Eric Melse

Maastricht Accounting, Auditing & Information Management Research Center (MARC)

TIME AND THE DIMENSIONS OF THE ECONOMIC

ACCOUNTING SYSTEM: A MEREOLOGICAL EXPLORATION

Abstract
This paper explores the need, purpose and possible implementation of momentum
accounting as part of the accounting framework. We believe that accounting has
positive effects on the financial and economic aspects of corporate and social life.
Nevertheless, it has become necessary to include financial and economic measure-
ments into the accounting framework as to meet the growing demand for more for-
ward-looking information for decision-making purposes as well as for auditing and
corporate governance. Including a momentum dimension into the system of accounts
transcends accounting from a description of the financial position of a business entity
to a more complete economic expression of its trajectory in time. Momentum ac-
counting expresses a Newtonian space-time reality of economic entities. This paper
considers a geometric solution of the problem of how to define the foundation of the
accounting system. A particular logic—mereology—is applied that describes the so-
called 'parts–whole relation' that we see foundational to economic accounting. We
demonstrate that the three accounting dimensions, as identified by Ijiri, all are a tem-
poral expression of a closed system of accounts that follows from the generality as-
sumption (Lim) and the duality assumption (Mattessich) that is foundational to the
measurement system of economic accounting. We conclude by noting that momen-
tum accounting is applicable to corporate governance, auditing, financial accounting,
management control & accounting and, possibly, social accounting.

1. Introduction
Economic accounting is the science of the systematic recording, summa-
rization, categorization and interpretation of the economic activities of
an economic unit (Correa 1977, p. 4). The logic proposed by mereology,
we discuss in the next section, is of crucial importance to study the
foundation of the measurement system that can be used in ‘general ac-
counting theory’. With ‘general’ we mean to say that the measurement
system applies to the accounting of transactions that affect the net worth
of the micro as well as the macro-economic unit (Correa ibid. p. 14-17).
With double-entry accounting we measure (net) wealth of a company, of
2 Eric Melse

sectors, and the economy on a national level (United Nations 2000). The
application of double-entry accounting as an economic measurement sys-
tem therefore is of importance because it is the warp onto which the
weft of socio-economic action is woven. Moreover, it is possibly the only
mathematical model that is globally and commonly accepted. In that
sense, accounting offers indeed a ‘map’ from which we not only are able
to read how far we have traveled, but from which we also should be able
to plot how far and whereto we can travel. That is the potential that the
methodological advance Ijiri proposed has to offer once we formalize it
as an ex ante system.

2. Momentum accounting and the AIS

Yuji Ijiri (1967, 1975, 1995) recognizes the deficiencies in traditional ac-
counting systems, but on the other hand realizes that their benefits may
outweigh them. His framework is that of accountability (Ijiri 1981,
1983, 1988a). We have to understand this in a conceptual and a contrac-
tual manner. Bookkeeping should force (Ijiri 1982, p. 9): ‘people to “ac-
count for” the present status by a suitable set of capital accounts that
captures past events that led to the present status’. The focus of his ac-
countability framework is on the relationship between the accountor (i.e.
the controller), the supplier of accounting information, and its user, the
accountee (i.e. the manager). Ijiri does not perceive the user of account-
ing information simply as only the decision-maker. Rather, he recognizes
parties who are involved in a bi-directional relationship of accountability
with a scope internal to the firm (control) or external (governance). The
accountant is the third party who assures ‘a smooth flow of the required
information’ in either case (Ijiri 1983). Records and reports are the two
basic tools to accomplish these objectives. He also distinguishes between
two types of managers: capital managers and resource managers, who
differ in their information needs (Ijiri 1995). Financial statements, the
aforementioned reports, may be suitable for capital managers. Databases
that hold the records can better serve resource managers since these
sources of information are concrete, disaggregated, and heterogeneous.
However, complication does arise in this conceptual separation because
in larger corporations capital managers often function as ‘super-resource
managers’, funding, managing, evaluating and supervising. Information
thus remains an ambiguous internal need. It is because of the ever in-
creasing data storage and computing capacity that the accounting infor-
 Time and the dimensions of the economic accounting system... 3

Budget Data Dynamic

Statement Business
Potential Model

=
Performance Planning ex ante

Control: backward-looking information

Planning: forward-looking information

Momentum
Statement Strategic control
Accounting Period
Information Decision-Making
System (AIS)
+
Tactical control
Action
Statement Management Action
Period Operational control

