The Relevance of Critical Accounting Theory (CAT) to Effectiveness of Public Financial Accountability in Emerging Economies

Emmanuel Oluwadare, Martin Samy


In the past, researchers of financial accountability have relied on Agency and Stewardship theories to explain the phenomena that may hinder the exchange of financial information in the accountability process. This article examines the relevance of CAT to effective public financial accountability.Public sector in developing countries has accountability mechanism that is based onagency model. Accountability mechanism following the assumptions of principal-agent theory will most likely focus on monitoring procedures in order to reduce information asymmetry. This can enhance the disclosure of information but may result in an information overload problem on the part of the accountors’ and the accountees. Extant literature asserts that the theory is not anappropriate framework for contractual services that are difficult to be measured and observed, and that the theory fail to address the issue of relevance of environment, competition, management capability, and availability or lack of strong incentives, particularly financial, for aligning an agent’s actions. As research in public financial accountability emerged, the issue of the most appropriate theoretical framework to adopt remained unanswered. Critical Accounting Theory (CAT) is gaining wider acceptability among scholars in their quest to address the problem of the conflict of goals between the principal and the agent and the difficulty or the inability of the principal to verify what the agent is doing.Extant literature established thepaucity of studies on critical accounting literature that focus on developing countries.This theoretical paper exalts CAT and its relevance to modern day developing societies.


Accountability; Critical Accounting Theory (CAT); Public financial accountability; Principal-agent theory; Culture; Accountee; Accountor.

Full Text:



Adegbite, E. O. (2010). Accounting, accountability and national development.Nigerian Accountant, 43(1), 56-64
Bovens, M. (2007b). Analyzing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468
Brown, J., & Dillard, J. (2013). Critical accounting and communicative action: On the limits of consensual deliberation.Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24, 176-190.
Caers, et al. (2006). Principal-agent relationships on the stewardship-agency axis. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(1), 25-47.
Choi, J. (2002). Financial crisis and accounting reform: A cultural perspetive. A Paper Presented at the 4th APIRA Conference held in Adelaide, Australia.
Daniel, S. J., et al. (2012). The impact of national economic culture and country-level institutional environment on corporate governance practices theory and empirical evidence. Management International Review, 52, 365-394.
Davies, S., & Polverari, L. (2011). Financial accountability and European Union cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 45(5), 695-706
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997a). Towards a stewardship theory of management. The Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20-47.
Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49-64.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74.
Goddard, A. (1997). Organisational culture and budgetary control in a UK local government organisation. Accounting and Business Research, 27(2), 111-123.
Gray, R. (1992). Accounting and environmentalism: An exploration of the challenge of gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability. Accounting, Organisation and Society, 17(5), 399-425.
Greiling, D., & Spraul K. (2010). Accountability and the challenges of information disclosure. Public Administration Quarterly, 338-377
Halachmi, A. (2004.) Performance measurement, accountability, and improved performance. Public Performance and Management Review, 25(4), 370-374.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations. Software of the mind (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 433-439.
House R. J., et al. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. London: Sage.
Jacobs, K. (2012.) Making sense of social practice: Theoretical pluralism in public sector accounting research. Financial Accountability & Management, 28(1), 267-4424.
Jacobides, M., & Croson, D. C. (2001). Information policy and shaping the value of agency relationships. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 202-223.
Laughlin, R. (1987). Accounting systems in organisational contexts: A case for critical theory.Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(5), 479 - 502.
Lehman, G. (2010). Perspectives on accounting, commonalities & the public sphere. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21, 724-738.
Lehman, G. (2006). Perspectives on language, accountability and critical accounting: An interpretative perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17, 755-779.
Levine, C. B., & Smith, M. J. (2009). Critical accounting policy disclosures. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 39-67.
Lictch, A. N., et al (2007). Culture rules the foundations of the rule of law and other norms of governance.
Lohd, S., & Gaffikin, M. (1997). Critical studies in accounting research, rationality and habermas: A methodological reflection. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, (8), 433-474.
Montagna, P. (1997). Modernism vs postmodernism in management accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 8(1/2), 125-145.
O’Regan, D. (2003). Reflections on the critical accounting movement: the reactions of a cultural conservative. Accountancy Business and Public Interest, 2(2), 1-28.
Rabrenovic, A. (2009). Financial accountability as a condition for EU membership. Institute of Comparative Law. [Accessed 01/08/12] Retrieved from http://
Rahaman, A. S. (2010). Critical accounting research in Africa: Whence and whither. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21, 420-427.
Saghal, V., & Chakrapani, D. (2000). Clean government and public financial accountability. Operation Evaluation Department (OED) Working Paper Series, no 17 Washington DC; World Bank
Sinclair, R., Hooper, K., & Ayoub, S. (2009). Perception of government in not-for-profit: Agency, Steward or stakeholder management. (Unpublished).
Tilling, M., & Tilt, C. (2003). Alas poor critical accounting, We knew Him, Karl. School of Commerce Research Paper Series: 02-3; Flinders University of South Australia.
Van Slyke, D. M. (2006). Agents or Stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 157-187.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2015 Canadian Social Science


  • How to do online submission to another Journal?
  • If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:

1. Register yourself in Journal B as an Author

  • Find the journal you want to submit to in CATEGORIES, click on “VIEW JOURNAL”, “Online Submissions”, “GO TO LOGIN” and “Edit My Profile”. Check “Author” on the “Edit Profile” page, then “Save”.

2. Submission

Online Submission

  • Go to “User Home”, and click on “Author” under the name of Journal B. You may start a New Submission by clicking on “CLICK HERE”.
  • We only use four mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases:;;;

 Articles published in Canadian Social Science are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).


Canadian Social Science Editorial Office

Address: 1020 Bouvier Street, Suite 400, Quebec City, Quebec, G2K 0K9, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138 
Website: Http://; Http://;

Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture