Articles Published 22 July 2016

The Influence of Institutional and Contingency Factors on the Adoption of Forensic Accounting by Anti-Corruption Agencies: A Proposed Framework

Ibrahim Umar
Department of Accountancy, Yobe State University, Nigeria
Rose Shamsiah Samsudin
Tunku Puteri Intan Safinaz School of Accountancy, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
Mudzamir Mohamed
Tunku Puteri Intan Safinaz School of Accountancy, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
Full text
PDF View full text 901 KB · 10 pages XML JATS full text 30 KB · machine readable
DOI 10.32890/jbma2016.6.2.8832 Cite this article
Citations
0
No citations recorded yet
Reads
353
Abstract + full text
Downloads
255 +1
PDF and XML

Article

Abstract

The increasing concern over corruption in developing countries has been associated with the inability of Anti-Corruption Agencies (ACAs) to tackle corruption. The ineffectiveness of these ACAs is said to be influenced by several factors including the underutilization of forensic accounting in fraud investigation process. This article focuses on the identification of these factors and their influences on the adoption of forensic accounting by ACAs. This was done through the review of literature and proposing a framework for further in-depth research work. The conceptual framework highlights the antecedent influence of political will on these factors and their influences on the adoption of forensic accounting. The implication is that identifying these factors through further in-depth studies will contribute to the insufficient research work on the adoption of forensic accounting and help policy makers to enhance the performance of these agencies.

Keywords
ACAs corruption forensic accounting political will

How to Cite

How to Cite

The Influence of Institutional and Contingency Factors on the Adoption of Forensic Accounting by Anti-Corruption Agencies: A Proposed Framework. (2016). Journal of Business Management and Accounting, 6(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.32890/jbma2016.6.2.8832

Metrics & impact

Citations by source

Harvested 02-09-2026

Counts differ by index because each source crawls a different corpus. Crossref counts only registered reference lists; Google Scholar includes theses, preprints and grey literature.

OpenAlex
0
Open corpus, updated daily View →
OpenCitations
0
Open references only View →
Crossref
0
Deposited reference lists only View →
Scopus
0 Not indexed
Indexed titles only View →
Google Scholar
Publishes no citation count that can be read automatically.
Includes theses and preprints Search →
Dimensions
Publishes no citation count that can be read automatically.
Includes policy documents Search →

Reads & downloads

Abstract views 353
PDF downloads 255
XML downloads 0
Counted under COUNTER Release 5 rules; known robots excluded.

Attention beyond citation

Field-weighted citation impact 0.00
Works this article cites 34

From OpenAlex. A field-weighted impact of 1.00 is the world average for work of the same field, type and year. No Altmetric key is configured, so news, policy and social attention are not shown.

