religious “spirit” and peoples' perceptions of accountability in hindu and buddhist...

Religious “spirit” and peoples’perceptions of accountability

in Hindu and Buddhist religiousorganizations

Kelum JayasingheSchool of Accounting, Finance and Management, University of Essex,

Colchester, UK, and

Teerooven SoobaroyenSchool of Business and Management, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how the Buddhist and Hindu people innon-Western societies perceive rational accountability practices in religious organizations, throughtheir respective religious “spirit” and “beliefs” and in combination with broader structural elements ofthe society.

Design/methodology/approach – The interpretive tradition of research, i.e. ethnography based ontwo in-depth cases from Sri Lanka (a Buddhist temple) and Mauritius (a Hindu temple) is adopted forthe data collection. The data are analysed using grounded theory methods and procedures.

Findings – In non-Western Buddhist and Hindu societies where people’s lives are bound by a highreligious “spirit” the accountability system in the religious organisations is largely visible as aninformal and social practice rather than a stakeholder-oriented rational mechanism. It is found that therational accountability mechanisms are “sacredised” by the Buddhist and Hindu religious “spirit” andsubsequently, the accountability systems and religious activities are both influenced by the “structuralelements” of trust, aspirations, patronage and loyalty relations, social status, power and rivalries.The accountability practices implemented in these organisations are perceived by the people as beingno more than “ceremonial rituals” aimed at strengthening the temple’s righteous and prudent image tothe religious society.

Research limitations/implications – The paper raises the issue that accountability practices incommunity, grassroots-based non-profit organisations are not mere reporting of “facts” relating toeconomic activities and a “neutral system” giving reasons for the conduct of its leaders. Instead, theyinitiate new forms of accountability systems and reproduce structural conditions.

Originality/value – This is one of the first field studies which examine perceptions of accountabilitywithin a Hindu and a Buddhist context, as influenced by the religious “spirit” and internal beliefsystems of the devotees. Previous studies have mostly focused on Judeo-Christian or Islamicdenominations.

Keywords Management accountability, Religion, Society, Sri Lanka, Mauritius

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm

The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable comments and suggestions made by thetwo journal reviewers and the conference reviewer, discussant and participants of the5th Asia-Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference, Auckland (July 2007).

Perceptions ofaccountability

997

Received July 2007Revised 15 August 2008

Accepted 14 January 2009

Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal

Vol. 22 No. 7, 2009pp. 997-1028

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0951-3574

DOI 10.1108/09513570910987358

1. IntroductionThe paper examines the accountability practices as embedded in Buddhist and Hindureligious organizations located in non-Western societies. Religious organizations suchas temples play a major role in such societies, particularly in regulating the social andpolitical practices of its people (Nelson, 1990). Typically, these people are very muchattached to the elements of religiosity, i.e. God, eternity, reincarnation and maintain areciprocal dependence and closeness with the temple and its Priests. In contrast to theWestern societies which are largely dominated by a “Protestant work ethic” and a“methodical and rational” life style (e.g. record keeping; Weber, 1947, 1958, 1968), thetraditionally oriented non-Western people – who are less financially literate, haveemotional imperatives and unequal power relations – make “substantive rational”calculations in their everyday life (Northcott and Doolin, 2000; Jayasinghe, 2006).

The extant literature has mostly focused on the accounting and accountabilitypractices of religious organizations in Western societies and has overwhelminglycentred on Christian denominations – notable exceptions include Abdul-Rahman andGoddard (1998) and Bowrin (2004). There is a lack of evidence relating to howaccountability mechanisms are represented in non-Christian and non-Islamicdenominations – such as Buddhism and Hinduism – and how these operate withregards to their structures. Initial studies in Christian denominations largely stress ontechnical and functional perspectives of accounting rather than providing interpretiveanalyses of how accounting practice is actually embedded in such settings and how itsuse interacts with the particular nature of religious beliefs (Futcher and Phillips, 1986;Kreiser and Dare, 1986; Swanson and Gardner, 1986, 1988; King, 1988; Faircloth, 1988;Zietlow, 1989). In addition, the broader issue of accountability remains almostuntouched in this category of organizations although some of the research outlined theprimacy of particular interests or user groups whose information needs to appear morealigned to the use of formal accountability mechanisms (Swanson and Gardner, 1986,1988; Laughlin, 1990; Berry, 2005). Moreover, the theoretical approaches to most of thepost-1980s studies have been dominated by the sacred versus secular divide whichfocuses on a perceived “incompatibility” between religious belief systems and the useof formal accounting and accountability practices in churches (Laughlin, 1984, 1988;Booth, 1993). In this respect, there is a demand to use alternative modes of articulatedanalysis as a way to conceptualise the roles of accounting and accountability practicesin religious organizations (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2004; Hardy and Ballis, 2005;McPhail et al., 2005). For instance, Hardy and Ballis (2005) contend that the study ofaccounting within a religious context can be enhanced by seeking to better understandthe community’s belief systems and its internal/external history (Niebuhr, 1951).Gallhofer and Haslam (2004) also urge accounting researchers to consider the lessonsfrom liberation theology with a view to conceptualise accounting as an instrument ofemancipation supporting grassroots struggles rather than it being purely viewed as ainstrument of a capitalist oppression. Being motivated by these findings andarguments, we believe it is timely to research the actual use and the interactions ofaccountability in religious organisations in the context of non-Christian andnon-Islamic denominations, such as the Buddhist and Hindu religions.

Buddhism and Hinduism both reflect similar theological characteristics in terms ofeternal truths and doctrine pertaining to religion and have common philosophies. Butthey also have notable differences in their belief systems (Eliot, 1954; Kinsley, 1982).

AAAJ22,7

998

Some argue that the interactions between Buddhism and Hinduism are analogous tothose displayed between Protestantism and Catholicism, particularly where Buddhismis seen as a reform movement of Hinduism (Rhys-Davids, 1957; Snodgrass, 2007). Also,we observe that Buddhist and Hindu societies both have a long historically constructedsocio-religious set of beliefs and practices for their everyday life that appear to be muchinterdependent with the people who live their lives and spiritualities by the Hindu orBuddhist creed. Therefore, at the design stage of this study, we decided to use twoseparate cases (one each from a Buddhist and a Hindu denomination) to provide a morecomplete narrative of how Hindu and Buddhist people understand, interpret andre-interpret their religious beliefs, whilst taking into account the specificities of thecultural and political economic context they live in, and in within which accountingand accountability practices operate.

We seek to study accountability as a situated social practice using interpretiveresearch methods, i.e. ethnography and grounded theory with the assumption that therole and potential impact of accounting systems can only be understood with referenceto the particular setting within it is embedded (Hopwood, 1983; Hopwood and Miller,1994). First, we pursue the question of rational accounting and accountability practicesinstitutionalised in Hindu and Buddhist temples. Second, we look at how the Buddhistand Hindu people communicate, talk about, act upon, perceive and understand theseeveryday accountability practices through their respective religious “spirit” and“beliefs” combined with broader structural elements of the society, i.e. moral andsemantic rules and power relations. For the analysis of its ethnographic data from thefield work reports and documentary evidence, the paper uses the grounded theorymethods and procedures (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Overall, we seek to contribute tothe literature by providing evidence of how accountability operates more as aninformal and social practice as influenced by the Hindu- and Buddhist-inspiredreligious “spirit”.

The paper proceeds as follows: First, it provides a brief review of the prior literatureon accountability in religious organizations. Second, the paper introduces the Buddhistand Hindu religious “spirit” and belief systems to contextualise the study questions.Thirdly, the methodology section explains the data collection and analytical methodsused in the study. Fourthly, a picture of the religious organizational context in SriLanka and Mauritius, with a particular interest in the culture, politics, and templeadministration, is presented. The next section presents the findings from the studywith an analysis of the empirical data. The final section of the paper discusses thefindings in relation to the proposed theoretical framework that emerges from ourunderstanding of accountability in Buddhist and Hindu temples.

2. Prior research on accountability in religious organizationsA major feature within the literature has been the variety of approaches taken to defineand interpret accountability (Sinclair, 1995) and the debates in developing appropriateaccountability mechanisms, principles and frameworks for non-profit organizations(Fry, 1995; Jordan, 2005; Goddard, 2004; Dixon et al., 2006; Unerman and O’Dwyer,2006a, 2006b; Gray et al., 2006). For instance, accountability characteristics such asformal versus informal, upward/vertical versus downward/horizontal (Edwards andHulmes, 1995), socialising versus individualising (Roberts, 1991, 1996; Jacobs andWalker, 2004) and relational versus identity (Unerman and O’Dwyer, 2006b) have been


999

the subject of recent debates in the accountability literature but there has been arelatively lower level of interest in these conceptualisations in relation to religiousorganizations.

Accounting researchers initially explored the extent of accounting systems andpractices used in religious settings from a predominantly functional mindset and in thelight of the evidence, recommended greater sophistication and modernisation in thefinancial accountability systems (Futcher and Phillips, 1986; Kreiser and Dare, 1986;Swanson and Gardner, 1986; Faircloth, 1988; King, 1988; Zietlow, 1989; Bowrin, 2004).However, there was also an emerging interest in a deeper understanding of the social,organizational and more crucially, the spiritual contexts in which accounting andaccountability practices operated. With regards to this unique “sacred” environmentthat somehow defies rational proof and calculation (Laughlin, 1988; Morgan, 1990) andone that is allegedly characterised as “theoretically extreme and dominated by anon-financial ideology” (Lightbody, 2003), there have been numerous studies on how“accounting” actually interacts with the particular nature of religious beliefs. However,the applicability of the so-called “sacred versus secular divide” has been the subject ofdebate and discussion (Laughlin, 1988; Booth, 1993; Abdul-Rahman and Goddard, 1998;Kluvers, 2001; Jacobs and Walker, 2004; Kreander et al., 2004; Irvine, 2005; Jacobs, 2005;Hardy and Ballis, 2005; McPhail et al., 2005). At the same time, it is also claimed that adeeper and perhaps more positive engagement between spirituality and accounting canbe “best” achieved through theological analysis, rather than being articulatedpredominantly from a secular and sociological standpoint (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2004;McPhail et al., 2004; Kreander et al., 2004). To date, however, only a handful ofresearchers have studied in detail the characteristics of accountability systems andpractices in religious organizational contexts (Laughlin, 1990; Abdul-Rahman andGoddard, 1998; Jacobs and Walker, 2004; Kreander et al., 2004; Berry, 2005), with themajority of these studies focusing on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

For example, studies by Laughlin (1990) and Berry (2005) in the Church of Englandprovided some insights into the forms of accountability in a Western-based Christianenvironment. Laughlin (1990) explores how different accountability relationships,i.e. communal/socialising, contractual and administrative/hierarchical will containparticular structures of signification (meaning), legitimation (morality) and domination(power) for Church members. More recently, Berry (2005) develops and elaborateson three modes of accountability in a church context, based upon covenant,constitution and contract. The first mode of accountability is viewed at a theologicaland spiritual level, namely that the primary accountability of a Christian is to God.This symbolizes the covenant, “[. . .] a kind of bond of mutuality, between a faithfulGod and his faithful [obedient] followers” (2005, p. 263). The second and third modes ofaccountability stem from the historical and institutional significance of the Church inEnglish law. Within the context of the Church’s recent “re-organization” Berry (2005)reveals that the covenant and the constitutional elements of accountability are moreprominent than the contractual aspect of accountability, basically replicating “[. . .]centuries old emergent patterns” (2005, p. 290) and thereby constraining the influenceof a “corporate-style” and an “individualizing” accountability system that was beingintroduced in the Church’s administration.

