Participation in budgeting: A critical anthropological approach

Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accounting, Organizations and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/aos

Participation in budgeting: A critical anthropological approach

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.07.0010361-3682/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

E-mail address: [email protected]

Please cite this article in press as: Bryer, A. R. Participation in budgeting: A critical anthropological approach. Accounting, OrganizatiSociety (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.07.001

Alice Rose BryerIE Business School Madrid, IE University Segovia, Spain

a b s t r a c t

Accounting researchers adopting structural and post-structural interpretive approacheshave long criticized mainstream assumptions about the enduring economic aspects ofaccounting systems, highlighting their roles in reflecting and shaping social realities thatare contradictory, diverse, and changing. The paper aims to develop this critique by inquir-ing empirically and philosophically into the roles that constructing participation in budget-ing might play in enhancing ‘ontological plurality’, that is, supporting actors’ perspectives,abilities and concerns which are generally excluded by structuring action to maximize pri-vate profits. It defines and elaborates a critical anthropological approach using Marx’snotion of ‘social praxis’ and Latour’s idea of ‘modes of existence’ to highlight the theoreticalcontribution of anthropologists exploring beyond traditional divides over social agencythrough studies of grassroots participative responses to contemporary socio-economic cri-ses. Drawing on ethnographic data collected through a multiple site case study of eightworker cooperatives in Argentina, the paper analyses how reciprocal relations betweenthe actors’ levels of agency in wider associative actions, and their degrees of participationin budgeting, caused gradual expansions in ontological plurality, moving the actors beyondtheir particular tensions and broader structural conflicts. Exploring the notion of ‘ontolog-ical movements’, the paper develops a continuum of participation and ontological plural-ism in budgeting, which it argues contributes to the structural and post-structuralinterpretive accounting literatures through historical, constructive, and participativecomponents.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Accounting researchers adopting different theoreticalperspectives have yet to provide us with a plausible theoryand detailed knowledge of the tensions, conflicts, anddifferences between people that can arise in and aroundparticipation in budgeting systems. To address this long-standing question the paper engages with strands of theaccounting literature that offer critical alternatives tomainstream studies based on economic theory. Accordingto the mainstream perspective, participation in accountingis merely as a politically neutral means of promoting

behaviour that supports supposedly natural and enduringeconomic objectives, and of correcting so-called deviations(Brownell, 1981; Merchant, 1998). Critical researchers,however, now generally agree that budgeting is not a uni-form, mechanistic tool, but is deeply embroiled in the com-plexities of human ontologies, meaning that it shapes andreflects the symbolical structures that underpin our contra-dictory and diverse organizational and social lives (Burchell,Clubb, Hopwood, & Hughes, 1980; Child, 1969; Cooper &Hopper, 2007; Covaleski et al., 2013). The paper extends thiscritique by adopting a critical anthropological approach,broadly defined as an empirical and philosophical inquiryinto the roles of participative budgeting in supportinggreater ‘ontological plurality’ (Latour, 2013), that is, theirroles in integrating actors’ goals, abilities, and perspectives,

ons and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.07.001

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03613682

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos


2 A.R. Bryer / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

that typically are excluded by structuring action accordingto dominant ontologies such as profit maximization.1 Itdevelops this perspective through a case study of the Empre-sas Recuperadas, cooperatives in Argentina created by work-ers responding to widespread closures of small to mediumsized companies, and severe socio-economic and political cri-sis and upheaval. Worker cooperatives offer us an importantarena because by collectivizing ownership they may resolvetraditional conflicts of interest (Toms, 2002), enhancing thescope for alternative goals and values. Case studies of individ-ual Argentinean cooperatives have found that participativebudgeting supported the actors’ different concerns to takepart in wider social life through actions including workshops,demonstrations, and various cultural and educational activi-ties (Bryer, 2011a; Bryer, 2011b). However, the single caseapproach risks over simplification for two main reasons. First,although it allows us to explore the notion that the partici-pants of budgeting act according to specific and varyingvalues and aims (Ahrens & Chapman, 2006), it limits our the-orizations of the social scope for ontological pluralism, and ofthe politics of enhancing this potential. Second, while indi-vidual case studies provide insights into the historical context(Covaleski and Dirsmith, 1988, 1995), they cannot providethe necessary comparative perspective for reflecting morebroadly on the potentials for making budgeting systems moreparticipative and pluralistic, and therefore for reflecting onthe potentials for failure.

The paper’s critical anthropology addresses these con-ceptual limitations, constructing a theoretical continuumof participation and ontological plurality in budgetingusing data collected through a multiple site ethnographicmethodology, based on observations and interviews con-ducted in eight Empresas Recuperadas between February2006 and April 2007. It argues that the continuum high-lights the theoretical contribution to critical accountingof anthropologists studying grass roots participativeresponses to the conflicts and limits of prevailing socialand political structures (Gledhill, 2013; Kasmir, 2005;Schaumberg, 2008). Drawing on the structural and culturalMarxisms of Braverman, Burawoy, and Bourdieu, this liter-ature seeks to challenge dominant assumptions about theuniversal economic character of human action by adoptinga comparative perspective, based on studies of how subor-dinated actors in particular societies and moments cancollectively challenge dominant ontological boundaries(Abram & Weszkalnys, 2013; Gledhill, 2012; Roseberry,1997).2 For example, Kasmir’s (1996) study of the SpanishMondragon cooperatives showed that some membersinvolved in wider actions with independent labour organiza-tions developed radical concepts of their participation andcooperation, which they mobilized to challenge the profitmaximization goals of directors by preserving pay equity,and expanding the scope to pursue wider objectives through

1 As an ‘ontology’ is a symbolical means of guiding and organizingcollective action (Latour, 2013), and the dominant ontologies are profitmaximization and capital accumulation, a more ‘pluralist ontology’ is asymbolic means of encompassing a wider range of actors’ goals, views, andabilities, than the dominant ontologies normally allow.

2 Dominant ontological limits are therefore the social constraints toactors’ concerns, aims, and abilities entailed by structuring action accordingto profit maximization and capital accumulation.

Please cite this article in press as: Bryer, A. R. Participation in budgeting:Society (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.07.001

participation in planning and control. However, often atension exists in the anthropological literature betweenfindings showing more pluralistic courses of action, andtheorizations of participation as simply reflecting the effectsof prevailing social and political structures (Abram &Weszkalnys, 2013; Gledhill, 2013; Kasmir, 1996; Kasmir,2005).

The paper resolves this tension and develops theanthropologists’ insights into a continuum by exploringthe relations between Marx and Engels (1962, 1963),notion of social praxis and Latour’s (2005, 2013), conceptof modes of existence. Marx’s concept of social praxis isthe learning that actors do, through wider actions thatconnect them to others, about the social character of theirconcerns and skills. Marx and Engels (1962, 1963) theo-rizes how actors come to develop a specific ‘‘need for soci-ety’’, understanding and developing their relations withothers as both the source and content of their own goalsand capacities to achieve them, and therefore to questiontheir dependency on supposedly asocial and externalthings such as money and profit (Avineri, 1968). However,to understand the roles of participation in constructing amore expansive collective unity, we need to connect socialpraxis to Latour’s notion of modes of existence, which isthe learning that actors do, through interaction withabstract and concrete tools such as budgets and reports,about how to plan and realize progressively more hetero-dox, far-reaching, and durable social actions.3 FollowingLatour suggests that greater social levels of participation inbudgeting, that is, involving more actors in more extensiveplanning and control aspects, may enhance the scope forintegrating a wider range of perspectives in ontologies byenabling the actors to develop their socially ‘‘reflexivecapabilities’’ and ‘‘sources of innovation. . . (in) ontologies’’(2013: 292).4 The paper develops and tests these interre-lated hypotheses by using its eight case studies to explorereciprocal relations between the actors’ social levels ofagency in wider associative actions, and their social levelsof participation in budgeting. Its continuum is therefore away of tracking these relations, and understanding themas the socio-political forces that drive gradual expansionsin the range of actors’ goals, abilities, and perspectives,structuring collective action.

Previous Marxist and Latourian accounting studies havegenerally disagreed about how to understand social agency(Cooper & Hopper, 2007), that is, the relations that canexist between individual actors and social structures, thusmirroring a wider divide in the critical literature betweenstructural and interpretive/post-structural perspectives(Ahrens & Chapman, 2006; Hopper et al., 1987). Whereasstructural Marxist studies conceive of an enduring binaryopposition at the societal level between material interestsspanning the entire capitalist epoch (Hopper et al., 1987;

3 Budgeting systems are therefore an example of modes of existencewhen actors use and shape them to develop their skills for structuringaction in more ontologically pluralistic ways. Another possible example,suggested in the conclusion for future research, is enterprise resourceplanning systems.

4 Latour (2005: 88) acknowledges that his interest in actors’ abilities toconstruct more pluralistic ontologies comes from Marx’s social theory.

A critical anthropological approach. Accounting, Organizations and


A.R. Bryer / Accounting, Organizations and Society xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

Toms, 2002), post-structural, actor-network theory (ANT)based interpretive studies, theorize temporary connectionsbetween the differing worldviews of heterodox, individu-ally driven agents (Briers & Chua, 2001; Preston, Cooper,& Coombs, 1992). The paper argues that, by linking socialpraxis and modes of existence, we can usefully overcomethis divide, using the anthropologists’ insights to theorizehow the controversies of participatory budgeting mayexpress and shape progressively more pluralistic kinds ofsocial agency. It therefore builds on suggestions that wecan advance critical accounting theories by adding topost-structural Latourian work a concern with sociallymaterial conditions of inequality (Chua & Degeling, 1993;Cooper & Hopper, 2007), and by avoiding economicallydeterministic, grand narrative readings of Marx’s theory(Hopper et al., 1987). A key concept developed by thepaper for understanding the socio-political roles of partic-ipation is the notion of ‘ontological movements’, conceivedof as progressive expansions in ontological plurality thatmove the actors away from conflicts both over their partic-ular social aims, and more general concerns about wagesand profits. In tracking these movements, the continuumdemonstrates three main features of a critical anthropolog-ical approach, which highlight the importance of theanthropological studies for the related critical accountingliteratures.

First, to identify the start of the continuum, the papercontributes a historical perspective to related theories ofthe politics of participation (Child, 1969; Ezzamel,Willmott, & Worthington, 2004; Grenier, 1988), that is,an analysis of what history makes actors come to perceiveaccounting as a means of resisting dominant ontologicallimits. Building on Grenier’s (1988) anthropological analy-sis of employee demands for participation in a US firm, thecontinuum traces a relation between members in seven ofthe cases attending actions with community groups andother Empresas Recuperadas, and new aspirations toparticipate in accounting. Identifying the ontologicalmovement underlying the initial extension of participationby these organizations strengthens structuralist critiquesof mainstream studies of the effects of participation(Hopper et al., 1987), which predict that participants willidentify with the apparently inevitable market-orientatedgoals of an organization (Brownell and Hirst, 1986;Merchant, 1998). It does this by showing that even aspectsof accounting that we might assume to be informed by nar-row material ends, such as cost and wage determinations,can enable actors to envision the social possibilities forpursuing a wider range of goals.

Second, the paper adds a constructive perspective toexisting critical accounting knowledge of the roles ofparticipation in power and resistance (Hopper et al.,1987; Knights and Collinson, 1987), and in political change(Briers & Chua, 2001: Toms, 2002). Adopting a constructiveperspective means analysing how participation canembody and encourage skills to increase the social sur-pluses available for supporting more people’s goals andcapacities. By exploring how this ontological movementtook shape through the participative discussions ofbudgets and reports in six of the cases, the continuumhighlights the importance of complementary findings on


the social skills enhanced by participation provided byKasmir’s (2005) anthropological study of a US firm, andToms’ (2002) historical accounting analysis of the 19thCentury Lancashire cooperatives. It suggests that sustain-ing resistance to broader structural conflicts may rely onthe actors constructively moving beyond tensions overtheir specific social ambitions.

