Cameral accounting in local governments in Czechia

Abstract

This article offers a unique analysis of cameral accounting (CA) in local governments (LGs) in Czechia during the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries. Drawing on a wide range of sources, including legislation, textbooks, and original accounting records, it traces the development of CA before its replacement by double-entry accounting in 1953. The analysis compares Czech developments with Walb's (1926, Die Erfolgsrechnung privater und öffentlicher Betriebe. Wien-Berlin: Spaeth and Linde) four-phase model, identifying both parallels and divergences. It further explores the practical benefits of CA for Czech LG accounting in the examined period. The findings reveal that while CA initially served as a progressive and functional tool in the mid-nineteenth century, it gradually evolved, despite repeated adjustments, into a conservative mechanism resistant to reform in the twentieth century.

Keywords

cameral accounting local government accounting history Czechia the nineteenth century the twentieth century

Introduction

In the meaning of Potts’ (1977) definition, cameral accounting (CA) belongs to budgetary accounting. According to Potts ‘a distinctive characteristic of governmental accounting is the requirement to demonstrate compliance with legal restrictions concerning control of revenues and expenditures’ (Potts, 1977: 89). CA responds to this by recording the revenues and expenditures of public institutions primarily in terms of cash flows and budgetary management, whereas double-entry (DE) (also known as commercial) bookkeeping captures all economic transactions based on the principle of duality, thereby providing a comprehensive picture of assets, liabilities, and financial performance (for detailed comparison, see Monsen, 2001). This article focuses on the accounting in local governments (LGs) of cities, towns, and villages, and partially on public business entities with links to LGs in Czechia in the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries. Czechia is understood as the region of the historical Czech lands: Bohemia, Moravia, and part of Silesia, which currently form the Czech Republic. During the period under study, this territory underwent several political changes. Before 1918 the Czech lands belonged to the Habsburg monarchy, between 1918 and 1939 they were part of the Czechoslovak Republic, between 1939 and 1945 they were part of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and finally after 1945 they were part of the Czechoslovak Republic, in which the Communist Party took power after 1948 (for details, see Pánek et al., 2018). At all times, CA was the only or dominant accounting system used by LGs. The aim of this article is to explain the development of CA in the Czech self-governing regions in a comparative perspective by identifying its similarities and differences with the broader European context, which is represented by the four-phase model of CA development according to Walb (1926) and his followers. The article aims to outline the key stages in the development of financial reporting in Czechia before its replacement by DE bookkeeping in 1953 and to evaluate the practical benefits that CA-based financial reporting offered to the accounting practices of Czech LGs during the period under review.

This article represents the first comprehensive, source-based analysis of CA in Czechia and offers a unique contribution by exploring its historical development in Czech LGs within an international context. Through a comparative approach, it highlights how the Czech case both reflected and diverged from developments elsewhere, offering insights into national specificity within a wider European framework. The Czech case demonstrates the distinctive national path in the development of CA: while it initially served as a progressive tool for public financial management in the mid-nineteenth century, it gradually transformed into a conservative mechanism partially resistant to change. This article thus contributes to a critical reassessment of the historical role of CA, as called for by Monsen (2002).

The article draws on three primary categories of historical sources. The analytical framework is grounded in contemporary legislation issued not only by central but also by regional authorities. This legal foundation is complemented by period textbooks and administrative manuals intended for LG officials, as well as theoretical works authored by prominent Czech experts of the time (see below). These materials are further compared with actual accounting practices, based on an analysis of preserved accounting books and records from Czech municipalities. The selected sample of cities was chosen to reflect regional and size-based diversity. All sources are accessible through Czech public libraries.¹

The historical sources were examined using qualitative content analysis, with particular attention paid to both formal structure and semantic content. The analysis followed principles outlined by Tosh (2015) and Howell and Prevenier (2001), focusing on the critical evaluation of source context and intended function. Methodological guidance was also drawn from accounting history literature, particularly Napier (1989) and Carnegie and Napier (1996), emphasising the importance of contextualising accounting practices within their institutional and socio-political environments. In line with these approaches, the study triangulates legislative frameworks, prescriptive literature, and archival records to trace patterns of continuity and change in LG accounting.

