Overleg:Roelof Burgert

Quotes

Bouma en Feenstra (1990) verklaarde Burgert specifieke bijdrage op het gebied van de vervangingsleer (of replacement value accounting (RVA)) als volgt:

Burgert (1972) criticized the basic ideas of Limperg’s replacement value theory in a very detailed and comprehensive way. His arguments have never been refuted by Limperg’s adherents... It is remarkable that the discussions in the Dutch accounting literature on RVA in general demonstrated a rather parochial character. Certainly, there were authors who related RVA-concepts to concepts in the international literature such as Edwards and Bell’s business income (Werkema, 1964; Bouma and Werkema, 1965) or to even broader concepts such as H.A. Simon’s Behavioral theory (Bouma, 1966), and information economics. But the messages of these authors were generally neglected. The majority of the discussants restricted themselves to detailed analyses of several aspects of RVA, and especially of the ways these aspects had been expressed by Limperg and/or his "disciples". For instance, Limperg’s claim that profit could be determined "unambiguously and accurately" has been attacked by many authors (a.o. Meij, 1948, 1954, 1960; Pruyt, 1954, and Van Straaten, 1957). Other examples of criticism very common in the Dutch accounting literature were the criticism on the double standard of physical capital maintenance and nominal equity capital maintenance in Limperg’s theory; the lack of guidelines in identifying "economic identically" and "economic non-identically" replacement of assets; difficulties in determining the "normal level of activities" (Burgert, 1972).

Bouma en Feenstra (1990) verklaren dit nader:

The most prominent critic among the discussants in the 1950’s until the 1970’s was Burgert (1967, 1972). Inspired by the ideas of Edwards and Bell (1961), he proposed a step-by-step income statement in which the relatively objective parts of profit determination based on RVA were separated from the relatively subjective parts (caused by capital maintenance and financing decisions). He thus provided a variant of J.M. Clark’s well-known adagium "different costs for different purposes". For the Limpergian diehards this adagium has always been unacceptable, as can be illustrated by the definite renunciation of direct costing in the 1950’s.

Referenties

Dit kan nog verder in het artikel verwerkt worden. -- Mdd (overleg) 25 sep 2015 16:03 (CEST)