Management accounting systems in institutional complexity: Hysteresis and boundaries of practices in social housing
Metadatas
December, 2020
- ISIDORE Id: 10670/1.f361a1...
- hal: hal-03134361
- doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2020.100715
- PII: S1044-5005(20)30039-1
HALSHS : archive ouverte en Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société - notices sans texte intégral
This document is linked to :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.mar.2020.100715
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/ , info:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess
Keywords
Management accounting systems NPM Institutional complexity Social and financial accountability Practice theory Social housing Hysteresis Practice boundariesSimilar subjects
Disputes, Boundary Frontier troubles Borders Frontiers (Boundaries) Geographic boundaries Boundary disputes Territorial boundaries Political boundaries Management accounting Urban housing Homes Slum clearance Housing needs Housing--Social aspects Houses Affordable housing Residences Boundary lines Natural boundaries International boundaries Frontiers Borders (Geography) Lines, Boundary Geographical boundaries Perimeters (Boundaries) Political boundariesCite this document
Aziza Laguecir et al., « Management accounting systems in institutional complexity: Hysteresis and boundaries of practices in social housing », HALSHS : archive ouverte en Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société - notices sans texte intégral, ID : 10.1016/j.mar.2020.100715
Metrics
Share / Export
Abstract
This paper examines how organizational actors use Management Accounting Systems (MAS) in a public social housing organization in a context marked by institutional pressures for both social and financial accountability. More specifically, we use practice theory to examine the articulation of practical intelligibility, i.e. how actors make sense of competing institutional pressures in their day-to-day practices while being informed by less financially loaded MAS. Our findings underline that, despite increased institutional pressures on social aspects, actors’ compromises reveal the predominance of financial concerns. We show that this might be due to, not only the current institutional pressures or the MAS, but also to the hysteresis of a structuring element of practice: the financially oriented teleo-affective structures imposed by previous NPM reforms. This study also describes the role of ABC/M and practice boundaries in the articulation of practical intelligibility for conflicting institutional pressures and in the way actors compromise.
