Accounting for public heritage facilities — assets or liabilities of the government?

Allan D. Barton*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    69 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Public heritage facilities — national parks, art galleries, museums and so on — are now required by professional accounting standards in Australia to be valued and included in government general purpose financial statements as assets. This study challenges the appropriateness of such an accounting treatment in relation to the SAC4 definition of assets and the purported usefulness of the information. Instead it is argued that these facilities are public goods, and that commercial accounting principles should not be applied to them. The article explains the nature and significance of public goods and how they differ from private goods. It explains why commercial accounting principles are irrelevant for public heritage facilities because their objectives are social rather than financial and why commercial valuations are irrelevant and unreliable if applied to them. Finally, it is contended that the facilities are assets held in trust for the nation by government and hence should not be included in its general purpose financial reports.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)219-236
    Number of pages18
    JournalAccounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal
    Volume13
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2000

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Accounting for public heritage facilities — assets or liabilities of the government?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this