This apparent rejection of a formal-like and agency-inspired accountability systemcan however be contrasted to Jacobs and Walker’s (2004) field study of the

AAAJ22,7

1000

contemporary Christian Iona Community. In this case, accountability to theCommunity and its members appear to be part and parcel of the theology andspirituality of this group, whereby members have to regularly account in writing onthree disciplines namely prayers and Bible reading, one’s use of time, and one’s use ofmoney (2004, p. 367). In particular, Jacobs and Walker (2004) examine the “economicdiscipline” and the concept of “integrated spirituality” in terms of how the IonaCommunity use accounting and accountability techniques to achieve “a mission ofengagement with the community, a theology of integration between the physical andthe spiritual and a spirituality of practical Christian living [. . .]” (2004, p. 372).The authors conclude that there is no indication of a detachment (or divide) betweenthe material and the spiritual since the Iona teachings state that one’s spirituality isrooted in the realities of daily living and in one’s living out the faith (2004, p. 375). Thecase findings however highlighted the ambivalence and resistance of members overtime when subjected to an increased “individualisation” of the accountability system.Jacobs and Walker (2004) also observe that a socializing form of accountability maynot necessarily be a positive and liberating one as it can also function as a structure fordomination and internal surveillance (2004, p. 378).

Furthermore, the study by Kreander et al. (2004) demonstrates the attempts byreligious organizations to “practice” and “blend in” their spiritual and theologicalvalues in the operating of a financial practice, namely the use of ethical screens forstock market investments. After identifying the theological bases of the Church ofEngland and the Methodist Church, the authors argue that the mode of accountabilitydeveloped in the context of ethical investment can be understood as form of moraldiscursive practice (2004, p. 416). In particular, Kreander et al. (2004, p. 416) suggestthat the intended application of the doctrines of “Stewardship” and “Agapism” ininvestment practices represents a form of accountability, which may partly assist inshaping the moral identity of the account giver and place the church within thetemporality of the present. Also, other than again putting into question the sacredversus secular dichotomy, the authors contend that those involved in the investmentfunction view their actions and accountabilities to be more about the intertwining ofreligious values and financial practice, whereby “[. . .] the ethical investmentprogrammes seem to represent a temporal proceduralisation of the transcendentalvalues of the sacred agenda” (Kreander et al., 2004, p. 417). The existence of this morecomplex dynamic on the influence of religious values in the shaping of accountabilitieswas equally asserted in Lightbody’s (2003) study of church financial managers.

In their study of accounting and accountability in two Islamic religiousorganizations, the above-mentioned issues were also referred to by Abdul-Rahmanand Goddard (1998). First, the authors contend there is no secular versus sacred“divide” in that:

[. . .] the worldview of Islam encompasses both the worldly aspect and the religious aspect, inwhich the worldly aspect must be related in a profound and inseparable way to the religiousaspect, in which the latter has ultimate and final significance [. . .] without implying anyattitude of neglect or being unmindful to the worldly aspect (1998, p. 189).

Arising from the central concept of Tawhid (unity of God), the authors explain thatIslam has developed its own concept of accountability (Taklif ), in that everyone mustaccept all the duties and liabilities as well as the benefits of any ownershipor responsibility entrusted unto them – but this would be assessed on the


1001

“Day of Judgement”. In contrast to the traditional and limited conception ofaccountability (principal-agent based and relational), they argue for a more holisticview of accountability and contend that accountability has two intertwined aspects: auniversal and a historical one (also, from Willmott, 1996). This universal aspect ofaccountability is part and parcel of the human nature and behaviour, in that “[. . .]human beings are continuously involved in making and giving accounts to others, andto ourselves, about who we are, what are doing, etc” (Abdul-Rahman and Goddard,1998, p. 199) and such accountability can be linked to the human aspirations forcommunication and social interaction.

Essentially, these studies support a growing acknowledgment that the role offormal accounting and accountability in religious settings can be diverselyconceptualised by the precepts, teachings or beliefs of the particular religion. Indeed,Irvine (2005, p. 221) argues that “different denominations, as institutionalizedorganizations, will therefore hold different views on whether accounting is compatiblewith their religious beliefs”. Also, diverse – and sometimes more complex –understandings emerge from the people themselves, whether they represent the clergy,church management or lay followers – more so when the theology is not necessarilythe preserve of an ecclesiastical elite and is actively being re-interpreted and diverselypracticed in the “real world”. This is a point inspired from Gallhofer and Haslam (2004)and to some extent shown in Jacobs and Walker (2004). Overall, these studies reflectalternative modes of articulated analysis as a way to conceptualise the roles ofaccounting and accountability practices in religious organizations (Gallhofer andHaslam, 2004; Hardy and Ballis, 2005; McPhail et al., 2005).

However, in spite of the increasing focus by these researchers on the accountabilitypractices in religious organizations, so far none of them have examined howaccounting and accountability practices have been mobilised in non-Christian andnon-Islamic denominations, particularly in non-Western societies. In this respect, weremain drawn to two central and related questions in our paper. First, how doesaccounting and accountability manifests itself in a non-Christian and non-Islamicdenomination? Second, how do Hindu or Buddhist people play a crucial role in theunderstanding, interpretation and re-interpretation of their religious beliefs, taking intoaccount the other specificities of the context in which they live, i.e. social, historical,political, and economical. In the next section, we introduce these two religiousdenominations in an effort to contextualise our research questions.

3. Buddhist and Hindu religious “spirit” and belief systemsIn this paper, our focus on Hinduism and Buddhism stems from their rich andintertwined set of teachings and traditions in many countries and regions. Buddhismand Hinduism both reflect similar characteristics in terms of eternal truths anddoctrine pertaining to religion. According to Eliot (1954) and Kinsley (1982), Hinduismand Buddhism have common philosophies that cluster around the concepts of Dharma(to hold and uphold), of Karma (one’s actions and their consequences[1]), of Samsara(cycle of death and rebirth, governed by one’s Karma), and of an eventual liberationfrom Karma and Samsara (Moksha in Hinduism and Nirvana in Buddhism). Bothreligions have common fundamentals in their belief systems that lie in the “spiritualenlightenment” of followers through spiritual cultivation, religious practices andmeditation and other forms of yoga. They believe there are many different paths to

AAAJ22,7

1002

enlightenment and ultimate spiritual reality beyond the illusions of the physical world(Radhakrishnan, 1990).

Buddhism and its teachings have significant influence on the lives of the villagepeople in Sri Lanka. In fact, the village, Buddhist temple, Dagoba (or shrines of theBuddha) and reservoir (Wewa) are integral parts of the traditional Sri Lankan cultureand society. The members of the Buddhist monastic community preserve the doctrinalpurity of early Buddhism, but the lay community accepts a large body of other beliefsand religious rituals that are tolerated by the monks and integrated into Buddhistreligion. For example, as an effect of Hinduism, some people believe Buddha is a deityor is an object of worship within Buddhism. Particularly, in Mahayana Buddhism(a small fraction amongst practising Buddhists), the original teachings of the Buddhaare assimilated to Hindu practices, including prayers, Gods, and the ideas of(temporary) heavens and hells. In general, Buddhists believe in predestination, andtherefore one’s assumed posterity would depend upon one’s behaviour in his/herprevious soul. This has motivated people to earn “good” (Pin in Sinhala[2]) for thebenefit of their next life by having a decent present life (Karma). These people alsoactively attend and organise traditional Buddhist festivals such as Wesak[3], Poson[4]and Katina[5] every year.

Hinduism is underpinned by one’s need to live life based on moral principles asexpressed in the doctrine of Eternal Faith (Sanatan Dharma) such as non-violence(Ahimsa), truthfulness (Satya), not stealing (Asteya) and purity of mind and body(Sauca). However, at the heart of Hindu tradition lies a twofold and somewhatparadoxical assertion to fulfil one’s destiny:

(1) it is necessary to uphold, preserve and improve the physical world and humansociety; and

(2) it is necessary to find ultimate release from this world, usually by renouncingsociety (Kinsley, 1982).

This tension is addressed many times in Hindu scriptures and is popularly depicted inthe Bhagavad Gita, as a conversation between Krishna (a Hindu deity) and Arjuna(a Hindu Prince). Confronted with a desire not to act and uphold social order (Dharma),Arjuna seeks to renounce society to achieve liberation (Moksha). Krishna advisesArjuna that complete inaction is impossible and that the key to liberation is not byrefusing to act but by performing any action with the proper understanding, attitude orknowledge. In other words, according to Kinsley (1982, p. 33), the ideal is to act withoutconcern for the fruits of actions, to renounce one’s egotistical desires in all of one’sdoings and to play’s one role without concern for personal consequences – referred toas the process of disciplined action (Karma-Yoga). Hence, what a Hindu does is asimportant as what he or she believes in and the adherence to Dharma is not merelylimited to a “passive” acceptance of certain beliefs but greatly associated to the “active”performance of duties and rituals, participating in festivals and other worshippingevents, such as Maha Shivaratri[6], Diwali[7] and Sankranti[8].

Both Buddhist and Hindu people believe their religious teachings are philosophical(e.g. teachings from Buddha and the Vedas) and reforming, and consider these as thetraining for social existence in the present and in the life to come. For bothdenominations, there is no central theological elite or ecclesiastical authority that allHindus (Bowrin, 2004; Lorenzen, 1999) or Buddhists can draw upon (Snodgrass, 2007).


1003

As a result, there is much tolerance towards incorporating other cults and regionalfolklore, which then leads to the development of many variants of Hinduism andBuddhism at grassroots level (Ashby, 1974; Radhakrishnan, 1990). There are howeverkey differences between these two belief systems. For instance, reverence to the sacredtexts (Vedas and Upanishads) is a prerequisite for any belief system to be consideredHindu whilst Buddhism does not assign a divine authority to the Vedic texts. Then,in contrast to Hinduism, Buddhism is silent about the existence or non-existence ofGod. Alternatively, Buddhism offers Dhamma or the impersonal law in place of God.In addition, the role of the Brahmin (priestly) caste is viewed as central in orthodoxHinduism and in a caste-based society but the so-called superior status of the Brahminis not explicitly recognised in Buddhism[9] (Kinsley, 1982; Smith, 1987). Instead,Buddhism rejects the caste based society and divorces itself from the interests of theruling stratum. Finally, the concept of Dharma in Hinduism explicitly encompassessocial obligations (e.g. earning material wealth and providing for society, known asArtha) whilst this is viewed more philosophically in Buddhism, namely in terms ofengaging oneself in the right conduct to escape from the sufferings of worldly life(known as Nirvana). According to Buddha’s teachings, a person can achieve Nirvanathrough the Five Noble Truths (realisation of the essence of suffering) and EightfoldPath (methods of removing all suffering). Buddhism encourages a “middle way of life”and rejects extreme asceticism as well as great wealth. In contrast, Hinduism doesaccept the states of extreme asceticism and of great wealth, as part of the differentstages of life where one, respectively, pursues Moksha and Dharma.

