Discussant’s Comments - Unification and Dual Closure in the Italian
Accountancy Profession, 1861-1906
Overview of Paper
The paper is a theoretical-informed, archival-based study of the attempts of closure
of the accounting profession in Italy from the 1861 to 1906, the point at which the
profession achieved statutory registration. In terms of theory, it relies upon Parkin’s
(1979) neo-Weberian concept of dual closure. The authors use Parkin’s (1979) two
forms of social closure, exclusionary and usurpationary closure, to guide their
theoretical analysis of the events within the accounting profession during the 35year period.
The authors draw upon a rich data set, which includes minutes of the various
accounting bodies, several accounting journals, relevant newspaper reports, records
of parliamentary debates, and surviving correspondence of key actors. Using this
material, the paper provides the reader, particularly one with limited knowledge of
the Italian accounting profession, with details of that time period in Italy as well as
the profession itself.
The Paper’s Contributions
Simply on the basis of its focus on the Italian accounting profession, the paper
makes several contributions to the literature. First, it is one of the first papers to
attempt a theoretical-informed analysis of the history of the Italian accounting
profession. While others have studied the formation of the Italian accounting
profession, those authors have been more descriptive in nature. Second, it is also
one of the few papers that have focused on the history of the accounting
professionalization project outside of those professional bodes influenced by their
Anglo-Saxon origins or colonization.
In addition to expanding the national focus of accounting closure literature, the
paper provides some important theoretical insights, which are elaborated below.
Context Matters - The paper presents a convincing analysis that demonstrates the
success of closure tactics is very much dependent upon context (in particular, the
history of the relevant professions and the actors involved). For instance, the 1861
unification of Italy is considered to play a crucial role in the development of the
Italian accounting profession; however, the occupational status of the profession
was highly variable at that point in time. In northern cities, such as Milan, it was
highly regarded whereas in other parts of Italy was not. This uneven status of the
profession plays an important role in understanding why the closure tactics were
successful and some were not.
What is also interesting is the Italian context at this period of time is two levels of
closure going on - the accounting profession’s unsuccessful attempt to usurp the
legal profession and the successful attempt by “experienced accountants” to usurp
1
“expert accountants.” These events are also important to understanding the
evolving status of the profession itself.
The paper’s longitudinal analysis also demonstrates how tactics evolve and change
over time. Further, as events unfold, the likelihood of success changes. This is
important to note, since studies that focus on particular points in time can miss out
on providing a more nuanced explanation as to why certain tactics are successful or
providing the reader with a better understanding of the actual tactics themselves.
Social Closure is More than Exclusion – Social closure researchers who focus on
the role of ethnicity and class in the profession tend to highlight the success of
profession’s exclusionary tactics (ie. Hammond et al. (2009); Poullaous, 2009).
However, this paper demonstrates that both tactics can be successful within the
professional group.
Some Questions for Consideration
The current form of the paper is insightful and interesting as well as an important
contribution to advancing our knowledge of tactics of closure and of
professionalization projects in new national contexts.
How did the Italian Accounting Profession differ from its Anglo-Saxon
equivalents?
The authors contend that there is limited consideration of accounting
professionalization projects outside of the Anglo-Saxon countries. Given this fact,
the paper would be strengthened if it included more discussion of how the Italian
accounting profession differed from its Anglo-Saxon equivalents – particularly the
role of bankruptcy appointments. It seems the practice of accounting at that time
was defined differently – bankruptcy played a key role, which at the time was the
sole domain of lawyers in some countries. Another difference that stood out was
how the “expert accountants” attempted to use knowledge-enhancing activities,
such as paper publications, presentations at conferences, to improve the knowledge
base. More consideration of these differences would strengthen the paper’s
contribution to the current accounting literature – perhaps even challenging some
current assumptions within the literature about the profession itself.
Who are the Key Individuals?
While the paper does an exemplary job of describing and analyzing the actions of
key groups, there is limited elaboration on the role key individuals. Although the
authors use surviving correspondence and quote certain individuals, the reader is
uncertain as to the source’s status and importance. As Walker and Shackleton
(1998) highlight, the relationship between state and professional bodies is a result
of the actions and relationships of a small number of actors or individuals. For
instance, who were the powerful supporters of the expert accountants on the
parliamentary committee (p. 32) and why were they so supportive? I recognize that
the authors may not be able to tease this out from their data, but it is certainly an
2
important piece of the analysis that would provide some key insight into why some
tactics failed and some did not.
Are there more details on the Law Profession’s response to Accounting
Profession’s attempts at Closure?
I think the authors’ analysis would be strengthened if more consideration or
prominence was given to the role of the law profession in the profession’s ongoing
battle to establish its status. As the authors highlight, lawyers were the accountant’s
main enemies and much of the conflict between the two professions were over the
rights to bankruptcy. That is not to say that the law profession is not discussed in
the paper; however, perhaps in the conclusions some more explicit consideration to
the legal profession’s role would strengthen the paper and also highlight how the
development of the Italian accounting profession was very much dependent upon
the legal profession’s responses.
Given that the lawyers had their own problems (an oversupply and intense
competition within the profession), I suspect that the lawyers were quite active in
their own exclusionary tactics. While the authors provide the readers with a glimpse
of the tactics, it is left up to the reader to decide if the tactics were strategic and
thoughtful or merely responses. For instance, did the law profession intentionally
use case law to limit the profession? The case cited on page 30 is interesting since it
does demonstrate one way in which the law profession had “control” over defining
the expert accountant. Also, the law profession’s success of using the argument that
limiting appointments to accountants threatened the freedom of the judiciary (p.
36) is also another interesting finding that could be looked at in more depth. What
were the counter arguments to this? Why was this logic deemed to so convincing
(given that it was rather self-serving)?
How does this analysis fit with other Accounting Closure Studies?
I think the paper would be strengthened if makes more consideration of how it sits
in the current accounting literature. For instance, I find that some of the findings in
this study are similar to that of Walker and Shackleton (1998). This, in some ways, is
not entirely surprising since both papers analyze the claims of competing national
accounting bodies. As in the case of the Italian accounting profession, Walker and
Shackleton (1998) find that the accounting bodies use both exclusionary and
usurpatory tactics in their attempt to define the ring fence. However, I recognize
that this paper also has the added element of the law profession.
What about the Public Interest?
I note that the authors mention that the accounting bodies used the public interest
as one of the arguments for restricting appointments to Expert Accountants;
however, apart from this there does not seem to be any other mention of
consideration of the public interest. In fact, the Expert Accountant’s arguments are
more based upon their own self-interest than those of their clients and the public at
large. Perhaps some reflection of what this means for the profession’s principles and
character would be insightful as well.
3
What did the outcome of the outcomes of this time period mean for the Italian
accounting profession in the ensuing period?
While the paper stops at the point in which the Italian accounting profession
achieved professional recognition, and the current status of the contemporary
profession is not the focus of the paper, it is an interesting point for the authors to
take into consideration. This is particularly so since most accounting closure
researchers would have limited knowledge of the Italian accounting profession.
Concluding Comments
The questions I raise are not so much to highlight shortcoming in the paper but to
make suggestions that may improve its contribution to the accounting literature. I
enjoyed reading the paper and encourage the authors to continue towards
publication of this analysis that is rich in historical details.
4