= Performance Management

Income Business realization

Statement
Performance Measurement ex post
Wealth Period
Statement
Past
Wealth
Economic Managerial
Statement
Performance Performance
Present Data

Figure 1 Business performance management process flow (solid lines) & data flow (dashed lines)
with the financial statements of Ijiri’s framework and their temporal connotation.

mation system (AIS) is designed and used with more flexibility as to

manage the value cycle (Vaassen 2002). These new technological capa-
bilities should drive the further development of a general accounting
theory. The current use of financial statements hardly exploits the in-
creased power of computing; not conceptually, methodologically, or
technically. In spite of this, extending it with momentum and force
statements does offer an improvement of the internal and external re-
porting cycle because we improve corporate disclosure of the causes and
realization of business performance (Blommaert 1994, 1995).
Modern business performance management requires a well organ-
ized planning and control cycle where both economic and managerial
performance is part of the process flow and the data flow (Figure 1).
Within Ijiri’s accountability framework, the granularity of data is as
much subject of research as its role as quantitative input to decision
processes of an inevitable qualitative nature. Ijiri believes that research
on the theoretical front implies a streamlining of theories and practices,
notably those of financial accounting, management accounting and fund
accounting. He proposes a system of accounting with three dimensions
4 Eric Melse

as the framework under which various theories, principles, and stan-

dards may be integrated (Ijiri 1982, p. 49, 1986, Figure 2). Beside wealth
and income, he proposes force as a more reliable and relevant alternative
to our current ‘point-and-period’ measurement to meet the demand for
more forward-looking information about business dynamics (Ijiri 1982,
1987, 1988b, 1988c, 1989). The fundamental notion is to account for
the income capacity of a firm in terms of levels rather then differences.
Ijiri seeks at any particular point in time to report the rate of growth in-
stead of (only) explaining the growth of net wealth as the lump sum dif-
ference of capital accounts of the previous measurement point. This he
calls the momentum by which net wealth changes or the growth rate per
period (year, month, week or even by day). By comparison with car driv-
ing, Ijiri wants to measure the speed at which the car travels instead of
only measuring the distance traveled so far (Melse 2004a). When aggre-
gated, income momentum equals the annual income reported with the
profit and loss statement. His objective is to account for existing mo-
mentum and new momentums gained or spend by management (action)
during the period in between the opening and closing balance sheet. He
wants to reward management differently for maintaining existing mo-
mentum and for any action that they undertook to create momentum
anew.
Briefly summarized, Ijiri presents a system of interlocking account-
ing measurements—force, momentum & wealth—with their fundamen-
tal axes time and component, or category (1989 Ch. 1). Figure 1 in-
cludes the financial statements of each accounting measurement that are
structurally and temporally related by time-point (τ ), time-period (π ),
rate of change (π ), and, finally, the change of the rate of change (2 π ).

Wealth
Debit WEALTH
τ Statement
↓↓↓
↓↓↓

Momentum
Credit MOMENTUM INCOME
∆π π Statements
↓↓↓
↓↓↓

↓↓↓

Force
Trebit FORCE IMPULSE ACTION
∆2π ∆π π Statements

Force Momentum Wealth

Accounting Accounting Accounting

Figure 2 Dynamic temporal relations of the three accounting dimensions of Ijiri’s framework for
triple-entry bookkeeping and their financial statements (based on Ijiri 1986, p. 749).
 Time and the dimensions of the economic accounting system... 5