A historiographical overview

Just as Germany and Austria became the cradle of cameralism (Roscher, 1874; Sommer, 1920–1925), the research of CA was originally dominated by authors from these regions. Although CA was still a living accounting system at that time, the research focused on the chronology, attempted to name the key milestones, and define the form of the various stages of its development. Juzi (1916) and Walb (1926) are among the authors of this early period, whose findings are still quoted, followed by Wickelmann (1950), Sykora (1952), and Wysocki (1965) in the 1950s and 1960s. Their conclusions were repeated and developed later by Mülhaupt (1987) and Oettle (1990) for Deutschland, and Müller (1991) and Janout (1995) for Austria.

Another view of CA has been brought by research over the last few decades. As part of the financial reform of Maria Theresa (1740–1780, for more information about the political history of Czechia, see Pánek et al., 2018), the development of CA was discussed by Tribe (1984, 1988), Forrester (1990), and Legay (2009). The obvious link between CA and cameralism is still mentioned sporadically in the historiography. According to Seppel (2017), this was most likely because cameralism was not limited to the state's economic potential and revenues but also encompassed efforts to address the needs of the state in a broader context, including administrative and economic management as well as the welfare of the people.

Sargiacomo and Gomes (2011) focused specifically on accounting and accountability in LGs, identifying key themes, theoretical perspectives, and highlighting potential areas for future research. Marquette and Fleischman (1992) examined interactions between the American government and business that led to significant innovations in budgeting and cost accounting in the early twentieth century. Their findings suggest that budgeting methods were initially developed by municipal reformers and only later adopted by the business sector for planning and control purposes. Williams (2003) explored the early development of performance and productivity measurement in government, with particular attention to its emergence at the New York City Office of Municipal Research. Finally, Monsen (1996, 2002, 2007) extended research on CA, investigating the potential of its techniques for contemporary application, particularly in the context of Norway and other Scandinavian countries.

Czech scholarly interest in the topic has been relatively low, particularly when contrasted with international research output. Rather than addressing theoretical aspects or historical development, authors, such as Obentraut (1863), Popelka (1886), Rančák (1897), and Drachovský (1908, 1909, 1936) originally concentrated on practical issues concerning the actual use of this accounting system by LGs. The approach to CA did not change even after the establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918 and during the existence of the Nazi Protectorate (1938–1945), as can be seen in the works of Chlup (1922), Fuksa (1927), Raulich (1935), or Lanzendörfer (1945). The small number of publications did not correspond, however, to a relatively high demand, and therefore most of these works were in all probability published repeatedly and helped accountants in practice even after 1945. After 1953, when CA was replaced by DE accounting, any research about CA completely ceased.

After the fall of Communism in 1989, CA was rarely mentioned in Czech literature, for example, in an introduction to an accounting schoolbook (Janhuba, 2007) or in brief historical overviews (Puchinger and Slavíčková, 2014). At the same time, a few authors touched on CA in passing, within research that was mainly concerned with other topics. Eduard Mikušek (1981, 1986) described in detail the management of the Lobkowitz² Central Accounting Office, including CA records produced by this institution. Tywoniak (1973) focused on the management of the Chotek family property and, in this context, mentioned the efforts of Joseph Ferdinand Puteani, one of the founders of a special version of CA, which was used in Czechia in the nineteenth century for the administration of noble estates. Mírka (2019) contributed to the development of CA with a description of the benefits of another member of the Puteani family, Franz Joseph, who worked as a manager of the noble estate of František Josef from Vrtba.³ Cais (2006) was the only one, however, who, as part of the archival inventory process, connected CA with LGs and described in archival style the accounting records of towns in the Czech borderlands from 1850 to 1945. In 2019, the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic supported research on the topic of CA, which provided for the first time original knowledge about the development of CA in Czechia. Apart from the noble estates, it was LGs where CA became fully involved, and its technology developed the most (Slavíčková, 2022a). Based on this statement, this article presents one part of the most important findings of this research.

The beginnings of CA in Czech LGs

This method may have been introduced in Bohemia in connection with the founding of the Bohemian Chamber by Ferdinand I in 1527, but similar bookkeeping was used in LGs long before that date (Drachovský, 1908). The oldest version of CA in the Czech LGs consists of a chronological recording of money revenues and expenditures in a journal to show balance sheet changes.

