Main Article Content


The adoption of IPSAS is driven by various institutional factors that lead organizations to follow isomorphic behavior. Institutional isomorphism comes from various influences (coercive, mimetic, and normative), which could explain governments’ endorsement of this accounting model. This paper identifies and compares the factors and conditions that influence the adoption, adaptation, or non-adoption of IPSAS in different jurisdictions, from the institutional isomorphism perspective by using the systematic literature review methodology. Our findings account for the factors and conditions that isomorphically influenced IPSAS adoption or adaptation processes in various jurisdictions. Coercive isomorphism has been mostly driven by international institutions, while mimetic isomorphism is linked to governments’ search for trust. On the other hand, normative isomorphism has been related to the actions of political groups, public officials or professional institutions.

Carlos Augusto Rincón-Soto, Universidad del Valle

Associate Professor, Department of Accounting and Finance, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia. Public Accountant, Master’s Degree in Accounting, Universidad del Valle, Colombia

Mauricio Gómez Villegas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia

Associate Professor, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia. Public Accountant, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Doctor in Accounting, Universitat de València, Spain. 

Rincón-Soto, C. A. ., & Gómez Villegas, M. (2020). Institucional isomorphism in IPSAS adoption. Cuadernos De Administración, 36(68), 204–218.

Adhikari, P., Kuruppu, C., & Matilal, S. (2013). Dissemination and institutionalization of public sector accounting reforms in less developed countries: A comparative study of the Nepalese and Sri Lankan central governments. Accounting Forum, 37(3), 213-230.

Argento, D., Peda, P., & Grossi, G. (2018). The enabling role of institutional entrepreneurs in the adoption of IPSAS within a transitional economy: The case of Estonia. Public Administration and Development, 38(1), 39-49.

Baker, R. O. N., & Rennie, M. D. (2006). Forces Leading to the Adoption of Accrual Accounting by the Canadian Federal Government : An Institutional Perspective. Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 5(1), 83-112.

Barzelay, M. (2003). La Nueva Gerencia Pública : invitación a un diálogo cosmopolita. Gestión y Política Pública, 12, 241-252. Recuperado de

Barrios, C., & Rivera, Y. (2010). Los sistemas contables administrativos: hacia la conformación de un programa de investigación desde la teoría de la estructuración. Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas: Investigación y reflexión, XVIII(2), 157-196.

Baskerville, R., & Grossi, G. (2019). Glocalization of accounting standards : observations on neo-institutionalism of IPSAS. Public Money and Management, 39(2), 101-110.

Biondi, Y. (2018). Fair value and the formation of financial market prices through ignorance and hazard (Chap. 16, pp. 288-295). in The Routledge Companion to Fair Value in Accounting. Routledge. Retrieved from

Brusca, I., Montesinos, V., & Chow, D. S. L. (2013). Legitimating International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS): the case of Spain. Public Money and Management, 33(6), 437-444.

Brusca, I., Gómez-Villegas, M., & Montesinos, V. (2016). Public financial management reforms: the role of IPSAS in Latin-America. Public Administration and Development, 36(1), 51-64.

Carpenter, V. L., & Feroz, E. H. (2001). Institutional theory and accounting rule choice: An analysis of four US state governments’ decisions to adopt generally accepted accounting principles. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 565-596.

Carruthers, B. G. (1995). Accounting, ambiguity, and the new institutionalism. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(4), 313-328.

Cohen, S., & Karatzimas, S. (2016). The role of the Troika on the Greek central government accounting reforms: The reprioritization riddle. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31(3), 1-27.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

Dubet, F. (2013). El declive de la institución. Madrid-España: Gedisa.

Fernández-Lorenzo, L. E., y Geba, N. E. (2005). Contabilidad Social y Gestión en ONGs. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, 10(32), 545-563. Recuperado de

García Villegas, M. (2014). La eficacia simbólica del derecho. Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Giddens, A. (1998). La constitución de la sociedad. Bases para la teoría de la estructuración. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Editorial Amorrortu.

Goddard, A., Assad, M., Issa, S., Malagila, J., & Mkasiwa, T. A. (2016). Critical Perspectives on Accounting The two publics and institutional theory – A study of public sector accounting in Tanzania. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 40, 8-25.

