Pacioli’s Lens: A Comment

26 Pages Posted: 28 Sep 2020

See all articles by Richard H. Macve

Richard H. Macve

London School of Economics & Political Science (LSE) - Department of Accounting and Finance

Date Written: August 11, 2020

Abstract

Sangster (2018a) [Pacioli's Lens: God, Humanism, Euclid, and the Rhetoric of Double Entry. The Accounting Review, 93(2): 299-314] argues that, in the first printed manual on double-entry bookkeeping (‘DEB’) in 1494, Pacioli presented a novel ‘axiomatic’ approach that requires a corresponding ‘paradigmatic shift’ in our view of his contribution. It has long been repeatedly argued that DEB was important for enabling capitalism’s development in the West and heralded the beginning of ‘modern accounting’. However, these claims remain contested so it is important to understand the history of DEB’s emergence about 700 years ago and its underlying rationale. This paper challenges Sangster’s interpretation and calls for deeper understanding both of the historical development of DEB in the West and of the comparative accounting developments in the East, particularly in China. It tentatively concludes that, although indigenous imperial Chinese accounting practice differed in form from Western DEB, nevertheless despite its variety of forms it had in some cases captured the structural essentials of DEB’s content and functions.

Keywords: Pacioli, double-entry bookkeeping (DEB), axioms, comparative international accounting history, China

JEL Classification: B11, C00, M40, P52, Z1

Suggested Citation

Macve, Richard H., Pacioli’s Lens: A Comment (August 11, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3671724 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3671724

Richard H. Macve (Contact Author)

London School of Economics & Political Science (LSE) - Department of Accounting and Finance ( email )

Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE
United Kingdom
+44 20 7955 6138 (Phone)
+44 20 7955 7420 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
81
Abstract Views
624
Rank
551,552
PlumX Metrics