Already the oldest accounting records produced by LGs, such as those in České Budějovice (known as Czech Budweiser, book of accounts from 1390 to 1394 and so on), Znojmo (book of accounts from 1408, 1421, 1425 to 1427, and so on), or Kutná Hora (book of accounts from 1454 to 1455, 1473 to 1474, and so on), had a structure of chronological records separately for income and expenditure, from the sum of which the difference in financial flows was compiled (Slavíčková, 2017). This type of record keeping evolved during the sixteenth century to a so-called major book, to which several auxiliary books have gradually been added (Slavíčková, 2022b). With reference to Brandt (1790), Lichtenegel (1872), and Schrott (1881), Mikušek (1986: 58) used the term ‘conference books’ for these auxiliary books and the bookkeeping method of this period was called after them ‘conference bookkeeping’ (in German, Konferenzrechnung) in contrast to ‘daily bookkeeping’ (in German, Journalrechnung) created later by Puechberg (1762). The general principle of CA was included, however, in the bookkeeping of LGs in the tax collection section only. In the tax records, there were prescriptions of taxes that were to be levied, and then the amount that was actually collected (Slavíčková, 2017). Transferring the result from these records to the major book was not the rule in all cities.

Regulations issued by the central government during the reign of Charles VI (1685–1740) in connection with his financial reforms (Janák et al., 2005) led to an increase in the number of officials rather than the introduction of proper LGs’ accounting. As can be seen with the example of Sušice, a medium-sized town in western Bohemia, 19 official posts were added between 1638 and 1758, none of which were filled consistently throughout the period (Lhoták, 2009). A common feature of the newly issued regulations was to subject the municipal economy to the control of institutions outside LGs. Their attention was focused, however, on financial results only, while the structure of the bookkeeping records remained unnoticed.

The Empress Maria Theresa (1740–1780) and her sons Joseph II (1780–1790) and Leopold II (1790–1792) continued efforts to reform state finances (Pánek et al., 2018). In 1762, Johann Mathias Puechberg, an Austrian court adviser, published a book entitled Einleitung zu einem verbesserten Kameral-Rechnungsfusse, in which he described the governmental accounting method (Monsen, 2002). In 1768, municipalities in Czechia were ordered to use this new accounting method (Lanzendörfer, 1945), but as is apparent in the preserved accounting records, they did not reflect on this and continued with the established practices (Slavíčková, 2017).

Changes in accounting were preceded, however, by changes in the management system of LGs. Based on the Court Decree of 19 December 1785, all the towns in Czechia were divided into three categories and, given their economic size and potential, a new structure of administration was established in them, the so-called regulated municipalities. This issue, together with the end of the patrimonial administration in 1848 (as will be shown in the next section), seems to have been key to the further development of LGs in Czechia (Janák et al., 2005). With a new profile, LGs functioned mainly as administrative and political centres with responsibility for the collection of taxes, local governing rules, regulating the affairs of people, and so on, and also preparing statements and providing an account to their constituents, citizens, and higher levels of government.

Taken together, the evolution of CA from the very early period in Czechia moved from simple chronological entries of revenues and expenditures to more complex systems with auxiliary and major books. Despite repeated reforms by central authorities, LGs largely adhered to traditional practices. The real turning point came with administrative reforms, especially the introduction of regulated municipalities and the abolition of patrimonial administration in 1848. These institutional shifts laid the groundwork for the later peak of CA in LGs.

Establishing CA in Czech LGs

A fundamental turning point in the development of CA in Czech LGs occurred after 1828 in connection with the issuance of Order No. 6519 of the Czech gubernium (Central Office for the Czech Lands) about accounting (Kalousek, 1910) and the subsequent legal regulations (see Table 1). Among other things, Order No. 6519 described the most serious shortcomings of the LG's current accounting, such as the lack of regular financial statements, missing records of cash balances, inaccuracies in their transfers to other accounting periods, or insufficient control by superior authorities, and ordered their rectification (Kalousek, 1910). The instructions applied to all towns and villages in Czechia; only villages were allowed to have a simpler system of bookkeeping. The most important task for everyone, which had to be done without delay, was to make a list of all their property (Kalousek, 1910). CA was not mentioned, however, in this order, nor were there any other details about the accounting method.

