The future of public sector accounting research. A polyphonic debate
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The purpose of this polyphonic paper is to report on interdisciplinary discussions on the state-of-the-art and future of public sector accounting research (PSAR). The authors hope to enliven the debates of the past and future developments in terms of context, themes, theories, methods and impacts in the field of PSAR by the exchanges they include here. Design/methodology/approach: This polyphonic paper adopts an interdisciplinary approach. It brings into conversation ideas, views and approaches of several scholars on the actual and future developments of PSAR in various contexts, and explores potential implications. Findings: This paper has brought together scholars from a plurality of disciplines, research methods and geographical areas, showing at the same time several points of convergence on important future themes (such as accounting as a mean for public, accounting, hybridity and value pluralism) and enabling conditions (accounting capabilities, profession and digitalisation) for PSA scholarship and practice, and the richness of looking at them from a plurality of perspectives. Research limitations/implications: Exploring these past and future developments opens up the potential for interesting theoretical insights. A much greater theoretical and practical reconsideration of PSAR will be fostered by the exchanges included here. Originality/value: In setting out a future research agenda, this paper fosters theoretical and methodological pluralism in the interdisciplinary research community interested in PSAR in various contexts. The discussion perspectives presented in this paper constitute not only a basis for further research in this relevant accounting area on the role, status and developments of PSAR but also creative potential for practitioners to be more reflective on their practices and also intended and united outcomes of such practices.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Social justice has frequently been overlooked in traditional budgeting processes, which have typically stressed efficiency and effectiveness over equity.
“Within the broader public budgeting literature, social justice has frequently been overlooked in traditional budgeting processes, which have typically stressed efficiency and effectiveness over equity (Grossi et al. 2023;McDonald et al. 2022).”
From Participatory Budgeting for Social Equity: A Comparative Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Grossi et al. 2023
Cites
Budgeting for Social Equity: Exploring the (Nearly) Unknown
McDonald III, B. D., & McCandless, S. A. (2025) · Journal of Social Equity and Public Administration · doi:10.24926/jsepa.v3i1.4661 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
How Successful is Participatory Budgeting in Promoting Social Equity? Evidence from New York City
Kuenneke, A., & Scutelnicu, G. (2021) · Public Administration Quarterly · doi:10.37808/paq.45.4.2 · Cited by 16 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As noted by Kuenneke and Scutelnicu (2021), Kavanagh and Kowalski (2021) and McDonald and McCandless (2022, 2023), the budget process used to support these decisions and the financial instruments used to pay for them may exacerbate the inequities.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Martínez Guzmán, J. P., Jordan, M. M., & Joyce, P. G. (2024) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12956 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Budgeting for Social Equity: Exploring the (Nearly) Unknown
McDonald III, B. D., & McCandless, S. A. (2025) · Journal of Social Equity and Public Administration · doi:10.24926/jsepa.v3i1.4661 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Participatory Budgeting for Social Equity: A Comparative Analysis
Taylor, C. R., Afshan, S., & Lawrence, K. L. (2025) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.13055 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- Grossi, G., Steccolini, I., Adhikari, P., Brown, J., Christensen, M., Cordery, C., Ferry, L., Lassou, P., McDonald III, B., Raudla, R., Sicilia, M., & Vinnari, E.
- Affiliations
- Kozminski University (PL)
- University of Essex (GB)
- Victoria University (AU)
- École Supérieure des Sciences Économiques et Commerciales (FR)
- Aston University (GB)
- Durham University (GB)
- University of Guelph (CA)
- Tallinn University of Technology (EE)
- University of Bergamo (IT)
- University of Tampere (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Grossi, Giuseppe
- ORCID
- Venue
- Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2023-01-03
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-37
- ISSN
- 1176-6093 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4313365849
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 14
- FWCI
- 16.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Aisberg (University of Bergamo) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (submittedVersion)
- Tampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Accounting and Organizational Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting Theory and Financial Reporting
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Keywords
- future research agenda, value pluralism, accounting profession, digitalization, interdisciplinary research, accounting theory
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review