<p> </p><p><strong>Sammanfattning</strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Problem och bakgrund: </strong>Bokföringsnämnden (BFN) har arbetat fram ett regelverk för de enskilda näringsidkare som bör implementeras från den 1 januari 2007. Syftet anses vara bland annat att underlätta den administrativa bördan. Huvudfrågan som ställs i denna studie är en undran om, till vilken grad har användbarheten av K1 regelverket för de enskilda näringsidkarna förändrat redovisningsarbetet? De andra nyckelfrågorna är, har en effektivisering skett av redovisningsarbetet samt har det lett till väsentliga kostnadsbesparingar vad gäller den administrativa bördan?</p><p><strong>Syfte:</strong> Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka huruvida K1 regelverket har förenklat den administrativa arbetsbördan för enskilda näringsidkare, samt om det skett en effektivisering av arbetet med redovisningen.</p><p><strong>Metod: </strong>Studien tillämpar huvudsakligen den deduktiva forskningsmetoden med hjälp av statistisk datasamling. Detta innebär att studien utgår från en kvantitativ enkätundersökning med ett slumpmässigt urval av respondenter.</p><p><strong>Referensram: </strong>I studiens teoretiska referensram presenteras olika interrelaterade teorier som belyser K1 regelverkets motiv och funktion samt dess betydelse för redovisningen för de enskilda näringsidkarna i ett bredare perspektiv.<strong></strong></p><p><strong>Slutsats: </strong>Studiens syfte var att försöka förklara användbarheten av det nya K1 regelverket i samband med praktiken. Hur K1 regelverket har bidragit till en enklare redovisning och hur den har reducerat de administrativa kostnaderna.</p><p>Studiens resultat visar att det förenklade årsbokslutet används i väldigt liten skala bland deltagande respondenter i undersökningen. Största orsaken till att K1 regelverket inte används i den utsträckning som förväntats är bristen på information och kunskap hos de enskilda näringsidkarna om K1:s strukturella form och funktion. Då få respondenter använder sig av ett förenklat årsbokslut, blev det svårt att på ett adekvat sätt besvara hur väl det lett till att de administrativa kostnaderna har minskats.</p> / <p> </p><p><strong>Abstract</strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Problem and background:</strong> The Swedish Accounting Standards Board (BFN) has issued a set of standards for small businesses that have been implemented since January the 1^st 2007. The purpose of these standards is to facilitate and simply the administrative burden. This study poses the question "To what extent has the usability of the K1 framework for small businesses changed the accounting workload? Has there been a streamlining of the accounting workload and has it led to significant cost savings in terms of administrative burden."</p><p><strong>Aim of this study:</strong> The aim of this study is to investigate whether the K1 framework has simplified the administrative workload for small businesses, and if it has led to a streamlining of the process of accounting.</p><p><strong>Method:</strong> The study applies mostly to the deductive research method with the aid of statistical data collection. This means that the study is based on a quantitative survey of a random sample of respondents.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Frame of references:</strong> In the study's theoretical frame of reference various inter-related theories are presented, highlighting the motives behind the K1 framework as well as its functions and its importance to the workload in preparing the financial statements for sole trade businesses in a broader perspective.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> The study's main objective was to try to explain the usefulness of the new K1 framework in the context of its use in practice. How the K1 framework contributed to a simpler accounting and how it has reduced the administrative costs.</p><p>The results of the study show that only a small set of the respondents to the survey use the simplified annual accounts from the K1 framework. The principal reason that the K1 framework is not used to the extent expected, is due to the lack of awareness by the small businesses on the K1 framework's structural form and function. It is evident that more could have been done to widen the knowledge and information on the K1 framework. Given that only a small subset of the respondents use the simplified annual accounts from the K1 framework, it is not adequate to conclude on how well the framework has been used to lessen the administrative costs and burdens.</p>

Nachdem die deutsche Ministerialverwaltung seit nunmehr zwei Jahrzehnten die Anwendung von Folgenabschätzungen weitestgehend ignoriert hat, beschloss das Bundeskabinett im April 2006 ein neues Instrument der better regulation einzuführen: das Standardkosten-Modell (SKM). Ziel der vorliegenden Studie ist es, die Wirksamkeit dieses Instruments zu untersuchen. Dazu wird ein qualitativer Bewertungsmaßstab deduktiv hergeleitet, operationalisiert und empirisch getestet. Das SKM wird demzufolge dann als wirksam erachtet, wenn es 1.) das Kräfteverhältnis zwischen Regulierungsbefürwortern und Regulierungsskeptikern zu Gunsten Letzterer verschiebt und 2.) mit der Einführung des Instruments die Weichen für einen Wandel der Regulierungskultur in der Ministerialverwaltung gestellt werden. Es zeigt sich, dass das Instrument gemäß Annahme 1 als Erfolg bewertet werden kann. Allerdings relativiert sich das Ergebnis, da Annahme 2 nicht erfüllt wird. / After the ministries in Germany have kept ignoring the appliance of impact assessments for more than two decades, the German government decided in April 2006 to introduce a new ‘better regulation’ tool: the Standard Cost Model (SCM). This paper is going to evaluate the SCM’s effectiveness. For this purpose, a qualitative “measure” of success is going to be deductively developed, operationalized, and empirically tested. Hence, the SCM is regarded to be effective if it 1.) shifts the balance of power between regulation supporters and regulation skeptics in favor of the latter and if the SCM 2.) introduces a change of the regulatory culture within public administration. As a result, it turns out that the instrument with respect to hypothesis 1 can be evaluated as a success. However, this success has to be put into perspective because hypothesis 2 does not apply.

