Maastricht Treaty, also known as th

Maastricht Treaty, also known as the Treaty on the European Union, and the Rome Treaty establishing the European Community.
The Lisbon Treaty clearly states the inspiring values and founding principles of the European Union. It goes beyond the Maastricht architecture of a simple economic and monetary union and provides the basis for a new economic and social governance. It also enshrined a Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union’s constitutional order for the first time, thereby establishing not only economic, but also political and social rights for citizens and residents of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty was the outcome of a long and lively debate on the future of the European Union, which started in 2001 at the Laeken European Council and centred on two main issues. The first issue was to set the economic and social model that the European Union would pursue; the second was to define the powers which were to be transferred to the
European Union and the institutions and rules which would guarantee its implementation.
According to the Treaty, the European Union ‘‘shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress [.. .] it shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection’’ (art. 3). As is clear, the concept of a social market economy emerged as a guiding idea of the European Union. A social market economy is one of the main objectives of the Lisbon Treaty and represents the core value on which the European Union has decided to build and shape its future. This is therefore the framework within which European policies must be defined and their possible outcomes discussed.
The term ‘social market economy’ originates from the post-World War II period, when the shape of the ‘New’ Germany was being discussed. Social market economy theory was developed by the Freiburg School of economic thought, which was founded in the 1930s at the University of Freiburg, and received major contributions from scholars such as Eucken (1951, 1990), Ro¨ pke (1941, 1944, 1946, 1969) and Ru¨ stow (1932, 1960). In the definition of Mu¨ ller-Armack (1966), a social market economy is primarily a normative value system that is not unique and seeks to combine market freedom with equitable social development. It is a process, as opposed to something static, which changes form while keeping its essential content. Social market economics shares with classical market liberalism the firm conviction that markets represent the best way to allocate scarce resources efficiently, while it shares with socialism the concern that markets do not necessarily create equal societies (Marktanner, 2014). Market efficiency and social justice do not therefore represent a contradiction in terms, as is proven by Germany’s post-World War II economic miracle (Spicka, 2007; Po¨ ttering, 2014).
According to social market economics, a free market and private property are the most efficient means of economic coordination and of assuring a high dose of political freedom. However, as a free market does not always work properly, it should be monitored by public authorities who should act and intervene whenever the market provides negative outcomes for society. The social dimension is essential not only for society as a whole, but also for the market to work well.
Public authorities set out the rules and the framework, acting as the referees that enforce the rules. A strong public authority does not assume a lot of tasks, but a power that keeps it independent from lobbies, for the sake of general interest (Gil-Robles, 2014). As highlighted by Glossner (2014), a social market economy is not a dogmatic, but a pragmatic concept that implies that conscious and measured state intervention is contingent on economic and social circumstances.
In order to work effectively, a social market economy shall organize the state-citizen relationship along two principles: the organization of the state according to subsidiarity and the division of the government from special interest groups (Eucken, 1952). Both of these ideas are included in the Lisbon Treaty, which states that the use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity (art. 5). Financial reporting regulation, for instance, is included in the single market policies that are conferred upon the European Union and therefore delegated to the European institutions.
Moreover, the Treaty contains a ‘social clause’ requiring the European Union, in conducting its policy, to observe the principle of equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to citizens (art. 15). This should prevent the European institutions from being influenced by special interest groups. The Treaty also highlights the importance of social dialogue, which is one important pillar of the European social model (art. 152). Indeed, social dialogue has proved to be a valuable asset in the recent crisis: it is no mere coincidence that the best performing member states in terms of economic growth and job creation, such as Germany and Sweden, enjoy strong and institutionalized social dialogue between businesses and trade unions (Andor, 2011).
As the Lisbon Treaty represents the legal framework within which the European Union must act, financial reporting issues must be considered in this context. Both the potential effects of fair value accounting on society and the governance of the standards-setting and endorsement processes should be discussed in terms of their capability to match the objectives of the Treaty: is an extensive use of fair value reporting likely to promote a social market economy based on balanced economic growth? Does the current governance of the standards-setting process promote social inclusion, justice and protection, or is it rather controlled by special interest groups?
This paper cannot provide definitive answers for such complex questions, yet it conducts a ground-clearing exercise designed to set the framework within which financial reporting regulation should be discussed in the European Union. The European Regulation 1606/2002 mandating IFRS was issued in 2002 and became effective in 2005, before the Lisbon Treaty was signed. Now that it is in force, the Treaty provides us with the objectives of the European Union and its ideal economic and social model. It is therefore time we reconsider the IFRS Regulation with regard to its consistency with the founding principles of the European Union.
3. Financial Reporting in the European Union: Regulation 1606/2002

As already mentioned, European Union competences are governed by the principle of subsidiarity. Financial reporting regulation is included in the single market policies that are conferred upon the European Union and is therefore set out by the European institutions.