Identifiers
DOI · 10.32890/jbma2016.6.2.8832
OpenAlex · W2946232332

References

References 36
Deposited to Crossref with the article DOI
  1. Ahmadi, H., Nilashi, M., & Ibrahim, O. (2015). Organizational decision to adopt hospital information system: An empirical investigation in the case of Malaysian public hospitals. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 84(3), 166–188.
  2. Bierstaker, J. L., Brody, R., & Pacini, C. (2006). Accountants’ perceptions regarding fraud detection and prevention methods. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(5), 520–535.
  3. Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2010). Unpacking the concept of political will to confront corruption. U4 Brief, 2010:1, 1-4.
  4. Chor, K. H. B., Wisdom, J. P., Olin, S. C. S., Hoagwood, K. E., & Horwitz, S. M. (2015). Measures for predictors of innovation adoption. administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research, 42(5), 545–573.
  5. Ciganek, A. P., Haseman, W. (Dave), & Ramamurthy, K. (2014). Time to decision: The drivers of innovation adoption decisions. Enterprise Information Systems, 8(2), 279–308.
  6. Daddi, T., Testa, F., Frey, M., & Iraldo, F. (2016). Exploring the link between institutional pressures and environmental management systems effectiveness: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Management. 183(3) 647-656. doi: 10.1016/j. jenvman.2016.09.025. Epub 2016 Sep 13.
  7. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.
  8. Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 215–236.
  9. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
  10. Doig, A., Watt, D., & Williams, R. (2007). Why do developing country anti-corruption commissions fail to deal with corruption? Understanding the three dilemmas of organisational development, performance expectation, and donor and government cycles. Public Administration and Development, 27(3), 251–259.
  11. Donaldson, L. (2006). The contingency theory of organizational design: challenges and opportunities. Organization Design, 6(4), 19–40. New York: Springer.
  12. Gould, D. J., & Mukendi, T. B. (1989). Bureaucratic corruption in Africa: Causes, consequences and remedies. International Journal of Public Administration, 12(3), 427–457.
  13. Gregory, R. (2015). Political independence, operational impartiality, and the effectiveness of anti-corruption agencies. Asian Education and Development Studies, 4(1), 125–142.
  14. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper Echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
  15. Hameed, M. A., Counsell, S., & Swift, S. (2012). A meta-analysis of relationships between organizational characteristics and IT innovation adoption in organizations. Information and Management, 49(5), 218–232. The Influence of Institutional and Contingency Factors on the Adoption of Forensic Accounting by Anti-Corruption Agencies: 9 A Proposed Framework : 1-
  16. Hanna, R., Bishop, S., Nadel, S., Scheffler, G., & Durlacher, K. (2011). The effectiveness of anti-corruption policy: What has worked, what hasn"t, and what we don"t know–a systematic review. Technical Report. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, pp. 1-121.
  17. Heeks, R., & Mathisen, H. (2012). Understanding success and failure of anti-corruption initiatives. Crime, Law and Social Change, 58(5), 533–549.
  18. Heilbrunn, J. R. (2004). Anti-Corruption Commissions Panacea or Real Medicine to Fight Corruption ? (37234). The World Bank Institute. Washington DC, pp.1-18.
  19. Kapoor, K. K., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Williams, M. D. (2014). Rogers’ innovation adoption attributes: A systematic review and synthesis of existing research. Information Systems Management, 31(1), 74–91.
  20. Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and andministrative innovations. The Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 689–713.
  21. Meagher, P. (2005). Anti-corruption agencies: Rhetoric versus reality. The Journal of Policy Reform, 8(1), 69–103.
  22. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340.
  23. Muthusamy, G. (2011). Behavioral Intention to Use Forensic Accounting Services for the detection and prevention of fraud by large malaysian companies. Ph.D Thesis. Curtin University of Technology January.
  24. Ogbu, O. (2010). Combating corruption in Nigeria: A critical appraisal of the laws, institutions, and the political will. Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law, 14(1), 1-52.
  25. Okogbule, N. S. (2006). An appraisal of the legal and institutional framework for combating corruption in Nigeria. Journal of Financial Crime, 13(1), 92–106.
  26. Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013). Why anticorruption reforms fail-systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance, 26(3), 449–471.
  27. Quah, J. S. T. (2009). Benchmarking for excellence: A comparative analysis of seven asian anti-corruption agencies. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 31(2), 171–195.
  28. Quah, J. S. T. (2013a). Different paths to curbing corruption: A comparative analysis. Different Paths to Curbing Corruption. pp. 219–255.
  29. Quah, J. S. T. (2013b). Introduction: Different paths to curbing corruption. In J. S. T. Quah (Ed.), Different Paths to Curbing Corruption. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 1–22.
  30. Quah, J. S. T. (2015a). Evaluating the effectiveness of anti-corruption agencies in five Asian countries. Asian Education and Development Studies, 4(1), 143–159.
  31. Quah, J. S. T. (2015b). Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau: Four suggestions for enhancing its effcetiveness. Asian Education and Development Studies, 4(1), 76–100.
  32. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press, pp. 1-576.
  33. Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76(3), 399–457.
  34. Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2012). Management innovation and leadership: The moderating role of organizational size. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 28–51.
  35. Vanacker, T., Collewaert, V., & Zahra, S. A. (2016). Slack resources, firm performance and the institutional context: Evidence from privately held European firms. Strategic Management Journal. 38 (6), 1305-1326.
  36. Volberda, H. W., Van Der Weerdt, N., Verwaal, E., Stienstra, M., & Verdu, A. J. (2012). Contingency fit, institutional fit, and firm performance: A metafit approach to organization-environment relationships. Organization Science, 23(4), 1040–1054.

Most read articles by the same author(s)