In Mexico, accounting harmonization has died. Although it is affirmed that the validity of its Law proves otherwise. However, there are other signs that indicate that the General Government Accounting Law is non-compliant and, therefore, meaningless. Ultimately, the approval of this Law only ratified the validity of the intellectual colonization that our country suffers. Yes, it was necessary to join the international trend, despite the fact that in Europe its process took several decades to implement and that the financial, human and material conditions were totally different. Moreover, it was necessary to be in accordance with the effect that Mexico ceased to be in the "tail" of the accounting harmonization. But with the approval of such Law it was only shown that it was preferred to be in the lion's tail and not be the head of a mouse.Given that it was preferred to implement not only an accounting system but to accept the vision and postulates of organizations and countries, leaders and developed, as if their thinking were synonymous with truth and applicable everywhere. And also, excluding other options to improve the accounting practice, and therefore, the audit and control practice generated from our country.
Genesis. The General Law of Government Accounting was approved on December 31, 2008.
Development. Deadlines were granted for its implementation. But, José Armando Plata, member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Government Control and Control Bodies, in June 2013, stated “The most serious thing is that the local governments will once again not be ready (…) he specified that, to the automatic integration of the budget year with the accounting operation, the deadline is for the states no later than June 30 of this year (2013), and for the municipalities, in June 2015 (…) deadlines that are unlikely to be fulfill ”(Mexico, in the queue of accounting harmonization: IMCP, El Economista, June 19, 2013, author's bold).
And certainly, in later years the reported advances were not as expected. And then, the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness, reported that according to the Index of Information on the Exercise of Spending (IIEG 2018) "All entities of the Republic violate the General Law of Government Accounting."
So, has the General Government Accounting Law benefited public entities? Nothing is known of the benefits despite their supposed importance. On the contrary, its breaches derived from the reviews and audits of the entities are known. And even academics affirm “The LGCG implemented in Mexico (…) being directed fundamentally to the government, its application in public institutions such as universities has negatively affected the development of some university processes, such as research and extension (…) Therefore, it is necessary for the Mexican context to establish specific accounting regulationsfor public institutions such as universities ”(A look at the Mexican LGCG, Luis Carlos Gámez, Roberto Joya and María Luz Ortiz, Retos de la Dirección, vol.9, No. 2 Camagüey Jul-Dec 2015, bold by the author).
Or, has the General Law of Government Accounting benefited Mexicans?
At the beginning it was stated that it would bring benefits in accountability, transparency, and openness in the dissemination of financial information. Moreover, the president of the Mexican Institute of Public Accountants (IMCP) Carlos Cárdenas, assured "The General Law of Government Accounting will allow knowing with opportunity the diversion of public resources" (Ibídem, Mexico, in the queue of accounting harmonization). But in recent days of August 2019, the Attorney General's Office accused Rosario Robles (former head of the Ministry of Social Development) of participating in the diversion of resources for 5 billion pesos. Given that the Superior Audit of the Federation (ASF) detected irregularities in the review of the Public Account for the period 2013,when the federal government, through 11 agencies, used public universities to triangulate resources and deliver them to irregular companies. A year later the ASF insisted on the issue and during the 2014-2016 period it detected the same modus operandi that led it to file criminal complaints in 2016 and 2017. And, “This week, Mexicans against Corruption and Impunity and Political Animal they have presented an investigation that intends to continue the path outlined by the Audit ”(Thus began the investigation of #EstafaMaestra, Animal Político, 7 September 2017). The foregoing shows that the diversion of resources was not known with opportunity. The criminal complaints by the ASF remained invisibility; only until journalists and the civil association investigated and published the facts, was the deviation known to society.In other words, the LGCG did not serve to know the diversion of resources with opportunity.
On August 9, 2019, the interview of Azucena Uresti, from Grupo Fórmula, with Juan Manuel Portal, former senior auditor (who concluded his mandate on December 31, 2017), as revealed by the Animal Político portal and newspaper Milenio, where he asserted that Enrique Peña Nieto knew about the diversion of resources from the Master Scam, "in a meeting he had with the former president, he gave him a verbal report of the irregularities." From the foregoing, it is worth mentioning, the Superior Auditor of the Federation is the link with the ASF Committee of the Chamber, and he is prohibited from “Making known to third parties or disseminating in any way, the confidential or reserved information that he has under his custody ”according to its regulations. If such a statement by the former senior auditor is verified,and if the Surveillance Commission had not been informed of such meeting and in the terms that it was held, it would be demonstrating that the former head of the highest Governing Body in Mexico distanced, altered or diverted the Institution with respect to the reason for being of their responsibilities. Also, why did it take almost two years to go public?
While the LGCG establishes that "its objective is to establish the adequate harmonization of the financial information system" (article 1). And that all the regulations that revolve around this Law emphasize harmony, coordination, being in harmony. Public reality goes in the opposite direction. The dichotomy prevails to the detriment of the union. On the one hand, congresses that pass laws and public servants that only remain to be executed (Aguilar, Luis. 2012). For this reason, the General Law of Government Accounting, since it is not producing the expected results, accuses public servants of failure (they lack training and efforts are not redoubled). But the problem in the Law is at its origin. For example,Academics are confused and justify "The accounting harmonization arises from the need to have comparable and consolidated information on financial, economic and budgetary matters of the public sector" (Ibid, A look at the LGCG). And no, in Mexico the approval arises from a reflex act, motivated by being in line with the international trend, but the Congress of the Union suffered not only from a diagnosis of the reality of public administration but also of accounting and the system of accountability.But the Congress of the Union suffered not only from a diagnosis of the reality of public administration but also from the accounting and accountability system.But the Congress of the Union suffered not only from a diagnosis of the reality of public administration but also from the accounting and accountability system.
And the other, the academy and the accountancy guilds affirm that accounting is a science. But a serious and rigorous analysis would indicate that accounting lacks the structure of science. Therefore, it is a mistake to claim that accounting is a science. And they also assert “It is characterized by reflecting the economic, financial, patrimonial and budgetary activity” (Ibídem). And the verb reflect is striking. It is thought that a reflection reflects the reality we see, such as a photograph and since the image is irrefutable it is considered as truth. But also a reflection or photograph can lie derived from the interpretation that each one gives it. Because Public Administration is not static but dynamic, and contains gray areas that are not directly manifested due to their complexity and lack of determination. Then then,Is government accounting a reflection of public reality?
M eath.The administration of budgetary resources to local and municipal governments has been under permanent delay, for decades. It has also been frequent that in October or November the amounts allocated to budget items are exhausted, a situation that has recently worsened as there are no resources to pay salaries or end-of-year benefits. And with the arrival of the new federal government of President López Obrador, republican austerity, budget cuts and budget control exercised by the Ministry of Finance arrived. And it seems commendable what is being done in budgetary matters, however, today, public entities in Mexico are unable to comply with the automatic integration of the budget year with the accounting operation.For what they do not comply with the LGCG. And most importantly, the accounting harmonization is not in accordance with the needs of public entities in Mexico.
Proposal. The Congress of the Union and the local Legislatures should exercise a bit of self-criticism regarding the decision to have approved the General Law of Government Accounting. And it is not daring to point out that the attempt to implement private accounting in public entities has been a serious mistake. Because far from contributing to better accountability, transparency and oversight, time, resources are being wasted, and paradoxically, the only thing that is advancing is opacity and partiality in the management of public funds.
For this reason, it is necessary to rethink accounting, specify the difference between the public and private sectors, and its relationship with an accountability system that must be friendly, simple and timely.
