reforming accounting education

REFORMING ACCOUNTING EDUCATION:

BACK TO THE BASIC

Sony Warsono1 (corresponding author)

Zaki Baridwan2

Ertambang Nahartyo3

Nidaul Uswah Prasetyaningsih4

1 Coordinator of Center for Good Corporate Governance (CGCG), Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas

Gadjah Mada. 2 Professor of Accounting Department at Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada. 3 Deputy Director of Administration Affairs, Master of Development Economics Program, Universitas Gadjah

Mada. 4 Researcher at Center for Good Corporate Governance (CGCG), Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas

Gadjah Mada.

1

“Let those who vaunt the superior merits of other disciplines remember that

this first presentation made by Paciolo was not crude and incorrect but

contains the essentials of bookkeeping as we know it today, despite the fact

that it was written at a time when chemistry partook of the vagaries of

alchemy, biology was a weird collection of errors, and medicine had more in

common with the medicine man than it has even today.” (Hatfield, 1924:246)

1. INTRODUCTION

Discussions about accounting principles teaching methods are always appealing. The

conventional teaching model of accounting which generally refers to the double entry

bookkeeping teaching models has been criticized in many countries (Duff and McKinstry 2007).

The model is too narrow and procedural (Nelson 1995), inadequate in equipping the student with

the necessary competencies (Mohamed and Lashine 2003), and closely based on textbooks that

insufficiently encourage students to follow deep learning strategies that connect to real-world

experiences (Sangster et al., 2007).

Over past 25 years at least four reports suggested that accounting education is broken and

in need of complete changes (Bedford Committee; 1986; AECC, 1990; Big 8 White Paper, 1989;

Albrecht and Sack, 2000). As the response, a great number of experts have been doing research

and proposing changes in the teaching methods of Introduction to Accounting courses (see

Appendix A). Some changes have been proposed but there was considerable evidence suggesting

that changes to accounting education have not been pervasive or substantive enough.

As a professor of mathematics, Luca Pacioli taught the double entry bookkeeping to

students in the schools attended by the sons of merchants, and codified double-entry

bookkeeping in his mathematics book Summa de Arithmetica, Geometria, Proportioni et

Proportionalita (hereafter, Summa) in 1494. Interestingly, the double entry bookkeeping is one

of the few accounting principles that stay unchanged for centuries (Hatfield, 1924; Littleton,

1926; Vangermeersch, 1997; Rabinowitz, 2009). Thus, the use of a mathematical perspective as

an accounting education model is appropriate and valid. Moreover, the use of the mathematical

perspective helps us to identify the inappropriateness of the existing accounting education

models, to identify the limitations of the current financial standards, and propose the alternative

solutions to solve some current accounting issues.

2

The following section states the research question. Sections 3 and 4, respectively, points

out our research objectives and research topics. Section 5 describes accounting as an application

of mathematics. Section 6 justifies the hypotheses development. Final sections briefly describe

the research methods (section 7) and the proposed research activities (section 8).

2. RESEARCH QUESTION

Treating the double entry bookkeeping mechanism merely as a black box, i.e. an

application of the rules, makes the double entry bookkeeping perceived as rule driven,

mechanics, static, unintuitive, and forces students to memorize it. Recently we found that the

double entry bookkeeping mechanism is purely an application of mathematics. The use of the

mathematical perspective has made irrelevant the assumption that the rules of debits and credits

are knowledge that should be memorized. Thus, we offer the research proposal to answer the

following research question: Is the mathematical perspective teaching model in Introduction

to Accounting courses effective to make both non-accounting and accounting students

understand the double-entry bookkeeping well, and help accounting students to prepare

for more advanced accounting courses.

3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Based on the research question above, the following objectives of our research are:

a. Experiment the impact of the mathematical perspective teaching model on student

performance in understanding the mechanism of debits and credits.

b. Experiment the impact of the mathematical perspective teaching model on student

performance in understanding the rationale of the accounting equation.

c. Experiment the impact of the mathematical perspective teaching model on accounting student

performance in journalizing regular transactions.

d. Experiment the impact of the mathematical perspective teaching model on accounting student

performance in journalizing the varieties of accounting transaction simulation.

4. RESEARCH TOPICS

Mathematics is considered as the essential knowledge that students need to successfully

complete a college education (Lee and Lee, 2009), including accounting education (Alcock et al.

3

2008). Thus, research on the effectiveness of the mathematical perspective education model is

important and has strategic impact on the development of accounting education. Basically, our

research addresses these three topics:

a. Models of Accounting Education: The mathematical perspective teaching model in

accounting courses is unusual but promising. We expect that our accounting education model

will have high contribution to develop accounting as an academic discipline.

b. Convergence of Accounting Education Standards: The use of mathematical perspective

teaching model helps accounting education setters to standardize the accounting education

around the world because most students are familiar with mathematics, especially algebra.

c. Education and Development of Accounting Technicians: The mathematics perspective

teaching model gives accounting technicians the cognitive knowledge about the double entry

bookkeeping and expand their accounting knowledge skill.

5. ACCOUNTING AS AN APPLICATION OF MATHEMATICS

As widely acknowledged, Luca Pacioli discussed the double entry bookkeeping in his

mathematics book Summa (Weis & Tinius, 1991). The section of Particularis de Computis et

Scripturis appears to be included for the sake of completeness to recognize the importance of

arithmetic principles in the application of bookkeeping (Rabinowitz, 2009).

Most of accounting textbooks define debits meaning the left side, and credits meaning the

right side (e.g. Anthony, et al., 2007; Williams, et al., 2007; Weygandt, et al., 2008). The

definition indicates that the use of debits and credits is identical with algebra that has left and

right sides. Furthermore, we argue that the use of debits and credits in the double entry system is

mainly because there is no negative numbers in financial unit. As we all had known, accounting

uses a monetary unit principle to measure the economic activities (Littleton, 1926).

Mathematically, moving negative numbers (suppose minus 5) from the left side of algebra to the

right side will change the numbers into positive ones (plus 5). Thus, the use of debits and credits

in accounting is purely an application of mathematics.