Finally, the paper reaches the end of the continuum byanalysing debates around the seemingly intractable prob-lem of how to consolidate even more socially far-reachingand durable actions, which informed the emergence ofopen budgeting and reporting meetings that connectedthe Empresas Recuperadas to community groups and othercooperatives. Ruling out a definitive conclusion, the paperargues that the difficulties experienced by most of theEmpresas Recuperadas in making this ontological move-ment point to need for a participative approach to ourresearch, that is, the need to reflect on how our researchcan take part in addressing the ongoing problematic ofontological pluralism. This builds on Rodger’s (2005)anthropological findings on actors’ criticisms of participa-tive budgeting in local government in Argentina, therebyreinforcing recent contributions to debates on accountingand pluralism (Brown, 2009; Dillard & Ruchala, 2005).The paper concludes that studying actors developing highlevels of agency and participation requires criticalresearchers to explore beyond the conventionally under-stood distinctions between management accounting andfinancial reporting, between organizations and societies,and between theory and practice.

The following section develops the paper’s theoreticalframework in two stages. First, it highlights research gapsthat justify constructing the critical anthropologicalapproach, and then elaborates the research questions andhypotheses using the concepts of social praxis and modesof existence. Second, it formulates a set of propositionsabout the potentials for participation and ontological plu-rality in budgeting. ‘Research methods’ justifies andexplains the methodology. ‘Ethnographic analysis’ usesthe materials to test and explore the framework. The paperconcludes by elaborating the continuum theoretically anddiscussing the implications for future research.

Theoretical framework

Background

Following the participants of accounting beyond domi-nant ontological boundaries means revisiting and attempt-ing to reinvigorate an important critical tradition ofaccounting research. Particularly during the 1980s andthe early 1990s, a body of accounting studies recognizedthat redrawing theoretical and methodological boundariesaround accounting was a progressive political act thatcould potentially support improvements in people’s well-being and autonomy (Cooper & Hopper, 2007; Cooper &Sherer, 1984; Tinker, 1980). Critical researchers, drawingon structural Marxist perspectives, theorized participationin accounting as manifesting the contradiction betweenthe collective work effort and the privatization of social




surpluses, which defined capitalist social and politicalstructures as a historical totality (Hopper et al., 1987).For them, accounting was an ideological means of socialcontrol, a means of ‘‘institutionalizing the subordinationof labour’’ (Hopper et al., 1987: 446), subordinating thecollective mass of people who sell their ability to work tothe minority that own the capital and therefore have thesocial power to buy it (Armstrong, 1991; Bryer, 2006).From this critical perspective, the organizational goals ofcapital accumulation and profit maximization are ‘‘socialcreations of a purely abstract nature’’, which had acquired‘‘an existence and needs independent of individuals, and towhich individuals (had) become subservient’’ (Hopperet al., 1987: 446).

However, attempts to reveal the human and historicalcharacter of the effects of participation in accounting haveyet to answer the question of how to challenge the ‘‘taken-for-granted reality of coercion, manipulation, and inequal-ity that characterizes managerial regimes’’ (Knights andCollinson, 1987: 474). Hopper et al’s (1987: 451) dialecti-cal framework suggested, ‘‘dysfunctional behaviour asexpressed by management accounting convention might. . .

be resistance in reaction to inequities and contradictions’’.Yet, much of the literature has focused on explaining whythe participants of accounting do not comprehend theirmutually conflicting class interests and mobilize collectiveresistance (Hopper et al., 1987; Jönsson & Macintosh,1997). The only route to progressive change, according tothis perspective, is through researchers somehow raisingthe subjects’ consciousnesses, encouraging them to act intheir class interests (Galhoffer & Haslam, 2003). However,by the mid 1990s, a growing internal critique, led byresearchers developing interpretive perspectives, arguedthat structuralist theories of accounting were detachedfrom the specific and varying goals and values by whichthe participants of accounting structured their everydayactions (Ahrens & Chapman, 2006).

Interpretive accounting studies often show practitio-ners informed by particular views and concerns makingdecisions fraught with uncertainties (e.g., Ahrens andMollona, 2007; Briers & Chua, 2001). Many contend thataccounting has no pre-given roles (Burchell et al., 1980).Some recast the mainstream notion of deviance as diver-gence from the norms and values that specific participantsconstruct (Ahrens & Chapman, 2006). However, studiesoften detach their actors’ compositions from an ‘‘analysisof how. . . systems of belief are causally related to thestructure, relations and mechanisms present in specificsocial formations’’ (see also, Hopper et al., 1987). Hopperet al. (1987: 451) urged ethnographic researchers to recog-nize the limited opportunities available to categorize cer-tain forms of behaviour as acceptable or unacceptable.According to Covaleski et al., (2013: 339, 356), systemicpower is relevant to budgeting because certain ‘‘knowl-edgeable, self-aware, calculative’’ actors can ‘‘influencetheir situation rather than be influenced by it’’ by manipu-lating the existing symbolical frameworks that definesituations. Similarly, post-structural ANT studies of associ-ations highlight the abilities of certain actors to constructand deconstruct momentary, insecure, and self-motivatedkinds of support for their essentially personal translations


of dominant ontologies (Briers & Chua, 2001; Qu & Cooper,2011; Robson, 1991). They use this notion of change ascyclical and individualized to question notions of powerand social agency as uniform and unchanging (Prestonet al., 1992). However, studies have not developed the con-structive component of the critique (Latour, 2013), by ana-lyzing how extending participation in accounting systemscould broaden the opportunities for actors to influencetheir ontologies, supporting more pluralistic forms ofsocial agency.

Studies of the participation of organized labour inaccounting during the 1970s and 1980s explored the plu-ralist school of industrial relations (e.g., Maunders, 1981;Owen & Lloyd, 1985), which holds that accommodation isachievable between the conflicting parties (Fox, 1966).Some researchers rejected this concept of pluralismbecause the interests of capital and labour are diametri-cally opposed (Owen & Lloyd, 1985). Recent post-struc-tural contributions seek to broaden the debate, calling foraccounting systems that are ‘‘more receptive to the needsof a plural society; one that is ‘multi-voiced’ and attunedto a diversity of stakeholders’ interests and values’’(Brown, 2009: 317, see also, Bebbington, Brown, Frame, &Thomson, 2007; Dillard & Ruchala, 2005). These research-ers see notions of dialogic and agonistic democracies asadvancing a critical project that recognizes ‘‘the ways inwhich power intrudes in social relations so as to deny het-erogeneity and privilege certain voices’’ (Brown, 2009:313). However, these studies have told us little about thespecific politics of making accounting systems more partic-ipative and ontologically pluralistic. The reason is the per-sistent tendency to see power as invariably asymmetricaland external (Dillard & Ruchala, 2005), which leads studiesto draw a distinction between a present of oppressivemonologic modes of accounting, and a future of emanci-pated, dialogic forms (Brown, 2009; Thompson andBebbington, 2005). This theoretical commitment could alsoexplain the apparent contradiction between concerns for aparticipative approach that captures people’s differingviews (Bebbington et al., 2007), and the scarcity of ethno-graphic studies. To avoid these theoretical dead ends, andaddress the gaps in critical accounting highlighted in thissubsection, what follows argues that we need to developthe research questions, hypotheses, and propositions, ofour critical anthropological approach.

Research questions and hypotheses

The first question the approach needs to answer is whatunderlay the initial construction of participation in costand wage calculations by the Empresas Recuperadas,including its incompleteness, variability, and conflicts?Combining social praxis and modes of existence enablesus to question the mainstream assumption that participa-tion emerges merely to satisfy narrow economic interests.We can hypothesize that, by developing their agency inwider associative actions with other grass roots actors inArgentina, many members formed new capabilities andconcerns to influence their social lives in particular waysrather than depend on wages, profit, or apparentlypowerful actors. This historical perspective develops the



5 Some studies of the positive effects of participation have raised thequestion of ‘cross-national generalizability’ (Harrison, 1992), but few havequestioned the underlying assumption that the universal end of organiza-tional activity is profit maximization.


structuralist notion of accounting as a historical totality(Hopper et al., 1987), linking it to the critical anthropolo-gists’ emphasis on particular social histories of struggle(Gledhill, 2013). It means that while worker cooperativesmay move away from the traditional opposition betweenthe material interests of capital and labour by collectiviz-ing ownership, which in the case of the Empresas Recuper-adas includes equalizing members’ incomes, we should notassume the end of their accounting controversies, that con-structing participation manifests their universal commit-ment to maximizing their profits. Nor do we reach onlythe interpretive conclusion that accounting is infinitelyflexible and heterodox (Ahrens & Chapman, 2006).

In seeking to understand the social scope for participa-tion and ontological plurality in budgeting, and the politicsof enhancing it, a critical anthropological perspectiveencourages us to trace relations between the actors’agency in wider associative actions, and the general varietyof goals and values that characterize the participativepreparation and discussion of accounting calculations. Ithighlights that explaining greater ontological plurality inaccounting may also entail delineating the actors’ knowl-edge of past grass roots efforts to participate in politics(Gledhill, 2013; Marx & Engels, 1963), which, as anthropol-ogists have shown, is particularly important for under-standing the social history of Argentina (Bryer, 2011a;Bryer, 2011b; James, 1988). We therefore do not assumethat fulfilling the actors’ basic physical and economic con-cerns, and encompassing aims and viewpoints traditionallyexcluded, arises spontaneously or without effort. Instead,we need to explore the view that consolidating ontologicalmovements requires combining actions in ways that createand organize the necessary social surpluses (Latour, 2005;Marx & Engels, 1963).

This leads us to the second key question, which is whatroles did constructing participation in the planning andcontrol aspects of budgeting play in the Empresas Recuper-adas’ sustaining and developing more pluralistic courses ofaction, and in their conflicts and variations? We canhypothesize that the collaborative preparation and discus-sion of budgets and performance reports, and long-termsurplus allocation decisions, supported and developed abil-ities and concerns amongst the actors to consolidateactions that were more heterodox and far-reaching. Wemay therefore qualify the common post-structural conclu-sions that unity and power inherently subordinatediversity (Brown, 2009), and that individualized andephemeral worldviews necessarily motivate actors (Briers& Chua, 2001). A critical anthropological approach enablesus to be constructive, exploring a concept of the roles ofparticipation in progressive change as widening the oppor-tunities for different people to develop their creativeontological abilities, that is, to encompass more of theirown and others’ views, abilities, and aims (Latour, 2005:247–262; Marx & Engels, 1962). To theorize how theseopportunities come about, along with their controversies,critical anthropology recommends that we adopt a partic-ipative approach, in other words, we should investigateactors developing their levels of agency and participation,rather than prescribing what they should be saying ordoing. It argues that the texts we construct also participate


in politics because, as small and fragile as they may be,they offer a provisional staging of the activity of construct-ing more pluralistic social agency.

The paper therefore presents the narrative that followsas a critical anthropological modification and extension ofKnights and Collinson’s (1987: 475) conclusion that thepolitical, emancipatory, role of critical research is ‘‘onlythe deconstruction of knowledge. . . and even then it willalways involve discourses that engage in a ‘partial complic-ity with what (we) denounce’’’. It argues that criticalresearch is a partially complicit deconstruction of assump-tions about the objective and unified character of account-ing, but one with potential for figuring out, along with ouractors, how to support more of the multiple and variedperspectives that are generally excluded. To make thiscase, the paper constructs a set of propositions about thepotentials for participation and ontological pluralism.These build on specific aspects of related accounting liter-atures by articulating contributions from the anthropolog-ical studies through the three main components of theframework.

