Review, 35(4), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2003.08.002
Otley, DT (2016). Contingency theory of accounting and management control: 1980–2014. Management Accounting Research, 31, 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.02.001
Ozdil, E., & Hoque, Z. (2017). Budget changes in universities: A narrative investigation. British Accounting Review, 49(3), 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2016.09.004
Powell, W. W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 183-203). University of Chicago Press. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Expanding-the-Scope-of-Institutional-Analysis-Powell/0c5839cced778a9d745c2fbcb57fe2c262d75916
Power, M. (2004). The risk management of everything rethinking the politics of uncertainty. Demo.
Satrio, M.D., Yuhertiana, I., & Hamzah, A. (2016). Implementasi Standar Akuntansi Pemerintah Berbasis Akrual di Kabupaten Jombang. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 18(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.9744/jak.18.1.59-70
Scott, WR (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities (4th edition). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.22439/cjas.v32i2.4764
Soobaroyen, T., Ntim, C. G., Broad, M. J., Agrizzi, D., & Vithana, K. (2019). Exploring the oversight of risk management in UK higher education institutions: the case of audit committees. Accounting Forum, 43(4), 404–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2019.1605872
Suchman, MC (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
Tolbert, P.S., & Zucker, L.G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organization: The diffusion of civil service reforms, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1), 22–39. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Institutional-Sources-of-Change-in-the-Formal-of-of-Tolbert-Zucker/3341e6bd17e31a365f235dd326f6c1bd3eed8233
Treisman, D. (2007). What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research? Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 211–244. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.081205.095418
Usman, Sunandar, & Farida. (2014). Analisis Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Implementasi Akuntansi Akrual pada Entitas Pemerintah Daerah. Journal of Accounting and Investment, 15(2), 101–113. https://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/ai/article/view/1331
Wall, M.C., Frisk, J.E., & Nilsson, F. (2018). Managing risk in the public sector – The interaction between vernacular and formal risk management systems. Accountability & Financial Management, 35(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12179
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 AKUMULASI: Indonesian Journal of Applied Accounting and Finance
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who submit a manuscript do so on the understanding that if the article is accepted for publication, the copyright will be transferred to AKUMULASI: Indonesian Journal of Applied Accounting and Finance.
This open-access journal uses the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. This permits users to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
Non Commercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
![](<a target="_blank" href="https://www.imghost.net/t2YCosHoTGal3PY"><img src="https://www.imghost.net/ib/XgTtYft8xXyWSso_1724222378.jpg" alt="Google-Scholar.jpg"/></a>)
