Abstract

This study traces the intellectual history and evolutionary trajectory of accounting thought, examining the long-standing tension between global standardisation and national diversity. From its ancient origins and the codification of double-entry bookkeeping by Luca Pacioli in 1494, through nineteenth-century professionalisation and twentieth-century regulatory responses to corporate collapses, financial reporting has consistently adapted to shifting economic complexities. The paper critically evaluates the modern international standard-setting landscape, specifically analyzing the three dominant positions that crystallized following the post-2015 stalling of the historic IASB-FASB convergence project: harmonisation, full standardisation, and the two-format model. While a single universal accounting language (full standardisation) remains theoretically ideal for maximizing cross-border comparability, it faces insurmountable institutional inertia, political friction, and prohibitive transition costs particularly within the United States. Conversely, mere harmonisation without a structural commitment to unified principles risks slipping into unmanaged divergence. Ultimately, this paper argues that a structured two-format model, wherein International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP) coexist in parallel, offers the most pragmatic and beneficial near-to-medium-term path forward. To mitigate complexity for global investors, this model must be actively supported by targeted, highpriority convergence on emerging assets and sustainability reporting (via the ISSB), enhanced disclosure of policy differences, and enhanced enforcement capacity within IFRS jurisdictions. This synthesis balances universalist aspirations with particularist institutional realities, continuing the historic discipline of making economic reality legible across national boundaries.