A historical approach to the politics of participation: cost andwage calculations

Child’s (1969) sociological classification of the politicsof participation highlighted the potentially radical implica-tions of involving actors throughout an organization indecisions about the broad objectives of their activities,rather than only in deciding on the everyday means ofachieving them. For Child, this was a possible means ofovercoming general social constraints to the scope foremployees actively to develop their unique abilities, ideas,and aspirations. He therefore sought a critical departurefrom mainstream studies that see the positive effects ofparticipation as ultimately enhancing economic perfor-mance (Brownell, 1981; Merchant, 1998).5 However, thelack of empirical studies revealing these radical ontologicalpotentials led Child to the conclusion that, in general, partic-ipation supported conventional notions of social perfor-mance, mitigating conflictive organizational conditions bymeeting employee concerns for job security and status with-out undermining economic performance (1969: 92–103).Structural Marxist studies of the ideological and politicalaspects of participation question this conclusion, theorizingconflict and consent around financial rewards and personalprivileges as an irresolvable game, which diverts the atten-tion of managers and workers from the privatization ofsocial surpluses (Burawoy, 1979; Burawoy, 1985; Ezzamelet al., 2004). Yet, while Grenier’s (1988) anthropologicalstudy of participation in a US firm adopted a similar frame-work, it recognized that some workers involved in widerassociative actions contested managerial decisions that theyunderstood as geared to boosting investors’ profits. Thisfinding was historical, the study suggested, because theactors saw participation as a means of increasing their




power over their working lives and building on collectivememories of working class struggles in the US.

To understand more about what makes actors in partic-ular settings and moments perceive accounting as a way ofquestioning and resisting dominant ontological limits, weneed to add a historical dimension, that is, study theirsocial histories and classify their levels of agency in widerassociative actions through time along a continuum. As wewill see, this can extend from attending actions organizedby another group through to themselves organizing actionsconnecting multiple groups and perspectives. Differing lev-els of agency may encapsulate and shape ontologicalmovements that are unstable, contested, and varying overtime and space. Despite this messiness, we should be ableto discern ethnographically the new, more varied perspec-tives and goals in the extension of participation. From thishistorical perspective, our ethnography will be able toreject the conventional view that social goals are onlythose things that fit within the apparent totality of profitmaximization. It will show that we can modify and extendthe structuralist notion of participation as inherently con-tradictory by theorizing ways for actors to envision combi-nations of actions that encompass more of their specificconcerns and abilities. We will see these positive budget-ary effects, the actors’ sustained resistance to the powerthat reduces them to precarious economic and materialconcerns, may demand further extensions of participationinto areas of planning and control.

Constituting resistance: preparing and discussing budgets andreports

Studies of accounting systems as social control haverecognized possibilities for actors to resist dominant powerrelations (e.g., Bryer, 2006; Cooper & Hopper, 2007;Hopper et al., 1987), but we still know very little abouthow participation might enable resistance that is moresocially durable and far-reaching. For example, to addressthis gap, Hopper et al. (1987: 451) suggested that employ-ees could see an unfavourable variance as a more favour-able distribution of effort or income. Knights andCollinson’s (1987) study of a UK plant closure found thatits workers understood unfavourable variances as confir-mation of their insecure material interests, attached to atraditional working class identity that accepted the remu-neration package, as well as confirming their lived experi-ences of production problems. Oakes and Covaleski (1994:579) suggested that resistance fails to sustain wider objec-tives when dominant political structures limit the levels ofparticipation, thereby structuring the actors’ ‘‘objectives,and the way these objectives (are) pursued and legiti-mized’’. Their historical case study of profit sharing in theUS pointed out that workers were not ‘fooled’ by the ideol-ogy in any simplistic sense. Kasmir’s anthropological studyof participation in US manufacturing adopted a similarlydeconstructive approach, revealing the profit maximizingdrive and the cynicism amongst many employees towardthe corporate ideology. However, Kasmir also suggested aconstructive perspective, which was that new ideas, moti-vations, and confidences amongst employees involved inorganizing wider actions enabled them to open up a debate


about investing profits in a variety of employee and com-munity-related concerns.

Helpful for developing this constructive perspective isToms’ (1998), Toms’ (2002) historical accounting study ofthe 19th Century cooperative communities in Oldham.His evidence suggested that participative reportingencouraged members to find ways of increasing surplusesbecause it supported a more pluralist ontology of producercooperation and employee control, fostered through activeconnections with community groups. Toms also indicatedthat decreases in the levels of participation related toreduced involvement in wider activities and the resurfac-ing of individualized power struggles. Toms (2002) theo-rized that collective ownership drives democratic modesof organizing social action or socialization, in tension andopposition to private ownership, which drives hierarchicalmodes. However, this theory does not help us to under-stand the antagonisms that may arise from moving awayfrom traditional conflicts of interests, or the ways in whichactors might deal with them. Resistance through account-ing does not end with challenging the unequal distributionof resources, because sustaining this challenge may requirethe actors to find ways of advancing beyond tensions anddebates amongst themselves about how they want toshape their common social lives. According to theconstructive component of our framework, collaborativediscussions of budgets and performance reports, andrelated initiatives such as subcontracting or internal pro-cess improvements, can enable participants to satisfy awider range of perspectives and aims. However, our eth-nography will suggest that consolidating a more pluralisticsocial agency may require coordinating broader actionswith other organizations through participative, longer-term surplus allocation decisions.

A participative approach to a more pluralistic social agency:allocating surpluses

Because ethnography allows us to participate in theactors’ construction of their social worlds, Ahrens andChapman (2006) argued that we should use it to broadenthe social field of accounting research, where defining thefield is an explicitly theoretical act. We can develop thisview by connecting to recent dialogic theorizations ofpluralism and accounting. Brown (2009) draws on Freire’s(1970, 1985) concept of reflexive learning as a means ofemancipation to formulate the dialogic accounting princi-ples of ensuring effective participatory processes andenabling accessibility for non-experts. These ideas fit withwider calls for theories that engage us with emergingforms of collective activism, rather than leaving usdetached and pessimistic (Cooper, 2003; Cooper &Hopper, 2007). Attempts to formulate dialogic models havemainly focused on surplus allocation and financial report-ing, with some studies questioning conventional distinc-tions between management and financial accounting(Cooper & Hopper, 2007). However, many conclude thatactors will be uninterested in, or unable to adopt, dialogicaccounting models because of the dominant role ofaccounting methods in distributing surpluses through cor-porations and the state (Brown, 2009). Rodgers’ (2005)



Fig. 1. Participation and ontological pluralism in budgeting.

6 A significant majority means 60% or above (as indicated in Methods). Inmost cases, members gradually rotated the participants of budgeting,ensuring that they could sustain work activities, and also share knowledgeabout how to compute and prepare the accounting data.


anthropological field study of local government participa-tory reporting initiatives in Argentina used a similar theo-retical approach, arguing that the involvement of grassroots organizations supported prevailing power relations.Yet, it also reflected that many of the actors, while criticalof the shortcomings of the budgeting, perceived that theywere building a more participatory society by learningabout the perspectives and concerns that were stillexcluded, and devising ways of potentially encompassingthem.

Since pluralism is not something objective and externalthat we can pre-determine or prescribe, we need todevelop our theories of the politics of more participativeand pluralistic accounting by engaging with the active the-orizing of an increasingly broad and varied range of partic-ipants. This participative approach requires a theoreticalframework that gives us the confidence to investigateempirically how actors learn to resist dominant ontologicallimits, and to create ways of combining activities that aremore durable and ontologically expansive than prevailingmodes. Fig. 1 summarizes the possible reciprocal relationsbetween the actors’ social levels of agency in widerassociative actions (column 1), their social levels of partic-ipation in budgeting (column 2), and their ontologicalmovements (column 3).

During the fieldwork members of the eight cases devel-oped their agency in a variety of wider associative actions,including political demonstrations, public meetings, anddiverse cultural and educational activities. The compo-nents of column 1 reflect this diversity as a continuum thatranges from the minimum agency entailed in attendingactions organized by others, through organizing theactions of a specific group, to organizing actions connect-ing multiple groups. The components of column 2 map thiscontinuum of agency to a continuum of participation in


budgeting that ranges from participation in cost andincome calculations, through participation in the prepara-tion of budgets and reports, to participation in decisionsabout surplus allocation. The components of column 3map the reciprocal interactions of columns 1 and 2 ontoa continuum of representative (modal) ontological move-ments ranging from resistance to dominant ontologicallimits at a minimum, through moving beyond individual-ized conflicts over the actors’ social aims that related tobroader social conflicts, to debates around how to consoli-date more far-reaching and diverse actions.

The paper classifies greater social levels of agency andparticipation according to the collective opportunities theyopened for gaining skills and knowledge for shapingactions that included a variety of perspectives. For exam-ple, it classifies a company in which a significant majorityof its members are involved in organizing wider associa-tive activities (e.g., a workshop or a political demonstra-tion) as having an increased social level of agency than acompany in which the significant majority of membersonly attend actions organized by others.6 Similarly, a signif-icant majority of members preparing and discussing budgetsfor developing diverse external actions counts as a greaterlevel of participation than if they only participate in deter-mining departmental cost targets.

Relations between increasing social levels of agency inwider associative actions and participation in budgeting(columns 1 and 2) are clearly not the only socio-politicalforces that embody and shape ontological movements (col-umn 3). Fig. 1 is not a closed analytical structure. Rather, it



7 Estimates of the total number of Empresas Recuperadas in Argentinavary between 200 and 280. Approximately 70% are manufacturing compa-nies and 30% are service sector companies. The Empresas Recuperadas areall small to medium sized companies with an average of 50 members.

8 Living in one of these neighborhoods during the fieldwork facilitatedthis method of case selection.


provides an analytical map that connects social praxis andmodes of existence to address gaps in critical accountingfrom a comparative perspective. The paper uses this criti-cal anthropological map to locate the specific findings thatemerged from gathering and analysing data collected fromthe eight cases (the three components of each column). Ofthe eight cases, seven provided evidence of level 1 agency,participation and ontological movement (row 1), six inaddition provided evidence of level 2 (row 2), but onlytwo provided evidence of level 3 (row 3).

Building a continuum means that we do not treatinsights into the roles of participation in these cooperativesmerely as isolated ‘exceptions’ or ‘experiments’, butinstead that we explain them in a way that helps us torethink the socio-political roles of budgeting more gener-ally. We can for example relate the levels of Fig. 1 to themain aspects of existing critical accounting theory impli-cated in the paper’s findings. Level 1 has implications forstructuralist critiques of mainstream effects of participa-tion; level 2 for ANT studies of associations and structuralstudies of resistance and social change, whereas level 3 hasimplications for dialogic accounting theory.

Fig. 1 does not represent the grand claim that the move-ments we trace in the remainder of the paper delineate thepath towards pluralism that all organizations will eventu-ally follow. On the contrary, the overarching aim of explor-ing this framework is to leave open all of the multiple,specific potentials that may exist for making accountingmore participative and pluralistic. The following sectionargues that this depends not only on our theoretical con-structions, but also on our methodological choices aboutresearch sites, and methods of data collection and analysis.

Research methods

Site selection

The central purpose and contribution of adopting amultiple site ethnographic methodology to study workercooperatives is to understand the contradictory anddiverse character of extending participation in budgetingusing the critical anthropological framework outlined inthe previous sections. Previous ethnographic accountingstudies have explored the notion that participants ofaccounting act according to different values and aimsthrough a focus on one or two case studies of private orpublicly listed companies (see for reviews, Ahrens andMollona, 2007; Jönsson & Macintosh, 1997). They haveyet to develop a methodology for systematically exploringthe possibilities for ontological plurality, and the politics ofexpanding them. Some studies have recognized limits inthe form of central organizational objectives (Ahrens andChapman, 2004; Jönsson & Macintosh, 1997), but few haveinvestigated how actors might push them back, makingaccounting progressively more participative and ontologi-cally pluralistic. Post-structural field studies of the con-struction of new accounting techniques have stressed thetemporary and partial character of boundaries (Briers &Chua, 2001; Preston et al., 1992). Studies of the roles ofaccounting in reforming the public sector in particularhighlight the exclusion of actors’ interests and concerns


by regimes of profit maximization (Chua & Degeling,1993; Preston, Chua, & Neu, 1997). Yet, missing from thisliterature is an analysis of how the extension of participa-tion in accounting could support the inclusion of morepeople’s perspectives and views. On the other hand, criticalanthropological studies of participation have providedinsights into courses of action informed by a range of per-spectives that do not fit within dominant ontologies (e.g.,Kasmir, 2005; Narotzky and Smith, 2006). However, nonehas developed a continuum of the potentials for ontologi-cal plurality beyond dominant limits by investigating orga-nizations developing differing collective levels of agency inwider associative actions, and constructing varying sociallevels of participation in budgeting practices.