3. Formal logic, Ontology & Mereology

Often, authors used logic to formalize their analysis of the foundations
of the accounting system, its models and conceptual framework. Ryan
et al. (1993) recommend formal logic as a method of analysis in account-
ing. Examples of earlier publications that applied formal or mathemati-
cal logic discussing accounting theory are Deguchi et al. (1986), Eaves
(1966), Ijiri (1965), Littleton (1938, 1953), Schmidt (1949) and Sterling
(1967, 1970). Mattessich axiomatized the accounting system in several
publications with logic and through set theoretical analysis; an alterna-
tive approach that is not explored in this paper (1957, 1978, 1995, et al.
2000). Carlson et al. (1981) constructed an accounting vocabulary from
a system of predicate logic with six primitive terms. They deduce from
their axioms the outline of a structural framework for accounting theo-
rems and extend it with logic for (financial) accounting. DePree (1989)
applied mathematical logic to test and evaluate the conceptual frame-
work of accounting. We subscribe to this approach because it allows us
to reason about the structural features of the financial accounting sys-
tem, its dimensions and their temporal properties.
Formal ontology, was first used by the philosopher Edmund Husserl
(2001, 1900/1901), in his Logical Investigations to connote the study of
formal structures and relations which are exemplified in the subject-
matters of the different material sciences, above all relations of part and
whole (Smith 1998). He draws a distinction between formal logic and
formal ontology. Formal logic examines the interconnections of truths or
prepositional meanings in general whereas formal ontology examines the
interconnections of things, with objects and properties, parts and
wholes, relations and collectives. Formal ontology is not limited to the
concern of mereology of vertical relations between parts and wholes as
to understand them on successive levels of comprehensiveness (Lewis
1991). Rather, Husserl’s theory is concerned also with the horizontal re-
lations between co-existing parts, relations that serve to give unity or in-
tegrity to the wholes in question (Smith 1998). Some parts of a whole
exist simply side-by-side. Such parts may possibly be destroyed or re-
moved from the whole without impairment to the remainder. Such a
whole we call an aggregate, or a summative whole. Super viciously, the
accounting theorist might now jump to the conclusion that a financial
account meets this definition since that is an aggregate—we will shortly
show that this is not the case. Husserl posits, that there are many
wholes, which manifest any kind of unity. Certain parts, or all of them,
6 Eric Melse

stand to each other in formal relations of what he calls necessary de-

pendence. Such parts, for example the individual instances of hue, satu-
ration and lightness are involved in bringing about a given impression of
color in the human brain (Nassau 1998). By necessity, the measurement
of the three dimensions of color renders the complementary parts of a
whole of the given type of phenomena. In other words, we cannot re-
move the hue part from the equation without ‘destroying’ the impression
of color: chromatic perception then degrades to achromatic perception
(Sacks & Wasserman 1987); by removing the part—the whole is de-
stroyed.
Both philosophies are of importance for accounting theory. The
generality assumption explicates the mereological concern of vertical re-
lations between parts and wholes when it refers to the logical organiza-
tion of individual accounting transactions by their property or ‘nature’
such that when measurements are concatenated (accrued) no conceptual
conflict occurs (Melse 2004b). The concern of formal ontology with the
horizontal relations between co-existing parts is relevant to accounting
theory as well because it pertains to the structure of accounting dimen-
sions and their temporal nature. In this paper, for our line of reasoning,
we understand mereology to include (1) the logic of vertical relations
that embraces the categorical organization of accounts (generality, Lim
1966, p. 646); (2) the structural logic required to account transactional
economic relations (duality, Mattessich 1995, p. 96 note 11); (3) and the
dynamic logic that bears on the nature of the measurement system of
economic accounting (temporality, Ijiri 1989, Ch. 3).
To explain how the main premise of mereology applies to the theory
of accounting measurement, we present a straightforward example
(Sowa 2000, p. 109-113). Consider a line of certain length (Figure 3a).
The mereologist then asks to draw an arrow point at the middle of this
line (Figure 3b). Next, the mereologist divides the line in two separate
parts of equal length (Figure 3c). Then the question is raised: ‘where is
the middle now?’ This question is possible somewhat puzzling. Did it go
to the left part or to the right part? Or, is it divided into two parts dur-
ing the division of the whole line? And if so, is half of that middle now
at the right end of the left line and the other half at the left end of the
right line? Or, instead, has the middle disappeared all together since the
two new lines each now have their own middle? The mereologist allevi-
ates us from the anxiety raised by these questions by explaining that ‘the
middle’ is not a part of this “whole” line (Figure 3b). The mereologist
sees the middle as a mental construct—not a point at, or part of, the
 Time and the dimensions of the economic accounting system... 7

b
↑

Figure 3 The ‘parts-and-whole’ relationship of a line.

line—a location without a coordinate on the line. The middle is located

on the line in between the coordinates of the right end of the left half
line and the coordinates of the left end of the right half line. We can per-
ceive the ‘middle’ in the same manner as the mathematical concept of a
line of infinite length. The point where the end or start is of such a line
with infinite length we never shall reach; should we try, the line simply
continues infinitely in either direction. Very much the same conclusion
we can reach when we ponder about the materiality of a line. How thick
is it? Is that question decided when we have ordered atoms nicely in a
line (that is part of a two dimensional periodic arrangement of line seg-
ments, Nienhuis 1998, p. 273)? If so, what atoms should we use, those
with the smallest or the widest radius? Or should we order subatomic
particles to get the ultimate line? These (unanswered) questions serve to
demonstrate that although we have to think materially when we study
‘parts-whole’ relations, the philosophy proposed and the properties of
world phenomena investigated are nevertheless highly conceptual.