In 2002, the European Union issued the European Parliament and Council Regulation No. 1606, 19 July 2002, which mandated IFRS for consolidated financial statements of listed companies starting from 2005, with a member state option to apply IFRS to other reporting entities. A number of states, including Italy, Belgium and Portugal, took up this option, extending IFRS to unlisted banks, insurance firms and supervised financial institutions, while others - such as Cyprus and Slovakia - required IFRS for all firms. Some states, such as Italy, Cyprus and Slovenia, also required IFRS for separate financial statements of certain types of firms. There is also a clear intent on the part of the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) to push to extend IFRS to all unlisted firms, with the purpose of avoiding inconsistency within the accounting practices of individual countries (IASB, 2009).
One of the purposes of mandating IFRS was to standardize accounting language at a European level and to introduce a set of accounting rules that could be recognized at an international level.
In actual fact, efforts to harmonize financial reporting in the European Union date back to the 1960s. The Treaty of Rome, which was signed in 1957, stated that freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital were fundamental objectives of the European Union. Such objectives required a common environment within which companies could conduct their business, and accounting legislation was part of this harmonization program. Harmonization did not require that the same rules should be applied in all member states, but that the prevailing rules were compatible with those in the other member states.
Financial regulation for listed companies in Europe prior to IFRS adoption was based on the fourth and seventh European directives2. These directives provided the same basic principles and a set of minimum accounting rules, but left member states some options that could be implemented in national law according to their diverse national historical and economic backgrounds, cultures and legislation. Given such flexibility, the implementation of the accounting directives into national law differed from country to country. For instance, countries could choose between historical cost and fair value for evaluating certain assets. While countries from the Continental European Union required full historical cost accounting, the UK allowed the use of fair value for some items. There is a wide consensus that historical cost accounting, being more conservative and concerned with the protection of debt holders, has been crucial for highly bank-oriented financial systems such as that of the Continental European Union (e.g. Sally, 1995; Froud, Haslam, Sukhdev, & Williams, 2000; Lazonick & O’Sullivan, 2000; Perry & No¨

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

Hiệp ước Maastricht, còn được gọi là Hiệp ước về liên minh châu Âu, và các hiệp ước Rome thành lập cộng đồng châu Âu.Hiệp ước Lisbon các giá trị cảm hứng và các nguyên tắc sáng lập của liên minh châu Âu nêu rõ. Nó vượt xa kiến trúc Maastricht của một liên minh kinh tế và tiền tệ đơn giản và cung cấp cơ sở cho một quản trị mới kinh tế và xã hội. Nó cũng ghi một điều lệ về cơ bản quyền trong trật tự hiến pháp của liên minh châu Âu cho thời gian vòng, do đó thiết lập quyền không chỉ kinh tế, nhưng cũng chính trị và xã hội cho công dân và các cư dân của liên minh châu Âu. Hiệp ước Lisbon là kết quả của một cuộc tranh luận dài và sống động về tương lai của liên minh châu Âu, bắt đầu từ năm 2001 tại hội đồng châu Âu Laeken và tập trung vào hai vấn đề chính. Vấn đề chính là để thiết lập các mô hình kinh tế và xã hội liên minh châu Âu sẽ theo đuổi; Thứ hai là để define các quyền hạn đó đã được chuyển giao cho cácLiên minh châu Âu và các tổ chức và quy tắc đó sẽ đảm bảo thực hiện.According to the Treaty, the European Union ‘‘shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress [.. .] it shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection’’ (art. 3). As is clear, the concept of a social market economy emerged as a guiding idea of the European Union. A social market economy is one of the main objectives of the Lisbon Treaty and represents the core value on which the European Union has decided to build and shape its future. This is therefore the framework within which European policies must be defined and their possible outcomes discussed.The term ‘social market economy’ originates from the post-World War II period, when the shape of the ‘New’ Germany was being discussed. Social market economy theory was developed by the Freiburg School of economic thought, which was founded in the 1930s at the University of Freiburg, and received major contributions from scholars such as Eucken (1951, 1990), Ro¨ pke (1941, 1944, 1946, 1969) and Ru¨ stow (1932, 1960). In the definition of Mu¨ ller-Armack (1966), a social market economy is primarily a normative value system that is not unique and seeks to combine market freedom with equitable social development. It is a process, as opposed to something static, which changes form while keeping its essential content. Social market economics shares with classical market liberalism the firm conviction that markets represent the best way to allocate scarce resources efficiently, while it shares with socialism the concern that markets do not necessarily create equal societies (Marktanner, 2014). Market efficiency and social justice do not therefore represent a contradiction in terms, as is proven by Germany’s post-World War II economic miracle (Spicka, 2007; Po¨ ttering, 2014).According to social market economics, a free market and private property are the most efficient means of economic coordination and of assuring a high dose of political freedom. However, as a free market does not always work properly, it should be monitored by public authorities who should act and intervene whenever the market provides negative outcomes for society. The social dimension is essential not only for society as a whole, but also for the market to work well.Public authorities set out the rules and the framework, acting as the referees that