Not only is the use of mathematical perspective able to identify the inappropriateness of

existing teaching models of the double entry bookkeeping, but it is also able to identify the

incompleteness of the definitions of financial statement elements, particularly revenues and

4

expenses (see Appendix B). Furthermore, the use of mathematical perspective can be used to

propose alternative solutions to solve current accounting issues (see Appendix C).

6. HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Essentially our research is to compare the effectiveness of the traditional bookkeeping

teaching model and the mathematical perspective teaching model. Thus, we develop each of the

hypotheses based on those two models.

a. The Mechanism of Debits and Credits

A number of textbooks mentioned that the mechanism of debits and credits are arbitrary

(Anthony et al., 2007), a rule of thumb (Williams et al., 2007), or customs “like the custom of

driving on the right-hand side..” (Weygant et al., 2008:49). From the mathematical perspective,

this debits and credits mechanism actually has an argument which is clear and easy to

understand. The brief description is as follows.

Illustrative Case: Supposed, Assets = 10, Liabilities = 4, and Equity = 6. The basic accounting

equation is 10 = 4 + 6. Next, the amount of liabilities is the difference between 18 and 14 (18 –

14), and accounting does not recognize the negative number. The liabilities with the value of 4

can be recorded either on one side, i.e. 18 is recorded to the debit and 14 to the credit (alternative

A) or 14 to debit and 18 to the credit (alternative B). According to the mathematical formulation,

however, the alternative B should be applied because the liabilities have a positive value and

located on the right side of the accounting equation (see Figure 1). The interpretation is that

number 14 on the debit deducts number 18 on the credit. As a result, the increase of liabilities is

recorded on the credit while the decrease of liabilities is recorded on the debit (see Figure 2).

Appendix D describes the detail mechanism of debits and credits for each element of the

accounting equation.

Figure 1

The Mathematics of Number – Credits/Right Side

Debits/Left Side Credits/Right Side 10 = 4 + 6

14 18

5

Figure 2

The Rule of Debits and Credits – Liabilities

Debits/Left Side Credits/Right Side

10 = 4 + 6

- +

Thus, we hypothesize as follows:

Ha1: Compared to the traditional models, the mathematics perspective education model

results in higher student performance in understanding the mechanism of debits and

credits.

b. The Rationale of the Accounting Equations

The double entry bookkeeping is based on the basic accounting equation: Assets =

Liabilities + Equity (Equation 1). The traditional teaching model’s rationale of the Equation 1 is

that the resources must always be equal to the sources of fund. Then, the equation was expanded

to include expense and revenue elements to represent firm’s economic activities. The traditional

expanded accounting equation was written as: Assets = Liabilities + Equity + Revenues –

Expenses (Equation 2a). The rationale of the Equation 2a is that resources must be equal to

sources of fund in which revenues and expenses are part of the equity. These rationales are

primarily based on the balance-sheet approach so that other accounting variables (i.e. revenues

and expenses) are considered secondary and derivative.

We argue that the rationale employed to explain the basic accounting equation (Equation

1) is not consistent with that employed to explain the expanded accounting equation (Equation

2a) because the element of expenses on the right side of the equation is not sources of fund. In

other words, the rationale employed to explain the basic accounting equation is different from

that employed to explain the expanded accounting equation even though both equations are

similar. Learning which employs different rationales to explain two things which in essence are

closely related is liable to confuse students.

Mathematically, Equation 2a can be re-written into Assets + Expenses = Liabilities +

Equity + Revenues (Equation 2b). It is more proper to place elements with the same signs

(positive or negative) on the same side because accounting does not recognize negative numbers

(Warsono-bin-Hardono, 2010). We can interpret that the left side of the Equation 1 and Equation

6

2b reflect the uses of fund, while the right side reflects the sources of fund. This mathematical

rationale consistently explains both the basic accounting equation (Equation 1) and the expanded

accounting equation (Equation 2b). In summary, the use of the mathematical perspective

provides better rationale of the accounting equations. Thus, we hypothesize as follows:

Ha2: Compared to the traditional ones, the mathematics perspective education model

results in higher student performance in understanding the rationale of the

accounting equations.

c. The Account-based Journal Entries

Journal entries are implementing the double entry bookkeeping. A journal always affects

at least two accounts. Most accounting textbooks describe the definition of an account as a

means of accumulating all the information about changes in specific financial statement items.

Using the mathematical perspective, we define accounts as the detail or the breakdown of

specific elements of the accounting equation. Rather than providing element-based financial

information as a representation of the accounting equations, accounting provides account-based

financial information that are more detailed and useful. Students will easily understand the

”know what” and ”know why” of accounts. The understanding will prevent students from just

memorizing various accounts. Thus, we hypothesize as follows:

Ha3: Compared to the traditional methods, the mathematics perspective education model

results in higher student performance in journalizing accounting transactions.

d. The Simulation of Transactions

Based on the accounting equation, it is possible that a transaction results in an increase of

expenses (debits) followed by an increase of revenues (credits). This happens in barter

transactions (see Appendix B). In addition, it is possible that a transaction results in the decrease

of revenues (debits) followed by the decrease of expenses. It exists when firms make elimination

entries for the inter-company transactions. Many other varieties are possible as long as the

balance of the equation is maintained. Unfortunately, the traditional accounting teaching models

do not cover these issues. The traditional accounting education, aware or not, require students to

memorize the journal. Thus, we hypothesize as follows.

7

Ha4: Compared to the traditional model, the mathematics perspective education model

results in higher student performance in journalizing the varieties of accounting

transaction simulation.

7. RESEARCH METHODS

This study uses an experimental method expected to reflect the effect of the use of

mathematical perspective education method on student performance. The method selected aimed

to minimize researcher bias, content bias, subject background bias, as well as subject

participation bias. The method used is to split the group of students taking the course into two

comparable groups. The material taught to both groups is identical, only the method differs and

changes. Group one is taught using the mathematical perspective model (treatment group), while

the second group is taught using the traditional teaching model (control group). In allocating

students to groups it is important to ensure homogeneity in the groups’ composition. We

randomly assign students to either traditional or mathematics-based teaching models.

