5. Debates and conclusions
Among the reasons underlying the transformation of the public sector, Wood and Gray (1991) notice the interdependence of resources, social accountability, strategic improvement, environmental impact, operational efficiency and domain/area influence. The aim of reforms in the public sector is to overcome the bureaucratic obstacles, so that managers have the opportunity to use limited resources more efficiently (Pina and Torres, 2003).
One possible response to these requirements is represented by the CFS, which can ensure an increasing transparency and accountability, principles that are essentials in the public sector. Through multiple comparisons we have managed to show that, at least in the case of CFS, the public sector regulation becomes more aware of the informational need of the public sector.
IPSASs on CFS are issued with the aim to improve the quality of general purpose financial reporting by public sector entities, public system organizations, governments and other non-profit organizations, including quangos.
For CFS purpose, the single criterion took into consideration for inclusions is control, as defined by IPSASB. Being aware of the huge variety of characteristics and categories of public entities, CFS guideline is focused on explaining the control criteria considered most covering, broader form the reporting entity’s point of view. There is a control, when the reporting entity is exposed, or has rights, to variable benefits from its involvement with the other entity and has the ability to affect the nature or amount of those benefits through its power over the other entity. Then each element of the definition is explained. Power consists of existing rights that give the current ability to direct the relevant activities of another entity. The guideline underlines the fact that an entity shall consider all facts and circumstances when assessing whether it controls another entity