Table 1.

Key regulations shaping the establishment of CA in Czechia.

1828	Order No. 6519 of the Czech gubernium
1849	Provisional Municipal Rules No. 170/1849 RGBl
1850	Decree No. 13 353, instructions for municipal property management
1866	Imperial Decree on the organisation of the state accounting and control service
1885	Regulation of the Moravian Provincial Committee

CA: cameral accounting.

As one of the results of the revolution in 1848 (Pech, 1969), the Provisional Municipal Rules No. 170/1849 RGBl named after Austrian Prime Minister Franz von Stadion-Warthausen (1806–1853), were issued. It was supplemented by Decree No. 13 353 of 11 December 1850, named the Instructions for Municipal Property Management. This Decree described for the first time the accounting method in detail. Its content, together with templates of accounting forms, was reprinted by Maximilian Obentraut in 1863 (Cais, 2006). The instructions focused mainly on an inventory of assets, budget, and cash desk management.

The budget, which was always made before the beginning of the new financial year, so before 1st January, became a completely new part of LGs’ accounting. For both revenue and expenditure, it demonstrated what was proposed by the representatives of the town or village and what was actually approved (Obentraut, 1863). The revenues and expenditures were divided into regular (recurring) and irregular, definite (it was possible to determine their amount) and indefinite. The results of previous years have played a major role in drawing up the budget. The finished budget took the form of a binding plan; any additional expenditure had to go through a careful approval process (Obentraut, 1863).

Although the budget represented an innovation, the cash journal was already a familiar element in LG accounting in Czechia; however, it was only with Decree No. 13 353 that it obtained a binding structure. The entries in the cash journal were to be compared with the content of the cash desk at unspecified intervals (Obentraut, 1863). A final statement was drawn up from the cash journal by the accountant comparing the journal's revenue and expenditure record with the budget and inventory (Cais, 2006).

A central feature of the CA system in this phase was the ledger, where income and expenditure were recorded as liabilities. These liabilities were then matched against the actual payments that effectively settled them. The remaining difference, that is, the unpaid amounts, represented the key information that CA essentially aimed to capture (see also Walb, 1926). This is the basic principle that defined CA and was reflected in the structure of the ledger, which thus became a typical element of the CA method. The oldest draft of the form of the CA ledger published in Czechia was most likely in Jan Březnovský's book from 1865 entitled ‘Short Accounting Instruction for Villages’. According to Březnovský (1865), the form of the ledger had two pages, the left for requirements (plan, prescription) and the right for payment (performance), as you can see in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2.

The left side of the CA ledger according to Březnovský (1865: 20).

		Rest at the beginning		Requirement		Cancelled or forgiven
Item	Requirements	gol.	cr.	gol.	cr.	gol.	cr.
	Section I. Rent. 1865
1	Rent from field xxx January-June 1865 …	.	.	40	.	.	.
2	Forgave rent from field xxx July-Dec 1865	.	.	.	.	20	.
	Closing balance …	.	.	40	.	20
	Forgave … … … … …	.	.	20	.
	Rest of requirements of 1865 … … … …	.	.	20	.
	1866.
	Rest … … … …	20	.

CA: cameral accounting; gol.: golden; cr.: crown.

Table 3.

The right side of the CA ledger according to Březnovský (1865: 21).

				Amount		Rest
Article for cash journal	Date	No. of attachments	Payment	gol.	cr.	gol.	cr.	Note
22	7 Feb	.	Rent from field xxx Jan-June 1865 …	20	.
			Rent from field xxx July-Dec 1865 …	.	.	20	.

			Sum …	20	.	20	.

CA: cameral accounting; gol.: golden; cr.: crown.

