Critical Accounting とイデオロギー─欧米批判会計学のイデオロギーの見方─

This paper discusses how ideology has been viewed in critical accounting in the U.S. and Europe (hereinafter, ?Critical Accounting?) and its related fields. In my previous studies (Nakamura [2010, 2012]), the author provided an overview of the conceptions of accounting using arguments provided by Eagleton (2007), and derived ideology from critical accounting theories in Japan (focusing on the transition from the Miyagami theory, Tsumori theory, to the Yamaji theory). This study aims to provide an overview of perspectives on ideology by analyzing theories of Critical Accounting in comparison with those of critical accounting in Japan and other ideas. The objective of this paper relates to the description of ideology as residuals between real-life institutions or business practices and economic rationality models. For example, in many accounting studies, ideology has been defined as a set of beliefs that does not accompany empirical evidence, or a set of ideas that is opposite to science or truth. However, as Fujii (2007) and Obinata (2012) point out, ideological beliefs do affect the establishment of actual accounting standards. Rather, ideological beliefs can better explain the development of accounting standards in the real world. By examining methodologies of Critical Accounting, this paper discusses the effects of ideology, which is considered to be irrational in many accounting studies. Unlike their Japanese counterparts, Western critical researchers of accounting recognize the possibilities of diverse methodologies and attempt to explain various accounting phenomena. Meanwhile, excessive focus on methodologies has led to a failure to overcome criticism from neoclassical economists and accounting theory historians. This problem has a direct bearing on Critical Accounting's inability to define the functions of accounting better than neoclassical economic models assume. Japanese critical researchers of accounting, on the other hand, have analyzed the functions of accounting beyond the then-existing models. In this paper, discussions follow three steps. First, the author provides an overview of perspectives on ideology in Critical Accounting and its related fields. Second, theories of Critical Accounting are divided into three categories: 1) social reality and ideology; 2) identity and ideology; and 3) discourse and ideology, followed by discussions on ideology in each category. Lastly, the author derives important points to consider in analyzing the ideological aspect of accounting phenomena from studies in Critical Accounting and its related fields. In passing, the above three categories were created in the process of analyzing Critical Accounting.