This rejoinder seeks to address the criticisms expressed in Jones & Aiken's (J&A's) response to Walker (1996). It also re-iterates the limitations of employing a Diceyan-derived model of Victorian legislation in the realm of accounting and auditing. It is contended that the importation into accounting history of the debate about laissez-faire and collectivism is at variance with the recent historical scholarship which J&A seem reluctant to acknowledge. The paper supports the view that the ideological influences on accounting and auditing regulation during the 19th century were often complex and are not reducible to purely laissez-faire and collectivist explanations. It is argued that legislative outputs relating to companies should also be understood in the context of the character of public policy making in Victorian Britain, and the distribution of power among interested groups.
|Number of pages||5|
|Journal||British Accounting Review|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Mar 1999|