enforce the rules. A strong public authority does not assume a lot of tasks, but a power that keeps it independent from lobbies, for the sake of general interest (Gil-Robles, 2014). As highlighted by Glossner (2014), a social market economy is not a dogmatic, but a pragmatic concept that implies that conscious and measured state intervention is contingent on economic and social circumstances.In order to work effectively, a social market economy shall organize the state-citizen relationship along two principles: the organization of the state according to subsidiarity and the division of the government from special interest groups (Eucken, 1952). Both of these ideas are included in the Lisbon Treaty, which states that the use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity (art. 5). Financial reporting regulation, for instance, is included in the single market policies that are conferred upon the European Union and therefore delegated to the European institutions.Moreover, the Treaty contains a ‘social clause’ requiring the European Union, in conducting its policy, to observe the principle of equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to citizens (art. 15). This should prevent the European institutions from being influenced by special interest groups. The Treaty also highlights the importance of social dialogue, which is one important pillar of the European social model (art. 152). Indeed, social dialogue has proved to be a valuable asset in the recent crisis: it is no mere coincidence that the best performing member states in terms of economic growth and job creation, such as Germany and Sweden, enjoy strong and institutionalized social dialogue between businesses and trade unions (Andor, 2011).As the Lisbon Treaty represents the legal framework within which the European Union must act, financial reporting issues must be considered in this context. Both the potential effects of fair value accounting on society and the governance of the standards-setting and endorsement processes should be discussed in terms of their capability to match the objectives of the Treaty: is an extensive use of fair value reporting likely to promote a social market economy based on balanced economic growth? Does the current governance of the standards-setting process promote social inclusion, justice and protection, or is it rather controlled by special interest groups?This paper cannot provide definitive answers for such complex questions, yet it conducts a ground-clearing exercise designed to set the framework within which financial reporting regulation should be discussed in the European Union. The European Regulation 1606/2002 mandating IFRS was issued in 2002 and became effective in 2005, before the Lisbon Treaty was signed. Now that it is in force, the Treaty provides us with the objectives of the European Union and its ideal economic and social model. It is therefore time we reconsider the IFRS Regulation with regard to its consistency with the founding principles of the European Union.3. Financial Reporting in the European Union: Regulation 1606/2002As already mentioned, European Union competences are governed by the principle of subsidiarity. Financial reporting regulation is included in the single market policies that are conferred upon the European Union and is therefore set out by the European institutions.In 2002, the European Union issued the European Parliament and Council Regulation No. 1606, 19 July 2002, which mandated IFRS for consolidated financial statements of listed companies starting from 2005, with a member state option to apply IFRS to other reporting entities. A number of states, including Italy, Belgium and Portugal, took up this option, extending IFRS to unlisted banks, insurance firms and supervised financial institutions, while others - such as Cyprus and Slovakia - required IFRS for all firms. Some states, such as Italy, Cyprus and Slovenia, also required IFRS for separate financial statements of certain types of firms. There is also a clear intent on the part of the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) to push to extend IFRS to all unlisted firms, with the purpose of avoiding inconsistency within the accounting practices of individual countries (IASB, 2009).One of the purposes of mandating IFRS was to standardize accounting language at a European level and to introduce a set of accounting rules that could be recognized at an international level.In actual fact, efforts to harmonize financial reporting in the European Union date back to the 1960s. The Treaty of Rome, which was signed in 1957, stated that freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital were fundamental objectives of the European Union. Such objectives required a common environment within which companies could conduct their business, and accounting legislation was part of this harmonization program. Harmonization did not require that the same rules should be applied in all member states, but that the prevailing rules were compatible with those in the other member states.Financial regulation for listed companies in Europe prior to IFRS adoption was based on the fourth and seventh European directives2. These directives provided the same basic principles and a set of minimum accounting rules, but left member states some options that could be implemented in national law according to their diverse national historical and economic backgrounds, cultures and legislation. Given such flexibility, the implementation of the accounting directives into national law differed from country to country. For instance, countries could choose between historical cost and fair value for evaluating certain assets. While countries from the Continental European Union required full historical cost accounting, the UK allowed the use of fair value for some items. There is a wide consensus that historical cost accounting, being more conservative and concerned with the protection of debt holders, has been crucial for highly bank-oriented financial systems such as that of the Continental European Union (e.g. Sally, 1995; Froud, Haslam, Sukhdev, & Williams, 2000; Lazonick & O’Sullivan, 2000; Perry & No¨