Content area
Full Text
Abstract: In 1888, the Quincy Mining Company changed its payroll accounting practices. Although efficiency was almost certainly a contributing factor, the nature and timing of this accounting innovation cannot be fully explained by efficiency alone. Instead, this paper attributes the new procedures to the transformation of American labor that characterized the last part of the 19th century. It is argued that the accounting changes reflect a realignment of the organizational relationship between management and labor. Through a contextual examination of a 19th century accounting innovation, this paper provides insights to the social and cultural influences upon accounting processes.
In January 1888, the Quincy Mining Company (QMC) changed the way it recorded labor costs. It could be argued that the firm was simply attempting to reduce posting costs and streamline its record keeping. However, our premise is that when QMC made the accounting changes in 1888 and eliminated a service that had traditionally been provided for its labor force, QMC also formalized a new concept of the significance of labor.
This study, a contextual examination of a l9th century accounting innovation, has two primary implications for accounting practice. First, it contributes to an extensive body of literature that interprets accounting activities within the context of social and cultural processes [Burchell et al., 1980; Meyer, 1986; Hopper et al., 1987; Hopwood, 1987; Hines, 1988; Miller and O'Leary, 1990; Tyson, 1990; Fleischman and Tyson, 1996; to name a few]. Although the viewpoints within this literature are diverse, a common theme is that accounting can be viewed as more than a one-dimensional activity driven by efficiency.
Second, this study provides firm-specific evidence to support a "labour process approach to economic and industrial history" as articulated by Hopper and Armstrong [1991, p. 406]. In contrast to Johnson and Kaplan [1987], who attributed l9th century accounting innovations to management's search for efficiency, Hopper and Armstrong [1991, p. 406] advocated laborbased explanations stressing:
. . crisis rather than continuity; contradiction rather than internal consistency; social and political conflict rather than harmony; the monopoly power of corporations rather than self-equilibrating competitive markets. 1
This paper argues that the accounting innovation of 1888 is attributable to QMC's labor processes in two ways. First, the bitter conflicts between management and labor at the Quincy...