In our assessment through our participation in the practical life of these twocommunities, we found that these Buddhist and Hindu communities both have a longhistorically constructed socio-religious set of beliefs and practices for their everydaylife (“internal history” as referred to by Niebuhr (1951) and Hardy and Ballis (2005)).They both believe in predestination and reincarnation. Since, one’s posterity dependsupon one’s behaviour in his/her previous soul (Karma), they earn “good” (Pin inSinhala) for the benefit of their next life (reincarnation) by having a decent present life.This religious “spirit” among Buddhist and Hindu people has set strong “moral rules”for committing religious as well as social and economic actions. Hence, the “spirit” inwhich they undertake their social and economic activities is closely tied to theirreligious belief systems, i.e. living a righteous life. They feel no great tension betweentemple and society, and understand the culture and economy through religion andreligion through culture and economy (Hardy and Ballis, 2005; Niebuhr, 1951). Thus, toa great extent, the economic activities of these societies are “sacredised”, e.g. beforecommencing work, the Buddhist Priest engages into Pirith chanting as a way to blessthe new work. On the other hand, because of the middle-class dominance andprotestant-influenced values, religious activities are “ceremonially” secularised tosignal their congruence with social and economic expectations, e.g. budgetingpractices, annual reports approval at annual general meetings (AGM).

One needs to be also appreciative of the fact that Hindu and Buddhist religiouspractices appear to be much interdependent with the people who live their lives andspiritualities by the Hindu or Buddhist creed. This thus leads us to question how Hinduor Buddhist people play a crucial role in the understanding, interpretation andre-interpretation of their religious beliefs, taking into account the other specificitiesof the cultural and political economic context in which they live. Consequently,

AAAJ22,7

1004

one’s understanding of accounting and accountability in a Hindu or Buddhist settingcannot be divorced from the broader societal context – particularly in the case ofHinduism which explicitly “involves” itself in the structuring of the society. Indeed,this may explain why many authors understand Hinduism and Buddhism as a way oflife rather than a religion (Ross, 1980; Klostermaier, 1994; Dutta-Bergman and Doyle,2001). This is why we sought to interpretively examine these belief systems in differentcontexts in a bid to develop a richer understanding of accountability not strictlyvis-a-vis the religious beliefs but also in the “presence” of the context in whichaccounting, accountability and religion is practiced. In the next section, we explain ourmethodology.

4. MethodologyThe study adopts the interpretive tradition of research, i.e. ethnography method(Clifford and Marcus, 1986; Geertz, 1988) to study accountability practices in its socialcontext. Ethnography analyses how actors choose to do what they do, and particularlyfocus on the orderly patterned nature of actors’ everyday social practices (Jonsson andMacintosh, 1997; Dey, 2002). To examine how accountability practices of religiousorganisations are perceived by their people in a non-Western context, this study hasselected a Buddhist temple in Sri Lanka and a Hindu temple in Mauritius. These twocases studies in two relatively different general contexts provided us with a “mirror” tounderstand how people with alternative religious “spirits” perceive accountabilitydifferently. The data were collected through participant observation and in-depthinterviews. Representatives of both temples were initially contacted as the first step ofthe interpretive research process. Upon further discussions, the people involved withthe two religious organisations agreed to informal and in-depth conversations on thereligious “spirit” and the accountability issues. We have been involved in the past withthe temples and have known several devotees and Priests. Our past experiences ofliving as insiders with these two communities for many years allowed us to internaliseeasily into their social life and to naturally “get in” “get on” and “get out” duringthe fieldwork. In total, 15 and ten interviews were carried out and transcribed at theBuddhist and Hindu temple, respectively. We interviewed them for approximately onehour in their native languages. These interviews were held with differentoffice-bearers, elected committee members and religious figures of the twoorganisations “operating” the temples, i.e. two Chief Priests, two chairman, twoTreasurers, two secretaries, four local delegates, six lay members and seven devotees).It is noted that none of the interviewees have had any formal training in accountingand financial activities but have been active in these religious organizations (in variouscapacities) over the last five to ten years. In addition, documentary evidence was madeavailable in relation to the organizations’ structures and extent of administrative,accounting and accountability practices.

We conducted the interviews in the form of guided conversations (MacNeill, 1990),whereby the interviewee pursued topics and raised the themes of interest withincertain broad areas as prompted by the interviewer. The areas covered includedbackground information on respondents, their attachments, roles and tasks both insociety and religious organisation, their expectations from local religious organisationand Priests, and their perceptions about financial practices of local religiousorganisation. During the interviews, detailed conversations on specific topics were


1005

carried out and our “reflexive accounts” were noted carefully. The verbal data gatheredfrom the interviews were compared with the available documentary evidence to checktheir contextual validity and procedural reliability. As part of this validation process,some participative observations were also made to critically understand morecontextual issues, and enriching particularities of peoples’ viewpoints and perspectivesof the religious “spirit” and accountability (Gregory and Altman, 1989). This techniquewas employed specifically at religious events and rituals, e.g. pujas and theadministrative functions of the temples, e.g. committee meetings.

The ethnographic data from the fieldwork and documentary evidence wereanalyzed using grounded theory methods and procedures (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).For the content analysis of its “modes of thought” and “modes of action” (Jacobson,1991), the data were provisionally categorized through line by line and paragraph level.The inspection is conducted for the purpose of natural data grouping (Morrow andBrown, 1994). The “ethnographic narratives” are formed from the interview transcriptsand meta-stories were constructed by signifying, editing and reshaping the narratives(Llewellyn, 1999). By doing so, we attempt to make connections between the differingcontributions of research subjects to identify key themes and to theorise the empiricalfindings.

5. ContextThis section provides a brief picture of the religious organizational context in Sri Lankaand Mauritius, with a particular interest to their culture, politics and administration.Also, it presents an overview of the two local organisations selected for the study.

Buddhism, society and Buddhist organisations in Sri LankaSri Lanka has a population of approximately 19.4 million, with Buddhism representingapproximately 70 per cent of the population. Although Buddhism does not explicitlyrecognise the caste system, Sri Lankan Buddhists do identify with a caste. Mostmembers of the majority Sinhala community are Theravada Buddhists which arecategorised into three caste-based nikayas[10] known as Siam, Amarapura andRamanna (Gombrich, 2004). The study is set in the latter caste, the Ramanna Nikaya,which was founded in 1864 and established by monks from three different castes inSri Lanka. Despite these caste identities within Buddhist nikayas, most monks andtemples remain committed to serving the needs of all their donors, regardless of casteaffiliation, save for a few higher caste Siam nikaya monks and temples mainlyestablished in rural villages (Samuels, 2006a, b). Traditionally, Buddhist templesenjoy economic and social protection of the ancient Buddhist kings and modern daygovernment leaders. These temples were treated as charity organizations and notsubject to income tax (Gombrich, 2004). However, since the emergence of Ramannanikaya (representing the three emerging castes), a monastic lineage of Sri LankanBuddhism had shifted to the collective action of a dedicated group of Buddhist laymen(Jayetilleke, 2003). In other words, this nikaya became independent from monasticauthorities of the state and royal power and were more closely tied to its patrons in thegrowing middle class. In fact, this led to the rise of so-called Protestant Buddhism thatshifted the power and authority of the temples to middle-class laity (Samuels, 2006a, b).

The Sri Lankan constitution gives Buddhism a foremost position, but it alsoprovides for the right of other faiths/religions to exist freely. Separate ministries in the

AAAJ22,7

1006

government address religious affairs, including the Ministry of Buddha Sasana whichis empowered to deal with issues involving the Buddhist religion. The Buddhisttemples, should they so wish, can register with the Ministry of Buddha Sasana.However, this is not considered as a compulsory requirement. The Divisional Secretaryof the Government acts as the Buddhist Affairs Commissioner and represents theMinistry of Buddha Sasana. The temple administration must obtain the approval fromthe Divisional Secretariat Office for any land issues, special religious programmes andreligious classes and the low income temples receive some financial assistance, in theform of operating expenditure, capital grants, subsidies, and logistical support.

In addition, the local temples are technically affiliated to their Local Federations oftheir respective nikayas. Each affiliated Local Federation is entitled to send a delegatefrom their local executive committee to District Association of each nikaya. Every year,the District Association’s executive committee of 25 members is elected by thedelegates of the Local Associations. Similarly, each District Associations send theirdelegates to the Working Committee (comprised of 20 members) to the nikayaheadquarters. These associations conduct their AGM to discuss matters relating totheir nikaya temples and the relationships with laity.

In Sri Lankan politics these local and district Buddhist associations and templeshave a significant influence in government and politics – by acting as a pressure groupfor the Buddhist community. This has created unhealthy competition and powerstruggles between monks at the top level of its leadership. More favourably, theequation of nation and religion also means that any issue involving the welfare of theSinhalese community, including issues of social equity, are fair game for activistmonks and their supporters.

Hinduism, society and Hindu organisations in MauritiusMauritius is a small island nation of about 1.2 million people. It has a secularconstitution and no officially preferred status for any religion. Hindus in Mauritiusaccount for about 52 per cent of the population but there are several underlyingsub-affiliations of the “Hindu” religion which can be partly traced to the differentphilosophies and different regional origins of Indian immigrants (Eisenlohr, 2004;Miles, 1999; Eriksen, 1994). They successfully transplanted their beliefs and ritualpractices, language, kinship structure, as well as a simplified caste structure (Miles,1999, p. 6) to the Mauritian context. One of the major branches of Hinduism (whosefollowers are referred to as sanatanists) gives more prominence to a scheduled,structured and large-scale engagement in rituals, prayers and temple worship.The latter tends to occur around a sacrificial fire (Yajna) and is done in public, and canbe viewed as a need to maintain cosmic order, human welfare and interdependencebetween God and humans (Kinsley, 1982, p. 107). Furthermore, public or domesticprayers ( pujas) focus on particular deities during specific periods. Offerings (flowers,incense or food) and praise to deities are central to the puja ceremony as the devoteeseeks the favour of the Gods.

There are a number of local sanatanist Hindu religious structures(in neighbourhoods, townsand villages) which own and/or operate temples (shivalas),smaller places of cult (mandirs) and religious schools (baitkas). In addition, there areseveral regional (district) and national organizations which act as umbrellaorganizations (known as Federations) for the local temples. Each locally affiliated


1007

association is entitled to send two delegates (from their own executive committee) atthe Federation’s AGM, where the latter’s annual report and accounts are presented forapproval. Except for occasional donations (from individuals or companies) arisingfrom the organization of specific religious events and the relatively token affiliationfees paid by local associations, government funding is the Federation’s prime source ofregular income (more than 90 per cent), in the form of operating expenditure, capitalgrants, subsidies, tax remissions and logistical support. Every three years, theFederation’s executive committee is elected by the delegates. For local temples, theaffiliation brings benefits in terms of security and financial assistance whilst fosteringsolidarity, i.e. they each receive on average Mauritian Rupee (MUR ¼ USD$0.03)36,000 annually. Federations and local temples are de facto participants in debates andpolicy discussions at various political and policy-making levels as “representatives” ofthe Hindu community. They have established a far-reaching influence in national andlocal politics, by acting as an “honest broker” for the Hindu community, lobbying forpolicy changes, and this inevitably fuels power struggles within some of theorganizations.