To generalize the effectiveness of the mathematical perspective model, we use 5 types of

student classifications, i.e. (a) accounting students; to examine hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4, (b) non-

accounting students in business schools; to examine hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, (c) non-business

students schools; to examine hypotheses 1 and 2, (d) vocational accounting students, to examine

hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4, and (e) students in high schools; to examine hypotheses 1 and 2. Each

classification consists of two groups (treatment and control groups). Each group receives a 10

minute written module per hypothesis which covers identical conceptual material and used

identical examples, but for the treatment group the mathematical perspective model is used,

while for the control group a traditional teaching model is used.

We use t tests to analyze differences in student attitudes about the teaching models. We

categorize students by treatment (i.e., traditional versus mathematical perspective education

models) and by student classification (accounting students, non-accounting business students,

non-business students, vocational accounting students, and high school students). It is possible to

use ANOVA to analyze the collected data. We discuss differences with a p value at .05.

A survey of student attitudes regarding the course and specific pedagogical methods is

used and administered to students in both groups at the end of the experiment. We will develop

our survey on attitude questionnaires used in other studies. The attitudinal questions are to be

8

answered on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Before

implementing the survey, we will submit the attitudinal questionnaire to a panel of two business

experts to determine whether the questions clearly and adequately describe student attitudes.

8. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

Due Date Activity Description Output

Aug 30/2010 Submit the proposal Research proposal

Nov 10/2010 Revise the proposal, if determined as a

finalist

Revised research proposal

January 2011 Sign contract, specify interim milestones,

deliverables, and expected delivery dates

Written contract

March 2011 Develop research instruments, and do pilot

study

Expanded research proposal

(including research

instruments)

April 2011 Follow-up the Program Advisory

Committee’s feedback and suggestions

Revised research proposal

May 2011 Do experiment 1 to non-business students

and high-school students to examine

hypotheses 1 and 2)

Data collection and analysis

August 2011 Do experiment 2 to business students (first

year university students) to examine

hypotheses 1, 2, and 3


September 2011 Do experiment 3 to university accounting

students (third year students) to examine

hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4.


September 2011 Make progress report Interim report

October 2011 Present the research report Draft of the research paper

November 2011 Follow-up the Program Advisory

Committee’s feedback and suggestions

Revised research paper

December 2011 Do experiment 4 to vocational accounting Data collection and analysis

9

students to examine hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4

January 2012 Finalize the research paper Final research paper

February/March

2012

Present the research paper Final research paper

April 2012 Submit the paper to the Accounting

Education Journal

Research manuscript

REFERENCES

AECC (Accounting Education Change Committee). 1990. Position Statement Number One

Objectives of Education for Accountants. http://aaahq.org/aecc/PositionsandIssues/

pos1.htm, download on 1 August, 2010.

Albrecht, W.S. and Sack, R.J. 2000. Accounting Education: Charting the Course Through a

Perilous Future. http://aaahq.org/pubs/aesv16/toc.htm, download on 1 April 2010.

Alcock, J., Cockcroft, S. and Finn, F. 2008. Quantifying the advantage of secondary mathematics

study for accounting and finance undergraduates. Accounting and Finance, 697-818.

Anthony, R.N., Hawkins, D.F., and Merchant, K.A. 2007. Accounting: Text and cases.

Singapore: McGraw-Hill/Irwin (International edition).

Bedford Committee. 1986. Future Accounting Education: Preparing for the Expanding

Profession. http://aaahq.org/aecc/future/cover.htm, download on 1 April, 2010.

Big 8 White Paper. 1989. Perspectives on Education: Capabilities for Success in the

Accounting Profession. http://aaahq.org/aecc/big8/cover.htm, download on 28 July 2010.

Duff, A. and McKinstry, S. 2007. Students’ approaches to learning. Issues in Accounting

Education, 22: 183-214.

Ellerman, D.P. 1985. The mathematics of double-entry bookkeeping. Mathematics Magazine,

58: 226-233.

Hatfield, H. R. 1924. An historical defense of bookkeeping. Journal of Accountancy, 241-253.

10

Journal of Accountancy. 1987. Pacioli Revisited. May: 195-197.

Lee, B.B. and Lee, J. 2009. Mathematics and academic success in three disciplines:

Engineering, business and the humanities. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal,

95-105.

Littleton, A.C. 1926. Evolution of the ledger account. The Accounting Review, 1: 12-23.

Mohamed, E.K.A. and Lashine, S.H. 2003. Accounting knowledge and skills and the challenges

of a global business environment. Managerial Finance, 29(7): 3-16.

Nelson, I.T. 1995. What’s new about accounting education change? An historical perspective on

the change movement. Accounting Horizons, 9: 62-75.

Rabinowitz, A.M. 2009. Who was Luca Pacioli? The CPA Journal, February: 12-14.

Sangster, A., Stoner, G.N., and McCarthy, P.A. 2007. Lessons for the classroom from Luca

Pacioli. Issues in Accounting Education, 22: 447-457.

Vangermeersch, R.G. 1997. Dropping debit and credits in elementary accounting: A huge

disservice to students. Issues in Accounting Education, 12: 581-583.

Warsono-bin-Hardono, S. 2010. The need of accounting reform to heal the global financial

crisis: Back to the basic. Presented at Corporate Governance and Global Financial

Crisis.conference, University Pennsylvania, Wharton School, 24-25 September.

Weis, W.L. and Tinius, D.E. 1991. Luca Pacioli: Renaissance accountant. Journal of

Accountancy, November: 91–102.

Weygandt, J.J., Kieso, D.E., and Kimmel, P.D. 2008. Accounting principles. Singapore: John

Wiley & Sons (Asia) Ltd.

Williams, J.R., Haka, S.F., and Bettner, M.S. 2005. Financial & managerial accounting: The

basis for business decisions. Singapore: McGraw-Hill/Irwin (International edition).

APPENDIX A

Previous Research Proposing Change to Accounting Teaching Methods

No Author Title Research Publication Important Point

1 Patten, R.

J. and

Williams,

D. Z.

There’s Trouble-

Right Here in

Our Accounting

Programs: The

Challenge to

Accounting

Educators

Issues In Accounting

Education, Vol. 5, No.

2, 1990.

1. If accounting

graduates continue to

be ill-prepared to

function effectively in

this new order of

organizational

competitiveness,

employers will have

no choice but to turn

to graduates in other

disciplines to fill their

needs.

2 Saudagaran

, S. M.