4. A mereological exploration of economic time

Let us now return to the subject of economic time as a mereological con-
struct. Tarski, the Polish logician and mathematician, formalized Euclid-
ian geometry within the framework of formal logic, which lends itself
rather easily for a mereological approach to the definition of economic
time and the accounting dimensions as parts of a continuous and infinite
whole (Tarski & Givant 1999, p. 185).
First-order variables a, b, c, … x, y, z (denoted by lower case Ro-
man letters) are used to formalize, and are assumed to range over points
(or parts for our purpose). To express that the relation holds of between-
ness (“being the middle of”) among points a, b, and c, Tarski writes
8 Eric Melse

B(abc), B for between-ness where b is between a and c. The regular logi-

cal symbols of the language include equality =, the sentential connectives
of conjunction
, disjunction , negation , implication  and, respec-
tively, the universal quantifier ∀, and the existential quantifier ∃.

Figure 4 Tarski’s Axiom of Continuity.

Stipulating that we have to count time discretely, we can think of

each point in time as a distinct and discrete part. Geometrically, we de-
pict this as a tiny dot although any other shape suffices. The next point
in time is another dot. Both are ordered in such manner that a line is
formed, a temporal line. To formally describe such a temporal line that
runs from an infinite past to an infinite future we apply Tarski’s Axiom
of Continuity (ibid., Figure 4):
(1) ∃a ∀x ∀y [x  X
y  Y  B(axy)]
∃b ∀x ∀y [x  X
y  Y  B(xby)]
Which asserts that any two sets X and Y are separated by some point b
such that the elements of X precede the elements of Y with respect to
some point a, that is B(axy), whenever x is in X and y is in Y. The vari-
ables X and Y are assumed to range over sets of points, which is equiva-
lent to a time period. Suppose that a and b are economic accounting’s
first dimensional points in time (i.e. a measurement of wealth), X is then
a second dimensional period in time (i.e. a measurement of change of
wealth; income). Y is the next period in time that can be understood to
be the current period since the future (next) wealth measurement is not
yet located. What is attractive of this straightforward axiom is that it al-
lows us to define discrete time points that can be concatenated (summed)
to a time period at any point or for any period. The general axiom can
be made specific ex post or ex ante and allows us to range over any set
of time points as we see fit.
Nevertheless, Tarski’s Axiom of Continuity is not sufficient to de-
fine a ‘middle’ that is not a part of the whole line in the interpretation of
the example previously explained. In other words, what we need are
points that are not parts but only ‘middles’ in between segments of time
(for a double-entry system to work, for a triple-entry system we need
both, as will be explained further down). To that purpose we require
 Time and the dimensions of the economic accounting system... 9

Figure 5 Tarski’s Axiom Schema of Continuity.