The paper’s study and theorization of relations betweensocial action, participation, and ontological plurality ineight of the Empresas Recuperadas responds to these gapsin ethnographic accounting and anthropological research.By selecting six manufacturing companies and two servicesector companies and varying the sizes from small to med-ium sized companies (from 25 to 170 members), the sam-ple resembled the diversity and mix of sectors, and sizes, ofthe Empresas Recuperadas more generally.7 In commonwith the majority of the Empresas Recuperadas, workersformed each of the cooperatives between 2001 and 2003.Table 1 below indicates the sectors of the companies, theyear of their formation, and their sizes.

Mode of access

The initial mode of access was through contacts pro-vided by a colleague in the PhD program at the Universityof Manchester who had already conducted ethnography inBuenos Aires. To compose the sample, I followed connec-tions between the organizations by attending associativeactions such as press conferences and meetings involvingother Empresas Recuperadas. I located cases that were lessactive in the actions by spending time in semi-industrial-ized neighbourhoods of Buenos Aires,8 obtaining directionsfrom people living and working in the area. During theresearch, my social position in each of the cases was as aresearcher interested to study the scope for developingalternative, more socially diverse courses of action througha focus on the roles of accounting. It is probable that theactors responded, at least to some degree, to this interest.However, I attempted to reduce biases and address theresearch questions by reporting and interpreting the differ-ences, tensions, and disagreements that I could discern inand around the budgeting activities. I conducted fieldworkin the eight case studies successively, and combined thiswith shorter, parallel return visits to each case. The eightEmpresas Recuperadas each provided access to observingshop floor decision-making, break time interactions andconversations, and meetings. However, my access to



Table 1Basic features of the cases.

Case Year formed Productive sector Number of workers

Graficas Katerina 2002 Manufacturing (printer) 50Graficas Horacio 2001 Manufacturing (printer) 50Graficas Belgrano 2002 Manufacturing (printer) 50Graficas Gallina 2002 Manufacturing (printer) 25Hotel Cordoba 2003 Services (hotel) 170Editorial Soria 2001 Services (editorial company) 40Helados Argentinos 2003 Manufacturing (ice-cream factory) 90Polande 2003 Manufacturing (Metallurgy) 150


observing the preparation and discussion of accounting data,budgets, and reports, depended on the participative charac-ter of the accounting in question. For example, if membersgenerally participated in cost and wage determination dis-cussions, then directors permitted me to observe theseactivities. The scope for observation therefore expandedwhen the organizations constructed greater social levels ofparticipation during the fieldwork.

Data collection

A combination of interviews and observations was nec-essary to explore the hypothesized reciprocal relations.Conducting semi-structured interviews was an importantmeans of grasping members’ differing understandingsand concerns not encompassed by dominant ontologies.Open-ended interview questions elicited members’ under-standings of their wider actions, their interpretations andexperiences of budgeting, and their understandings ofthemselves and their social environment more generally.This entailed inquiring into how members perceived thestate of the economy (including issues such as price fluctu-ations) and conventional businesses (and their profit mar-gins). It involved soliciting perceptions of the governmentand related institutions, particularly the official coopera-tive body (the IDEP), which is associated with the domi-nant political party in Argentina, the Peronist PartidoJusticialista Party, and with the main professional account-ing body (the FCPSEA). Finally, it also involved askingmembers about their perceptions of grass roots organiza-tions of the past and present. I was able to contextualizecollective memories of struggles by grass roots labourand community organizations in Argentina by studyingaspects of a vast literature on the subject (Godio, 1980;James, 1988).

I tape-recorded interviews lasting between one and twohours with roughly 10 percent of members in each case,though the exact proportion varied depending on mem-bers’ willingness and availability.9 The actors of the eightcase studies were mainly in their mid to late 40s and hadtypically worked for over twenty years on the shop floor ofthe former private companies. Interviewees included actorswho varied in their levels of agency in new associativeactions, and participated to differing degrees in the

9 Members of the Empresas Recuperadas were generally keen to discussand share their experiences with researchers, seeing this as a furthermanifestation of their move away from a former situation of subordinationand dependency.


organizations’ budgeting systems (including directors andmembers in departments throughout the organization).Though the emphasis was on capturing collective shifts inthinking, to understand their controversial character, as wellas to reduce biases, I solicited interviews from those mem-bers who expressed views that were more conservative orconflicted with the general movement. Observations werenecessary to identify the extent to which the managementand accounting practices manifested the specific and variedperspectives and aspirations expressed by individualmembers. They allowed me to track how the extension ofparticipation could reveal variations in the general rangeof goals and values structuring the organizations’ activities.I conducted regular observation sessions in each case studylasting between three and six hours, which I recorded asfield notes. As noted above, my access to observing the prep-aration and discussion of accounting data depended on thechanging participative character of the budgeting systemsin each case.

Data analysis

By listening to the taped interviews and repeatedlyrereading the field notes, I structured the materials chro-nologically around the three interrelated dimensions: (1)the actors’ social levels of agency in wider associativeactions, (2) their social levels of participation in budgeting,and (3) the degree of ontological pluralism (ontologicalmovement), selecting representative passages and quotesand translating them. First, to develop a classification ofdiffering levels of agency in new associative actions, I iden-tified the forms of social activity engaged in by the actors.This meant paying attention to the variety of groups andperspectives involved (e.g., a demonstration connectingseveral Empresas Recuperadas and unemployed workerorganizations). I also traced the extent of the actors’involvement in the action (e.g., attending the action), andits breadth, how many members were obtaining a similarlevel of agency. I recorded differences in the social levelsthat typified the cases (focusing on a significant majorityof 60% and above that obtained the level), and how thesechanged over the course of the fieldwork. This allowedme to track the specific histories developed by organiza-tions along a continuum. Second, to discern varying sociallevels of participation in budgeting, I identified whataspect the actors were involved in doing (e.g., cost calcula-tions), the proportion of actors who took part (again, focus-ing on a significant majority of 60 percent and above that



10 Some of these actors also developed agency in organizing the actions ofgroups, rather than only attending them, as Section ‘Constructing resis-tance: preparing and discussing budgets and reports collectively’ notes.

11 Directors of Graficas Gallina were elected by other members every twoyears, which was common practice in the Empresas Recuperadas.


obtained the level), and traced the extent of any influencethis had on planning and control of organizational action.Finally, assessing changes in the degree of ontological plu-rality as an ontological movement entailed identifyingwhat kinds of goals and views typically manifested them-selves through the preparation and discussion of account-ing data, budgets, and reports. My concern was to ascertainwhether dominant ontologies encompassed them, whatdifferences might exist in the general variety, and whatthe main points of conflict were. For example, were mem-bers mainly debating their worries about wages or profitsor did they discuss actions related to their specific interestsand ideas to influence their social world (e.g., organizing aworkshop about how to become involved in independentmedia)? Did the focus of debates change? If so, how andwhy did it change?

What follows uses the materials to explore the paper’scontinuum. The first subsection develops the historicalcomponent of the framework by examining the ontologicalmovement that characterized the initial construction ofparticipation in cost and wage calculations in seven ofthe cases. The second subsection explores the movementthat underlay the extension of participation into planningand control aspects by six of the cases, thus developingthe constructive dimension. Finally, the third subsectiondevelops the participative component by tracing the move-ment that took shape through the implementation of openbudgeting and reporting by the most active and participa-tive case.

Ethnographic analysis

A historical perspective: from life ‘under a boss’ to themessiness of calculating costs

‘‘Life under the boss (bajo patrón) was keep the patrónhappy so I get my wages. It wasn’t much of an existencebecause I felt dependent on the patrón, his accounts,and his caudillo (political elite) ‘friends’. We said itwas ‘dignified work’, but nothing was certain. Maybeyou only learn what dignity is when you participate insociety, like with my workshops. At least now I havesome power over my wages. Plus working out our costsgives me confidence because I know that I don’t haveto rely on the caudillos, and there’s scope for myworkshops’’.

These reflections made by Carlos, in an interview con-ducted on February 20, 2006, help to explore the historicalcomponent of the framework. Carlos was a member of Edi-torial Soria, an editorial Empresa Recuperada that editedfictional books for small publishing houses in Buenos Aires.During the fieldwork, Carlos attended and organized work-shops about creating the Empresas Recuperadas. Thenotion of ‘dignified work’ that he criticized was tradition-ally articulated by the Partido Justicialista Party, portrayingworkers’ collective existences as limited to dependency onwages and support provided by the patrón and the Peroniststate (Bryer, 2011a). Carlos’ critique suggests that thepatrón’s control of the accounts in the former companyplayed a part in limiting his social existence. However,


his recognition of a new sense of his own power and con-fidence suggests a relation between his participation in thecost and wage calculations of the Empresa Recuperada, anda movement to questioning these limits – a move that wasnot smooth and definitive, but rather was uncertain andincomplete. We cannot identify and explain this relationif we limit our view of the effects of participation to themarket economy (Brownell, 1981; Merchant, 1998) thatwe understand as a natural unity. Yet, the critical view thatconflicts will invariably persist around narrow, materialand economic concerns (Burawoy, 1979) also appearsinadequate. To investigate how some actors learn to seeparticipation as a means of resisting the subordination oftheir views and aims, and why others do not, we need toexplore their agency in wider actions, along with theirknowledge of past grass roots struggles. Identifying thisontological movement thereby develops the historical per-spective suggested by Grenier (1988).

During the fieldwork, a significant majority of membersin seven of the eight cases became involved at least inattending actions organized by others, such as demonstra-tions or workshops.10 In each of these cases, a significantmajority of members also participated at least in cost andwage calculations. Graficas Gallina, which produced educa-tional textbooks for small editorials, was the only case thatdid not construct this social level of participation. Instead,its six directors prepared and discussed accounting data inseparate meetings.11 Only five of the cooperative’s 25 mem-bers regularly attended wider associative actions during thefieldwork. In interviews and casual chats, comments madeby several members revealed a faint but perceptible relationbetween their particular interests in new associative actionsand aspirations to participate in accounting. Yet, they gener-ally acknowledged an overriding and persistent sense oftheir subordination and dependency on wages, affirmed bydirectors through budgeting. In an interview conducted onMarch 13, 2006, Janis, a Graficas Gallina member, gave thefollowing explanation of why she was not involved in widerassociative actions:

‘‘Personally, I’d like to get involved in the media side ofthings. That’d take time and money, which might bedo-able through a budget, in principle, but in practice,the budgets the directors make show that I have to keepworking to earn wages right now. Then there are thecaudillos at IDEP (the official cooperative body) andthe FCPSEA (the official accounting body) to thinkabout. . . you could say it’s not that different from whenwe were bajo patrón’’.

Graficas Gallina members described in interviews andduring casual chats the connections between directorsand political elites who worked for IDEP and the FCPSEA,suggesting that not much had changed. Yet, this reflectingwas not simply passive or uncritical. Rodrigo, who workedin graphics, often referred to the past struggles of grass



Graficas GallinaPerformance ReportApril 2006

Budgeted Actual

Total Costs 300,500 301,100Total Revenues 420,000 419,850Gross Margin 119,500 118,750Percentage 28.4 28.2

Exhibit A.