The First Course

in Accounting:

An Innovative

Approach



1, 1996.

1. In recent years, there

has been a demand for

significant changes in

the design and

delivery of accounting

education.

2. Research by

accounting academics

also found that the

accounting curriculum

was not adequately

serving the

profession’s needs

(AAA, 1986).

3 Pincus, Is Teaching Issues In Accounting 1. Traditional double-

K.V. Debits and

Credits Essential

in Elementary

Accounting?


2, 1997.

entry bookkeeping is

becoming the Latin of

the business school-

interesting to study

and useful from a

historical perspective,

but not in demand in

everyday practice

(Elam, 1995).

2. Traditional elementary

course has its costs.

Chief among these

costs is that as the

world around us

changes and our

introductory courses

do not, we are

increasingly attracting

the wrong majors.

4 Ingram, R.

W.

A Note on

Teaching Debits

and Credits in

Elementary

Accounting



2, 1998.

1. Debit and credits are

not intuitive to most

student. Consequently,

they spend a lot of

time memorizing rules

and often fail to

develop an

understanding of the

information the

transactions convey.

5 Albrecht,

W. S. and

Accounting

Education:

Accounting Education

Series, Volume No. 16,

1. We cannot save

accounting education

Sack, R. J. Charting the

Course through a

Perilous Future

2000. by continuing to do

more of the same.

2. Most of the

educational models we

use are broken or in

desperate need of

repair.

6 Diller-

Haas, Amy

Time to Change

Introductory

Accounting

The CPA Journal, April

2004.

1. The old curriculum-

which emphasizes

memorization of

accounting

pronouncements and

the mechanics of

recording transactions-

does not provide a

complete picture of

today’s environment.

APPENDIX B

The Limitation of the Accounting Standards

The use of the asset perspective to define the other elements of financial statements may

result in an incomplete definition. In turn, accounting may provide financial information which

does not faithfully represent the firm’s real condition. Many experts have revealed the

inadequacy of accounting to represent the reality of business (Ball, 2008; Cheney, 2009). Before

pointing out the limitations of revenue and expense definitions, we would like to present the

definitions of revenues and expenses according to the FASB and IASC as follows.

“Revenues are inflows or other enhancements of assets of an entity or settlements of

its liabilities (or a combination of both) from delivering or producing goods,

rendering services, or other activities that constitute the entity’s ongoing major or

central operations.”

“Income is increases in economic benefits during the accounting period in the form

of inflows or enhancements of assets or decreases of liabilities that result in increases

in equity, other than those relating to contributions from equity participants.”

“Expenses are outflows or other using up of assets or incurrence of liabilities (or a

combination of both) from delivering or producing goods, rendering services, or

carrying out other activities that constitute the entity’s ongoing major or central

operations.”

“Expenses are decreases in economic benefits during the accounting period in the

form of outflows or depletions of assets or the incurrence of liabilities that result in

decreases in equity, other than those relating to distributions to equity participants.”

The above definitions are substantially similar, namely that the recognition of revenues

and expenses must be followed by changes in assets and/or liabilities (see Diagram included in

the FASB No. 6, 1985). Such a definition disregards revenue/expense transactions, such as

barter, that do not produce directly any change in assets/liabilities. Here are 5 cases which reveal

limitations in the standards of the elements of financial statements, especially related to the

definitions of revenues and expenses.

Business event A: Merchandising firm Q, which is in the business of selling computers, and

merchandising firm R, which is in the business of selling furniture, barter their merchandise.

According to the standards, both merchandising firms Q and R recognize this event as a revenue

transaction, as in this event there is an increase of assets into each firm.

Business event B: Service firm S, which is in the information technology consulting business,

and service firm T, which is in the accounting consulting business, barter their main service.

According to the standards, both firms S and T should not recognize this business event as a

revenue transaction because there is no increase of assets or decrease of liabilities in each of

these firms. Accordingly this event cannot be classified as a revenue transaction by either firm.

Business event C: Service firm S, which is in the accounting consulting business, is conducting

barter with merchandising firm Q, which is in the business of selling computers. According to

the standards, firm S should recognize this business event as a revenue transaction because there

is an increase in assets in the form of computers. Firm Q, however, should not recognize this

business event as a revenue transaction because there is neither an increase in assets nor decrease

in liabilities even though firm Q delivers its services. This business event, therefore, is

recognized as a transaction by firm S but cannot be recognized as such by firm Q.

Business event D: Service firm V, which is in the business of advertisement, purchases a

number of firm W’s shares (with the intention to own them). The payment is made directly and

fully in the form of advertising services delivered by firm V. Firm V should recognize this

business event as a revenue transaction because there is an increase in assets in the form of

shared investment. According to the standards, however, firm W should not recognize this

business event as an expense transaction because there is neither a decrease in assets nor an

increase in liabilities as a result of this business event; what results is an increase in equity.

Business event E: Service firm X, which is in the business of TV advertising, distributes

revenue dividends in the form of services to firm Y, which owns more than 20 percent of the

company shares. On the announcement date, firm Y immediately utilizes the revenue dividends.

According to the standards, firm X should not recognize this business event as a revenue

transaction because there is neither an increase in assets nor a decrease in liabilities; what results

is an increase in dividends distribution. On the other hand, firm Y should recognize this business

event as an expense transaction because the firm receives advertising services and there is a

decrease in assets in the form of shared investment (equity method). Therefore, this business

event should be recognized as an expense transaction by firm Y but should not be recognized as

such by firm X.

In summary, the recognition of revenues can be balanced not only by increases in assets

or decreases in liabilities, but also by increases in expenses or decreases in equity. Likewise, the

recognition of expenses can be balanced by decreases in assets, increases in liabilities, increases

in equity, or increases in revenues. Therefore, the current definitions of the elements of revenues

(income) and expenses are incomplete. This occurs because the standards argue that revenues

and expenses should make a direct impact on the assets and/or liabilities. The inadequacy of the

definitions of revenues and expenses is also due to the placement of revenues and expenses

under the category of equity.