Tarski’s Axiom Schema of Continuity, formalized with (2), which asserts

that when some c exist, for all y, all x are in between, such that neither c
nor any y is an element of X (ibid., Figure 5). Also, we assert that when
some d exist, for set X, and Y, d is in between, such that d is neither an
element of X nor Y. The variables α and β in (2) are first-order formu-
las, the first of which does not contain any free occurrences of c, d, y
and the second does not contain any free occurrences of c, d, x:
(2) ∃c ∀x ∀y [α
β  B(cxy)]
 ∃d ∀x ∀y [α
β  B(xdy)]
(3) α = [c  α  d  α  y  α]
(4) β = [c  β  d  β  x  β]
The difference between (1) and (2) is how we want to perceive the
materiality of what is ‘in between’: should the middle be material or not?
Strange as this may sound, the balance sheet is out of time. In economic
time we must understand the middle to be immaterial. Accounting pro-
vides us with the reason for this: wealth is measured ‘at a particular
point’ in time. Suppose we close the accounts of a given year on Decem-
ber 31st, and, next, we prepare the balance sheet as of that date. All
transactions occurring on December 31st are, of course, included. The
closing and the opening balance sheet both occupy the same ‘middle’ in
between the two dates, in this case: December 31st and January 1st. A
wealth statement thus has a very particular temporal connotation, it
conceptually is a ‘part’ of last year (closing) and it is a ‘part’ of next year
(opening) as well, however, not really! On any temporal line, wealth is
the middle (Figure 3) and it is not part of that line (Figure 5), which is
not the same as stating that wealth has no parts! Indeed, wealth, of
course has parts, line items, components, to which Ijiri refers as one of
the ‘two fundamental axes that exist in the structure of accounting
measurements’ (1989, Ch. 1, Melse 2004b).
The mathematical and logical reason is that all events of any point
in time must accrue into their accounts. It also explains why the balance
sheet could be prepared continuously in a dynamic accounting model
since on the time line there is always a middle point in between two suc-
10 Eric Melse

cessive dates. Ijiri compares this to ‘sliced bread, each … representing the
book balances at the corresponding point in time’ (1989, Ch. 3.5). This
is key to the general foundation for two- and three-dimensional account-
ing ex ante. The ‘out of time’ temporal position of wealth measurement
has a very serious implication for momentum accounting. Ijiri (1989,
Ch. 5) wants to ‘somehow convert flows into stocks’ and seeks for a
complete and interlocking dynamic structure of accounting measure-
ments. When we indeed convert the flow dynamics of income measure-
ment, which is time-period specific, i.e. related to a series of calendar
dates, into a stock measurement of momentum, i.e. a rate of change per
time-period, we introduce a new middle point between the two succes-
sive series of dates X & Y, but one that belongs to the next period Y
(Figure 6). Momentum is a part that belongs to the time line in the fu-
ture, it is a potential recognized that can be accounted for, but one that
still has to materialize as it is positioned at a future date.

Figure 6 Axiom Schema of Continuity for Wealth (c & d) and the measurement of Force (a) & Mo-
mentum (b). Wealth and Force measurement is not part of the temporal line while Mo-
mentum measurement is.

In a dynamic accounting model wealth is measured in between time

points; a stock (Figure 6 c & d). Momentum measurement is a level that
is the rate of change temporally delimited by the unit of time applied in
the dynamic model (Figure 6 b). Momentum is thus a stock. When time
passes by day, momentum is the rate of change per day, when time runs
in the model with monthly increments, momentum is the rate of change
per month, etc. Its value is therefore temporally fixed for as long as the
smallest increment in time takes (day, month, etc.). This does not mean
momentum cannot be changed. It does change because of forces that act
upon it, increasing its level because of management action or decreasing
because of friction (Figure 2). This analysis of positive and negative
forces that have their impact on financial dynamics seems to offer great
potential to expand the applicability of momentum accounting into
other areas of management control. It does not take that much imagina-
tion to recognize such dynamics in areas like production, marketing or
human resource management. Indeed, Ijiri extended the concept of mo-
mentum accounting to brand management and marketing management
(Farquhar et al. 1992, Farquhar & Ijiri 1993).
 Time and the dimensions of the economic accounting system... 11

