iTJAR EDITORIAL POLICYACCOUNTING ENCOUNTERS OF THE TJAR KIND
Accounting theory has taken two distinct approaches: one supports understanding ofenvironment-specific local accounting institutions in various economies, while the othergeneralizes American and West European accounting institutions across the world. It is easy,
albeit costly, to overlook this co-existence of two kinds of theory in the rush to world-wide
convergence or integration of accounting. Consideration and comparison of the two may
allow us to carefully explore the foundations of the arguments for convergence. However,such exploration requires accounting scholars to observe, examine, evaluate, and critique theproposed systems and alternatives of which convergence itself is a salient element.
Encounters among cultures since the medieval times have created some commonalities
but have not yielded a universal culture. Whether economic encounters among disparatesocial systems will yield, or even benefit from, a single system of accounting remains open. It
is our hope that The Japanese Accounting Review can serve as a forum for accounting
scholars across the world to observe, analyze, reflect, and report on encounters between theWestern and other system of accounting. The obvious, but far too often neglected,
recognition of this duality is a central theme of TJAR. The TJAR website states:
This new English-language journal, The Japanese Accounting Review, aims to present
the world with quality research on diverse themes relating to accounting, thereby
helping improve the economic welfare of societies around the world through betteraccounting systems. We welcome submissions, which will be judged solely on the basisof quality of their contributions, not on the status of the hypothesis, methodology, orthe author.
Even the so-called capitalist societies differ in their stage of development, and may takevery different paths employing quite different institutions. If internationalization isinterpreted to assume that all these societies and their paths converge, there is little evidencein support. Accounting scholarship could focus on seeking a critical understanding of thecurrent diversity, and evaluating alternatives for the future, without becoming a prematurely
prescriptive cheerleader for convergence. TJAR aims to help serve this function.
While the pages of TJAR are open to empirical examination of whether the theories
originating in the West are robust enough to afford us a better understanding of othereconomies, they also welcome alternative theories, and their empirical scrutiny, that arise
from institutions specific to the other economies. The current controversy in Japan about theadoption of IFRS is a good example of a subject for such studies. Development of theories,
and analyses of data relevant to cross-economy encounters are important goals of TJAR.
December, 2015

iiTJAR EDITORIAL NOTE
Although the number of papers submitted to The Japanese Accounting Review (TJAR)
has continued increasing, the number accepted this year has unfortunately fallen slightly.
Accordingly, Volume 5 of TJAR issued this year includes two papers, one by Kawamura andthe other by four authors.
The Kawamura paper uses cost benefit analysis to provide a theoretical explanation for
why different types of accounting numbers based on different measurement systems aredisclosed together in a financial reporting system. In starting the discussion, the paper
outlines a cost analysis of accounting information measurers provided in a single
measurement system, which is followed by a benefit analysis of information users. The results
indicate that a particular single measurement system represents a compromise equilibrium
point between measurers and users. Furthermore, they show that in situations in which morethan one measurement system is acceptable, the optimal measurement system changes
depending upon the management activities of the target company, that is, upon its
configuration of its financing and operating activities. Specifically, it is recommended thatdifferent types of accounting numbers derived from different (plural) measurement systems
should be disclosed.
The paper written by four authors empirically considers earnings management among
Japanese family firms. The first hypothesis examined is that family companies conduct alower level of income-increasing earnings management than do non-family companies. The
second hypothesis explored is that family firms are less willing than their non-family
counterparts to generate economic costs by performing real earnings management to increase
profits. In addition, the paper investigates whether family-run companies preferaccruals-based earnings management that does not generate economic costs to real earnings
management. These hypotheses are tested using Japanese data. Although the first two
hypotheses are not verified in terms of amount to a significant level, the last is.
I am honored to have been given the opportunity to comment on two such excellent
papers.
December, 2015
HIDETOSHI YAMAJI
The Japanese Accounting Review, Editor in chief