Graficas HoracioBudget (June 20 06) Budget

Total Costs 320,500Total Revenues 520,000Gross Margin 199,500Percentage 38.3

Exhibit B.


roots labour and community organizations in Argentina. Inan interview conducted on March 14, 2006, he com-mented: ‘‘Some people think we should have a say in whatwe do with our profits, so we can build on our history ofstruggle (lucha). It’d be great to do a workshop about theCordobazo12 for example, things like other Empresas Recu-peradas are doing. . . (.) But that happening seems a longway off somehow’’. This suggests how knowledge of thewider actions of others, both past and present, could encour-age actors’ reflexivity about their capabilities and interests.However, criticisms occasionally expressed in interviewsor amongst members during break times did not lead to col-lective resistance during the fieldwork. The followingdescribes a short extract from a meeting that took placetowards the end of fieldwork (April 29, 2007). Ignacio, adirector, was reading from a performance report of the pre-vious month (Exhibit A).

Concluding, Ignacio said, ‘‘We need to get serious aboutthe unfavourable variances we’ve been seeing consecu-tively over the past three months and increase our mar-gins. Carlos Mendez at IDEP is only going to backprofitable companies. Fortunately, we’ve calculated thatby extending working hours to 11-h shifts, we should beable to reduce overall costs and meet competitors’ turn-over times’’.13 There followed a moment of silence, thensome members began talking anxiously amongst them-selves, but successfully cutting any potential interventionshort, Katerina, another director, demanded, ‘‘Quiet please!There’s a lot to get through so everyone knows what theyneed to do to’’.

By contrasting Graficas Gallina with Graficas Horacio,we can substantiate our concept of the roles played by col-lective levels of agency in challenging dominant ontologi-cal limits and constructing social participation. GraficasHoracio printed advertisements for several corporate cus-tomers. A significant majority of its members attendedassociative actions during the fieldwork. In June 2006,the cooperative implemented departmental discussionmeetings through which a significant majority of membersparticipated in cost and wage calculations. What followsdescribes an extract from a meeting preceding this devel-opment, held on May 30, 2006. Paulo, a director, had justinformed the others of budgeted targets for the upcomingmonth (Exhibit B).

Juancito, a member who often attended meetings orga-nized by independent media activist groups, responded,

12 The Cordobazo refers to a popular uprising that brought together broadsectors of society during the ‘resistance period’ of Argentinean history(1955–1976).

13 The average working day amongst the cases was 9 h.


‘‘Paolo, listen, we’re unhappy about not participating incalculating this data. Every week I hear about anothergroup’s been co-opted by IDEP and the caudillos’’. ‘‘Areyou saying we’re fixing the data?’’ replied Leo, a director.Yolanda, a member who also attended the activists’ meet-ings, ventured, ‘‘We’re all capable of taking part in workingout what wage we can take home, and some of us want toinvest in other stuff, like the independent media meet-ings’’. ‘‘I know people have been complaining about thisfor a while’’, responded Bergoña, a director, ‘‘but rightnow the main issue is increasing our profitability, the restwill have to wait’’. There followed debates between severalparticipants about whether wages or profits should be thefocus, and about what their possibilities were for partici-pating in society. An intervention from Mariela, a memberwho sometimes attended and organized workshops at alocal cultural centre, gained support and moved the discus-sion forward. She argued, ‘‘I think we all agree we’ll be ableto reduce costs if we’re all involved. We know our jobsafter all. But we also know that it’s no answer just to workwith our heads down to make wages or even just a profit,we just argue and get de-motivated’’. Several participantsvoiced their agreement and Mariela developed her point,‘‘We’re living a chronic instability that stops us realizingour potentials, so we need to start planning how each ofus can take part in our society more systematically.Personally, I’d like to see the possibilities to run myworkshops’’.

The above evidence suggests that constructing partici-pation may enable actors involved in attending wideractions to identify scope for pursuing aims beyond profitmaximization, galvanizing resistance, and moving awayfrom conflicts over wages and profits. We therefore cannotassume that participation is merely ideological in the senseof concealing and perpetuating structural conflicts(Burawoy, 1979). Mariela’s perspective led to a generalagreement to implement a system by which membersthroughout the organization discussed and prepared dataon the controllable costs for their departments, for exam-ple, the total paper costs of the binding and cutting depart-ment, which directors used in preparing the monthly




departmental budgets and the general budgets andreports. Directors then presented these to the other mem-bers in monthly meetings, which aimed to provide themwith an opportunity to participate in discussing wages,understood as labour costs calculated as a percentage oftotal revenues.14 The following narrates an extract from agraphics department discussion that took place on April 6,2007, which helps to delineate the characterizing ontologi-cal movement. Horacio and Bernado sometimes attendedmeetings with other Empresas Recuperadas, while Pedrofrequently helped to organize workshops at his local culturalcentre with unemployed worker (piquetero) organizations.

Bernado: ‘‘We’ve worked a good few extra hours thismonth and improved our material costs, maybe wecould think about a small rise? I know it’s unlikelythough, with the recession, but what about participa-tion? I’d really like to help out with those piqueteroworkshops’’.

Horacio: ‘‘Hold on, I’m not sure we can afford thecosts’’.

Pedro: ‘‘Horacio come on! We can’t be worrying aboutwages or beating our competitors, we know that way ofdoing things is just one big contradiction that will takeus back to depending on the government or IDEP,surely?

Horacio: ‘‘It’s not that simple, I mean, participation insociety isn’t just an idea. I’d like to do stuff with theneighbourhood assemblies, you know, but it’s not easy’’.

Pedro: ‘‘No, we need to organize ourselves much better,in fact, I think that we can reduce our costs by another 8or 9 percent next month if we work on reducing the inkwaste and machine hours. That’s why I wanted to pro-pose the cultural centre meeting with the piqueteros.But it’s tough not doing our own budgets and reports. . .

I think we need that to make things more coherent, sowe can move forward’’.

We could not understand the conflicts and variations ofparticipation examined in this subsection if we assumedthat the actors were destined simply to reproduce prevail-ing ontological limits. An expansion in the variety of goalsand values that actors can envision and seek to pursue isevident in the debates around participative cost and wagecalculations. Gaining this historical perspective fromstudying ontological movements means that we cannotreduce the positive effects of participation to conventionalnotions of social performance (Child, 1969). We can under-stand ‘progressive’ social change as potentially encompass-ing a wider spectrum of actors’ unique interests and socialskills, rather than simply affirming uniform class interests

14 During the fieldwork, each of the cooperatives maintained a steadyaverage rate of pay of 3600 pesos per month. This was above the averagemanual labourer salary of 3200 pesos per month (INDEC Incidencia de laPobreza de la Indigencia en el Gran Buenos Aires. URL: http://www.indec.gov.ar/ (6/2008)), but lower than the average managerial salary inArgentina of 4900 pesos per month. The practice of equal incomedistribution was widespread in the Empresas Recuperadas. Some didintroduce differentiation between directors and ordinary members(Howarth, 2007), but none of the cases examined.


(Gledhill, 2013). However, the evidence does not supportthe conclusion that simply extending participation is suffi-cient for the sustained pursuit of a greater variety of objec-tives, gaining autonomy from physical and economicconcerns. Rather, a continuum allows us to explore thespecific importance of constructing participation in moreextensive planning and control aspects, rather than onlyin cost and wage determination, for enabling actors to sus-tain their resistance.

Constructing resistance: preparing and discussing budgets andreports collectively

Having traced relations between the actors attendingwider associative actions, their abilities to question pre-vailing ontological limits, and the initial extension of par-ticipation, we can explore the constructive dimension ofthe framework. This requires us to examine the extent towhich extending participation in the planning and controlaspects of budgeting can support participants’ activelyaccumulated abilities to expand the ontological bordersof collective activity. By building on findings provided byKasmir (2005) and Toms (2002) in this way, we can modifyand extend post-structural theories of pluralism (Brown,2009), theorizing how forms of unity and power maydevelop that do not repress diversity to the same degree,as well as what limitations might emerge. We can add toexisting critical accounting knowledge of the roles ofaccounting in resistance (Toms, 2002), highlighting howthe collaborative preparation and discussion of budgetsand reports can help to move beyond debates over people’sdifferent aspirations to shape their societies, understand-ing this as vital to moving away from traditional conflictsof interest. Our analysis of this ontological movementthereby seeks to revise previous structural (Toms, 2002)and post-structural (Briers & Chua, 2001) framings of theroles of accounting in political change.

During the fieldwork, a significant majority of membersin six of the cases became active in organizing the actionsof particular or multiple groups, rather than only attendingthose organized by others. Each of these organizations alsoconstructed social participation in the preparation and dis-cussion of departmental budgets and performance reports,and in monthly general meetings to discuss the generalbudgets and reports, often in relation to members’ propos-als for developing their associative actions. For example, inGraficas Katerina, a printer that produced books and mag-azines for several large editorials, a significant majority ofmembers took part in departmental discussions to makethe departmental budgets of controllable costs, and collab-orated with the directors in composing the general budgetsand reports. These actors sometimes disagreed about theactions that they wanted to support through making costsavings, leading to evident frustration and the resurfacingof concerns about wages and profits. Nevertheless, thosemembers developing greater levels of agency often usedthe departmental budget discussions to encourage othersto contribute their ideas to proposals that gained supportbecause they met a wider variety of perspectives. Agree-ments and coherence in the budgeting were not uniformor complete, nor did they result simply from temporary


http://www.indec.gov.ar

http://www.indec.gov.ar



manipulations of prevailing ontologies (Covaleski et al.,2013), whereby particular actors asserted their views morestrongly (Briers & Chua, 2001). Concerns and issues raisedthrough discussions led Graficas Katerina to extendparticipation in longer-term surplus allocation discussionsin May 2006. To trace the ontological movement thatthis development embodied and shaped, what followsdescribes a dialogue between members of Graficas Kateri-na’s graphics department around their departmental per-formance report for April 2006 (Exhibit C), which tookplace on April 25. Natalia sometimes took part in environ-mentalist meetings at her local cultural centre. Antonioand Paulo both frequently organized actions that con-nected various student and environmentalist activistgroups and the Empresas Recuperadas. They were discuss-ing cost reductions achieved by subcontracting machinesused for the graphic design with other printer EmpresasRecuperadas including Graficas Belgrano:

Natalia: ‘‘Seeing this variance is definitely reassuringand I think the guys from Graficas Belgrano are inter-ested in mobilizing an action against the mining com-panies the government’s supporting. It might seemtoo ambitious though when we’re in an economic crisisstill, and won’t other people have other plans?’’

Antonio: ‘‘I actually think we can have more confi-dence. We’ve made these cost savings, and you guysknow I’ve been meeting with the activist groups in Bue-nos Aires and Cordoba for a while now, right? We wantto do a demonstration’’.

Paulo: ‘‘Good, but I think we should be trying to con-nect what we’re all doing, so we save more time andmoney, and build on each other’s ideas. How about around of open discussions? Then you can gain moresupport’’.

Antonio: ‘‘Well, I think Hotel Cordoba would give us thespace for free. Natalia, what do you reckon?’’

Natalia: ‘‘Actually, the theatre group who do stuff at mycentre would support this, they might put on an event’’.

This suggests how actors can see variance as revealingthe social scope to encompass a wider range of goals andperspectives, and therefore to move beyond their contro-versies. In the subsequent meeting, Natalia, Paul, and Anto-nio presented their proposal along with their Aprilperformance report and some basic data about expectedcosts and revenues of the activity (Exhibit D).