APPENDIX C

Mathematical Perspective to Solve the Current Issues

Written documents show that accounting was included in Luca Pacioli’s mathematics

book (Sangster et al., 2007). In its historical progress, however, accounting has developed a

focus on rules (Penno, 2008). A large number of rules have been issued to the effect that

accounting was well-known as a regulatory enterprise (AAA FASC, 2007). Nevertheless, the

development of rules cannot completely protect the users from misleading accounting

information (Scott, 2009). Besides focusing on the development of rules, accounting has also

developed an emphasis on vocational skills. The teaching of accounting, as a result, has focused

largely on vocational skills (Demski, 2007), with little contribution to the academic world

(Fellingham, 2007).

“Financial reporting is not an end in itself. It is a means of communicating to the users of

financial reports information that is useful in making choices among alternative uses of scarce

resources” (FASB, 2006:OB6) and “The objective of general purpose financial reporting is to

provide financial information . . .” (FASB, 2008:OB2). Thus, financial accounting is a tool to be

used to provide financial information. As a tool, accounting should be of the same nature as

computing, aircraft technology, etc. All these technologies require established knowledge in

order to function effectively; to give the best possible contribution to humanity, and to allow for

continuous development. This study argues that three major pillars should be developed in a

balanced manner to enable accounting to become an academic discipline, namely mathematics,

rules, and art.

The Joint Project IASB/FASB has been developing the Conceptual Framework for

Financial Reporting that underlies financial reporting. Several topics are still debated up to the

present. These debated topics usually become problematic when we have to choose between two

extreme points which appear utterly irreconcilable but which eventually must be accommodated

in order to serve the interests of all parties involved. For example, the Joint Project IASB/FASB

originally stated in the Preliminary Views of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting

that the potential users of financial reports include equity investors, creditors, suppliers,

employees, customers, governments and their agencies and regulatory bodies, and the public

(FASB, 2006:OB6). Later, the Joint Project IASB/FASB revised the objective of external

financial reporting as to provide information that is useful for capital providers including equity

investors, lenders, and other creditors (FASB, 2008:OB6).

Below are two Joint Project IASB/FASB’s objectives as mentioned in the Preliminary

Reviews of the Conceptual Framework (FASB, 2006) that can be achieved through the

development of the accounting equation.

Stakeholder vs. Stockholder Approaches

The objective of external financial reporting is directed to the needs of a wide range of

users (stakeholder approach). However, as long as all sources of funds other than liabilities are

contained in one element, namely the equity, it will be difficult for financial reporting to provide

information that is useful to users other than equity investors and creditors (stockholder

approach). As the equity contains various sources of funds the quality of information coming

from the element may decrease. For example, current financial reporting is unable to provide a

representative picture of the long-term contribution of the management to the company because

their performance is periodically moved into the equity. This study argues that this could be the

reason for the emergence of conflicts between principals and agents. Likewise, current financial

reporting is unable to provide information that is specific about governmental subsidies,

donations or facilities received by the firm, as the information about governmental support is

mixed up with information about other sources of funds in one big basket called “equity”.

In this information era firms need information that is more detailed and comprehensive in

order to make informed decisions. Had the accounting equation consisted of elements that

represented specific types of users, information that is useful to a wide range of users might have

been produced. The accounting equation could be developed along the line of, for instance,

Asset + Expenses = Liabilities + Owner’s Capital + Revenues + Management Contribution

+ Governmental Fund + Residual Sources.

Relevance vs. Reliability

The qualitative characteristics of financial reporting information should be relevant,

faithful, comparable, and understandable. However, as long as the elements of accounting

equation consist of financial information employing various measurements, it will be difficult to

fulfill these qualitative requirements. For example, when assets cover several accounts that

employ some measures, the assets are unable to fully meet both the characteristics of relevance

and faithful representation. Likewise, the use of various measurements in one element may

weaken the comparability and understandability of the financial reporting. This also applies to

other elements in the accounting equation, both in the element of balance sheet and income

statements.

Had the accounting equation consisted of various elements containing information

measured with the same (homogenous) measuring tool, the accounting information produced

would have acquired the long-awaited characteristics of relevance, faithful representation,

comparability, and understandability. For instance, the elements of assets are divided into two,

namely value-based assets and historical-cost assets, and the elements of expenses are divided

into two, namely accrual-based expenses and cash-based expenses. Elements of the value-based

assets reflect the provision of information which is relevant for decision-making, while the

elements of historical-cost assets reflect information which is relevant for faithful representation.

APPENDIX D

Mathematical Perspective of Debits and Credits

Illustrative Case A: Supposed, Assets = 15, Expenses = 7, Liabilities = 4, Equity = 8, and

Revenues = 10. The accounting equation is 15 + 7 = 4 + 8 + 10 (using mathematical accounting

equation). Next, the amount of assets is the difference between 50 and 35 (50 – 35), and

accounting does not recognize the negative number. The assets with the value of 35 can be

recorded either on one side, i.e. 50 is recorded to the debit and 35 to the credit (alternative A) or

35 to the debit and 50 to the credit (alternative B). According to the mathematical formulation,

however, the alternative A should be applied because the assets have a positive value and located

on the left (debit) side of the accounting equation (see Figure 1). The interpretation is that

number 35 on the credit deducts number 50 on the debit. As a result, the increase of assets is

recorded on the debit while the decrease of liabilities is recorded on the credit (see Figure 2).

Figure 1

The Mathematics of Numbers – Debit/Left Side

Debit/Left Side Credit/Right Side

15 + 7 = 4 + 8 + 10

50 35

Figure 2

The Rule of Debits and Credits – Assets

Debit/Left Side Credit/Right Side Assets = 4 + 8 + 10

+ -

Illustrative Case B: Supposed, Assets = 15, Expenses = 7, Liabilities = 4, Equity = 8, and

Revenues = 10. The accounting equation is 15 + 7 = 4 + 8 + 10. Next, the amount of expenses is

the difference between 30 and 23 (30 – 23), and accounting does not recognize the negative

number. The expenses with the value of 7 can be recorded either on one side, i.e. 30 is recorded

to the debit and 22 to the credit (alternative A) or 23 to the debit and 30 to the credit (alternative

B). According to the mathematical formulation, however, the alternative A should be applied

because the assets have a positive value and located on the left (debit) side of the accounting

equation (see Figure 3). The interpretation is that number 23 on the credit deducts number 30 on

the debit. As a result, the increase of expenses is recorded on the debit while the decrease of

expenses is recorded on the credit (see Figure 4).

