Jurisprudence and the conceptual framework project: the enduring ideas of Scott, Spacek and Stamp

Abstract

Conceptual frameworks of accounting issued by standard-setting bodies have traditionally represented provisional resolutions of intricate and intense conflicts about desirable objectives and qualitative characteristics of financial information. Recent changes by the IASB (including jointly with the FASB) have been criticised for the elimination or dilution of established framework concepts. Such criticisms call into question, processes of reasoning underlying framework development. Since predetermined assumptions and improvisations cannot reliably resolve normative conflicts, a juridical approach offers viable alternatives. Analogous to law, robust framework principles assume a form of constitutional authority through appeals to fairness and justice. This paper examines and synthesises insights from three key accounting thinkers of the 20th century. Their pioneering contributions emphasise the philosophical and methodological salience of jurisprudence for establishing a credible framework. Originating primarily in the pre-FASB period, the persistent relevance of their ideas offer compelling possibilities for developing a substantive, inclusive and responsive conceptual framework.