Chris, a director, summed up concerns voiced by someothers, ‘‘It’s an interesting project, but what happens ifyour revenue sources fail? We need to make sure we’vegot the surpluses to earn a liveable wage. Plus, why should

April 2006 Graphics Department Performance Report

Budget

Materials 8,50Labour Costs 10,00Machines and miscellaneous 12,02Total Costs 33,52

Exhibit C


we invest in this rather than in Luckas’ cultural centre pro-ject?’’ Natalia answered, ‘‘Well, we’ve shown you thefavourable variances’’. ‘‘Plus I think we can be fairly sureabout building new connections and commitments withother groups through the discussion day, so we all gainnew perspectives on what we’re doing’’, commented Nuria,a director with experience organizing meetings of Empre-sas Recuperadas. She added, ‘‘We can also reduce labourand advertising costs, for example, Belgrano will certainlyprint flyers for the event and help organize the talks.Luckas’ project could be part of those efforts, right?’’ Thisevaluation helped to reduce tensions over the differentprojects and concerns about securing a stable income.Some members from the paper cutting and binding depart-ment highlighted plans to reduce waste that furthered asense of agreement and confidence amongst participants.However, Tomas, who was involved in a previous sub-con-tracting initiative, highlighted potentials for failure, ‘‘Actu-ally, I think we should all be thinking about the broadersurplus allocation implications; every action has to fitwithin a broader matrix of actions, otherwise it could allstill come apart. Sub-contracting and improving what wedo as a company has been ok, but it’s too internal still’’.Carlos, who worked with Tomas on the subcontracting,developed his point, ‘‘Ok, so participation means that weneed everyone to take part, but most Belgrano membersaren’t involved in their budgeting, Mabel and Dina (Belgr-ano members) told me they haven’t been able to get theirworkshops off the ground. I’ve heard similar stories fromthe guys in Polande’’.

After some meetings to debate the issue of extendingparticipation with directors and members in Belgrano, inAugust 2006, a group of Katerina members conductedthree training sessions to support the implementation ofbudgeting discussions and meetings. In practice, Belgranomembers sometimes disagreed about their different pro-jects, and over concerns about wages and profits. Yet, con-sistent with the notion of ontological movement, they alsomanaged frequently to move beyond these controversiesby including as many perspectives as possible in theactions under discussion. For example, in a budgetingmeeting held in January 2007, Freda who worked in papercutting, and other members from paper cutting and print-ing departments, proposed a participation webpage,including in the proposal basic data about expected costsand revenues (Exhibit E):

Freda summarized the intentions of the project: ‘‘Wefigured that we need to facilitate new connections so wecan all develop our interests and not worry so much. Forexample, some of the piqueteros told us they want todebate the question of whether to make cooperatives.Indymedia keeps down costs and some of us are learning

ed Actual

0 7,0000 10,0000 9,0100 26,010

.



Discussion day: Politics of environmental crises Budget

Total Costs (Labour hrs, advertising, food and beverages)

8,000

Total Revenues (Ticket sales, food and beverages sales)

7,400

Exhibit D.

Participation webpage BudgetTotal Costs (Developers) 6,700Total Revenues (Advertising)(First 3 months)

14,700

Profit Margin 8,000

Exhibit E.


how to do the upkeep of the site’’. Marta, a director,expressed doubts, ‘‘My worry is the advertising; won’t itjust be another sell-out social networking site?’’ Some ten-sions arose and other members attempted to advocatealternative proposals. Barthos, who was involved in theproject, helped to refocus the discussion by suggesting,‘‘Maybe it would help if we clarified the surplus allocationplans?’’ This prompted others to voice their support andcomments. Paul, a member who rarely participated in dis-cussions, ventured, ‘‘That might help some of us to see howwe could contribute to the plans, and not worry so muchabout our basic issues’’. Following further discussion, Bar-thos drew together people’s points, ‘‘So the problem seemssimple enough, the question is how everyone can partici-pate. We might be able to answer that if we’re all talkingabout investing on a bigger scale. Right now, were debatingtoo much over our own projects, and we’re trying to savemoney in ways that are too narrow’’.

A continuum that recognizes the development of peo-ple’s creative ontological abilities rather than relying ontraditional social categories is important because the rolesof accounting in resistance and political change thereforeinclude widening the opportunities for this development.We can understand this as central in enabling the redistri-bution of resources in ways that do not simply reaffirmasymmetrical forms of power. For example, some partici-pants, particularly those involved in organizing actionsconnecting multiple perspectives, were apparently capableof shifting the focus away from individualized frictions andinvolving less assertive members through the discussion ofproposals that included more perspectives and were morefar-reaching. We can therefore qualify the post-structuralANT theory that participants will invariably disagree orattempt to co-opt each other to affirm their particularideas and aims. Studying ontological movements alsoemphasizes the importance of rejecting any prescriptiveapproach to political change (Cooper, 2003). For example,we have begun to delineate shortcomings that would havebeen otherwise imperceptible. Rather than encouragepolitical apathy, the analysis has pointed to a growing rec-ognition amongst the actors of a need for broader initia-tives than measures such as internal process changes or


sub-contracting, potentially realizable through extendingparticipation in long-term surplus allocation decisions.

Open budgeting and reporting: participating in a morepluralistic social agency

The case of Hotel Cordoba, a medium sized hotel, helpsto explore the final movement described by the paper’scontinuum, which took the form of debates about how toconsolidate increasingly broad and varied associativeactions. Hotel Cordoba ‘completes’ the continuum becauseits members had generally developed the greatest level ofagency, with a significant majority of members regularlyinvolved in coordinating various actions connecting multi-ple organizations including the other cases. Consistentwith our hypothesized relations, Hotel Cordoba had con-structed the most participative budgeting system, involv-ing a significant majority of members in budgeting andlong-term surplus allocation decisions, and implementingopen budgeting and reporting meetings. The case helpsto reflect on how our research can take part in the chal-lenge of ontological pluralism, by encouraging us to becautious about attempting to formulate a definitive theo-retical model of pluralistic accounting (Brown, 2009). Itenables us instead to develop the notion of broadeningthe accounting field (Ahrens & Chapman, 2006), analyzinghow constructing more expansive connections betweenorganizations and societies may relate to bridging manage-ment and financial accounting (Cooper & Hopper, 2007).Our participative approach thereby develops Rodger’s(2005) anthropological study, highlighting how studyingactors developing high levels of agency and participationcan help us to connect critical accounting theory andpractice, thereby redrawing the ontological borders ofaccounting.

In interviews and casual chats, Hotel Cordoba membersrecognized that they had developed knowledge and under-standings of the difficulties of their activities, and how tomove beyond them, through increasing levels of participa-tion in budgeting. For example, in an interview conductedon June 7, 2006, Stefan commented,




‘‘I think budgeting discussions gave us that push to stopfighting over wages or profits, but we disagreed aboutall the things we wanted to do, participating in society.So, I guess we all needed to make longer-term alloca-tion decisions to involve more perspectives in oureveryday work too, to see those connections, like open-ing up the hotel’s salons for grass roots organizations touse them free of charge’’.

This suggests that collaborative surplus allocation dis-cussions enabled members to perceive and build linksbetween their daily work activities and their wider asso-ciative actions. In a casual chat about the grass roots orga-nizations that often used the hotel spaces for meetings(November 25, 2006), Fernanda commented, ‘‘They collab-orate in other ways, so, in the end you save costs andengage with new perspectives. We try and plan for thatthrough investment discussions. What holds us backsometimes though are our own egos, we think we can telleveryone what they should do’’. Tensions and disagree-ments that sometimes arose in monthly surplus allocationmeetings indicated concerns amongst many participants toreject any prescriptive understandings of their relationswith other groups. For example, during a meeting heldon December 20, 2006, a comment from Leonardo, a mem-ber involved in a proposal for organizing a trade fair(Feria), that members should ‘‘show people how theyshould be participating’’, provoked several criticisms. ‘‘Leo-nardo, let’s not put ourselves on some pedestal, we’velearned how to develop participation by doing, it’s notsomething that you can ram down people’s throats’’,responded Tobias. Vivien, a director, added, ‘‘I agree, andwe’ve also reflected on what we’ve done through our bud-geting, otherwise we couldn’t learn, no? We don’t want toend up being another IDEP that people depend on’’.Exactly, so maybe we need to involve other people in ourmeetings, like the guys working on the Feria?’’ suggestedTobias.

During the following week, some members shared inse-curities and doubts about Tobias’ suggestion. Jeronimocommented to Zeta, ‘‘It’s not enough bringing people intoour meetings given the surpluses and actions we need toorganize now. After all, we’re just one organization. I thinkwe need to bring together everyone’s accounts in an openmeeting’’. ‘‘That makes sense to me’’, Zeta responded,‘‘there’s so much anger and frustration about how the mul-tinationals and the state control everything. We need away of organizing society’s profits and capital, coordinat-ing all of our different projects. That probably isn’t possibleif we’re sticking to our management accounts’’. In a meet-ing held on February 10, 2007, members discussed andeventually agreed to implement open budgeting andreporting meetings. One took place on April 20, 2007. Thismeeting brought together people from other EmpresasRecuperadas, including each of the case studies, a varietyof newly formed grass roots worker cooperatives as wellfrom more established cooperatives linked to the IDEP,piquetero groups, and various other grass roots organiza-tions. What follows examines material gathered fromobserving the meeting that helps to trace the underlyingontological movement. Dariana, a member of Agrovida, a


cooperative that sold cheap organic fruit and vegetablesto people living in poor areas of Buenos Aires, was conclud-ing her presentation of cost savings made in the previousmonth (Exhibit F):

‘‘We want to start free classes on healthy eating andexpand into other cities and regions, so we’ll need to abigger base for that investment, and to get more peopleinvolved’’. Lucia, a member of Cooperative Trebolles, anagricultural cooperative connected to IDEP, com-mented, ‘‘A lot of us at Trebolles would love to be partof Agrovida’s project, but we still have no real say indecision-making, especially about how we invest ourtime or finances’’. Osvaldo from Hotel Cordoba sug-gested, ‘‘Lucia, what about us visiting Trebolles and giv-ing a talk about the potential benefits of collaborativebudgeting and surplus allocation?’’ Pedro, a memberof Helados Argentinos, expanded the point, ‘‘Loads ofcooperatives are still working bajo patrón so we needmore systematic consultancy, but doing stuff like thatmeans having a broader strategic perspective. I thinkmeetings combining management and financial reportscould be a way to move forward, we can’t stay enclosedin our own ‘management’’’. Juan, a director fromPolande, raised a concern, ‘‘Look, we don’t have timeto be going to meetings constantly, we can’t just forgetabout the profit margins of our competitors’’. Neverthe-less, Graciela another member of Polande responded,‘‘To me it makes sense, otherwise what differentiatesus from IDEP, the FSCPA, or profit-maximizing multina-tionals? Juan you know that we find ways of savingtime when we’re more motivated by what we do’’.Graciela’s response prompted a discussion about whatit meant to differentiate. Inés from a neighbourhoodassembly in central Buenos Aires argued, ‘‘Our assemblyneeds more money to stay independent from the politi-cians, we can see here that the Empresas Recuperadasare making enough to contribute more to us’’. However,this prompted several criticisms. Olivio, an activistinvolved in connecting several piquetero groups, devel-oped these proposing, ‘‘What we need is a regulatorybody that has capital and technical support structuresbut is accountable to us, to society, not just the sameminority who focus on their money and power’’. Inresponse, Rodrigo, a retired manager who was involvedin coordinating activities of several neighbourhoodassemblies, suggested, ‘‘Couldn’t open meetings be usedto regulate a fund for participation? It’s pretty clear weneed a way of supporting and coordinating all thedifferent actions’’. Following some further discussion,Lisa, a member of Editorial Soria, attempted to bringtogether people’s ideas, ‘‘What we’re talking about thenis a regulatory body that everyone can be part ofthrough open meetings of a participation fund? Becausethe only way we can all pursue our different projects,instead of worrying about money or corruption, is ifwe all can, not if we leave the decision-making to thelikes of IDEP and the FSCPA’’. The meeting concludedwith a general agreement to hold an open meetingincluding the organizations’ budgets, performancereports, and financial reports, for participants to plan



Agrovida Performance Report March 2007 Budgeted Actual

Total Costs (Labour/Raw materials)

300,500 (180,500/120,000)

260,100(175,200/84,900)

Total Revenues 420,000 420,850Gross Margin 119,500 160,750Percentage 28.4 38.2

Exhibit F.


and coordinate the construction of a regulatory body.Melina from Hotel Cordoba summed up a common viewof this conclusion, ‘‘Let’s not assume that open meet-ings, or even a new regulatory body, are instant solu-tions that will give everyone a chance to participate,but I think we will be able to learn more about whatactually are our abilities and how we can developthem’’.