Overview of the two local organisationsThe Buddhist temple was established in 1986 and belonged to the Ramanna Nikayafaction of the Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka. This is a newly constructed templeunder the National Housing Development Project by the government. There are about375-400 households attached to the temple as member families with a total of 600people attached as potential devotees, although only about 100 families are activelyinvolved in temple activities. As in many other Ramanna Nikaya temples, it does nothave the privilege of royal patronage and does not own any regular income generatingassets, i.e. paddy land. However, there is a group of dedicated Buddhist laymen mainlybelonging to the middle class operating as the patrons of the temple and Priest.

The Hindu temple owns and operates a Hindu Shivala in one of the main residentialareas of Vacoas-Phoenix – one of the five main towns in Mauritius with a population ofabout 110,000. Whilst all the country’s main religious communities are reflected in thislocality, there are a higher proportion of Hindu families living in the town’s residentialareas compared to other urban areas, as made apparent by the number of temples andreligious associations. The Hindu temple is situated in a principally middle-classneighbourhood. There is no particular caste affiliation dominating the localassociation’s membership, although, as will be mentioned later, there are indicationsof some families influencing the temple’s affairs. The local association was formallyestablished and registered about 15 years ago but it became a Federation-affiliatedassociation only ten years ago. Previously, the people in the locality prayed at a smallKalimaye (shrine) on the same land. This land was then donated to the association forthe construction of a temple. The temple has 100 fee-paying members and about 250persons regularly attend the ceremonies and events. Virtually all devotees live in theimmediate neighbourhood of the temple.

In both temples, there are executive/working committees made up of 9-15 membersOffice bearers – President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and committeemembers elected for a period of one to two years at an AGM by their membership.In the Buddhist temple, it is the Chief Priest who chairs and controls thecommittee, whereas businessmen, professionals/executives from the private sector,

AAAJ22,7

1008

higher-level public servants and retired professionals serve on other posts. Theseappointments were made according to the constitution approved by the Ministry ofBuddha Sasana. Furthermore, sub-committees are set up to carry out special projects,i.e. temple infrastructure and development. In the Hindu temple, office workers fromthe private sector, retired people and civil servants control the committee while thePriest’s ( pandit) role is only limited to the conducting of rituals. Thus, the controllingpower in this Hindu temple lies in the hands of the laity. The current workingcommittee won the elections two years ago overturning a previous team which hadbeen in charge for about ten years. The President and Secretary are the de factorepresentatives (delegates) of the temple at the Federation’s assembly meeting. Thereare no other sub-committee structures, except for a sub-committee recently set up toestablish a roster for prayers, i.e. which family get its turn to lead the prayers.

6. Findings and analysisThis section presents our empirical findings from the in-depth case studies. We firstintroduce the accounting and accountability structure (sources of funds, role ofTreasurer, financial accounting and accountability system) operating in the twoBuddhist and Hindu temples. Then we present our ethnographic accounts on howaccountability is intertwined specifically with people’s “religious spirit” and broadlywith the structural elements of these two societies.

Sources of income and expenditureThe Buddhist temple does not receive any grants from the Ministry of Buddha Sasana.However, this protestant temple is well supported by a dedicated group of Buddhistlaymen who belong to the upper middle classes. Its regular/daily income comes fromthe cash collections of the temple’s money boxes and members’ subscriptions. As partof its expenses, the main items included are those related to Priest salaries, materialsfor worship/prayers, electricity/water, temple maintenance and repairs, rental of tents,food/drink expenses, and the cost of building construction. The latter item was dulyrecorded in the special project reports as well. During the last decade, the templeworking committee has received large sums of money for temple development projects,i.e. the recently finished building construction project (alms hall) managed a collectionof Sri Lankan Rupee (LKR ¼ USD$0.01) 2,600,000, during a five-year period. Theseprojects were planned and implemented by the temple working committee under theleadership and control of the Chief Priest. Their latest project which targets furtherdevelopments to existing buildings is estimated to generate LKR 4,000,000 during thenext five years. However, the incomes they receive are in various forms, i.e. cashpayments, building materials (e.g. cements/bricks) and capital goods (e.g. electric fans).They are all valued at current market rates and considered as general income in therecords. Interviews with the Chief Priest revealed that they have introduced a ticketsystem to generate ongoing funds for this project. The tickets worth LKR 200, LKR 500or LKR 1000 are made available to its general membership (households) to pay on amonthly basis depending on their incomes. It is anticipated that this would generatetotal income of around LKR 65,000 per month (or about LKR 800,000 per annum).

In the case of the Hindu temple, its last annual income statement reported totalreceipts of about MUR 180,000 and payments of about MUR 160,000 (main items werethe salary of Priest, costs of materials for worship/prayers, electricity/water, temple


1009

maintenance, painting and repairs, rental of tents, food expenses). The annual reportindicates that the local association enjoys relatively good financial health with somefunds saved in deposit accounts and has no loans or overdrafts. Their income includedan annual grant of MUR 35,000 received from the Federation and donations fromdevotees. This also included the cash collections from the temple’s money boxes andthe members’ subscriptions. In the last decade or so, there have been continuous capitalimprovements to the premises (temple, storehouse, covered halls, furniture) amountingto about MUR 700,000. There is no structured system for the collection of funds andappeals are made on an ad hoc basis. The Hindu temple’s committee makes frequentappeals for and receives, donations in kind (building materials, etc.). It also regularlyasks devotees and members to “donate” their time for completing some of themanual/constructions tasks. None of the donated items and the “labour” time isactually accounted for in the books.

Role of Treasurer and financial accounting systemThe Buddhist and Hindu temple both are required to maintain proper accountingrecords and supporting documentation. The Buddhist temple follows a constitutionwhich is registered and approved by the Ministry of Buddha Sasana whereas theHindu temple adopts the legal requirements of locally registered associations. Theircurrent practices included the cash book and the members’ subscriptions register and astore book (for items such furniture, materials, kept on premises). They also the chequebooks, bank statements, and receipts/payments as formal documentation. The existingrecords pre-date the nomination of the current Treasurer but as far as she was aware,all the financial records with necessary copies of receipts/invoices were maintained atleast for the past five to seven years.

The Buddhist temple’s current Treasurer has been in post for the last eightconsecutive years whereas in the Hindu temple, the current Treasurer was recentlyre-elected for a period of two years and was already a member of the association forthe last five years. In both cases, the general membership of the temple favoured theTreasurers for their “trustworthy” personal image in the village. In addition, in theBuddhist temple, the Chief Priest liked him because of his strong “patronage”relationship. Both Treasurers are not qualified accountants, but have 25-30 yearsworking experiences as senior executives/account officers in accounting for a largepublic company and also as Treasurers for other (non-religious) associations.

For both temples, the Treasurer’s duties included the following: maintainingaccounting records monthly and annually; collection of member subscriptions anddues; issuing necessary receipts for members’ payments; cash collections from thetemple’s money boxes; banking the collections regularly; and making cash/chequepayments. A key internal control procedure ensures the Treasurer makes all paymentsby cheque (except for minor ones), secures a second signature either from the ChiefPriest/Chairman or Secretary for every payment, and keeps relevant bills in order tomaintain strict control in financial matters. Before signing the cheques, the Treasurershave to ensure the veracity of the supporting claim (e.g. invoice); a practice whichavoids the inherent risks with cash transactions. A second key control relates to thecash collections from the temple’s money boxes and the members’ subscriptions, whichis done almost on a daily basis (and banked). The Chief Priest of the Buddhist temple isvery much concerned about these financial accounting practices as he wants to show to

AAAJ22,7

1010

the general membership that he and his working committee are doing an honest joband handling their fees and donations in an appropriate manner. He knew suchaccounting practices will help to enhance the trust, power and social standing.He states:

We are very transparent in our work. We keep records on all our receiptss and expenses.We issue receipts for every donation. We follow our constitution that was accepted by theBuddha Sasana Ministry. So, nobody can complain against us for anything.

Similarly, the Treasurer of the Hindu organisation also appears to focus on the need toconform to the rules:

I need to be transparent, to act in conformity with rules and regulations and submit the reportat the end of the financial year to the Registrar of Associations. I also have to make theroutine payments and sign the cheques.

In both temples, it appears there is a relative similar formal financial accounting andcontrol system in place under the management of either the Chief Priest or the templemanagement committee and Treasurer. The transparency of the temples’ financialtransactions appears to be their main concern.

Financial planning and budgetary control systemFinancial planning and budgeting is one of the usual practices adopted by theBuddhist temple. For their construction projects which usually ran for three to fiveyears, they used budgetary control, although they are not bound by the constitution todo so. The Chief Priest understood the concept of “budgeting” very well. Quite often, hecommunicated budget figures on temple development projects in order to promotepublic donations. Once he stated:

We want to continue the physical developments of this temple. You all know that we havemanaged to undertake several good projects in the past. In next five years, we have plannedto further expand our temple’s alms hall. We have estimated its total cost as LKR 6,000,000.We have already planned how to finance this project. We hope we will receive money andmaterials (e.g. cements, tiles) from various sources from our members as well as the devotees.We have a budget and we know how to collect these funds.

On the other hand, there is very little formal planning and budgeting involved withinthe Hindu temple. The committee members or the assembly of members have neverrequested that a budget be prepared and submitted to them. Nevertheless, as a result ofher work experience and knowledge of budgetary practices, the Treasurer informallyprepares her own budget more as a way to plan for significant cash payments ratherthan for approval/authorisation. She states:

I prepare a budget for our expenses at the beginning of the year to know how much money wewould need to ask from private donations and sponsors. I am fairly familiar with the actualamounts we receive and spend. So, they do trust the information that I calculate and provide.This is the only time I [verbally] discuss about the budget with the committee members.

However, the Treasurer is regularly asked for quick “back-on-an-envelope”calculations to estimate specific expenditures or grant applications,e.g. construction/maintenance costs, cost of organizing dinners or other events. Sheis also involved in seeking quotations from suppliers and contractors. In these cases,


1011

the cost and budget information is discussed in detail amongst committee membersbefore a decision is made. Also, these “budget” calculations are used by the secretary tosupport the local association’s application for a grant from the district federation.Hence, none of budgeting and control practice is formally done for the planning,approval, and monitoring of regular income and expenses.