Figure 3



15 + 7 = 4 + 8 + 10

30 23

Figure 4

The Rule of Debits and Credits – Expenses

Debit/Left Side Credit/Right Side Expenses =

+ -

Illustrative Case C: Supposed, Assets = 15, Expenses = 7, Liabilities = 4, Equity = 8, and

Revenues = 10. The accounting equation is 15 + 7 = 4 + 8 + 10. Next, the amount of liabilities is


number. The liabilities with the value of 4 can be recorded either on one side, i.e. 18 is recorded

to the debit and 14 to the credit (alternative A) or 14 to debit and 18 to the credit (alternative B).

According to the mathematical formulation, however, the alternative B should be applied

because the liabilities have a positive value and located on the right side of the accounting

equation (see Figure 5). The interpretation is that number 14 on the debit deducts number 18 on

the credit. As a result, the increase of liabilities is recorded on the credit while the decrease of

liabilities is recorded on the debit (see Figure 6).

Figure 5


Debit/Left Side Credit/Right Side 15 + 7 = 4 + 8 + 10

Figure 6

The Rule of Debits and Credits – Liabilities


= Liabilities

+ -

Illustrative Case D: Supposed, Assets = 15, Expenses = 7, Liabilities = 4, Equity = 8, and

Revenues = 10. The accounting equation is 15 + 7 = 4 + 8 + 10. Next, the amount of equity is the

difference between 80 and 72 (80 – 72), and accounting does not recognize the negative number.

The equity with the value of 8 can be recorded either on one side, i.e. 80 is recorded to the debit

and 72 to the credit (alternative A) or 72 to debit and 80 to the credit (alternative B). According

to the mathematical formulation, however, the alternative B should be applied because the equity

has a positive value and located on the right side of the accounting equation (see Figure 7). The

interpretation is that number 72 on the debit deducts number 80 on the credit. As a result, the

increase of equity is recorded on the credit while the decrease of equity is recorded on the debit

(see Figure 8).

Figure 7



15 + 7 = 4 + 8 + 10

Figure 8

The Rule of Debits and Credits – Equity


= Equity

- +

Illustrative Case E: Supposed, Assets = 15, Expenses = 7, Liabilities = 4, Equity = 8, and

Revenues = 10. The accounting equation is 15 + 7 = 4 + 8 + 10. Next, the amount of revenues is


number. The revenue with the value of 10 can be recorded either on one side, i.e. 70 is recorded

to the debit and 60 to the credit (alternative A) or 60 to debit and 70 to the credit (alternative B).

According to the mathematical formulation, however, the alternative B should be applied

because the revenues have a positive value and located on the right side of the accounting

equation (see Figure 9). The interpretation is that number 60 on the debit deducts number 70 on

the credit. As a result, the increase of revenues is recorded on the credit while the decrease of

revenues is recorded on the debit (see Figure 10).

Figure 9



15 + 7 = 4 + 6 + 10

Figure 10

The Rule of Debits and Credits – Revenues


= Revenues

- +

Authors’ Curriculum Vitae

PLACE/BIRTH DATE Kediri/June 17, 1967

EDUCATION 2003, PhD, University of Kentucky 1994, MAFIS, Cleveland State University 1991, Bachelor, Universitas Gadjah Mada

POSITIONS HELD 2009-present, Coordinator of Center for Good Corporate Governance Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Gadjah Mada 2009-present, Commitment Officer on Procurement of Goods Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Gadjah Mada 2008-present, a Lecturer at Magister of Information Technology, Electrical Engineering Department Faculty of Engineering Universitas Gadjah Mada 2007-present, Reviewer of Dikti Grant and UGM Program 2005-present, a Lecturer at Doctorate and Master Program in Accounting Universitas Gadjah Mada 1996-present, a Lecturer at Magister of Management Universitas Gadjah Mada 1992-present, a Lecturer at Master of Accounting Universitas Gadjah Mada 1992-present, a Lecturer at Master of Economics Development Universitas Gadjah Mada 1992-present, a Lecturer at Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Gadjah Mada HISTORY OF TEACHING Introduction to Accounting Accounting Information Systems Advanced Accounting Information System Auditing Knowledge Management PUBLICATIONS: RESEARCH PAPERS The Need of Accounting Reform to Heal the Global Financial Crisis, 2010 Mathematics in Accounting as a Big Unanswered Question, 2009 Back to the Basic: Accounting as Number Crunching Courses, 2009 Using Mathematics to Teach Accounting Principles, 2009

Primary Business Address: Center for Good Corporate Governance (CGCG) UGM

Jalan Sosio Humaniora No. 1, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 55281.

Phone: +62-0274-548550 Fax:+62-0274-548550

E-mail: [email protected]

Sony Warsono bin Hardono

Author

Reforming the Accounting Standards to Improve Corporate Governance, 2009 Does Accounting Account for Knowledge? 2002 TEXTBOOKS (IN INDONESIAN LANGUAGE) CGCG UGM’S Rating Model, 2010 Accounting Reform: Breaking Down Bounded Rationality of Accounting Development, 2010 Accounting for Small and Medium Enterprise, 2010 Corporate Governance Concept and Model: Preserving True Organization Welfare, 2009 Mathematics-based Introduction to Accounting, 2009 Accounting is Logic and Easy, 2009 Accounting in Service /firms—for High Schools Accounting in Merchandising Firm— for High Schools RESEARCH INTEREST Accounting, Management Information System, and Corporate Governance PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Indonesian Institute of Accountant (IAI)

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2007-2008, Coordinator at Doctorate and Master Program in Accounting Universitas Gadjah Mada 2005-2007, Vice Secretary at Academic Accountant Association Compartment Indonesian Institute of Accountant 2005-2006, Coordinator at Magister of Accounting Program Universitas Gadjah Mada 2004-2005, Coordinator at Accounting Profession Education Program Universitas Gadjah Mada 1998-2000, Deputy Director of Administration Affair at Extention Program Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Gadjah Mada 1997-1999, Treasurer at Academic Accountant Association Compartment Indonesian Institute of Accountant 1997-1999, Administrator of Quality for Undergraduate Education (QUE) Accounting Program Universitas Gadjah Mada 1994-1998, Rector Assistant of Administration Affair Universitas Gadjah Mada