Records were transferred from the budget to the left side of the ledger and from the cash journal to the right side of the ledger. One can demonstrate the sequence of recording with a simple example: the tenant of the field xxx owned by the village undertook to pay an annual rent of 20 zl. (golden) divided into two payments. These 20 zl. were entered from the budget in the section of the rents of the ledger on the left side as a requirement. After the tenant paid 10 zl., this amount was written on the same line in the right side of the ledger. If the tenant has not paid the second payment of 10 zl. by the end of the year, this amount is entered on the right side of the ledger in the column entitled ‘Rest’. The accountant would then enter this amount in the next ledger for the following accounting year in the same section on the left entitled ‘Closing balance’. If the representatives forgave the tenant this part of the rent in a given year, the amount on the left side would be entered in the ‘Cancelled or forgiven’ column. In the cash journal, only the amount of 10 zl. would be stated in the given financial year under the date of the payment. In any case, the sum of the left side had to be equal to the sum of the right side. The simple rule (as provided next) was valid (Březnovský, 1865: 29):

rest at the beginning + requirements − forgiven = payments + rest at the end.

All the entries in the cash journal had to be transferred to the ledger. For this reason, this rule also had to be valid:

sum of payments in the ledger = sum of revenues in the cash journal + sum of expenditures in the cash journal.

Only the revenues and expenditures carried out in the given year were transferred to the general ledger from the cash journal. It was therefore necessary at the end of the accounting year to add the initial rest in the cash desk to the amount of incomes as well as the final rest of the cash desk to the amount of expenditures (Březnovský, 1865) (see Table 1).

In 1866, the Imperial Decree on the organisation of the state accounting and control service was issued which regulated accounting management and controlling in all parts of the civil administration, including LGs. While the Imperial Decree of 1866 dealt mainly with the structure of offices and the process of reporting data and circulating of documents around offices, accounting management of LGs was governed by subsequent lower-level regulations issued over the next two decades (Galusek, 1892). These regulations following the Regulation of the Moravian Provincial Committee of 1885 emphasised especially the reporting of assets in inventories: the categories of assets, their order, and the method of property valuation were specified. A system was created for how to process extracts from accounting reports and how to submit these accounting extracts for controlling and statistics purposes to superior authorities (Regulation of the Moravian Provincial Committee, 1885). For the first time, the purpose (goal) of LG accounting was precisely defined. It should provide: (1) an overview of all property; (2) an overview of all claims and debts; and (3) information on money cash flow for a certain period (Regulation of the Moravian Provincial Committee, 1885: 33–39). According to Drachovský (1909), there was another purpose: to check whether the situation corresponded to the economic interests (plans) of LGs.

The structure of the ledger, its relationship to other accounting documents, and the cameral principle were not changed in any way, however, by these regulations. All description of CA (printed manuals and schoolbooks) dedicated for LGs from the nineteenth as well as the first half of the twentieth century, such as those written by Popelka (1886), Rančák (1897), Krutský (1924), or Drachovský (1936) published similar ledger forms differing only in terms of detail. These also correspond with the actual accounting practice, as can be seen with the example of Olomouc, the historical city-centre of Moravia, and Uničov, a small local town in Moravia, selected for comparison and checking. In Olomouc, the cameral ledger was divided into two books, one for revenues, one for expenditures. The oldest cameral ledgers came from 1875 and their structure, except for the details, corresponded to the structure described above. As of 1875, a systematic series of cameral ledgers had been preserved in Olomouc up until 1953. Only after the establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918, did the language change from German to Czech and back again to German during the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in 1939–1945 and back to Czech after the end of World War II in 1945. Only minor changes were made to the pre-printed form of the ledgers during this time, while the basic principle of the CA method remained (Collection City of Olomouc, 1953). The cameral ledgers had the same development in Uničov, with only minor differences. The oldest cameral ledger dates from 1873, revenues and expenditures were recorded together in one book, and the pre-printed form had a simpler structure than the form used in Olomouc. Despite this fact, the form in all probability exceeded the needs of the town agenda, and therefore the accountant used only some parts of it (Collection Town of Uničov, 1585–1945).

