Illusions as a profanation of accounting theory

Authors

  • P. Ya. Khomyn Тернопільський національний технічний університет імені Івана Пулюя, м. Тернопіль, Україна https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3964-6557

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58423/2786-6742/2022-1-243-252

Keywords:

accounting, ephemerality, illusions, interpretation, accounting theory, profanity

Abstract

Attention is drawn to the erroneous fascination with terminologists from Russian-language publications, which is completely far from the essence of accounting, despite the fact that it is a key word in their titles. The important scientific and practical significance of this problem is emphasized, as such uncritical borrowings mislead possibly capable young scientists who cultivate illusions about the possibility of forming a modern accounting theory based on these ephemerals. As a result of the analytical understanding of the works of the classics of accounting theory, the belief is expressed about the need to return to the accounting of enterprises analytical function, recklessly removed from it in times of statism. Emphasis is placed on the importance of discussions on the nature of accounting categories, which is often distorted to the antidote to the values, which leads to incidents that negatively affect the economy of entire industries. After all, the furor around such pseudo-theoretical chips is usually short-lived, leading only to a waste of time of scientists who, tempted by their incomprehensible foreign language sound, instead of studying current, practically significant problems of accounting theory, get lost, believing that the most important speculative narratives on changing the name of this subject. And this interpretation, despite the massive circulation of promising passages with promises of a coup in the accounting system, never ends in anything concrete, drowning in the many words of the confusion of stickers like "management accounting (controlling)", "strategic management accounting" and so on. Accompanied by the absence of any slightest rational changes, but on the contrary, accounting to the detriment of practicality, becomes even more difficult, becoming a bogeyman, which scares away applicants from the profession of accountant.

Author Biography

P. Ya. Khomyn , Тернопільський національний технічний університет імені Івана Пулюя, м. Тернопіль, Україна

д.е.н., професор, професор кафедри бухгалтерського обліку, Тернопільський національний технічний університет імені Івана Пулюя, м. Тернопіль, Україна

References

Iefymenko T. I., Konoplov S. L. (2016) Instytutsionalni aspekty reformuvannia derzhavnykh finansiv. Finansy Ukrainy. № 6. C. 7-30.

Sokolov Ya. V. (1996) Bukhhalterskyi uchet: ot ystokov do nashykh dnei. M.: Audyt YuNYTY. 638 s.

Shmoller H. (2014) Narodnoe khoziaistvo, nauka o narodnom khoziaistve y ee metodы. M.: Dyrekt-Medya. 243 s.

Pushkar M. S. (2006) Kreatyvnyi oblik (stvorennia informatsii dlia menedzheriv): Monohrafiia. Ternopil: Kart-blansh. 334 s.

Rubynshtein A. Ya. (2019) O provalakh hosudarstva y nesostoiavshykhsia reformakh v humanytarnom sektore (Preprynt nauchnoho doklada). M.: Ynstytut эkonomyky RAN. 58 s.

Arsenev H. (H. A. Bakhchysaraitsev). (1908) Kak nuzhno yzuchat bukhhalteryiu? Mыsly o zakone dvoinoi zapysy y o balanse. M.

Lastovetskyi V. O. (2005) Haluzevyi bukhhalterskyi oblik: problemy teorii i praktyky. Chernivtsi: Prut 200 s.

Pushkar M. S., Chumachenko M. H. (2011) Idealna systema obliku: kontseptsiia, arkhitektura, informatsiia. Ternopil: Kart-blansh. 336 s.

Tereshchenko O. O. (2006) Poniattia «kontrolinh» ta «upravlinskyi oblik» u teorii i praktytsi. Finansy Ukrainy. № 8. S. 137-145.

Belov V. Otvetъ professoru A. Y. Skvortsovu. (1889) Schetovodstvo. № 14-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ns-14.335.15.c

Analitychna dopovid do Shchorichnoho Poslannia Prezydenta Ukrainy do Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy «Pro vnutrishnie ta zovnishnie stanovyshche Ukrainy v 2016 rotsi». K. : NISD, 2016. 688 s.

Khomyn P. Ya. (2006) Adytyvnyi i protsedurnyi pidkhody ta eklektyka yikh tlumachennia za teoriieiu bukhhalterskoho obliku. Bukhhalterskyi oblik i audyt. № 7. S. 22-28.

Bilukha M. T. (1999) Problemy reformuvannia bukhhalterskoho obliku i kontroliu v Ukraini. Zbirnyk «Problemy reformuvannia bukhhalterskoho obliku u suchasnykh umovakh». Lviv: Lvivskyi natsionalnyi universytet im. I. Franka. S. 5-8.

Heiets V., Hrytsenko A. (2012) Ekonomika ta suspilstvo: nepiznani hrani vzaiemovplyvu (rozdumy nad prochytanym). Ekonomika Ukrainy.. № 3. S. 4-24.

Sravnenye system schetovodstva ytalianskoi y russkoi. Sostavyl Hr. Bukeshyn po podlynnыm statiam, broshiuram y otchetam. V 3-kh chastiakh. Yzdanye II, dopolnennoe. S. Ptb., 1886.

Litllton A. C. (1961) Essaus of Accounting. Urbana. The Universiti Illinois Press.

Rudanovskyi A. P. (1924) Rukovodiashchye nachala (pryntsypы) po schetovodstvu y otchetnosty v hosudarstvennыkh khoziaistvennыkh obъedynenyiakh. M..

Published

2022-10-04

Issue

Section

Accounting and taxation