ACHIEVEMENT 2009, Awarded Research Grant from World Class Research University Universitas Gadjah Mada 2008, Awarded Research Grant from Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Gadjah Mada 2003, Awarded Research Grant from University of Kentucky for Accounting and Knowledge Management Research


PLACE/BIRTH DATE Solo/January 03, 1947 EDUCATION 1999, Professor, Universitas Gadjah Mada 1989, DBA, University of Kentucky 1984, M.Sc., University of Kentucky 1973, Bachelor, Universitas Gadjah Mada AWARDS 30 Years Satyalancana Karya Satya Awarded by the President of Republic Indonesia, 1996 Greatness Gold Medal of Service to Austrian Government (Grosse Goldene Ehrenzeichen Fur Verdience Um Die Rep. Osterreich), 1997 POSITIONS HELD 2009-2013, Member of National Education Standard Body (BSNP) 2008-present, President Commissioner of PT. Bank BTN 1989-present, a Lecturer in Graduate Program and Magister Management Program, Universitas Gadjah Mada 1974-present, a Lecturer at Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Gadjah Mada PUBLICATIONS: RESEARCH PAPERS 1975, Study of Development of Smoked Rubber Industry 1976, Study Cost Components of Small and Medium Enterprises 1978, Study Component and Structure of Iron Industry 1979, Study Development of Export Commodity 1993, Study Quality of Accounting Graduates 1994, Functional Currency and inflation Rate – An Analysis of The Impact of Financial Statements – An Indonesia Case Study 1997, Analysis of Value Added of Cash Flow Information 1997, Evaluation of the Effect of Different Accounting for Translation Gains and Losses TEXTBOOK (IN INDONESIA LANGUAGE) 1985, Intermediate Accounting-Special Issues, Yogyakarta: BPFE. 1985, Accounting Systems. 5th Ed, Yogyakarta: BPFE. 1991, Accounting Information Systems, 2nd Ed., Yogyakarta: BPFE. 1991, Intermediate Accounting, 7th Ed., Yogyakarta: BPFE. CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS Presenter in Konvensi Nasional Akuntansi I, Surabaya, 1989. Presenter in Seminar Nasional Akuntansi Manajemen STIE YKPN, Yogya, 1990. Presenter in Kongres XI ISEI, Bandung, 1990. Presenter in Seminar Nasional Ulang Tahun IAI, Jakarta, 1991

Primary Business Address Faculty of Economics and Business,

Universitas Gadjah Mada. Jalan Sosio Humaniora No. 1,

Yogyakarta , Indonesia, 55281.

Phone: +62-0274-548508 Fax: +62-0274-563212


Zaki Baridwan

Co-Author

Presenter in Sidang Pleno Konvensi Nasional Akuntansi II, Yogya, 1992. Presenter in Seminar Merger dan Akuisisi ibii, Jakarta, 1992. Presenter in Seminar Nasional Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, 1993. Participant in Asean Accounting Teachers Association Seminar, Kuala Lumpur, 1993. Chairman in Kongres IAI VII, Bandung, 1994. Participant in American Accounting Association Convention, New York, 1994. Participant in PACAP Conference, Jakarta, 1994. Presenter in Seminar Nasional Akuntansi Keuangan, IAI Cabang Banjarmasin, 1995. Presenter in Pekan Kuliah Perdana, UPN Veteran, Yogyakarta, 1996. Presenter in Nasional Internal Control Seminar, STIEB, Bandung, 1996. Presenter in Konvensi Nasional Akuntansi III dan KLB, Semarang, 1996. Participant in Seminar Asean Federation of Accountants, Bali, 1996. Presenter in Accounting Education Curriculum Seminar Yogyakarta, 1996. Participant in Asean Federation of Accountants Seminar, Kuala Lumpur, 1997. Presenter in Studium General STIE Widya Wiwaha Yogyakarta, 1997. Presenter in Internal Control Seminar, Universitas Lampung, 1997. Presenter in Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Akuntansi Memasuki Milenium Baru, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, 1997. Presenter in Seminar Akuntansi Internasional, Universitas Guna Dharma, Jakarta, 1997. Presenter in Lokakarya Nasional Penyusunan Silabus Akuntansi, Cisarua, 1997. Presenter in Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Akuntansi, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta, 1997. Participant in PACAP Conference, Shanghai, RRC, 1997. Presenter in Seminar UU PNBP, Ditjen Anggaran, Jakarta, 1997. Presenter in Seminar of Statistical Sampling, BPK Jakarta, 1999 Presenter in Seminar of Auditing, IAI, Semarang, 2000 Presenter in Workshop on Sector Public Accounting, BPK Bali, 2001 Presenter in Seminar of Financial Disclosure, Project Siaga Jakarta, 2001 Presenter in Seminar of Corporate Governance, Komite GCG, Jakarta, 2001 Presenter in Seminar of Corporate Governance, UKSW, Salatiga, 2001 Presenter in Seminar on Professiomal Accounting Education JOURNAL The Effects of Translation Accounting Requirements and Exchange Rates on Foreign Operations Financial Performance - An International Comparison (Co Author), International Journal of Accounting Education and Research, USA, Volume 3,1989. Pengajaran Akuntansi Keuangan Menghadapi Perkembangan Di Masa Depan, Auditor, Yogyakarta, October,1992. Profesi Akuntansi di Indonesia. Yang Telah dan Masih Perlu Dilakukan. Kajian Bisnis, October,1993. Kerangka Konseptual Standar Akuntansi Indonesia. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Manajemen, October, 1993. FAS 52: A Blessing for Foreign Managers? Kelola, Yogyakarta, January,1994.

