In attempting to understand the genesis and scope of modÃ‚Âern cost and management accounting systems, accounting historiÃ‚Âans adopting what has been labeled a Foucauldian approach have been rewriting the history of key 18th and 19th century developÃ‚Âments in the U.K. and U.S. through new evidence, new interpretaÃ‚Âtion, and a refocusing of attention on familiar events. This is a disciplinary history which sees modern cost and management acÃ‚Âcounting as articulating a new kind of expert disciplinary knowlÃ‚Âedge, as well as exercising a disciplinary power, in the construcÃ‚Âtion of a new human accountability. However, this disciplinary view has been challenged by more economic rationalist historians, e.g., Boyns and Edwards  for the British Industrial Revolution and Tyson  for the U.S., as being too narrowly concerned with labor control. This paper takes up the gauntlet. It addresses the theoÃ‚Âretical issues and seeks to clarify the import of the disciplinary view and its contribution to understanding how 19th century acÃ‚Âcounting practices shaped emerging managerial discourses, initially in the U.S. It argues that, until businesses adopted this new disciplinarity, there remained an absence of practices focused on calculating human performance, and accounting was not fully deÃ‚Âployed to construct that system of administrative coordination [Chandler, 1977] which distinguishes modern management action and control.
Hoskin, Keith W. and Macve (1940-), Richard
"Knowing more as knowing less? Alternative histories of cost and management accounting in the U.S. and the U.K.,"
Accounting Historians Journal: Vol. 27
, Article 5.
Available at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aah_journal/vol27/iss1/5