While the form of the ledger, cash journal, inventory, and budget became stabilised, the number of auxiliary ledgers and other documents increased. There was no rule to determine, however, the form of the auxiliary accounting documents; also, LGs chose which documents to use. According to Cais (2006), in border towns in Bohemia, so-called ‘payers’ books’ became popular, recording payments between the town and the payer (suppliers, customers, but also some kinds of taxpayers). This auxiliary book contained personal accounts, thus helping to address the shortcoming in the general ledger structure. Similarly, the book of approvals preserved in Domažlice recorded accounting operations approved by the superior office, in Kadaň and Jáchymov they kept wage books, in Bochov the book of instalments, and so on (Cais, 2006; Popelka, 1886). Generally, the growing agenda was to prevent the deepening economic decline of LGs and the indebtedness of towns and villages in Czechia. These changes proved, however, to be dysfunctional in the long run and significant changes in accounting policies and method were required (Krutský, 1924).

To sum up, the nineteenth century brought decisive reforms to LG accounting in Czechia, beginning with the gubernium order of 1828 and culminating in detailed regulations after 1849. The introduction of inventories, budgets, cash journals, and especially the cameral ledger created a standardised and relatively stable framework that persisted with only minor modifications until the mid-twentieth century. At the same time, the growing number of auxiliary books reflected the increasing complexity of municipal administration. Yet, despite these innovations, the system ultimately proved insufficient to address the mounting financial difficulties of LGs, paving the way for the need for further reforms in the next phase.

The apex of CA in Czech LGs

After 1918, when the Austrian monarchy collapsed after the end of World War I and the new independent Czechoslovak Republic was established (Pánek et al., 2018) an amendment to the Municipal Code No. 76/1919 Coll. was issued, which deepened the system of control over the management of towns and villages and ordered, among other things, the establishment of a commission to control their budgets and approve extraordinary expenditures (Municipal Code No. 76/1919 Coll., § 14). The account management system was also found to be insufficient. According to Krutský (1924), shortcomings occurred in both small and large towns, including the capital city of Prague. Due to insufficient legislation, the quality of accounting practices depended especially on the experience and knowledge of accountants (Krutský, 1924). New legislation (see Table 4) was to provide solutions, especially Act No. 329/1921 Coll. on the regulation of the financial management of LGs, and Decree No. 22/1922 for Bohemia and Decree No. 60/1922 for Moravia, which contained forms of 25 different accounting documents. These forms were only printed by the State Printing House in Prague and were available to buy in any stores. This, in many ways simplified the supervision of LG accounting. Due to the uniform structure of the main accounting documents, comparisons of all data were now possible, such as how much was received or issued by any LG in a given sector of the economy, which also created huge potential for statistical purposes (Krutský, 1924).

Table 4.

Key regulations shaping CA in Czechia during the First Czechoslovak Republic.

1919	Municipal Code No. 76/1919 Coll.
1921	Act No. 329/1921 Coll., on the transitional regulation of the financial management of municipalities and towns with municipal law status
1922	Act No. 404/1922 Coll., on the regulation of the management of state enterprises, institutions, and facilities that are not primarily intended to perform administrative functions
1922	Decree No. 22/1922 for Bohemia, Degree No. 60/1922 for Moravia

CA: cameral accounting.

New conditions after 1918, when the Czechoslovak Republic was established, supported the development of LGs’ own entrepreneurship (Macková, 2008). Based on the management experience of large state-owned companies, such as mining and metallurgical companies, railways, spas, or post offices, LGs were recommended to keep the accounts of their enterprises by DE accounting (Act No. 404/1922 Coll., 1922). Yet, LGs had to continue to keep their own accounts in CA, and there was a need to adapt the financial statements of public enterprises to the system of CA (Lanzendörfer, 1945). Parallel records kept by CA and by DE highlighted the shortcomings of both methods for the account management of LGs. While DE accounting seemed too complicated to the Czech accountants, and insufficient knowledge of this accounting method led to a large number of errors, on the basis of CA records, it was not possible to determine the economic result in terms of profit or loss (Fuksa, 1927). As previously indicated, the essence of CA lies in capturing the discrepancy between the planned budget and its actual implementation. This created a need for a transformation of the CA method that would combine the advantages of both accounting systems.

