This study explores the adoption and practice of two New Public Management (NPM) inspired accounting tools, (cash-basis IPSAS or cash IPSAS for short, and performance-based budgeting) and a participatory accounting system, that incorporates local knowledge in the Solomon Islands. The study was informed by recent calls to pay attention to the context where the reforms are implemented to better understand how the reforms can be translated to suit local needs. This followed numerous failures, especially by developing countries in streamlining their accounting practices to align with international best practices framed under the doctrines of NPM. Similarly, despite the burgeoning literature emphasising the significance of the context, there remains insufficient empirical evidence on the wider social impacts of these accounting reforms. This study responds to these concerns by using a qualitative inquiry approach that draws on Michel Foucault’s concepts of power/knowledge.

The findings of this study identified the existence of a dominant power centralism regime or bigman politics as a key factor influencing the adoption and practice of these neo-liberal reforms in the Solomon Islands. At the national government level, the cash IPSAS and performance budgeting have been unsuccessful in providing greater accountability and improved service delivery. The two reforms have been obstructed by politician-allocated expenditures (PAEs) such as the Rural Constituency Development Fund (RCDF), which is an attribute of the bigman system. This leads to detrimental implications for the two reforms at the national government level. On the other hand, implementing the cash IPSAS and the participatory budgeting system at the provincial level has improved accountability and transparency. The incorporation of the reforms with a locally designed funding framework called the Provincial Capacity Development Fund (PCDF) has been instrumental in transforming the problematic provincial government institution. Recent Auditor General’s reports have revealed drastic improvement as the provincial governments strive to maintain an adequate level of compliance to qualify for PCDF annual grants. A significant outcome of this is enhanced social accountability, which has enabled citizens to question and hold the elites at the national government level accountable. Overall, the findings revealed two important implications for accounting: implications for NPM and the broader social implications. For the first, the concept of accountability framed under the NPM doctrine has not been achieved. The social form of accountability associated with the PAEs equated accountability with social relations, norms, and visibility. Accordingly, it clashed with the accountability framed under NPM that emphasises reporting and complying with a set of performance-based criteria. The second identifies the broader societal implications of the reforms for the Solomon Islands. The enhanced social accountability through which the rural and mass public in Honiara have been empowered has led to greater participation in governance. This creates new mindsets and the reconstruction of new knowledge concerning the mode of governing using the controversial Constituency Development Fund (CDF). The reforming of the controversial CDF Act 2013 is a significant positive social outcome of the reforms. The study thus provides further empirical insights into how neoliberal accounting tools inspired by the doctrines of NPM, when locally designed, can produce better results. Policymakers, therefore, should promote an integrated approach to reform that reflects the localities of developing countries when proposing international best practices.