chapter  9
Pages 24

It is perhaps regrettable that, even though a great deal of the ground was broken in the U.K. before the first signs of U.S. interest in cash flow reporting, the F ASB should be the first in the field with an accounting standard on cash flow reports. 1 The separate and earlier evolution of British contributions to cash flow analysis and reporting is well evidenced by a 400 page anthology edited by T.A.Lee (1993). The first of this collection of papers, a review article by the editor himself which was originally published in 1981, refers to 50 (mainly) "cash flow" contributions that had appeared in the two previous decades. Of these, about 30 can be counted as U.K. papers on aspects of cash flow reporting and analysis. The remaining 20 contributions were mainly by North American authors. Of these, three were directly concerned with the development of cash flow reporting per se (Ijiri, 1977, 1978 and 1979). The monograph by

In contrast to Lee's (1981) review, a review and synthesis article by Neill et al. (1991) cites 53 papers. Of these, 21 are mainly, though not entirely, U.S. contributions to the cash flow literature all of which appeared in, or after, 1980.2 A further notable feature of most of these papers is that, in rather stark contrast to the British activity on the cash flow reporting front, they closely followed the U.S. tradition of capital market-based "information content" accounting research. However, a "cash flow information content" paper by Bowen, Burgstahler and Daley (1986) goes a little outside the capital market research area. Bowen et at. report evidence which does not corroborate the F ASB's assertions that earnings provide better forecasts of future cash flows than do cash flow measurements.3