6533b86dfe1ef96bd12c9ee7

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Contending legitimations

subject

description

Purpose“Contending legitimations” (Meyer and Scott) in cities – and especially multiple conflicting institutional pressures on decision makers – have not received sufficient accounting study. Therefore this paper aims to analyse the multiple institutional pressures on the performance measurement (PM) practices of two Finnish cities and answer why the developments and the coupling of budget or PM rules and routines were different in these relatively similar case cities.Design/methodology/approachIn this interpretive study, a comparative case setting (e.g. including several semi‐structured interviews) was used.FindingsContending legitimations affect the coupling of city budgeting and PM rules and routines. It was found that a city is likely to experience decoupling of formal PM rules and routines if there are conflicting normative institutional pressures among decision makers (especially among City Board members).Research limitations/implicationsAs case studies cannot be generalized, further research on the institutional pressures on accounting PM in cities is encouraged.Practical implicationsNoting the contending legitimations may facilitate the management of projects for accounting change in cities.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to accounting literature by illustrating the multiple institutional pressures and their effects on PM developments and on PM coupling in the case cities. As a refinement to the works by Abernethy and Chua, Granlund, and Ribeiro and Scapens contending legitimations can explain some complexities of PM related decision making as well as the will of key actors to promote or postpone changes.