It seems from the above evidence that even high sociallevels of participation remain partial because the actorsmay identify goals and perspectives that are not yetincluded, and devise ways of potentially including them.The case thereby suggests the importance of an open-ended continuum for developing our understanding ofthe partiality of accounting (Cooper & Sherer, 1984), ratherthan a closed analytical framework. In seeking knowledgeof greater social levels of participation, we should be waryof drawing sharp distinctions, between managementaccounting and financial reporting, between organizationsand wider regulatory bodies, and also between theory andpractice (Cooper & Hopper, 2007). By rejecting the notionthat actors will invariably replicate exclusionary powerstructures, a participative approach adds substance to dia-logic theorizing, helping to identify and explain how actorsbroaden their ontological borders through participativeprocesses and the involvement of non-experts (Brown,2009). We can conclude that using open budgeting andreporting to construct a new regulatory body is not amechanism guaranteed to result in a totalizing transforma-tion, a completely new social agency. Rather, it could be alearning opportunity that might enable a steadily broaderrange of actors to create more freely than traditional socialinterests allow by participating in shaping ontologies fortheir collective lives.

Discussion and conclusion

Discussion

The paper set out to develop existing critical accountingtheories and knowledge of the socially contradictory anddivergent aspects of participation in budgeting through acritical anthropological approach. It pursued a definitionof critical anthropology as an empirical and philosophicalinquiry into the roles of participation in constructinggreater ontological pluralism, by developing the contribu-tion of those anthropologists who, by exploring beyondtraditional divides over social agency, have created anemerging focus on studying ontological movements. Thepaper operationalized a framework combining social


praxis and modes of existence using a multiple site ethno-graphic methodology of worker cooperatives, therebyextending the insights gained from previous single casestudies of the Empresas Recuperadas (Bryer, 2011a;Bryer, 2011b). It built a continuum for reflecting morebroadly on the potentials for enhancing the participatoryand ontologically pluralistic capacities of accounting sys-tems through historical, constructive, and participatorycomponents.

To test these claims empirically, the paper first soughtto add a historical dimension to formulating theories ofthe positive effects of participation, tracing connectionsbetween actors’ different concerns and interests that dom-inant ontologies failed to satisfy in the particular historicalcontext of Argentina (Gledhill, 2013; James, 1988). Its evi-dence shows that while members of the Empresas Recu-peradas were often concerned about their wages andprofits in an unstable economy, many also wanted to takepart in accounting because they aspired to participate inspecific ways in constructing their society. The notion thatparticipatory budgeting has an inherent and fixed role isthus highly problematic, whether we understand this asresponding to the market (Brownell, 1981; Merchant,1998), or as reflecting general asymmetrical power rela-tions (Hopper et al., 1987). However, the ethnographicconcept of specific and flexible roles is also inadequate(Ahrens & Chapman, 2006; Bryer, 2011a). We found weneeded to situate the apparent incoherence and conten-tiousness of participation within a comparative perspec-tive (Abram & Weszkalnys, 2013), which could trackprogressive expansions in the range of goals and values,beyond prevailing limits. By tracing the ontological move-ments shaped by and reflected through the actors’ differinglevels of agency and participation, the continuum locatedthe budgeting of Graficas Gallina as the ‘least participative’case and Hotel Cordoba as the ‘most participative’, under-stood within a broader struggle embodied in Argentineansociety.

Critical anthropology therefore modifies and developsthe structuralist theory of the inevitable limits of participa-tion (Burawoy, 1979; Ezzamel et al., 2004), helping us toinvestigate what makes some actors in particular placesand moments accept their subordination, and also whatmotivates and enables others to use accounting to widenthe boundaries of their worlds. In identifying a linkbetween attending wider actions and viewing accountingas a means of resistance, the historical component of ourframework theorized the importance of anthropologicalfindings provided by Kasmir (1996) and Grenier (1988)for critical accounting. Using a multiple site perspectivehelped to develop and test this insight. For example, for




Carlos from Editorial Soria, participating in cost and wagedetermination discussions supported a new confidence,gained from his organization of workshops on the Empre-sas Recuperadas, enabling him to break from traditionalbonds with caudillos. Pedro from Graficas Horacio under-stood setting and meeting targets for departmental con-trollable costs as a means of asserting potentials tocoordinate his actions with piquetero organizations. He,like many other members developing greater levels ofagency, was frustrated therefore by not participating inmore far-reaching aspects of planning and control. Thisfinding illustrates the necessary complexity we get fromcomparing by constructing a continuum, rather thanconceiving of dichotomies such as participatory as opposedto hierarchical, or dialogic vs. monologic modes of account-ing. It adds substance to Child’s (1969) emphasis ondetermining the objectives of action, suggesting that par-ticipative cost calculation alone did not satisfy the degreeof pluralism that many participants envisioned as neces-sary to overcome persistent conflicts between wages andprofits.

It seems that even in worker cooperatives mere accom-modation between the interests of capital and labour iselusive. The critical anthropological insight, however, ishow extending participation in budgeting and perfor-mance evaluation could encompass goals and views typi-cally excluded by this dichotomy, which was vital formoving away from persistent antagonisms between wagesand profit. The case of Graficas Katerina, in particular,added this constructive perspective to accounting critiquesof the pluralist school of industrial relations (Owen &Lloyd, 1985), thus articulating a link between findings pro-vided by Kasmir’s (2005) anthropological study of US man-ufacturing companies, and Toms’ (1998, 2002) historicalaccounting analysis of cooperatives. For example, we sawthat members in the graphics department used favourablevariances achieved through sub-contracting machinery tosupport a day of open discussions. We cannot say thatthe ontological movement underlying this participationcaptured all of the actors’ concerns and ideas, but that itdid enable actions that were more widely satisfactory.

Critical anthropology therefore supports the ANT con-clusion that accounting gives social life a coherence thatis simultaneously unstable (Briers & Chua, 2001; Prestonet al., 1992), but qualifies it by questioning any assumptionthat such insecurity is uniformly oppressive or individual-istic. For example, the evidence from cases such as GraficasBelgrano indicated that debates and disagreements overhow to make use of cost savings for members’ differentassociative activities were more likely to lead to positiveoutcomes than debates over increasing profits or wages.Rather than becoming de-motivated and frustrated, mem-bers planned and evaluated collective actions structuredby a greater variety of perspectives and goals, such as theparticipation website. Furthermore, the case of GraficasKaterina suggested that extending participation inlonger-term surplus allocation, and supporting others toimplement collaborative budgeting, could enable morefar-reaching, heterodox, and long-lasting actions. Account-ing is therefore not simply a means for individuals tomanipulate ontologies to their personal advantage


(Covaleski et al., 2013). Participatory budgeting may ‘curb’individualized, unsustainable goals in a way that widensindividuals’ opportunities for influencing their social lives.

We learned from reflecting on the political roles of crit-ical accounting research in the final case how an increasingvariety of actors could address the question of how to sup-port goals and views marginalized by dominant regulatoryand accounting institutions. By developing Rodger’s (2005)anthropological analysis of participative budgeting in localgovernment, this participative approach reinforced criti-cisms of the roles of accounting in public sector reforms(Chua & Degeling, 1993; Preston et al., 1997), demonstrat-ing that the subordination of multiple actors’ interests toregimes of profit maximization is not natural or inevitable.Perhaps the most significant finding from Hotel Cordobawas the actors’ common conviction that bridging manage-ment accounting and financial reporting could potentiallyconstruct a more pluralistic regulatory institution, that is,one that that enables organizations to produce more freelyfrom conventional social interests. This finding supportedrenewed efforts to connect accounting theory with radicalpolitics (Brown, 2009; Cooper, 2003; Cooper & Hopper,2007). However, we need more studies of organizationsdeveloping high levels of agency and participation tounderstand such potentials, and how they could informstruggles for participation and plurality in other placesand moments.

Concluding comments

Greater social levels of participation in budgeting andgreater degrees of ontological plurality have emerged fromour study of Argentinean worker cooperatives boundtogether by an inter-dependency that was not smooth, uni-form, or mechanistic. The relationship took shape throughtensions, disagreements, and differences between people,many of whom were actively learning to rethink anddevelop their social aims and abilities, and to challengeprevailing ontological limits positively and collectively.This critical anthropological perspective reinforced scepti-cism about the enduring economic features of accountingbecause it located the politics of participation within astructural theory of interests (Hopper et al., 1987), whichnevertheless allowed us to analyze the behaviour of actorswho were collectively pursuing goals and values beyondtraditional binary concepts of social agency. It developedthe concept of a historical totality, exploring how conflictsin and around participative budgeting could stem from theproblem of maximizing the surpluses available for morepeople meaningfully to influence their social environ-ments. Using this critical basis for comparison, our descrip-tions and interpretations were better able to resist thedanger highlighted by Knights and Collinson (1987: 475)for partial complicity with what we denounce.

By constructing a continuum of participation and onto-logical pluralism, our critical anthropology provided ananswer to the question of how to challenge the ‘‘taken-for-granted reality of coercion, manipulation, and inequal-ity that characterizes managerial regimes’’ (Knights andCollinson, 1987: 474). It did not present this answer asdefinitive or universally applicable. Its concern was to




demonstrate the benefits for critical accounting ofoperationalizing the complementary anthropological inter-ests of Marx and Latour in seeking to understand howactors can consolidate their more expansive ways of struc-turing action. This meant not attempting to illustrate a pre-determined model of what accounting should be, butinstead to develop the efforts of researchers to use empir-ically grounded research to redraw its theoretical andmethodological borders (Ahrens & Chapman, 2006;Cooper & Hopper, 2007). Its findings reinforce the need,first raised by Child (1969), for more studies investigatingthe potentially radical ontological features and effects ofparticipation.

The key advantage of a framework combining socialpraxis and modes of existence is therefore the potential itgives to draw wider ontological boundaries, informing usof new views, motives, and skills, that accounting can sup-port and even generate. Studying the roles of participationin the politics of more pluralistic forms of social agencytherefore qualified the otherwise solid critical accountingconclusion that boundaries privilege interests and sustainpartiality (Cooper and Sherer, 1984; Cooper & Hopper,2007). It enabled us to delineate how actors built supportstructures that encompassed others’ differing perspectives,as well as their own worldviews (Qu & Cooper, 2011). Thecombined historical, constructive, and participative contri-butions of the framework demonstrated that we couldusefully move beyond tensions within structural andpost-structural accounting literatures using anthropologi-cal insights. Focusing on cooperatives emphasized thataccounting does have general, socially material functionsstemming from the capitalist epoch. However, it has alsoshown that conventional divides between capital andlabour are not immutable, and demonstrated concepts thatmight help future studies to detect how the complex spec-ificities of their organizations add up to collective wholeswhich are more satisfactory to their subjects.

We cannot know in advance the wider associativeactions that will help actors to question the orthodoxy ofprevailing ontological barriers, or the contentious formsby which they might take shape as more encompassingtotalities. Studying the ontological movements shaped,contested, and substantiated by these worker cooperatives,supported a reassessment of claims about the diversity ofaccounting that remain comfortably within prevailingtotalities (Ahrens & Chapman, 2006). Yet, it has cautionedus against assuming that collective ownership mechanisti-cally provides completed answers to the question of theroles of accounting in progressive social change. Modifyingand extending insights from Hopper et al. (1987) and Toms(2002), the paper has suggested that these roles cannot belimited to undermining profitability or even to distributingeconomic resources more equally. We found that evenaccounting developments that at first sight we might thinkof as driven by general economic interests, such as theextension of participation in cost and wage determination,helped to move actors away from traditional insecuritiesand conflicts by articulating more of their unique perspec-tives and concerns. A potentially useful way of furtherengaging with the paper’s continuum therefore would bethrough a field study of a conventional firm implementing


participation initiatives in multiple segments, examiningthe associative actions that may surround them, and focus-ing on the scope for actors to develop their levels ofagency. Such work may thus offer further insights intohow employees’ lived experiences of production problems(Knights and Collinson, 1987) can progressively becometheir active visions and demands for broadening the rangeof goals for which firms allocate surpluses (Kasmir, 2005).While more immediately relevant to ethnographic work,the framework could also guide accounting history studiesof participation, for example, revisiting struggles forworker participation. By investigating relations betweenthe actors’ social levels of agency and participation (or lackof) – perhaps by using contemporary testimonies, mediareports, and local histories – this research could addimportant complexities to existing explanations of theweaknesses and conflicts of labour participation and resis-tance (Oakes & Covaleski, 1994).