Our Axiom of Economic Accounting Time (5), based on aforemen-

tioned continuity axioms of Tarski, includes the four required variables
to measure force, momentum and wealth (Figure 6):
(5) ∃c ∀x ∀y [α
β  B(cxy)]
  ∃d ∀x ∀y [α
β  B(xdy)]
  ∃a ∀x ∀d [x  X  B(xad)]
  ∃b ∀d ∀y [b  Y
y  Y  B(dby)]
The variables α and β in (5) are the same first-order formulas as in
(2). This postulates the existence of stocks (d) that are not part of the
temporal line (wealth measurement), whereby forces (a) are permissible
that occur in between them and period parts (x). Such forces are materi-
ally and logically dependent on previous wealth measurement (c) and pe-
riod results (x), as to increase or decrease existing momentum (b) that
has a bearing on future period results (y).
We present an example of how the formulation of (5) can be
scripted as a geometrical implementation of three accounting dimen-
sions. Figure 7 is the representation of triple-entry and momentum ac-
counting following Ijiri’s general framework. The present period (π )
ranges its parts x (the second dimension) in between the past and present
point of wealth measurement (c and d respectively at τ -1 and τ , the first
dimension). Like (5) stipulates, part b that includes all momentum meas-
urements is calculated at the current time step (τ ) and part of the next
period (π +1 ). All these accounting measurements and their statements are
prepared ex post (Ijiri 1988a, 1988b).
Now, we open the door to ex ante measurement using a dynamic
accounting model. This is not in conflict with Ijiri’s theory. Suppose we
move along in time, say 3 days. Then 3 parts of y are present on the
temporal line in such manner that part b moves onwards to the fourth
day, still in the future, again representing the potential momentum. Ac-
tually, logically, a new part d is imagined to be the present point of
wealth measurement at the end of the present period (π ). In a dynamic
simulation we can now calculate a ‘rolling’ balance sheet, concatenating
the new period result of three days of y together with as many temporal
instances of b we have left in the present period. This can be used to pre-
pare the preliminary closing balance sheet (Blommaert 1994, p. 137).
Dynamic simulation of the accounting model can be extended even
further as to cover the whole potential period (π +1 ). Not only momen-
tum ranges over any potential period, like in Figure 7 b, but we also un-
12 Eric Melse

derstand the range of momenta to be unique parts, stocks at each future

time point. In this meaning, momentum accounting implements more
then one temporal part for the potential period (π +1 ). This allows the
treatment of variables of the accounting model in a dynamic manner.
For example, depreciation of fixed assets is then not just a single rate,
calculated at the present point in time, but a series of momenta, rates,
that all are treated as future stocks. Naturally, at any point in time, these
future rates can increase or decrease because of forces now recognized.
When the dynamic model includes such a series of momenta calculation
of wealth at the next potential point (b) is not just simply the result of
the multiplication of n-times the then current rate of change. Instead, the
model would compute a much fine temporal fabric of relations between
variables of the accounting model. Naturally, such a model would be
more advanced and therefore require a computer to simulate it. This
constraint is much less hard to overcome then to design a model that is
valid expression of business dynamics. Momentum accounting contrib-
utes the logic to account ex post and ex ante.
cx xxxxxxxxxdb
−n ... −9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 +1

τ −1 τ+1τ+1
Xπ Yπ +1

Past Present Present Present Potential

Point Period Point Potential Period
a BS IS BS MS ∆ IS

cx xxxxxxxxxdyyyb d

−n ... −9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 +1 +2 +3 +4

τ −2 τ −1 τ+1 τ +1
Xπ −1 Yπ +1

Past Past Past Present Present Present

Point Period Point Potential Period Point
b BS IS BS MS ∆ IS BS

cx xxxxxxxxxdbbbbbbbbbyyybd
−n ... −9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 ... +n

τ −2 τ −1 τ +1
Xπ −1 Yπ +1

Past Past Present Potential Potential

Point Period Point Period Point
c BS IS BS MS ∆ BS

Figure 7 Scripts of the measurement of the three accounting dimensions ex post and ex ante.
a. Wealth at past & present point (BS), income at present period (IS), momentum at pre-
sent potential (MS), included in the potential period (ex ante).
b. Same as a. except that the present period is being realized with momentum.
c. Same as a. except that momentum ranges over the whole potential period.
 Time and the dimensions of the economic accounting system... 13

5. Conclusion

We expect that the demand for and supply of financial measures as well
as non-financial business measures will continue to grow. Faced with
this demand, point-and-period measurement will no longer suffice for
either information category. To be able to assess continuously the state
and direction of business dynamics, measurement is required of the rate
of change of financial measures as well as non-financial business meas-
ures. Three-dimensional and momentum accounting are the basis of that
measurement and can be used for scenario analysis and decision-making
purposes. Once developed to its full potential, a dynamic momentum ac-
counting model could incorporate external and internal forces that drive
the business model. Momentum accounting is in our view applicable to
corporate governance, auditing, financial accounting, management con-
trol & accounting and, possibly, social accounting. In all these applica-
tions, momentum accounting can offer an integrated model to measure
wealth not only ex post but ex ante as well. Ijiri developed the concept
of momentum accounting as an extension of the regular framework of
double-entry accounting (Ijiri 1982, 1987). This is advantageous for
many reasons of a more formal nature and a more practical benefit is
that this offers a point of reference acceptable to all users of accounting
information while at the same time allowing us to include economic
variables in the model. Therefore, it is curious to observe that so far so
little work has been done to implement momentum accounting in aca-
demic curricula or in business practice. We hope that this paper contrib-
utes the new impulse to do just that.
————

The author thanks prof. dr. Tjeu Blommaert and prof. dr. Eddy Vaassen for their
helpful support and valuable comments during the research for this article.
14 Eric Melse

AICPA (1994). Improving business reporting. A customer focus. New York.