Financial accountability structureAccording to the Buddhist temple’s constitution, the Treasurer is required to makemonthly and annual reports to the working committee as well as conduct a formal“downward” accountability process to the AGM. These reports have to be approved by atwo-thirds majority. However, there is a lack of “upward” formal accountabilityrequirements (Unerman and O’Dwyer, 2006b) towards the Ministry of Buddha Sasana –in terms of financial reporting or auditing – as it does not offer grants to the Buddhisttemples. But, as an assurance to its membership on the proper use of their donations, theBuddhist temple’s committee produces annual reports to the Ministry. Normally, thisreport is approved and signed by a certified accountant, i.e. the government accountantin the Divisional Secretarial Office prior to its submission. Also, after a formal request,any ordinary member of the temple can volunteer to audit the regular accounts of thetemple. The objective here is to achieve “transparency” of the temple activities and todemonstrate a “felt responsibility” (Fry, 1995) to their devotees. As the Chief Prieststated:

We work openly. If any one has any doubt on our work they can come and check ouraccounts. We are ready to explain them. Every year, we produce our annual reports toBuddha Sasana Ministry and the AGM. Our annual reports are signed by a certifiedgovernment accountant. We maintain bills and documents to prove every transaction. Whatelse we could do to show our honesty?

On the other hand, the Hindu temple is formally required to report “upwards” annuallyto the Federation and the Registrar of Associations. From the Treasurer’s experience,the Federation’s report is a mere one page document and there has not been any furtherrequest for additional documentation (receipts, invoices, etc.) and explanations, evenin cases where it was stated that not all of the grant money was spent during the year.She describes:

We receive a monthly grant from the District Federation equivalent to approximately 40per cent of our total expenses. This covers mainly the salary for the [local] priest. The restcomes from donations, members’ subscriptions and financial support from the localmunicipality [town council]. The Federation expects us to submit a report every year on howwe used the grant money. They say the main reason is to satisfy the auditors and so far, therehas never been any query on the details of this report from the Federation.

Moreover, the annual accounts are filed with the Registrar of Associations along withthe statutory return prepared by the secretary (list of members, committee members,and minutes of AGM, etc.). Although the Treasurer is aware that the Registrar carriesout regular inspections of associations’ financial records (which to some extentmotivates her to keep them updated), such inspection has yet to occur for the temple.The annual accounts are audited by two non-executive members of the association andfiled with the Registrar of Associations. Prior to the AGM, the Treasurer preparesthe annual accounts in the format prescribed by the Registrar of Associations

AAAJ22,7

1012

(Receipts and Payments Account, Statement of Assets and Liabilities and supportingnotes). The two nominated auditors (appointed by the previous AGM) are then invitedto inspect the books and the draft annual accounts. According to the Treasurer, this isa formality and the auditors do not dwell beyond the basic checks (bank statementbalances, sample vouching of receipts/invoices) – quite expectedly since they are nottrained in auditing techniques. They also do a cursory verification of the recordshalf-way through the year. The Treasurer mentions her last experience relating to theapproval of accounts:

When I first present the financial accounts to the executive committee and then at the AGM,there are rarely questions being asked. Both committee members and other members seem toprefer to ask me questions on finances in private. They perceive a lot of honesty andtransparency in my work.

Overall, the level of “upwards” formal and relational accountability (Unerman andO’Dwyer, 2006b) from the Hindu temple to the Federation is minimal and this is tosome extent associated to the relatively lower level of financial dependence (40 per centof income) towards the federation. However, upon further enquiries with theFederation, the level of reporting is found to be similar for all local temples. One couldargue that the Federation’s correspondingly low level of formal accountability(e.g. towards its main financial supporter, i.e. the government) is reflected in themechanisms that the Federations use for its affiliated organizations. Whilst interviewswith one Federation official generally indicated a rather tense relationship with localdelegates (in relation to the sharing formula for the government funds), this did notappear to be too negative from the interviews with this local association’s delegates(President and Secretary). The Hindu temple’s secretary remarked:

Although we would have liked to receive more financial help from the federation, we acceptwhatever is given. We then try to get money and support from other places, although it isnow getting harder. For example, we used to have free access to the community centre [ownedby the town council] for pujas but now everyone in the town is required to pay rent to use it.That is why we are trying to increase the size of the temple to accommodate more people at atime.

Both the Buddhist and Hindu temples present their financial reports during executivecommittee meetings as an item on the monthly agenda and committee membersare given the opportunity to ask questions of a financial nature. According to theTreasurers, these reports are supported by the provision of relevant receipts andexpenses. Insofar as the downward accountability process is concerned, the bothTreasurers report that the approval of accounts (at the AGM by members) is viewed asa mere formality and there is very little “public” interaction with the members and thenumerical outputs presented for approval. The next section of the paper presents adetailed account and analysis of how Buddhist and Hindu people perceive theseaccounting and accountability systems.

7. An analysis of Buddhist andHindu people’s perceptions of accountabilityThe above sections described the accounting and accountability practices in the twoselected temples. However, as the interviews and research progressed, it becameevident that these formal mechanisms are largely intertwined with the historicallyestablished and collectively retained Buddhist and Hindu religious values and “spirit”


1013

as well as the broader structural elements of the society. The following discussionoutlines these relationships and provides relevant evidence from the case study datacollected.

Religious “spirit” trust and accountabilityIn non-Western societies, it is important to acknowledge the role of “trust”[11], which isoften, highlighted as a critical factor under-pining the informal and socializingaccountability relationships. In fact, the absence, or eroding, of “trust” is seen as anissue in maintaining any form of accountability (Dixon et al., 2006). Our view is that the“religious spirit” and beliefs of this context plays an important role in enhancing“trust” and making the outputs of formal accountability mechanisms irrelevant to lifewithin the temple in many different ways. Several aspects emerge from the discussionsand observations of the Buddhist and Hindu temples.

First, in spite of the existence and regular operation of the executive committee,there is little scrutiny on the financial aspects and the Treasurers’ operations in bothorganisations. A strong degree of “trust” and “religiosity” is perceived from theTreasurer’s personality, actions, operations and decisions, even though many withinthese two organisations explicitly concede – or at least imply – an absence ofsufficient knowledge of accounting or financial matters to justify such high levels of“trust”. For example, one member of Hindu temple remarked:

The treasurer appears to be a prudent and honest person. That’s all I need to know. Whencoming to the Shivala, I am more interested to find if they [the executive committee] haveorganized a sufficient number of activities/prayers and if we will have enough facilities suchas tents, chairs. How will the activities be organized? As for the money, I am sure she is doinga good job.

The local Priest of Hindu temple concurred to some of the above comments, stating:

Everyone I know, including myself, trusts the treasurer in keeping the accounts and thefinances. If one is devoted towards making savings, making the money more productive andmaking the temple a stable one, then this is the sign of a good treasurer. I am not part of theexecutive committee and I also do not understand too much the accounts. But I would havebeen told if something was not correct.

This, to some extent, can be reflected in Lewis and Weigert’s (1985) comments thattrust involves “[. . .] a leap of faith beyond the cognitive level of experience and action”.In this case, “trust” in the Treasurer appeared to be the critical factor in makingaccounting outputs irrelevant to the operations of the temple. A general member ofBuddhist temple remarked:

Our treasurer is now in this post for eight consecutive years. He is committed to the job andspent so much of his time to temple work. Nobody wants him to leave. He is an honest andreligious person. He has lived in our village for many years. So, we know him very well. Hewas never been blamed for any wrong doing. We never question his actions.

The personality of the Chief Priest is another important factor within this Buddhistcommunity. The people constantly refer to his religious spirit and resultant behaviourin the every day life of temple. Accordingly, they have an image of him as a prudent,righteous, religious (Dhahami ) and highly committed Priest to the religion and temple.They believe that the Priest achieves his position because of his righteous behaviour in

AAAJ22,7

1014

a previous life. They are certain that he will reproduce and maintain similar qualities inhis present life. This constructs additional credibility and trustworthiness for the Priestand the lay people perceive some “implied accountability” in the religious andeconomic activities conducted by the temple. This highlights the superiority of thereligious “spirit” over the actions and activities of the people in these two societies.A devotee stated:

Our chief priest is a true representative of Buddha. During his tenure, he has made anunbelievable contribution to the temple and community. It is not easy to win everyone’s heartin this village because of social class differences and political rivalries. But, quite nicely hehas managed to keep everyone stick together with the temple due to his dhahami life style,lovely and fair approach to people, and commitment to the temple activities.

Second, the Buddhist and Hindu religious “spirit” which emphasises on the doing andthe “correct” public performance and organization of rituals extends to the operation offormal accountability processes. The actual organization of the formal mechanisms –the AGM, regular executive committee, the Treasurer’s report and annual reports –conveys in itself a message of accountability and “trust” and can hence be viewed byBuddhists and Hindus as a religious ritual. It is telling that none of the intervieweescriticised or challenged the continuing need for these mechanisms or proposedalternative ways to make the formal financial mechanisms more understandable andrelevant to them. Although the practices have been initially required by a legalobligation to provide and compel a forum for accountability, the members of bothBuddhist and Hindu temples internalised these practices as part of the temple’s life,rituals and prayers. They thus participate with the Treasurer in this “publicperforming of a ritual” of accountability (accounts presentations and approval), with aminimum of questioning, disturbance or demanding of account, and with little interestin the numerical outputs. In addition, the collective presence of the Treasurer, executivecommittee members and members at this ritual is turned into an expression of “trust”being conveyed between the various participants. In other words, within the Buddhistand Hindu “ritual-oriented” context, formal financial accountability mechanismsbecome akin to a religious ritual and are merely a symbolic expression ofreligious-enhanced “trust” (e.g. as expressed in the Hindu concepts of Satya andAsteya) in the Treasurer’s doings.

Overall, from the case data it seems that accountability practices in the Buddhistand Hindu temples operate mainly as “ceremonial rituals” aimed at signalling theircongruence with social expectations, i.e. “trust”. The secular mechanisms explained bythe Chief Priest and committee members during in-depth interviews are conceived asconfessional settings, in which one submits claims of “truthfulness” to referees –rather than being objective institutionalised practices. The level of “formal”accountability to higher authorities and general membership is minimal while the“felt responsibility” (Fry, 1995) by the Chief Priest and/or the committee members(principally the Treasurer) guided them to be accountable to their stakeholder groups.It is somehow surprising to note that trust does not emerge explicitly in many of thepreviously reviewed accounting and accountability studies carried out in otherreligious settings. In one instance (Lightbody, 2003), it is in fact the lack of trustbetween church financial managers and other church decision-makers which ishighlighted as those in charge of the finances/budget appear excluded from


1015

decision-making forums that could impact on the “sacred” agendas of the church(2003, p. 132).

Religious “spirit” aspirations and accountabilityThis “religious ritualisation” of the formal accountability mechanisms in both theseBuddhist and Hindu temples partly leads to the development of a more practical and“socializing” form of accountability (Roberts, 1991, 1996; Jacobs and Walker, 2004;Gray et al., 2006), focusing on non-financial aspects. This informal accountability thencentres on the verbal and visual exchanges that arise in between meetings,conversations and ceremonies. Again, this “spirit” in ensuring the correct performanceof religious practices is reflected in the devotees and members efforts on maintainingand improving physical facilities/structures of the two temples. There was no shortageof comments, suggestions and criticisms relating to the temple’s premises whendevotees/members were queried on accountability and the “performance” of theexecutive committee, which are expressed at all levels and forums. This is recognisedby the executive committee and there is an almost continuous pursuit in ensuring a“proper” physical structure (cleanliness, larger temple, more seating, more painting,better lighting, etc.), which is generally reflective of an “aspiration” to improve thevisible and symbolic features of religiosity and keeping the devotees happy.A Buddhist layman stated:

I do not need to check the financial records related to temple activities. We all can seedevelopments achieved by our temple during last ten years. The new buildings, clean andspacious surroundings, colourful ceremonies, extended membership, etc. are good evidencesto its righteous and continuous development.