We cannot determine by logic or distil from experienceall of the aspects of accounting systems that could supportontological movements. The continuum highlighted therelative usefulness of monthly budgets and performancereports for reducing controllable costs in ways thatenhance the scope for more varied perspectives and goals.However, the data did not allow analysis of other aspectsof budgeting such as full cost calculations, flexible budgetsand accompanying variance analysis. Future studies ofparticipation in these techniques could therefore explorefurther the social mutability of the limits of more conven-tional ‘management’ accounting practices. The casesupported the view that constructing participation in dis-cussions of longer-term surplus allocation could help toovercome these apparent limits, bridging work activitiesand wider social actions. We can ask similar questionsabout other methods of strategic management accountingsuch as capital budgeting, activity-based costing, and stra-tegic performance evaluation systems. The frameworkcould also support future studies of relations betweenthese techniques and wider planning and control technol-ogies such as enterprise resource planning systems.

The case concluded by pointing tentatively to the scopefor bridging internal and external reporting activities torepresent and organize the surpluses of a participativesociety, but the study was necessarily of limited duration.To explore this conclusion would require us to extendthe timescale to encompass the Empresas Recuperadas’responses to the Argentinean version of the global financialcrisis and recession, connecting with the continuinganthropological research of grass roots participativeresponses to contemporary crises. Such work, whether inArgentina or examining participation in other settings,might further enhance our understanding of how morepeople’s potentially wide-ranging skills, views, and aims,can gradually replace the demands of private profit andcapital in durable ways.

Marx and Latour both stress that the crises of dominantsocial and political structures mean that people arethinking about and responding collectively to theirshortcomings and flaws. Crises therefore need not be sim-ply negative phenomena. The paper has argued thatexploring beyond conceptual boundaries that constrain




our understanding of accounting is inter-dependent withthis happening in practice; that a viable critique shouldenable researchers to engage positively with the criticaltheorizing of an increasingly broad and diverse range ofactors. To facilitate this has been its overarching aim.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Chris Chapman and Mahmoud Ezzamelfor their comments and suggestions on earlier versions ofthe paper. I also thank the reviewers and the editor fortheir comments and recommendations.

References

Abram, S., & Weszkalnys, G. (2013). Introduction. In S. Abram & G.Weszkalnys (Eds.), Elusive promises: Planning in the contemporaryworld (pp. 1–33). Oxford and New York: Berghahn Books.

Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. (2004). Accounting for flexibility and efficiency:A field study of management control systems in a restaurant chain.Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(2), 271–290.

Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. (2006). Theorizing practice in managementaccounting research’. In C. Chapman, A. Hopwood, & M. Shield (Eds.),Handbook of management accounting research. London: Elsevier Ltd..

Ahrens, T., & Mollona, M. (2007). Organizational Control as CulturalPractice: a Shop Floor Ethnography of a Sheffield Steel Mill.Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 305–331.

Armstrong, P. (1991). Contradiction and social dynamics in the capitalistagency relationship. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 16(1),1–25.

Avineri, S. (1968). The social and political thought of Karl Marx. London:Verso.

Bebbington, B., Brown, J., Frame, B., & Thomson, I. (2007). Theorizingengagement: The potential of a critical dialogic approach. Accounting,Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 20(3), 356–381.

Briers, M., & Chua, W. F. (2001). The role of actor-networks and boundaryobjects in management accounting change: a field study of theimplementation of activity-based costing. Accounting, Organizationsand Society, 26(3), 237–269.

Brown, J. S. (2009). Democracies, sustainability and dialogic accountingtechnologies: Taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives onAccounting, 20, 313–342.

Brownell, P. (1981). Leadership style, budgetary participation, andmanagerial behaviour. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 6(3),307–321.

Brownwell, P., & Hirst, M. (1986). Reliance on accounting, budgetaryparticipation, and task uncertainty; tests of a three way interaction.Journal of Accounting Research, 24, 241–249.

Bryer, A. R. (2011a). Accounting as learnt social practice: The case of theempresas recuperadas in Argentina. Accounting, Organizations, andSociety, 38(8), 478–493.

Bryer, A. R. (2011b). Purposive action and conscious practices: The case ofthe empresas recuperadas in Argentina. Critical Perspectives onAccounting, 1, 1–5.

Bryer, R. A. (2006). Accounting and control of the labour process. CriticalPerspectives on Accounting, 17, 551–598.

Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A., & Hughes, J. (1980). The roles ofaccounting in organizations and society. Accounting, Organizations andSociety., 5–27.

Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor processunder monopoly capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burawoy, M. (1985). The politics of production: Factory regimes undercapitalism and socialism. London: Verso.

Child, J. (1969). The business enterprise in modern industrial society.London: Collier-Macmillan Limited.

Chua, W. F., & Degeling, P. (1993). Interrogating an accounting-basedintervention on three axes: instrumental, moral, and aesthetic.Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(4), 291–318.

Cooper, C. (2003). Critical accounting in Scotland. Critical Perspectives onAccounting, 13(4), 451–462.

Cooper, D., & Sherer, M. (1984). The value of corporate accountingreports: arguments for a political economy of accounting. Accounting,Organizations and Society, 1, 207–232.


Cooper, D., & Hopper, T. (2007). Critical theorising in managementaccounting research. In C. Chapman, A. Hopwood, & M. Shields (Eds.),Handbook of management accounting research. London: Elsevier Ltd..

Covaleski, M., & Dirsmith, M. (1988). An institutional perspective on therise, social transformation, and fall of a university budgetary category.Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4), 562–587.

Covaleski, M., & Dirsmith, M. (1995). The preservation and use of publicresources: transforming the immoral into the merely factual.Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2–3, 147–173.

Covaleski, M., Dirsmith, M., & Weiss, J. (2013). The social construction,challenge and transformation of a budgetary regime: Theendogenization of welfare regulation by institutional entrepreneurs.Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(5), 333–364.

Dillard, J., & Ruchala, L. (2005). The rules are no game: From instrumentalrationality to administrative evil. Accounting, Auditing, andAccountability Journal, 18(5), 608–630.

Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H., & Worthington, H. (2004). Accounting andmanagement – Labour relations: The politics of production in ‘thefactory with a problem’. Accounting, organizations and society, 29(3–4),269–302.

Fox, A. (1966). Managerial ideology and industrial relations. British Journalof Industrial Relations, 4, 366–378.

Galhoffer, S., & Haslam, J. (2003). Accounting and emancipation: Somecritical interventions. London: Routledge.

Gledhill, J. (2012). Introduction. In J. Gledhill & P. Schell (Eds.), Newapproaches to resistance in Brazil and Mexico. Durham and London:Duke University Press.

Gledhill, J. (2013). Redeeming the promise of inclusion in a neoliberal city.In S. Abram & G. Weszkalnys (Eds.), Elusive promises: Planning in thecontemporary world (pp. 117–135). Oxford and New York: BerghahnBooks.

Godio, J. (1980). Historia del movimiento obrero latinoamericano/1anarquistas y socialistas, 1850–1918. Mexico: Editorial Nueva Imagen.

Grenier, G. (1988). Inhuman relations: Quality circles and anti-unionism inAmerican industry. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Harrison, G. (1992). The cross cultural generalizability of the relationbetween participation, budget emphasis, and job related attitudes.Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(1), 1–15.

Howarth, M. (2007). Worker Cooperatives and the Phenomenon of EmpresasRecuperadas in Argentina: an Analysis of Their Potential for Replication.Oldham: RAP Spiderweb.

Hopper, T. et al. (1987). Accounting for accounting: Towards thedevelopment of a dialectical view. Accounting, Organizations andSociety, 12(5), 437–456.

Jönsson, S., & Macintosh, N. (1997). CATS, RATS, and EARS: Making thecase for ethnographic research. Accounting, Organizations and Society,22(3/4), 367–386.

James, D. (1988). Resistance and reintegration. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Kasmir, S. (1996). The myth of Mondragon: Cooperatives, politics andworking class life in a Basque town. Albany: State University of NewYork Press.

Kasmir, S. (2005). Activism and class identity: The Saturn auto factorycase. In J. Nash (Ed.), Social movements: An Anthropological reader.Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Knights, D., & Collinson, D. (1987). Disciplining the shop floor: A comparisonof the disciplinary effects of managerial psychology and financialaccounting. Accounting, Organization and Society, 12(5), 457–477.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Latour, B. (2013). ‘Biography of an inquiry – About a book on modes ofexistence’, (translated from the French by Catherine Porter). SocialStudies of Science, 43(2), 287–301.

Marx, K., Engels, F. (1962). Selected works, (Vols. I–II), Moscow.Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1963). In R. Pascal (Ed.), The German ideology parts I

and III. New York: International Publishers.Maunders, K. (1981). The disclosure of company financial information to

employees and unions: the state of the art. AUTA Review, 5–19.Merchant, K. A. (1998). Modern management control systems. Saddle Hill:

Prentice Hall.Narotzky, S., & Smith, G. A. (2006). Immediate struggles: People, power, and

place in rural Spain. California: University of California Press.Oakes, L., & Covaleski, M. (1994). A historical examination of the use of

accounting based incentive plans in the structuring of labour–management relations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(7),579–599.

Owen, D., & Lloyd, A. (1985). The use of financial information by tradeunion negotiators in plant level collective bargaining. Accounting,Organizations and Society, 10(3), 329–350.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0361-3682(14)00066-X/h0005










































































































































Preston, A. M., Cooper, D., & Coombs, R. (1992). Fabricating budgets: Astudy of the production of management budgeting in the NationalHealth Service. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(6), 561–593.

Preston, A. M., Chua, W. F., & Neu, D. (1997). The diagnosis-related group-prospective payment system and the problem of the government ofrationing health care to the elderly. Accounting, Organizations andSociety, 22(2), 147–164.

Qu, S., & Cooper, D. (2011). The role of inscriptions in producing a balancedscorecard. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36, 344–362.

Robson, K. (1991). On the arenas of accounting change: the process oftranslation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(5/6), 547–570.

Rodgers, D., (2005). Unintentional democratisation? The Argentinazo andthe politics of participatory budgeting, 2001–2004’. <http//:www.research4development.info/PDF/outputs/CrisisStates/wp61.pdf>.

Roseberry, W. (1997). Marx and anthropology. Annual Review ofAnthropology, 26, 25–46.


Schaumberg, H. (2008). In search of alternatives: The making ofgrassroots politics and power in Argentina. Bulletin of Latin AmericanResearch, 27(3), 368–388.

Thompson, I., & Bebbington, J. (2005). Social and environmental reportingin the UK, a pedagogic evaluation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting.,16(5), 507–533.

Tinker, T. (1980). Towards a political economy of accounting: an empiricalillustration of the Cambridge controversies. Accounting, Organizationsand Society, 4, 147–160.

Toms, J. S. (1998). The supply of and demand for accounting informationin an unregulated market: Examples from the Lancashire cotton mills,1855–1914. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 23(2), 217–238.

Toms, J. S. (2002). The rise of modern accounting and the fall of the publiccompany: The Lancashire cotton mills 1870–1914. Accounting,Organizations and Society, 27, 61–84.































Documents

Participation in budgeting: A critical anthropological approach