The Research On The Construction And International Harmonization Of Chinese Accounting Standards

Along with the coming of the economic globalization times, international accounting standards harmonization has already become an unavoidable important problem for our accounting standards construction. Up to July 2004, the related domestic researching projects have completed the researches on the differences between the CAS (Chinese Accounting Standards) and the IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards), and the following main researching task is to prepare for the substantive harmonization between the CAS and the IFRS. Now, the common ground having already been reached is that the construction of Chinese accounting standards is not a process to accept the IFRS passively and completely but a process to harmonize with the IFRS actively and step by step. However, there are still some urgent problems that are not resolved, for example, what are the bottle-necks in our accounting standards' international harmonization? What are the latent influences if we modify the CAS according to the IFRS? How to decide accurately whether we should remain, mix or modify the differences between the CAS and the IFRS? This paper is just the research on these questions. Based on the existing literature, this paper provides the answers through the analysis of the path of accounting standards construction and international harmonization, and through the thoroughly study of the specific differences between the CAS and the IFRS. It is important for promoting our accounting standards construction, for realizing the international harmonization with the IFRS, for expanding the opening policy to the foreign countries, and for obtaining our reasonable profits in the international economy.The premise of discussing this topic is to understand the relevant background, history and problems of the CAS construction and international harmonization. For more than twenty years, the international harmonization has been significant during our construction of accounting standards, and the obvious progress has been gained. However, promoting further the international harmonization of our accountingstandards is urgent under the force of international capital flowing, the development of international trade, the demand of TNCs on operating efficiency and the requirement of international organizations. In addition, the IASB completed its strategic reorganization at the beginning of this century, and declared that they would promote the IFRS to be accepted and followed in the world. Since then, a new leaf has been turned over for the international accounting harmonization. More and more countries and districts have cooperated with the IASB. They have accepted the IFRS, or have permitted the use of the IFRS, or have committed to accept the IFRS. Under the circumstances of global accounting standards harmonization, we set up the primary goal of our accounting standards construction as the following: on the basis of the primary environment and accounting environment of our country, we should try to promote the harmonization between the CAS and the IFRS except for those conflicting with our laws and regulations obviously (Feng-Shuping, 2003). However, to gain this goal, we must understand and resolve the four bottle necks that prevent the progress of our international harmonization with the IFRS: firstly, the conflict between international harmonization and the special characteristics of the Chinese environment; secondly, the negative economic results that will be caused if we modify the CAS according to the IFRS; thirdly, the conflict among countries during the process of international accounting standards harmonization; fourthly, whether the IFRS is high quality or not.Around these problems, this paper gives the literature review, and combed the conclusions of the researches on the construction and international harmonization of accounting standards, from which we can get some revelations. For example, as a developing country, China must consider the difference of the accounting environment during the harmonization with the IFRS; the net reporting profit is descending with a lower degree when the domestic B-stock companies adopt IFRS, which implies that the negative economic results of harmonization are decreasing; the IFRS can supply no more information than the present CAS, etc. As a whole, however, the current researches cannot answer all the questions above satisfactorily. Therefore,this paper comes back to the nature of accounting standards, and points out that the nature of accounting standards is an institution. Based on this point, this paper discusses the CAS construction and international harmonization by the theory of institutional economics, and proposes the "Path—analyzing Approach" to the research of relevant problemsFrom the view of institutional economics, accounting standard is a kind of institution under the accounting environment composed of multiple factors such as economy, politics, law and culture. The international harmonization of accounting standards is corresponding to the development of the accounting environment. On the scope of the CAS international harmonization, we should harmonize with the IFRS on the technology principles but not on the specific regulations so as to avoid conflicting with the differences between our accounting environment and the developed countries' accounting environment. During the construction and the international harmonization of CAS, government should be the main force, and should adopt the way of harmonizing step by step. When judging whether the international harmonization is necessary, we should analyze the profit curve and cost curve of the new harmonized accounting standards. In general, only when the degree is above a certain point can the international harmonization be feasible. When implementing international harmonization, we should notice that the influences of the new harmonized accounting standards are different in four stages: in