Assessing the stakeholders’ responses in public discussions of IPSASB standards from a cultural perspective

Figures & data

Table 1. Relationships between Gray’s (1988) cultural values and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.

Gray’s (1988) cultural values	Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions
	PDI	IDV	MAS	UAI	LTO	IVR
Professionalism	-	+ +	?	- -	-	+
Uniformity	+	- -	?	+ +	+	-
Conservatism	+	-	-	+ +	+	-
Secrecy	+ +	- -	-	+ +	+	-

Source: Borker (2013, p. 173). Notes: ‘+’ means positive association; ‘++’ means stronger positive association; ‘-’ means negative association; ‘–’ means stronger negative association; ‘?’ means unknown association.

Table 2. Designation, source, and type of variables.

Variables (designation and font)	Variable type
Cultural dimensions of Hofstede (1980) and Hofstede et al. (2010) Source: https://geerthofstede.com/	Continuous (based on country indexes)
Accounting framework Source: https://www.ifac.org/what-we-do/global-impact-map	Dummy variable
Effectiveness of governments Source: https://data.worldbank.org/	Continuous
RA (literature on this subject)	Categorical (5 groups)

Table 3. Distribution of responses by Gray’s cultural values.

Answers	Cultural value								Total
	Professionalism		Uniformity		Conservatism		Secrecy
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
0	297	70	212	25	83	24	84	52	676	38
1	130	30	653	75	258	76	78	48	1,119	62
Total	427	24	865	48	341	19	162	9	1,795	100

Table 4. Results of the logistic regression models.

	Professionalism			Uniformity
	B	S.E.	Wald	B	S.E.	Wald
PDI	***0.034	0.013	6.755	-0.016	0.010	2.497
IDV	*0.027	0.014	3.426	***-0.030	0.011	7.235
MAS	-0.008	0.015	0.274	-0.014	0.010	1.874
UAI	*0.019	0.010	3.645	***-0.039	0.008	25.821
LTO	0.014	0.011	1.869	0.007	0.007	0.869
IVR	***0.037	0.013	7.545	-0.009	0.011	0.689
Framework(1)	**-0.769	0.374	4.218	0.391	0.297	1.731
Govern_Effective	0.008	0.009	0.791	-0.012	0.008	2.066
RA			0.560			8.671
Standard setters	0.240	0.387	0.383	1.026	0.793	1.676
Public sector entities	0.257	0.394	0.427	*1.296	0.769	2.839
Professionals				**1.665	0.779	4.564
Constant	-8.221	2.074	15.717	6.508	1.627	16.007
	Conservatism			Secrecy
	B	S.E.	Wald	B	S.E.	Wald
PDI	-0.026	0.020	1.617	-0.037	0.027	1.880
IDV	-0.019	0.020	0.874	-0.019	0.023	0.713
MAS	***-0.046	0.017	6.922	0.015	0.026	0.344
UAI	***-0.051	0.015	11.946	0.019	0.017	1.198
LTO	**0.033	0.014	5.577	0.023	0.018	1.650
IVR	-0.026	0.017	2.288	0.022	0.019	1.331
Framework(1)	**0.950	0.479	3.934	*1.019	0.602	2.860
Govern_Effective	**-0.029	0.014	4.708	0.006	0.016	0.125
RA			1.776			3.379
Standard setters	-0.087	0.546	0.025	*1.063	0.581	3.344
Public sector entities	-0.612	0.545	1.259	0.388	0.587	0.436
Constant	11.663	3.352	12.105	-2.628	3.295	0.636

Notes: ***Significance level at 1%; **Significance level at 5%; *Significance level at 10%

Gray, S. J. (1988). Towards a theory of cultural influences on the development of accounting systems internationally. Abacus, 24(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.1988.tb00200.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences—international differences in work-related values. Sage.

 Google Scholar

Borker, D. R. (2013). Is there a favourable cultural profile for IFRS? An examination and extension of Gray’s accounting value hypotheses. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 12(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v12i2.7629

 Google Scholar

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Culture and organizations. Software of the mind: intercultural co-operation and its importance for survival. McGrawHill.

 Google Scholar