دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی قدرت زبان در مشروعیت بخشیدن به اصلاحات بخش دولتی - الزویر 2018

ABSTRACT

Language can play an essential role in shaping how accounting reforms and the information around them are communicated and legitimated. However, scant consideration has been given to study what happens when politicians are the decision makers of accounting changes. This paper explores the political use of language by investigating how the Members of Parliament discuss about publicsector accounting reforms, and deploy different rhetorical strategies to legitimate or de-legitimate them. Through the analysis of Italian parliamentary debates in the 1990s and 2000s, this study highlights how the use of language can facilitate the exercise of power by deploying arguments rhetorically dominated by authorisation and moralisation strategies. The rhetorical arguments brought forward allow politicians to disguise their loss of power in favour of the European Union, depicting their actions and proposals as necessary and/or in favour of the public interest.

6. Conclusions

This study aimed at exploring the use of language and legitimation strategies by MPs as they discuss and approve public-sector accounting reforms. It provides evidence of the language and legitimation strategies deployed by politicians to influence parliamentary debates on public-sector reforms, showing how these evolved from a managerial era into one dominated by the Eurozone crisis and austerity. The results suggest that, during the 1990s, Italian MPs were mostly focused on domestic issues when debating and justifying the adoption of public-sector accounting reforms; their arguments ranging from references to authorities in the Italian political arena (political parties, Parliament, laws), to the need to ensure fairness across different Italian geographical areas, to the long-lasting problem of waste of public resources. This mirrors a view of accounting as a reflection of the State’s sovereign power, and of accounting reforms as a matter of domestic affairs to either manage public-sector organisations or keep public finances under control. Reforms had, therefore, to be advanced by ensuring balance and agreement across different interests and powers within the State (including different geographical areas, such as the less-economically developed South of Italy). Accounting reforms were justified on grounds related to internal matters or the need to improve the management of resources. However, the parliamentary discussions in the 2000s reflect a fundamental shift in what was considered relevant for legitimating accounting reforms. The adoption of the euro, the emergence of the so-called Eurozone (and the related institutions, such as the European Central Bank), the increasing importance taken on by the Growth and Stability Pact and the necessity to cut resources to respect the debt limits, all pointed to an increased role of the EU and its policies also in domestic issues. This situation was further exacerbated by the outburst of the global financial crisis and the ensuing fiscal and sovereign-debt crises. The analysis suggests that public-sector accounting reforms were not immune to these processes, but, rather, were a clear example of increasing influence of the EU on the countries’ political decision making.