“Privatization” and “valuation” of Pakistan Steel Mills: A Post Structural Discourse Analysis
Commentary submitted for the Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2014 Conference
This paper provides a case where accounting discourse has played a central role during the
privatisation of Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM). This paper draws upon the discourse theory developed by
Laclau and Mouffe (1985) to reveal the socio-political implications of the discursive signifiers, such as
‘market value’, ‘profitability’, ‘discounted cash flow vale’, etc during the privatisation event. This
approach aligns with a body of accounting literature which conceptualises accounting discourse as a
symbolic mediator in shaping organisational knowledge and practice. And this discursive analysis of
accounting language presents an area of interest and significance to the accounting community. This
paper has made a solid effort to address this research topic and contributed further empirical
evidence.
For the purpose of providing constructive feedback, I have prepared the following comments.





The length of the paper
I feel there might be an issue with the length of this paper for a journal publication. This is a
general problem for this type of research because it takes too much space to present the
details of discourse analysis. This paper may consider to tighten some sections, such as the
introduction part and to make the writing more concise to mitigate this problem.
There is a good discussion of the accounting literature on the issue of ‘valuation’. (on page
7). However my first concern is why only focus on the issue of ‘valuation’. I feel some
explanation of the relevance of this section would help explicate the logic flow. After reading
this section (particularly the last paragraph of this section), I could see why this paper would
like to discuss this valuation issue; however, it still needs to connect the literature view back
to the empirical story itself. And this needs to happen earlier (e.g. at the beginning of this
section) to help reader understand the meaning of this section and grasp the depth of the
analysis provided later.
This paper has made a reference to the term “post structural theories”, such as in line 4-5, p
9. I feel it needs an explanation of the meaning of this term for better clarity. The reason I
raise this is because this paper distinguishes between critical accounting research/theories
and “post structural research in accounting”. At one time, this paper contends the post
structural research in accounting focuses on the importance of accounting language in
shaping social/economic reality to influence a favourite outcome for certain
agenda/interest. In my opinion, this aligns with the purpose/aims of critical accounting
theories/research.
2nd paragraph on p 13. This paper writes “while there is a reality independent of language,
there is no way for us to reach this reality” when referring to the fundamental principles
upon which Laclau and Mouffe (1985) draw. I am curious whether this suggests that Laclau
and Mouffe’s theory is embedded with a realist ontology. This might be just a matter of
writing style.
A good discussion of Laclau and Mouffe (1985) from pp 13-16. More elaboration in the last
paragraph would help reinforce the significance of Laclau and Mouffe’s theory in this






research: e.g. it is worthwhile to emphasis again why it is important to reveal the role of
accounting language in this privatisation event as explained by Laclau and Mouffe (1985).
On p 17 it might need an explanation of “LexiNexis”; and why chose the period “March 2005
to December 2007”.
After reading the section of “Data collection and analysis”, pp 17-19, I feel that Norman
Fairclough’s multi-dimensional critical discourse analysis framework might be an alternative
for this paper to structure its empirical analysis.
What does the “Rs. 396B” (on p. 21) stand for?
On p 25, line 2, is the “$362 Million” in US Dollar?
Specify the year for the Trial Period (April 01 to June 23) in the subtitle on p 25.
In the discussion section, I appreciate that this paper has demonstrated the central role of
accounting discourse in the privatisation of PSM. And I believe that, as stated by the paper,
meanings assigned to value of PSM in the discourses were arbitrary and political. I feel what
might help improve the depth of the analysis is to elaborate the “political” aspect of the
accounting discourses. One issue that this paper might consider further is the suddenly
changed focus between the pro and after-privatisation discourses. That is, why the concern
of ‘profitability’ that dominated in the anti-privatisation discourse was absent in proprivatisation discourse? What caused such a change? Whether it was just because the public
was made aware of the problem after knowing the selling price? Or something else.