Sammanfattning Problem och bakgrund: Bokföringsnämnden (BFN) har arbetat fram ett regelverk för de enskilda näringsidkare som bör implementeras från den 1 januari 2007. Syftet anses vara bland annat att underlätta den administrativa bördan. Huvudfrågan som ställs i denna studie är en undran om, till vilken grad har användbarheten av K1 regelverket för de enskilda näringsidkarna förändrat redovisningsarbetet? De andra nyckelfrågorna är, har en effektivisering skett av redovisningsarbetet samt har det lett till väsentliga kostnadsbesparingar vad gäller den administrativa bördan? Syfte: Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka huruvida K1 regelverket har förenklat den administrativa arbetsbördan för enskilda näringsidkare, samt om det skett en effektivisering av arbetet med redovisningen. Metod: Studien tillämpar huvudsakligen den deduktiva forskningsmetoden med hjälp av statistisk datasamling. Detta innebär att studien utgår från en kvantitativ enkätundersökning med ett slumpmässigt urval av respondenter. Referensram: I studiens teoretiska referensram presenteras olika interrelaterade teorier som belyser K1 regelverkets motiv och funktion samt dess betydelse för redovisningen för de enskilda näringsidkarna i ett bredare perspektiv. Slutsats: Studiens syfte var att försöka förklara användbarheten av det nya K1 regelverket i samband med praktiken. Hur K1 regelverket har bidragit till en enklare redovisning och hur den har reducerat de administrativa kostnaderna. Studiens resultat visar att det förenklade årsbokslutet används i väldigt liten skala bland deltagande respondenter i undersökningen. Största orsaken till att K1 regelverket inte används i den utsträckning som förväntats är bristen på information och kunskap hos de enskilda näringsidkarna om K1:s strukturella form och funktion. Då få respondenter använder sig av ett förenklat årsbokslut, blev det svårt att på ett adekvat sätt besvara hur väl det lett till att de administrativa kostnaderna har minskats. / Abstract Problem and background: The Swedish Accounting Standards Board (BFN) has issued a set of standards for small businesses that have been implemented since January the 1st 2007. The purpose of these standards is to facilitate and simply the administrative burden. This study poses the question "To what extent has the usability of the K1 framework for small businesses changed the accounting workload? Has there been a streamlining of the accounting workload and has it led to significant cost savings in terms of administrative burden." Aim of this study: The aim of this study is to investigate whether the K1 framework has simplified the administrative workload for small businesses, and if it has led to a streamlining of the process of accounting. Method: The study applies mostly to the deductive research method with the aid of statistical data collection. This means that the study is based on a quantitative survey of a random sample of respondents.   Frame of references: In the study's theoretical frame of reference various inter-related theories are presented, highlighting the motives behind the K1 framework as well as its functions and its importance to the workload in preparing the financial statements for sole trade businesses in a broader perspective.   Conclusion: The study's main objective was to try to explain the usefulness of the new K1 framework in the context of its use in practice. How the K1 framework contributed to a simpler accounting and how it has reduced the administrative costs. The results of the study show that only a small set of the respondents to the survey use the simplified annual accounts from the K1 framework. The principal reason that the K1 framework is not used to the extent expected, is due to the lack of awareness by the small businesses on the K1 framework's structural form and function. It is evident that more could have been done to widen the knowledge and information on the K1 framework. Given that only a small subset of the respondents use the simplified annual accounts from the K1 framework, it is not adequate to conclude on how well the framework has been used to lessen the administrative costs and burdens.