Bell T.B., F.O. Marrs, I. Solomon, H. Thomas (1997). Auditing organizations through a strategic-
systems lens. The KPMG business measurement process. KPMG LLP, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
Blommaert A.M.M. (1994). Additional disclosure. Triple-entry en Momentum Accounting. Stenfert
Kroese, Houten.
Blommaert A.M.M. (1995). ‘Additional disclosure triple-entry and momentum accounting.’ The Euro-
pean Accounting Review, Vol. 4, No. 3. pp. 580-581.
Carlson M.L., J.W. Lamb (1981). ’Constructing a theory of accounting—an axiomatic approach.’ The
Accounting Review. Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 554-573.
Correa H. (1977). Integrated economic accounting. D.C. Heath and Comp.
Deguchi et al. (1986). ‘Axiomatic foundations of vector accounting.’ H. Deguchi, B. Nakano, Systems
Research. Vol. 3, No. 1, 1986, pp. 31-39.
Demski J.S., Fellingham J.C., Ijiri Y., Sunder S. (2002). ‘Some thoughts on the intellectual foundations
of accounting.’ Accounting Horizons, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 157-168.
Eaves B.C. (1966). ‘Operational axiomatic accounting mechanics.’ The Accounting Review, Vol. 41,
No. 3, pp. 426-442.
Farquhar P.H., J.Y. Han, Y. Ijiri (1992), ‘Measuring brand momentum.’ Marketing Management, Vol.
1, No. 2, pp. 24–31.
Farquhar P.H., Y. Ijiri (1993), ‘A dialogue on momentum accounting for brand management.’ Interna-
tional Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 77-92.
FASB (2000). Electronic distribution of business reporting information. Business Reporting Research
Project, s.l.
Husserl, Edmund (2001). Logical investigations, translated by J.N. Findlay (originally published by
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970, London) from the second German edition of Logische Untersuchun-
gen, Halle, Niemeyer, 1900/1901.
Smith, Barry (1998). ‘The Basic tools of formal ontology.’ From: Guarino, N., ed., Formal ontology in
information systems: proceedings of the first international conference, June 6-8, Trento, pp. 19-28.
Ijiri Y. (1965). ‘Axioms and structures of conventional accounting measurement.’ The Accounting Re-
view, Vol. 41, No. 1, 1965, pp. 36-53.
Ijiri Y. (1967). The foundations of accounting measurement. A mathematical, economic, and behav-
ioral inquiry. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs.
Ijiri Y. (1971). ‘Axioms for historical cost valuation: A reply.’ Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 9,
No. 1, pp. 181-187.
Ijiri Y. (1975). Theory of accounting measurement. American Accounting Association, Sarasota.
Ijiri Y. (1981). Historical cost accounting and its rationality. Research Monograph, No. 1, Canadian
Certified General Accountants' Research Foundation, Vancouver.
Ijiri Y. (1982). Triple-entry bookkeeping and income momentum, Studies in Accounting Research
Vol. 18. American Accounting Association, Sarasota.
Ijiri Y. (1983). ‘On the accountability-based conceptual framework of accounting.’ Guest Editorial,
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 2, pp. 75-81.
Ijiri Y. (1986). ‘A framework for triple-entry bookkeeping.’ The Accounting Review, Vol. 61, No. 4,
pp. 745-759.
Ijiri Y. (1987). ‘Three postulates of momentum accounting.’ Accounting Horizons, March, pp. 25-34.
Ijiri Y. (1988a). ‘Creativity and accountability in management.’ In: Y. Ijiri, R.L. Kuhn [eds], New di-
rections in creative and innovative management. Bridging theory and practice. Vol. 7 of Series on
Econometrics and Management Sciences, Ballinger Publishing Comp., Cambridge MA.
Ijiri Y. (1988b). ‘Momentum accounting and managerial goals on impulses.’ Management Science, Vol.
34, No. 2, pp. 160-166.
Ijiri Y. (1988c). ‘Accounting matrices and three-dimensional arrays.’ Issues in Accounting Education,
Vol. 3, No. 2, Fall 1988, pp. 270-285.
 Time and the dimensions of the economic accounting system... 15