Zaki Baridwan

Pengaruh Informasi Akuntansi Terhadap Keputusan Kredit Yang Diambil oleh Bank dan Hubungannya Dengan Pengembalian Debitur di Propinsi Kalimantan Timur. BPPS UGM, 1995. Analisis Hubungan antara Polling Saham Unggulan Sepekan. Kelola, January, 1996. Kurikulum Program Pendidikan Akuntansi. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Manajemen, July, 1996. Strategi Pendidikan Akuntansi Menjelang Abad 21. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Manajemen. December, 1996. Analisis Nilai Tambah Informasi Laporan Arus Kas. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis Indonesia. Volume 12, No.2, 1997. Evaluasi Dampak Perlakuan Rugi Laba Penjabaran Laporan Keuangan. Kelola, No. 16/VI/1997, 1997. Perkembangan Teori dan Penelitian Akuntansi. Jurnal Ekonomi & Bisnis Indonesia. Vol.15, No.4, October 2000. Clean Government dan Pemberantasan Korupsi. Jurnal Akuntansi & Manajemen. December 2000. Asimetri Informasi dan Cost of Equity Capital. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Indonesia. Vol.4, No. 1, January 2001. Analisis Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Perusahaan Berinvestasi pada Aktiva Likuid. KOMPAK. Jurnal Akuntansi, Manajemen dan Sistem Informasi. FE UTY, Yogyakarta. Ed January-April 2005 (Co author). The Effect of Ratings Announcement on Bond Performance. SosiaSains. Vol.19, No.1, January 2006 (Co author). Pengaruh Asimetri Informasi, Regulasi Perbankan, dan Ukuran Perusahaan pada Manajemen Laba dengan Model Akrual Khusus Perbankan. Jurnal Akuntansi & Bisnis. Vol.6, No.2, August 2006. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Indonesia Economist Association (ISEI) Indonesian Institute of Accountant (IAI) National Education Standard Body (BSNP) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1976-1979, Vice Dean for Administration, Faculty of Economics UGM. 1979-1982, Secretary of Accounting Research and Development Center UGM. 1980-1994, Advisory Council of STIE YKPN, Yogyakarta. 1980-1982, Director of Faculty of Economics Publishing Division (BPFE) UGM. 1993-1996, Chairman of Accounting Department UGM. 1994-1995, Director of Extention Program UGM. 1994-1998, Vice Rector for Administration and Finance UGM. 1995-2001, Chairman of Accounting Department. Lampung University. 1997-1998, Expert Staff for State Board of Auditing (BPK), Republic of Indonesia. 1999-2001, Director of Graduate School UGM. 2000-2004, Dean, Faculty of Economics UGM. 2000-2008, President Commissioner Bank BNI.

Zaki Baridwan

PLACE/BIRTH DATE Solo/January 23, 1968

EDUCATION 2003, PhD, University of Kentucky 1994, M.Sc., University of Kentucky 1991, Bachelor, Universitas Gadjah Mada

POSITIONS HELD 2009-present, Deputy Director of Administration Affairs, Master of Development Economics Program Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2008 – present, Assessor of the National Accreditation Body (BAN). 1996 – present, Management and Accounting Consultant. 1992-present, Assistant Professor of Accounting at Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Gadjah Mada 1992-present, a Lecturer at Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Gadjah Mada 1992-present, a Lecturer at Master of Management Universitas Gadjah Mada

1992-present, a Lecturer at Master of Accounting Universitas Gadjah Mada 1992-present, a Lecturer at Master of Economics Development Universitas Gadjah Mada 1992-present, a Lecturer at Doctoral Program Universitas Gadjah Mada PUBLICATIONS WORKING PAPERS Budgetary Participation and Stretch Targets: Do People Care about Procedural Fairness in A Stretch Budget Condition, 2008 Determinants and Consequences of Performance Measures: A Literature Review and Research Agenda, 2008 The Effects of Strategic Mission and Manager’s Knowledge on Performance Measures Selection, 2008 How We Systematically Endorse Self-Interested Behavior: The Effects of Agency Theory and Justice, 2008

Primary Business Address Faculty of Economics and Business

Universitas Gadjah Mada Jalan Sosio Humaniora No. 1

Yogyakarta, Indonesia , 55281.

Phone: +62-0274-548550 Fax: +62-0274-548550


Ertambang Nahartyo

Co-Author

RESEARCH INTEREST Judgment and Decision Making, Behavioral Management Accounting and Corporate Governance. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 1997-1999, Indonesian Certified of Professional Accountant Exam Task Force, Ministry of Finance, Indonesia 1996-1999, Secretary of Indonesia Academic Accountant Association Compartment 1992-present, Indonesia Accountant Association (IAI) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2007-2008, Executive Director, Center for Good Corporate Governance Universitas Gadjah Mada ACHIEVEMENT AND FELLOWSHIP 2007, PHK-B Grant, Directorate of Higher Learning, National Education Department 1999-2003, Quality for Undergraduate Education Project Fellowship 1993-1994, Accounting Development Center (PPA) Fellowship 1990-1991, Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI) Fellowship

Ertambang Nahartyo

PLACE/BIRTH DATE Sleman/September 07, 1987 EDUCATION 2010, Bachelor in Accounting, Universitas Gadjah Mada 2006, SMA Muhammdiyah I Yogyakarta 2003, SLTP Muhammdiyah II Yogyakarta 2000, SDN Percobaan II Yogyakarta POSITIONS HELD 2010-present, Researcher at Center for Good Corporate Governance Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Gadjah Mada 2009-present, Academic Assistant, Majoring in Financial Accounting Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Gadjah Mada RESEARCH INTEREST Accounting, Islamic Economics, and Corporate Governance ORGANIZATION Sharia Economics Forum (SEF) Universitas Gadjah Mada PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2008, Financial Assistant at Lab. of Islamic Economics and Business (LEBI) Universitas Gadjah Mada 2009, Financial Assistant at Center of World Trade Studies (CWTS) Universitas Gadjah Mada ACHIEVEMENT Semifinalist in Geography Olympiade, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 2003 Best Student in Annual Performance Review, SLTP Muhammadiyah II Yogyakarta, 2003 Participant in Region Student Exchange Program, Yogyakarta-Pandeglang, 2004 Delegation in International Conference, Sharia Economics Activities, Universitas Diponegoro, 2007 Vice President of Sharia Economics Forum (SEF) Universitas Gadjah Mada, 2008

Primary Business Address Center for Good Corporate Governance (CGCG) UGM

Jalan Sosio Humaniora No. 1, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 55281

Phone: +62-0274-548550 Fax:+62-0274-548550


Nidaul U. Prasetyaningsih

Co-Author

reforming accounting education

Documents