The survival of international differences under IFRS: towards a research agenda

By Christopher Nobes. 2006

393 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3a1eede62a94d4b57376d76fc759dc25cbf83876

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

Citations in the corpus

IFRS Practices and the Persistence of Accounting System Classification (2011, neutral): “If there is scope for pre-IFRS practice to affect choices of IFRS policies (Nobes,2006;K&N) and if EU harmonization of accounting had worked well, then one might no longer expect to see EU countries on different sides of a two-group classification of the IFRS practices of their companies.”
The Impact of IFRS on Accounting Quality in a Regulated Market (2011, background): “One of the internationality dimensions is that the standard is not closely aligned with the economic or political institutions of any particular nation (Chua & Taylor, 2008), so there are arguments for assessment of IFRS practice on a country-by-country basis (Nobes, 2006).”
Accounting Classification in the IFRS Era (2008, background): “Different national versions of IFRS practice Nobes (2006) set out the theory for the motives and opportunity for the emergence of different national versions of IFRS practice.”
Different approaches to corporate reporting regulation: How jurisdictions differ and why (2010, background): “As a result, differences in countries’ institutional factors are likely to remain a major source of heterogeneity in reporting practices, despite the widespread adoption of IFRS around the world (see also Ball, 2006; Nobes, 2006; Hail et al., 2009).”
Some obstacles to global financial reporting comparability and convergence at a high level of quality (2007, background): “The view originating in the United States and now cited widely is that comparability is achieved by assuring that ‘like things look alike, and unlike things look different’ (Trueblood, 1966, p. 189).”
Convergence in Accounting Standards: Insights from Academicians and Practitioners (2010, neutral): “Recent studies (Barth, 2008, Ball, 2006, and Nobes, 2006) examine the feasibility of convergence to IFRS, including the potential advantages of producing more accurate, timely, and complete financial information, eliminating international differences in accounting standards, and removing barriers…”
IFRS – 10 years later (2016, background): “In the meantime, exactly what adoption means in various regimes has been clarified to a large degree by a systematic review of adopters that was conducted by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and a more nuanced review by Nobes (2006, 2013), described below.”
Does Mandatory Adoption of IFRS improve Accounting Quality? Preliminary Evidence (2013, background): “For example, Nobes (2006) argues that capitalization of development costs permitted by IFRS “depends upon demonstrating that all of a list of vague criteria is met, such as feasibility of completion, intention to complete, and availability of adequate resources to complete.””
Cross-sectional variation in the economic consequences of international accounting harmonization: The case of mandatory IFRS adoption in the UK ☆ (2007, background): “Ball (2006) and Nobes (2006) both analyse how differences in 8 See Accountancy, January 1999, p. 6, and Accountancy, May 1999, p. 77, for examples.”
International differences in IFRS policy choice: A research note (2010, background): “Nobes (2006) suggests a series of hypotheses about international differences under IFRS, mainly expressed by using Germany and the UK as exemplars of previously different accounting ‘systems’.”
The continued survival of international differences under IFRS (2013, background): “Accounting and Business Research 91 Table 2 expands and updates the list of overt options found in Nobes (2006).”
IFRS Policy Changes and the Continuation of National Patterns of IFRS Practice (2012, neutral): “Nobes (2006) records many opportunities for variation in practices under IFRS, and suggests motivations for different national profiles.”
Compliance with IFRS 3- and IAS 36-required disclosures across 17 European countries: company- and country-level determinants (2013, background): “(Ernst & Young 2006, pp. 6–7) Kvaal and Nobes (2010) find that European companies tend to continue accounting practices that were required or common practice under their national GAAP before the introduction of IFRS Accounting and Business Research 173 (also see Nobes 2006).”
Intended and Unintended Consequences of Mandatory IFRS Adoption: A Review of Extant Evidence and Suggestions for Future Research (2013, background): “Rather, any set of accounting standards inevitably requires preparers to exercise reporting discretion and make subjective judgments (e.g., Leuz, 2006; Nobes, 2006).”
The Effect of IAS/IFRS Adoption on Earnings Management (Smoothing): A Closer Look at Competing Explanations (2013, neutral): “For instance, Nobes (2006) details 18 overt options and 21 covert options and numerous vague criteria.8 We maintain that the overt and covert options and vague criteria result in greater flexibility of accounting choices that allow greater earnings management (smoothing).”