Gómez-Villegas, M. (2019). Una aproximación social, institucional y organizacional a la contabilidad. Documentos de la Escuela de Administración y Contaduría Pública FCE-CID, No 35. Recuperado de

Gómez-Villegas, M., Brusca, I., & Bergmann, A. (2020). IPSAS in Latin America: innovation, isomorphism or rhetoric? Public Money & Management, 40(7), 489-498.

Grossi, G., & Steccolini, I. (2015). Pursuing Private or Public Accountability in the Public Sector? Applying IPSASs to Define the Reporting Entity in Municipal Consolidation. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(4), 325-334.

Guerreiro, M. S., Rodrigues, L., & Craig, R. (2012). Voluntary adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards by large unlisted companies in Portugal – Institutional logics and strategic responses. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37, 482-499.

Hodgson, G. M. (2000). What is the essence of institutional economics? Journal of Economic Issues, 34(2), 317-329.

Jones, R., & Caruana, J. (2015). Governmental accounting in Malta towards IPSAS within the context of the European Union. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(4), 745-762.

Jorge, S. M., Brusca Alijarde, I., & Nogueira, S. P. (2016). Translating IPSASs Into national standards: a comparison between Spain and Portugal. XVII Encuentro de La Asociación Española de Contabilidad y Administración de Empresas AECA. “Sustainable Development New Challenges to Accounting and Management.” Retrieved from

Jorge, S., Brusca, I., & Nogueira, S. P. (2019). Translating IPSAS into National Standards: An Illustrative Comparison between Spain and Portugal. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 21(5), 445-462.

Maroun, W., & van Zijl, W. (2016). Isomorphism and resistance in implementing IFRS 10 and IFRS 12. The British Accounting Review, 48(2), 220-239.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.

Miller, P. (1994). Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice: an introduction (Vol. 25, pp. 1-19). In Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice. New York, USA: Cambridge University.

Modell, S. (2003). Goals versus institutions: The development of performance measurement in the Swedish university sector. Management Accounting Research, 14(4), 333-359.

Modell, S. (2009). Institutional Research on Performance Measurement and Management in the Public Sector Accounting Literature: A Review and Assessment. Financial Accountability & Management, 25(3), 277-303.

Neves Ramos, F., & Gómez-Villegas, M. (2020). Public Sector Accounting Reform in Latin America through Epistemic Community: An Institutional Approach. Brazilian Journal of Public Administration, 54(1), 11-31.

Oliver, C. (1988). The Collective Strategy Framework: An Application to Competing Predictions of Isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4), 543-561.

Ostrom, E. (2015). Comprender la diversidad institucional. México: Fondo de cultura económica.

Oulasvirta, L. (2014). The reluctance of a developed country to choose International Public Sector Accounting Standards of the IFAC. A critical case study. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(3), 272-285.

Portes, A. (2006). Instituciones y desarrollo: una revisión conceptual. Cuadernos de Economía, XXV(45), 13-52. Recuperado de

Powell, W. W. (2007). The New Institutionalism. The International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies, 144-145.

Quattrone, P. (2015). Governing Social Orders, Unfolding Rationality, and Jesuit Accounting Practices: A Procedural Approach to Institutional Logics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(3), 411-445.

Richardson, A. J. (2009). La contabilidad como una institución de legitimación (pp. 79–100). En Avances insterdisciplinarios para una comprensión crítica de la contabilidad. Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad de Antioquia - Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Rincón Soto, C. A. (2016). La contabilidad como un juego de lenguaje. Cuadernos de Administración, 32(55), 32-55. Recuperado de

Robb, A. (2012). Stewardship: The core of cooperative accounting. Journal of Co-Operative Accounting and Reporting, 1(1), 19-27. Retrieved from

Rother, E. T. (2007). Revision Sistematica X Revision Narrativa. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem, 20(2), 6-7. Recuperado de

Sellami, Y. M., & Gafsi, Y. (2017). Institutional and Economic Factors Affecting the Adoption of International Public Sector Accounting Standards. International Journal of Public Administration, 49(2), 1-13.

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.

Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional Logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby, The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222.

Valentinov, V., Hielscher, S., & Pies, I. (2015). Nonprofit organizations, institutional economics, and systems thinking. Economic Systems, 39(3), 491-501.