Ijiri Y. (1989). Momentum accounting and triple-entry bookkeeping: exploring the dynamic structure
of accounting measurements. Studies in Accounting Research Vol. 31. American Accounting Associa-
tion, Sarasota.
Ijiri Y. (1995). ‘Segment statements and informativeness measures: managing capital vs. managing re-
sources.’ Accounting Horizons, September 1995, pp. 55-67.
Lev B. (1999). ‘The boundaries of financial reporting and how to extend them.’ Journal of Accounting
Research, Vol. 37, No. 2 Autumn, pp. 353-386.
Lewis D. (1991), Parts of classes. Basil Blackwell, Oxford UK, Cambridge USA.
Littleton A.C. (1938). ‘Test for principles.’ The Accounting Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 16-24.
th
Littleton A.C. (1953). Structure of accounting theory. American Accounting Association, Sarasota, 13
printing 1985.
Lymer A., R. Debreceny, G.L. Gray, A. Rahman (1999). Business reporting on the Internet. A report
prepared for the International Accounting Standards Committee. IASC, s.l.
Mattessich R. (1995). Critique of accounting. Examination of the foundations and normative structure
of an applied discipline. Quorum Books, Westport/London.
Melse E. (2004a), ‘Accounting in three dimensions: a case for momentum’, Balance Sheet, Vol. 12, No.
1, pp. 31-36.
Melse E. (2004b). ‘What colour is your Balance Sheet? The relevance and explanatory power of wealth
accounts.’ Balance Sheet, Vol. 12, in press.
Nassau Kurt, ed., (1998), Color for science, art and technology. AZimuth series Vol. 1. North Hol-
land-Elsevier Science, Amsterdam etc.
Nienhuis Bernard (1998), ‘Exact solution of random tiling models.’ Physics Reports. Vol. 301, No. 1-
3, pp. 271-292,
Penman S.H. (2003) ‘The quality of financial statements Perspectives from the recent stock market
bubble.’ Accounting Horizons, Vol. 17 (Supplement), pp. 77-96.
Ryan B., Scapens R.W., Theobald M. (1993). Research method and methodology in finance and ac-
counting. Academic Press Ltd., London.
Sacks Oliver, Robert Wasserman (1987). ‘The case of the colorblind painter.’ New York Review of
Books, Vol. 34, No. 18, November 19.
Schmidt L.A. (1949). ‘Practical uses of the device of formal logic in accountants’ daily work.’ Journal
of Accountancy, pp. 378-380.
rd
Scott W.R. (2003). Financial accounting theory. Prentice Hall, 3 ed., Toronto.
SEC (2001). Do investors have the information they need? Report of an SEC task force. s.l.
Shubik M. (2002). Accounting and Economic Theory. SOM Working Paper No. AC-16, Yale School
of Management, New Haven.
Sowa John F. (2000), Knowledge representation: logical, philosophical, and computational founda-
tions. Brooks Cole, Thomson Learning, Pacific Grove etc.
Staubus George J. (2003), ‘The theory deficit in accounting.’ In: Mieczyslaw (ed.), General accounting
theory in statu nascendi. Kraków, Akademia Ekonomiczna, 2003, pp. 13-33.
Sterling R.R. (1967). ‘Elements of pure accounting theory.’ The Accounting Review, Vol. 42, No. 1,
pp. 62-73.
Sterling R.R. (1970). ‘On theory construction and verification.’ The Accounting Review, Vol. 45, No.
3, 1967, pp. 444-457.
Tarski A., S. Givant (1999). Tarski’s system of geometry. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 5, No.
2, June, pp. 175-214.
United Nations (2000). Links between business accounting and national accounting. Studies in meth-
ods. Series F, No. 76. Handbook of national accounting, New York.
Vaassen, Eddy (2002), Accounting Information Systems. A managerial approach. John Wiley & Sons
Ltd., Chichester.
Vergauwen P.G.M.C., S.N. Vandemaele (2001), Accounting in de “nieuwe economie”. MAB, April,
pp. 124-132.