Public pension accounting rules and economic outcomes

James Naughton, Reining Petacchi and Joseph Weber

Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2015, vol. 59, issue 2, 221-241

Abstract: We find a negative association between a state׳s fiscal condition and the use of discretion in applying Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) rules to understate pension funding gaps. We also find that the use of discretion is negatively associated with states’ decisions to increase taxes and cut spending. In addition, we find that the funding gap understatement is positively associated with higher future labor costs. Importantly, this association is primarily attributable to the GASB methodology, which systematically understates the funding gap. This suggests that the GASB approach is associated with policy choices that have the potential to exacerbate fiscal stress.

Keywords: Public pension; Economic consequences of accounting rules; Real decisions (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C23 H70 H72 M41 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (14)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165410115000166
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jaecon:v:59:y:2015:i:2:p:221-241

DOI: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2015.02.002

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Accounting and Economics is currently edited by J. L. Zimmerman, S. P. Kothari, T. Z. Lys and R. L. Watts

More articles in Journal of Accounting and Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().