In a similar vein, the Hindu temple’s Treasurer remarked:

At the AGM, the people ask more questions about making sure the temple is providingspacious and clean facilities and no one seems to bother about the accounts. Most of thequestions are about the organization of various ceremonies, who will help out, etc.

This highlights how the Buddhist and Hindu people value the “aspiration” of thetemple administration in delivering peoples’ religious desires more than the disclosureof accounting numbers, when it comes to perceiving “accountability”. To them,the religious “spirit” and the “symbolical expressions” of the Priest and workingcommittee members are more important than the formal accountability actions oractivities being undertaken by them.

This so-called “qualitative” accountability can be contrasted to a more“quantitative” one, for instance characterized by the use of accountingterminologies (e.g. records), numbers (e.g. use of time and money) and performanceappraisals (e.g. regular report on bible reading and praying) which underlie religiouslife in the Iona community (Jacobs and Walker, 2004). Furthermore, Jacobs andWalker (2004) and to some extent Kreander et al. (2004) mention the strongaspirations in seeking to integrating the physical to the spiritual whilst the spirit ofaction (Dharma) is in fact central to the Hindu and Buddhist people. Finally, we findmore indications of a positive form of socializing accountability in both templesas opposed to the internal surveillance issues identified in Jacobs and Walker (2004,p. 378-9).

AAAJ22,7

1016

Religious “spirit” loyalty and patronage relations and accountabilityOur data also reveal how “loyalty” and “patronage relations” are entrenched in thepeople’s perceptions of accountability, particularly in the case of the Buddhist temple.As mentioned earlier, there are no legally binding reporting requirements but rathersome element of “self-regulation” is set out via the nikaya hierarchy and the Ministry ofBuddha Sasana. Also, there are provisions to empower the general membership toinstitute actions against any wrongdoing by the working committee members orPriests if they violate their responsibilities toward the temple. However, the exercise ofsuch powers is extremely rare in practice considering the patronage and loyalty themembers and devotees have for the Chief Priest and middle-class elite workingcommittee.

In the Ramanna Nikaya Buddhist temple, the “self regulation” is imposed on thegoverning committee. These regulations are contained in the constitution’s documentsof the temple – which allows for AGM – thus enabling the laity to review and questionthe performance of the governing committee headed by the Chief Priest. However, inreality, the people express too much closeness and over-reliance on the Priest due totheir “religious spirit” and are reluctant to question any wrong doing. This mindsetpersuades them to develop loyalty and patronage relations with the Priest and supporthim in his temple activities through various means, i.e. praises, donations and freelabour, etc. to make him happy. This emotional imperative (Northcott and Doolin,2000), which is common in non-Western societies, is reflected in the people’s perceptionof accountability. No one was willing to question the Priest or his working committeemembers and their activities, as they feared it might cause harm to the relationshipthey maintain with the Priest. As a member remarked:

The temple and the priest are very important to all of us in the village. We need the priest’sservices and blessings both in our good and bad times. He is an integral part of the village. So,we have to protect him and then he will protect us. I am very happy about our priest. He doesnot do any wrong-doings. We have no reasons to question on his temple work. We all supporthim. I always want to show him my gratitude for his service and find ways of helping him.

At the same time, the Buddhist Priest has persuaded the general membership toappoint his loyal people to the working committee at the AGMs, in order to ensure hiscontrol on the temple activities. One example is the Treasurer, who has been in postduring last eight years and whose appointment was recommended by the Priest due tohis loyalty. This is not to say that the Priest and his “loyal followers” have beeninvolved in any wrong-doing. In fact, this is an illustration of how social dimensionscan invalidate the rational mechanisms of accountability in the Buddhist temple andthis highlights how the people are more passionate with the religious “spirit” behindthe action rather than the action in itself.

Contrastingly, in the Hindu temple, the influence of the Priest is singularlydiminished in that he is technically an employee of the association managing thetemple. His salaries are in fact funded by the Federation and his ecclesiasticalhierarchy is represented by a head Priest at the Federation, who is also an employee ofthe Federation. This contractual employer-employee relationship appears to depreciateto a large extent the potential influence conveyed by the Priest’s religious legitimacy –as the medium between people and deities. For example, the Hindu temple’s Presidentstated:


1017

The pandit is outside the committee. He is sometimes invited to our meetings but he is not thedecision-maker. As far as I know, there has been very little conflict between us [the ExecutiveCommittee] and him.

This is a quite peculiar when compared to the Buddhist temple’s case and otherdenominations. Indeed, previous accounting and accountability studies in the religiouscontext document a number of cases associated to the resistance of the sacred factiontowards the use of secular practices (Laughlin, 1984, 1988; Booth, 1993) and theexercise of the Priest’s power in restricting or controlling (Kluvers, 2001) the use of theaccounting craft. Obviously, Priests in these other contexts also have an employmentcontract (Berry, 2005) but these usually have a purely and exclusively legal purpose(e.g. to satisfy employment and taxation laws), thereby focusing on the “form” ratherthan the substance of the relationship. This is reflective of a “legal” exception to therule, namely that Priests exercise the most influence within their churches ortemples[12]. However, in the case of the Hindu temple, financial and operational controlrests almost exclusively with the executive committee and to a certain extent, from themore established “senior” members and elite families (elaborated in the next section).The Priest states:

I have good and regular interactions with members during weekly or monthly prayers. I cometo the temple every day, so I know what is going on. People sometimes phone me to askqueries. Very often, this is how I am aware of what the Federation has been up to. People aremore interested in the facilities provided at Mara Shivratree and Diwali [the two major Hindufestivals]. But overall, from my discussions, I know there is better financial transparency nowand I am happy with that.

In the words of the various interviewees, the temple Priest’s views were obviouslyrespected and his views were listened to, but strictly within an informal context. Heinteracted principally with the local association president who then brought – whererelevant – the comments from the Priest. Also, the other executive committee membersconcurred that the temple is a duly registered association and thus only memberselected by the AGM can aspire to work within the executive committee. The Priest is“invited” to the AGM and is “allowed” to make contributions but there is no doubtamongst the interviewees (including the Priest) as to the dominant influence of theelected laity in the activities of the Hindu temple. The Priest is instrumental and centralto worship but this does not mean that his influence extends or legitimizes his rolebeyond the pujas and other ceremonies. And even when it comes to the organizationand co-ordination of specific prayers and rituals, there is evidence of greater control bythe laity as will be detailed in the next section.

As such, there is no sacred/secular “tensions” when it comes to accounting andaccountability practices and the Priest and executive committee members are aware ofthe “spirit” in which everything is done. Both parties are equally respecting to thereligious spirit and to the holiness of Buddha and Hindu deities. In the case of theHindu temple, the “employee” status of the Priest virtually eliminates the possibility ofdissension or tension with the laity.

Religious “spirit” social status, power and rivalries and accountabilityThe elite families and middle class working committee members attached to the templeadministration – with the help of their relatives and friends – have taken over the key

AAAJ22,7

1018

positions and administrative power of these two temples. In fact, those who werealready powerful have usually been able to manipulate the temple affairs to strengthentheir social status and power over the ordinary laity. The following were the remarksof an ordinary member of the Buddhist temple:

Our temple working committee is full of elite people. Likewise, in all other local organisationsthey want the power in Buddhist Temple too. They know that almost every villager isattached to the temple. So it gives them a good opportunity to strengthen their social status.

The observations related to the Buddhist temple indicate that the modern knowledgeand financial literacy has given the elite families superiority in the social relations withothers, i.e. appointment as Treasurer and Chairman. The exercise of their social poweras the “elite-families” perpetually creates knowledge, and conversely, their professionalknowledge on accounting and management constantly induces effects of social powerover ordinary membership. This professional knowledge is not detached andindependent. So, as a source of illumination, it is integral to the operation of their socialpower in the temple and community. A member in Buddhist community stated:

You can see that most of the members in working committee are from elite middle classfamilies. They are retired public servants, private sector employees and school teachers. Youneed some knowledge to mange the temple work. That’s why they are appointed to theseposts. They all are educated people and have good contacts with government agencies,politicians and other important organisations. So it is easy to get support from others for thetemple development.

These narratives thus reveal an unequal interdependence between middle-class templeadministration and general membership. Another aspect of this is shown when theresponsibility of the temple’s working committee became ambiguous due to therivalries between elite groups who seek the control of temple administration fortheir own social status and political power over the village/neighbourhood.The following statement made by an ordinary villager indicates the kind of powerstruggle which exists within the temple administration:

There are two rival political groups representing the national political parties operating in thevillage. They attempt to gain advantage from every single opportunity open for them. Eventhe temple working committee is also in their interest. They try to take over the control of itthrough elections [at the AGM]. Sometimes they clash with the chief priest and accuse thepriest of being biased towards their opposition party which is not true. They look forward tobring regional and national political leaders for ceremonies organised by the temple.The purpose is to gain political credit. I can remember one group once tried to expel our priestfrom the temple as he was not listening to their demands. But all the other villagers wereunited in these issues and they knew the priest very well. So they always protect him.

In contrast, according to the recently elected committee members in the Hindu temple,the influence of some “higher caste” elite families and senior members in the temple’sactivities has greatly diminished further to the recent elections and changes made tothe membership of the managing committee. Originally, there was an exclusivecategory of middle class families (principally civil servants) living in theneighbourhood and the running of the association “rotated” between these families –who viewed themselves as part of a particular caste, and hence “worthy” of closerrelationships with the Priest and temple activities/management. Such families also hadthe financial, logistical and networking ability to contribute more than other members


1019

or regular devotees. As such, they expected a preferential treatment, i.e. being part ofthe managing committee and having a more visible role in the prayers and ritualsalongside the priest.

The purpose here is to have a stronger physical presence in the fire rituals andhence obtain better access for their families to the Gods. It is this very sought-afterstatus which later on became the symbolic grounds for a challenge in the power andstatus of the elite families. Hence, and gradually, more middle class families fromdiverse professional backgrounds settled in the neighbourhood and became regularpatrons of the temple. The legally defined democratic structure of the associationeventually provided the opportunity for other factions to bid for a take-over and tochallenge the traditional power base, after more than ten years’ control by a smallgroup of families. In fact, it is perceived that it is the “professionalism” and experienceof the newly elected executive committee members (managers and civil servants)which partly convinced the people of the need for change.