In the United States, some states and higher education institutions allow undocumented students to pay in-state resident tuition at public colleges and universities. Yet, when undocumented youth apply and seek to qualify for in-state tuition, they find bureaucratic procedures and rules that may discourage them from applying at all, delay, or hamper their access to higher education. The study explores how such bureaucratic requirements impose learning, compliance, and psychological burdens on undocumented youth. Building upon administrative burdens scholarship and using qualitative and quantitative analyses of admissions applications at the institutional level, undocumented students reports' of their experiences, and surveys of college admissions officers, this study examines the admissions requirements and other factors that may shape the applications of undocumented students to colleges in the states providing ISRT benefits for undocumented youth. The findings suggest that undocumented youth navigate multifaceted institutional contexts across and within states, including requirements and rules at different organizational levels and interactions with admissions officers whose discretion may facilitate or obstruct access. Variations in ISRT requirements reflect states' patterns of immigration, demographics, political (sub) cultures, narratives about the deservingness, organizational factors as well as the discretion that college personnel has in applying the requirements. Findings suggest that factors associated with residency, notarized affidavits, tax forms, and lack of clear information and guidance from college personnel substantially increase burdens when undocumented youth seek to benefit from ISRT. Certainly, when states, institutions, and admissions officers establish and shape ISRT requirements, they implicitly influence the sense of belonging and membership of undocumented applicants and mediate intergovernmental tension surrounding legalization and inclusion of this population in society. / Doctor of Philosophy / Bureaucratic requirements and rules at some public colleges and universities in the United States may hamper the ability of undocumented immigrants to apply for admission and qualify for in-state resident tuition in the states and colleges that allow it. This study explores how such bureaucratic requirements impose learning, compliance, and psychological burdens on undocumented youth and the factors associated with such burdens. The study examines admissions applications in community colleges in the states where the benefit is available, interviews and surveys with undocumented youth as well as surveys of colleges admissions officers. The findings show that the administrative burdens that undocumented youth faces result from requirements and rules that overlap at different organizational levels, several policy interpretations, the intertwine between immigration and higher education policies, perceptions of such population's deservingness, and the discretion of admissions officers. Through these requirements, states and colleges shape the sense of belonging of immigrant youth and chart their legal and social inclusion.

This thesis investigates the factors that affect the take-up of statutory digital reporting of statutory accounts and returns to the tax authority (HM Revenue and Customs) and voluntary digital reporting to the company registry (Companies House) by small private companies in the UK. In doing so, it identifies the costs and benefits of this innovation from the perspectives of the filers and those using the digital information. The first stage of the study comprised 16 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders: HMRC, Companies House, the external iXBRL consultant at HMRC, filing software suppliers, and accountants in business and practice. The interview data was analysed thematically, aided by NVivo. The second stage involved an online survey of 343 ACCA members working in small companies or in practices with small company clients. The survey data were analysed using the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) method. As hypothesised, the results show a significant positive association between digital reporting and the company having the technological competence and between digital reporting and support for this from top management. As predicted, there is evidence of a significant negative association between digital reporting and the complexity of the process, and between digital reporting and the cost of technology. However, the study finds no evidence of a significant association between digital reporting and compatibility of digital reporting with the company’s accounting system, statutory requirements with government, or network effects. The results provide evidence of a significant positive association between digital reporting and benefits to filers, and between digital reporting and benefits to those using the digital corporate data. The latter association is mediated by the digital search and data services provided by Companies House. To the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to investigate digital reporting to HMRC after it became mandatory for small companies in the UK. The study contributes to the emerging literature by extending our knowledge of the costs and benefits of digital reporting by small companies. It contributes to theory by developing and validating a theoretical model of the factors affecting the take-up of digital reporting and by extending the model to provide further understanding of this technology. The results should be of interest to the directors of small companies and their accountants. They will also be of interest to policy makers seeking to reduce the administrative burdens on smaller entities in the UK and to regulators in other jurisdictions planning for digital reporting initiatives.