the first stage, foreign trade and foreign investment can increase, but the new harmonized accounting standards will cause negative influence on domestic capital market, and government will confront with innovation pressure during this stage; in the following stages, the domestic capital market will adapt to the new harmonized accounting standards slowly, and the total welfare will increase. Therefore, breaking the "deadlock" in the first stage is most important for implementing the new harmonized accounting standards successfully. By building a model, this paper proposes two kinds of ways of resolving the deadlock: One is that new element appears outside the system and causes the change favorable to harmonization. For example, we persists oncommunicating with the IASB, and persuades the IASB to consider our country's conditions, or even to adopt part of our accounting standards in the IFRS, Which can reduce the gap between new harmonized accounting standards and our previous accounting standards, and can be benefit for investors and listed companies on our capital market to adapt to new standards; the other is an amelioration in the system. For example, resolving the "deadlock" by taking some steps to enhance the stability of the capital market, such as enhancing the reliability of accounting information on the capital market, or pushing forward the ideological preparation for new harmonized accounting standards on the capital market.Up to now, this paper has applied the theory of institution economics to complete the analyzing framework of the path and the problems coming up on the path of the construction and international harmonization of our accounting standards. Next, this paper will discuss how to dispose the specific differences between the CAS and the IFRS. From the annual financial reports of listed companies and some conclusions of the existing researches, we can summarize twenty main differences between the CAS and the IFRS, such as the affiliated enterprise reporting requirement, debt restructuring, subsidiary company amalgamation. To investigate the effects that the differences may have, this paper avoids the statistical method that is commonly used in current empirical research, and selects three kinds of listed companies on B-stock market for case analyzing. The net profit differences of these sample companies under the CAS and the IFRS were great. The author finds that, when these companies modulated their net profit under the CAS to the net profit under the IAS/IFRS in the financial reports, the items that increased the net profit were mainly the debt restructuring and the affiliated enterprise transaction, and the items that decreased the net profit were mainly the value-decreasing preparation for the assets and the depreciation of the otiose capital assets in 2001 and in 2002, but these items were no longer important in 2003. The effect of the difference between the CAS and the IFRS on the subsidiary company amalgamation stood out when tyre-B(900909) modulated its net profit. Based on the accounting standards' double natures of technology andcausing economic results, this paper sets up a "four-zone" model to deal with the accounting standards differences: for differences in the first zone, we can directly accept the IFRS; for differences in the forth zone, we can mixing the CAS and the IFRS, or partly modifying the CAS according to the IFRS, in order to get some positive economic results without lowering the quality of our accounting standards; for differences in the second zone, we can delay harmonization until the accounting environment changes into a favorable situation; for differences in the third zone, we can refuse harmonization. According to the four-zone model, this paper sorts the differences between the CAS and the IFRS, and analyzes several accounting standards differences as examples.Finally, this paper brings forward the countermeasures of the construction and international harmonization of our accounting standards. As the total strategy, we need reduce unnecessary accounting standards differences steadfastly and step by step, to get a system of accounting standards serving the development of economy properly; we should take part in the setting process of the IFRS, urge the IFRS to consider our country's instances, and realize the mutual harmonization; the government should exert its authority, should resolve the problem of market failure during international harmonization, should balance the economic effects of international harmonization , and should create conditions for international harmonization. During the process of international harmonization, we should start with the harmonization of accounting principles but not the specific regulations. As the substantial measures, we should avoid sorting and disposing the differences from only one dimension of consideration, because accounting standards have multiple natures; the organization that setting accounting standards should remain independent to make sure that the setting procedure is fair and the standards can reach some technological degree; the due process should be enhanced in accounting standards setting, which helps the setters and the users of accounting standards know each other in time by publishing information to the society. Last but not least, we should enhance the construction of relevant laws and regulations, the occupational morality of accountants, the companygovernance mechanism and capital market mechamsm, in order to supply a perfect implementing system for the engineering of accounting standards construction and international harmonization.In general, both the challenges and the opportunities exist on the future road of the construction and international harmonization of our accounting standards. What we need do is to take an active attitude, and to catch the opportunities to carry forward the construction and international harmonization of our accounting standards, and to make this project exert its positive influences on promoting socialism market economy.