Shortly after the Hindu temple’s recent change of the executive committee,a sub-committee was set up to agree on a roster of families for yajnas and pujas.As mentioned previously, the ritual fire is the central focus of these rituals andrepresents the means of access between human and the Gods. Offerings of differentkinds are sacrificed to the fire and thereby transmitted to the sphere of the Gods(Kinsley, 1982, p. 106). As such, closeness to the ritual fire translates into being closerto the Gods. This strong emphasis on offerings is explicitly present in many texts butis perhaps best illustrated by this passage from the translated Laws of Manu (Donigerand Smith, 1991):

A man who gives water obtains satiation; a giver of food, incorruptible happiness; a bestowerof sesame seeds, desired progeny [. . .]. The giver of land himself gets land; the giver of gold,long life; one who gives a house, the finest dwellings; the giver of silver, superb beauty; a manwho gives clothing, the world of the moon; a man who gives a horse, the world of the DivineHorseman; [. . .] (2001, p. 95).

Every regularly attending family was thus given an opportunity to officiate along withthe Priest – thereby effectively removing a key symbol of elite power within thetemple. In the words of a regular devotee:

A recent problem was to decide on a roster of persons who will sit next to the pandit for thepujas. Some people were not happy with seeing the same people – especially from the samefour or five families – all the time. So, eventually a sub-committee from the executivecommittee was set up and given the task of devising a roster so that everyone and everyfamily would have the opportunity to do it. This has now been done and everyone is satisfied.

However, the influence of senior members is still present. For example, the currentsecretary of the association is part of one of the elite families. He has been part of thecommittee since the association was affiliated ten years ago and maintains a closerelationship with the federation. As such, he is a key mediator between the associationand the federation, negotiating for grants and additional funding – in contrast to thenewly elected president who has little “networking experience” beyond this localassociation. The Treasurer states:

It has happened in the past that we needed additional money for a specific event or expenditure.The secretary [one of two nominated delegates to federation] would then write to the federation.Recently, we obtained some money for the upgrading and painting of the temple.

AAAJ22,7

1020

The secretary is thus perceived as the main “adviser” relating to federation mattersand as a representative of the temple at the federation level, he effectively decides howthe temple’s vote is cast. From the point of the view of the other newly electedcommittee members, there is currently little interest to involve themselves in aspectswhich they perceive to be more “political” rather than “religious”. This leaves thesecretary with a limited power to influence the temple’s activities, in spite of his abilityto obtain grants and funding from the federation.

The above highlights a “transactional” facet in the relationship between Hindudevotees and deities. But it also points to the Hindu beliefs towards material wealthand capital accumulation, and by extension to the instruments and practices used forwealth measurement (i.e. formal accounting and accountability practices). In contrast,these values remain quite implicit in Buddhist teachings. Dutta-Bergman and Doyle(2001) contend that “the Hindu texts present multiple meanings of money enactedwithin multiple social fields” (p. 211). On one hand, it is part of Dharma and on theother it must be renounced to achieve moksha. Thus, it can be argued that there is nodivide or contradiction in Hinduism (and to some extent in Buddhism as well), insofaras formal accounting and accountability practices are concerned as opposed perhaps tothe dualities and some conflicting viewpoints inherent to the Judeo-Christian tradition(Dutta-Bergman and Doyle, 2001, p. 206; Laughlin, 1988; Booth, 1993).

Furthermore, we also see that the influence the lay members in the temples’activities, administration and accountability structures is clearly more prominent thanmentioned in previous accountability studies that focused on large Christian or Islamicorganizations (Berry, 2005; Kluvers, 2001; Abdul-Rahman and Goddard, 1998). Oneexception to this can be found in the study of the Iona Community in Jacobs andWalker (2004), where community members resisted and sought change whenconfronted to an increasingly individualized form of accountability.

8. Summary and conclusionsThe case data reveal a gap between the rational expectations and the actualmanoeuvres of accountability mechanisms in Buddhist and Hindu religiousorganisations. We found that the rational accountability mechanisms were“sacredised” by the Buddhist and Hindu religious “spirit” and subsequently, theaccountability systems and religious activities both were influenced by the “structuralelements” of trust, aspirations, patronage and loyalty, social status, power andrivalries. First, the religious “spirit” in connection with “trust” “aspirations” and“loyalty and patronage relations” become the main mechanisms of accountability.Second, “modern” knowledge such as financial literacy, accounting and administrationbecomes a knowledge-power for the particular middle class and elite, and theresponsibility of temple working committee became ambiguous due to the “rivalries”between these elite groups who seek the control of temple administration for their ownsocial status and political power over the ordinary laity. This suggests that theaccountability practices of Buddhist and Hindu religious organizations in non-Westernsocieties do not operate in the same way as envisaged by rational accountabilityprinciples. We present below an illustration of the relationships we observe betweenaccountability practices, structural elements and the Hindu and Buddhist religious“spirit” (Figure 1).


1021

Our findings imply that the religious “spirit” is an integral and important part ofaccountability in non-Western societies. Their structural elements are being influencedby the “religion” and the historically constructed “religious spirit” of their people. Thereligiosity among Buddhist and Hindu people in our study is dominated by the highreligious “spirit” to engage in “actions”. The case data repeatedly showed that theseindigenous people do not mind the distinctions between religion and society and do notface any sacred/secular “tensions” as the temple communities accept and respect theholiness of Buddha and Hindu deities. The Hindu and Buddhist religious “spirit” asperceived by the people, is seen as not being in conflict with formal accountabilitysystems and the inherent representations of money and wealth. There is neithera reliance on the functionalities of formal accountability mechanisms as part of atheology of integration between the physical and spiritual (Jacobs and Walker, 2004),nor is there an explicit and conscious intertwining of religious values and financialpractice (Kreander et al., 2004). In addition, there is not also a single world view asdocumented in Islamic organizations (Abdul-Rahman and Goddard, 1998). In theirtemples, the Hindu and Buddhist people elevate societal values while simultaneouslyadopting their religious beliefs and moral values to rationalise their social actions.They understand the culture and economy through religion and religion throughculture and economy. Thus, to great extent, the social and economic activities of thesesocieties are “sacredised” and their religious activities are “ceremonially” secularised.What they value most is the religious “spirit” behind the people’s actions. From thisperspective, we found that the accountability practices implemented in their religiousorganisations are perceived by the people as being “ceremonial rituals” aimed atstrengthening the temple’s righteous and prudent image to the religious society. Hence,we do find different conceptualisations of accountability as a result of differentdenominations (Irvine, 2005) but we also find that the practices of Hinduism andBuddhism are inherently quite diverse and are rooted in the social context, principallydue to the absence of central ecclesiastical elites. This is in sharp contrast to previousJudeo-Christian accountability studies where religious organization is strongly andhierarchically controlled. On the other hand, Hindu and Buddhist lay people live

Figure 1.Religious “spirit” andpeople’s perceptions ofaccountability

Religion andreligiousspirit

Non-Westernsoceity

Structuralelements

Accountabilitypractices Loyalty and

patronage

Trust

Aspirations

Social status, powerand rivalries

AAAJ22,7

1022

by and re-interpret their religion as a “way of life” and this study therefore contributesto the literature by showing a different facet of the links between religion, accountingand accountability.

The findings also assert that in non-Western Buddhist and Hindu societiesconsisting of people bounded on high “religious spirit” and structural elements ofthe society – the accountability within religious organisations is largely visible as aninformal and social practice rather than a stakeholder-oriented rational mechanism.It shows how people are more attuned to socialising, informal and identity forms ofaccountability in the “spirit” of religion, whereas the absence of this “spirit” wouldpossibly make them demand more formal mechanisms. This high “religious spirit”combines with the structural elements of these societies and people, thereby producinga type of “substantive rational” calculative practice (Weber, 1968). As the case datareveals, their judgments on accountability practices rely upon less obvious andinformal social dimensions, i.e. “trust” “aspirations” “loyalty and patronage relations”and “social status, powers and rivalries” representative of the features in “socialisingaccountability” (Roberts, 1991, 1996; Jacobs and Walker, 2004; Gray et al., 2006). Theseindigenous people are more obsessed with “qualitative factors” shaping the formalaccountability, i.e. relationships and communitarism rather than rational accountingnumbers and calculations. The central role of the lay people and devotees, rather thanPriests and other Priestly elite, is put forward in this study, although their level of“control” might differ to some extent in the Hindu temple as opposed to the Buddhistone. Overall, these are aspects that have been rarely considered in the literature andthis study therefore contributes by demonstrating the interplay between devotees,religion, accounting and accountability.

These findings do remind us that accountability is a technical as well as a social andinstitutional practice (Hopwood and Miller, 1994). In fact, within the scope of social andinstitutional practice, accountability entails a technology of governance and alanguage of meanings. These technologies and meanings of accountability becomeblended in different forms, i.e. formal/individual/relational to informal/identity/socialising according to the contexts in which it operates. The accountability rationalesthus become “substantive” (Weber, 1947) to specific actors in these contexts and, inturn, are redefined through a variety of cultural, political and social norms and in thiscase by the religious “spirit”. Broadly, the paper implicates that accountabilitypractices in community-based, grassroots non-profit organizations are not merelyreporting “facts” of economic activities and a “neutral system”. Instead, they initiatenew forms of accountability systems and reproduce structural conditions, we observedin our case studies.

Notes

1. Karma is a Sanskrit word meaning all good and bad actions. It covers all kinds of intentionalactions whether mental, verbal or physical, thoughts, words and deeds. In its ultimate sense,Karma means all moral and immoral actions. It is neither fatalism nor a doctrine ofpredetermination. The past influences the present but does not dominate it, for Karma ispast as well as present. The past and present both influence the future. In fact, the past is abackground against which life goes on from moment to moment (Thittila, 1996).

2. Pin is the concept of “merit” in Buddhism. Merits could be said to have positive karmicinfluences. As the adept of Buddhist meditation practises, merit naturally arises and this can


1023

be dedicated to others. This is an expression of the Bodhisattva Vow to strive for perfectionand enlightenment but to forego it to help all beings (Gombrich, 1971).

3. Wesak is the holiest day in Buddhism. On this day are celebrated the birth, theenlightenment, and the death of the Buddha. This day is usually in the middle or last twoweeks of May.

4. History states that it was on a Poson (full moon day) that Arahath Mahinda, son of the greatKing Asoka of India, and a group of missionaries came to Sri Lanka to spread the word of theBuddha.

5. Katina ceremony is the culmination of the Vas season. At the end of three months a specialrobe known as the Katina is offered to monks of every monastery who observed the Vas.The word Vas means the rains; Viseema means the dwelling. Therefore, Vas Viseema meansto sojourn during the rainy season (Thittila, 1996).

6. Maha Shivaratri is celebrated in February or March every year. This day marks the nightwhen Lord Shiva performed the Tandava. On this day, Shiva devotees observe fast and offerfruits, flowers and bel leaves on the Shiva Linga (Eisenlohr, 2004).

7. Sankranthi or Sankranti signifies the beginning of the harvest season for the farmers ofIndian subcontinent. This is a harvest festival celebrated not only all over India but also inother countries.

8. Diwali signifies many different things to Hindu people. In north India and in Mauritius,Diwali celebrates Rama’s homecoming, namely his return to Ayodhya after the defeat ofRavana and his coronation as king. Everywhere however, it signifies the renewal of life, andaccordingly it is common to wear new clothes on the day of the festival and light the house atnight using small oil lamps. Also, it signals the approach of winter and the beginning of thesowing season.

9. In any case, one must note that a strict observance of Hindu rituals and practices principallyapplies to the Brahmin and upper castes (Doniger and Smith, 1991).

10. Nikaya is a general term for those schools of Buddhism that accept only the class of sutrascollected in the Pali Canon as authentic. Historically, there were many Nikaya schools, butonly one still exists today: the Theravada.

11. Oddly enough, “trust” is usually accepted as an “obvious” concept (Blois, 1999) without anexplicit challenge of its meaning and implications (Lewis and Weigert, 1985; Seal andVincent-Jones, 1997; Swift, 2001).

12. As further evidence of the low level of influence of the Priesthood in Hindu temples inMauritius, the Treasurer commented on a recent case where the federation took action toreplace a local Priest in neighbouring affiliated temple. He stated that: “the priest was not upto the standard of making sermons and teachings and embarrassed the devotees in front ofinvitees”. The employee status of Priests in the temples greatly diminished their power andinfluence in the organization.

References

Abdul-Rahman, A.R. and Goddard, A. (1998), “An interpretive inquiry of accounting practices inreligious organisations”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 14 No. 3,pp. 183-201.

Ashby, P.H. (1974), Modern Trends in Hinduism, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.

Berry, A.J. (2005), “Accountability and control in a cat’s cradle”, Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 255-97.

AAAJ22,7

1024

Blois, K.J. (1999), “Trust in business to business relationships: an evaluation of its status”,Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 197-215.

Booth, P. (1993), “Accounting in churches: a research framework and agenda”, Accounting.Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 37-67.

Bowrin, A.R. (2004), “Internal control in Trinidad and Tobago religious organizations”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 121-52.

Clifford, J. and Marcus, G. (Eds) (1986), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography,University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Dey, C. (2002), “Methodological issues: the use of critical ethnography as an active methodology”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 106-21.

Dixon, R., Ritchie, J. and Siwale, J. (2006), “Microfinance: accountability from the grassroots”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 405-27.

Doniger, W. and Smith, B.K. (1991), The Laws of Manu, Penguin Books, London.

Dutta-Bergman, M.J. and Doyle, K.O. (2001), “Money and meaning in India and Great Britain:tales of similarities and differences”, American Behavioural Scientist, Vol. 45 No. 2,pp. 205-22.

Edwards, M. and Hulme, D. (1995), Non-Governmental Organisations: Performance andAccountability – Beyond the Magic Bullet, Earthscan, London.

Eisenlohr, P. (2004), “Temporalities of community: ancestral language, pilgrimage, and diasporicbelonging in Mauritius”, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 81-98.

Eliot, C. (1954), Hinduism and Buddhism, Vol. II, Routledge, London.

Eriksen, T.H. (1994), “Nationalism, Mauritian style: cultural unity and ethnic diversity”,Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 36, pp. 549-74.

Faircloth, A. (1988), “The importance of accounting to the shakers”, The Accounting HistoriansJournal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 99-129.

Fry, R.E. (1995), “Accountability in organizational life: problem or opportunity for non-profits?”,Non-profit Management and Leadership, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 181-95.

Futcher, T. and Phillips, J.T. (1986), “Church budgeting: a secular approach”, National PublicAccountant, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 28-9.

Gallhofer, S. and Haslam, J. (2004), “Accounting and liberation theology: some insights for theproject of emancipatory accounting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 382-407.

Geertz, C. (1988), Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author, Stanford University Press,Stanford.

Goddard, A.R. (2004), “Budgeting practices and accountability habitus – a grounded theory”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 543-77.

Gombrich, R. (1971), “Merit transference in Sinhalese Buddhism: a case study of the interactionbetween doctrine and practice”, History of Religions, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203-19.

Gombrich, R. (2004), Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to ModernColombo, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Oxon.

Gray, R., Bebbington, J. and Collison, D. (2006), “NGOs, civil society and accountability: makingthe people accountable to capital”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19No. 3, pp. 319-48.

Gregory, C.A. and Altman, J.C. (1989), Observing the Economy, Routledge, New York, NY.


1025

Hardy, L. and Ballis, H. (2005), “Does one size fit all? The sacred and secular divide revisited withinsights from Niebuhr’s typology of social action”, Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 238-54.

Hopwood, A.G. (1983), “On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 8 Nos 2/3, pp. 287-305.

Hopwood, A.G. and Miller, P. (1994), Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Irvine, H. (2005), “Balancing money and mission in a local church budget”, Accounting, Auditing& Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 211-37.

Jacobs, K. (2005), “The sacred and the secular: examining the role of accounting in the religiouscontext”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 189-210.

Jacobs, K. and Walker, S.P. (2004), “Accounting and accountability in the Iona community”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 361-81.

Jacobson, D. (1991), Reading Ethnography, SUNY Press, Albany.

Jayasinghe, K. (2006), “Micro-entrepreneurship in a rural community of Sri Lanka:a phenomenological study of emotionality, power and calculative practice”, unpublishedPhD thesis, University of Bradford, Bradford.

Jayetilleke, R.L. (2003), “The bi-centennial of the Amarapura Maha Nikaya of Sri Lanka”, DailyNews, available at: www.dailynews.lk/2003/09/17/fea09.html (accessed 17 September2006).

Jonsson, S. and Macintosh, N. (1997), “Cats, rats and ears: making the case for ethnographicaccounting research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 367-86.

Jordan, L. (2005), “Mechanisms for NGO accountability”, Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi)Research Paper Series, No. 3, Global Public Policy Institute, Berlin.

King, A. (1988), “Automating church accounting”, Management Accounting (US), March,pp. 18-20.

Kinsley, D.R. (1982), Hinduism: A Cultural Perspective, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Klostermaier, K.K. (1994), A Survey of Hinduism, SUNY Press, Albany, NY.

Kluvers, R. (2001), “Budgeting in Catholic parishes: an exploratory study”, FinancialAccountability & Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 41-58.

Kreander, N., McPhail, K. and Molyneaux, D. (2004), “God’s fund managers: a critical study ofstock market investment practices of the Church of England and UK Methodists”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 408-41.

Kreiser, L. and Dare, P. (1986), “Shaker accounting records at Pleasant Hill: 1830-1850”,The Accounting Historians Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 19-36.

Laughlin, R.C. (1984), “The design of accounting systems: a general theory with an empiricalstudy of the Church of England”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield,Sheffield.

Laughlin, R.C. (1988), “Accounting in its social context: an analysis of the accounting systems ofthe Church of England”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2,pp. 19-42.

Laughlin, R.C. (1990), “A model of financial accountability and the Church of England”, FinancialAccountability & Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 93-114.

Lewis, J. and Weigert, A. (1985), “Trust as social reality”, Social Forces, Vol. 63, pp. 967-85.

Lightbody, M. (2003), “On being a financial manager in a church organisation: understanding theexperience”, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 117-38.

AAAJ22,7

1026

Llewellyn, S. (1999), “Narratives in accounting and management research”, Accounting, Auditing& Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 220-37.

Lorenzen, D.N. (1999), “Who invented Hinduism?”, Comparative Studies in Society and History,Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 630-59.

McPhail, K., Gorringe, T. and Gray, R. (2004), “Accounting and theology, an introduction:initiating a dialogue between immediacy and eternity”, Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 320-6.

McPhail, K., Gorringe, T. and Gray, R. (2005), “Crossing the great divide: critiquing the sacredsecular dichotomy in accounting research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 185-8.

MacNeill, P. (1990), Research Methods, Routledge, London.

Miles, W.F.S. (1999), “The Mauritius enigma”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 91-104.

Morgan, G. (1990), Organizations in Society, Macmillan, London.

Morrow, R.A. and Brown, D.D. (1994), Critical Theory andMethodology, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Nelson, J.K. (1990), The Anthropology of Religion: A Field Statement for the Department ofAnthropology, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Niebuhr, H.R. (1951), Christ and Culture, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Northcott, D. and Doolin, B. (2000), “Home accountants: exploring their practices”, Accounting,Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 475-501.

Radhakrishnan, S. (1990), Indian Religions, Orient Paperbacks, New Delhi.

Rhys-Davids, T.W. (1957), Buddhist India, Susil Gupta, Calcutta.

Roberts, J. (1991), “The possibilities of accountability”, Accounting, Organizations and Society,Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 355-68.

Roberts, J. (1996), “From discipline to dialogue: individualizing and socializing forms ofaccountability”, in Munro, R. and Mouritsen, J. (Eds), Accountability: Power, Ethos and theTechnologies of Managing, International Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 40-61.

Ross, N.W. (1980), Buddhism: Way of Life and Thought, Vintage Books, New York, NY.

Samuels, J. (2006a), “Buddhism and caste in India and Sri Lanka”, Religion Compass, Vol. 1,November.

Samuels, J. (2006b), “Monastic patronage and temple building in contemporary Sri Lanka: caste,ritual performance and merit”, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 1-27.

Seal, W. and Vincent-Jones, P. (1997), “Accounting and trust in the enabling of long-termrelations”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 406-31.

Sinclair, A. (1995), “The chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses”, Accounting.Organizations and Society, Vol. 20 Nos 2/3, pp. 219-37.

Smith, B.K. (1987), “Exorcising the transcendent: strategies for defining Hinduism and religion”,History of Religions, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 32-55.

Snodgrass, J. (2007), “Defining modern Buddhism: Mr. and Mrs. Rhys Davids and the Pali TextSociety”, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, Vol. 27 No. 1,pp. 186-202.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Proceduresand Techniques, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Swanson, G. and Gardner, J. (1986), “The inception and evolution of financial reporting in theProtestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America”, The Accounting HistoriansJournal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 55-63.


1027

Swanson, G. and Gardner, J. (1988), “Not-for-profit accounting and auditing in the earlyeighteenth century: some archival evidence”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 63 No. 3,pp. 436-47.

Swift, T. (2001), “Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders”, BusinessEthics: A European Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 16-26.

Thittila, V.A. (1996), “A Buddhist’s companion: an exposition & selected quotations of AshinThittila”, Essential Themes of Buddhist Lectures, Ministry of Religious Affairs, Rangoon.

Unerman, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (2006a), “On James Bond and the importance of NGOaccountability”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 305-18.

Unerman, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (2006b), “Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 349-76.

Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, The Free Press, Glencoe, IL.

Weber, M. (1958), The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism, Scribner’s, New York, NY.

Weber, M. (1968), Economy and Society, Bedminster Press, New York, NY.

Willmott, H. (1996), “Thinking accountability: accounting for the disciplined production of self”,in Munro, R. and Mouritsen, J. (Eds), Accountability: Power, Ethos and the Technologies ofManaging, International Thomson Business, London, pp. 23-39.

Zietlow, J.T. (1989), “Capital and operating budgeting practices in pure non-profit organizations”,Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 219-32.

Corresponding authorKelum Jayasinghe can be contacted at: [email protected]

AAAJ22,7

1028

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

religious “spirit” and peoples' perceptions of accountability in hindu and buddhist...

Documents