In the first place, the budget of investments was separated from the budget of other expenditures, which created the conditions for a systematic recording of investments (Fuksa, 1927; Raulich, 1935). In addition, there was a need to compile a balance sheet and profit and loss statements to demonstrate the economic results in CA. The balance sheet in CA was compiled on the basis of the cameral financial statements and the inventory book and contained information on the state of assets (at the beginning and at the end of the accounting period) and changes in assets (how much increased and how much decreased). Its structure was based on these principles:

initial asset − initial liability = net initial result

final asset − final liability = net final result

(change in assets) − (change in liabilities) = (change in net profit during the balance sheet period)

whereas

change in assets = initial asset − final asset

change in liabilities = initial liability − final liability

change in net result during the balance sheet period = net initial result − net final

(Drachovský, 1936: 379)

The structure of the balance sheet in this version of CA can be seen in Table 5.

Table 5.

Balance sheet in CA.

Number	Description	State of assets				Changes in assets
Number	Description	Initial		Final		Increased		Decreased

Source: Chlup (1922: 378).

CA: cameral accounting.

According to Chlup (1922), the profit and loss statement could be presented in the form of a sum (see Table 6). It contained four parts: Increases, Decreases, Profit and Loss, and was prepared from the financial statements and balance sheet, ‘whereby balance sheet items are transferred to income or expenditures of cash’ (Chlup, 1922: 379). Income, according to the financial statements, was shown as an increase, and expenses as a decrease. The initial value of assets (initial inventory of goods) was shown as a decrease, while the final value of assets (final inventory of goods) was shown as an increase. The value of the goods purchased for bills of exchange was shown in the Goods section as a decrease and in the Bills of Exchange section as an increase in cash. Conversely, the value of the goods sold on the bills of exchange was shown in the Goods section as an increase and in the Bills of Exchange section as a decrease in cash. Finally, the total increase in each section was a profit, while the total decrease in each section was a loss (Chlup, 1922).

Table 6.

Structure of the loss and profit statement in CA.

Number	Description	Increases		Decreases		Profit		Loss
Number	Description	CZK	h	CZK	h	CZK	h	CZK	h

Source: Chlup (1922: 379).

CA: cameral accounting; CZK: Czechoslovak crown, h: farthing.

In summary, the establishment of Czechoslovakia brought new legislation that strengthened supervision over municipal finances and introduced standardised accounting forms, which significantly improved comparability and statistical use of data. At the same time, the co-existence of CA and DE systems revealed the limitations of both methods and created pressure for methodological reform. The introduction of separate investment budgets, balance sheets, and profit and loss statements represented an attempt to bridge these shortcomings within the cameral framework. These innovations, however, also highlighted the need for a deeper transformation of LG accounting in the years to come.

The abolition of CA in Czechia

A series of new orders issued after the end of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the restoration of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1945, emphasised the duty of each LG, newly after 1945 in the form of (people's) national committees, to have an overview of its income and expenditure (Decrees No. 97, 98, 99 and Act No. 249/1946 Coll. and Order No. 40/1947 Coll.). The basis for meeting this duty was still the budget, newly renamed by the Communist Government after 1948 as a Plan of Tasks and Needs. The budget of LGs should also include the budgets of enterprises, institutes, and funds, and so on, owned or managed by LGs (Flögel, 1948). In 1949, the budgets of the LGs were linked to the state economic plan. Although each LG continued to operate according to its own budget, the budget expenditures and revenues of the LG now became the expenditures and revenues of the state budget (Act No. 279/1949 Coll.).

As regards the accounting method, the rules introduced before 1938 also remained in force in the first years after 1945 (Janák et al., 2005). Flögel (1948), one of the witnesses, observed that the enormous number of regulations (see Table 7) in force between 1945 and the rise of the communist regime in 1948 created considerable confusion in practice, ironically commenting that ‘perhaps only officials from the Ministry of Finance could understand it’ (Flögel, 1948: 83).

Table 7.

Regulations valid between 1945 and 1948.

1921	Act No. 329/1921 Coll., on the transitional regulation of the financial management of municipalities and towns with municipal law status
1927	Act No. 77/1927 Coll., on the new regulation of the financial management of local government associations
1930	Act No. 169/1930 Coll., Amendment to the Act No. 77/1927 Coll.
1935	Act No. 69/1935 Coll., on financial provisions in the field of local government
1936	Order No. 69/1936 Coll. and No. 202/1936 Coll.
1937	Order No. 19/1937 Coll.
1938	Order No. 371/1938 Coll.
1941	Order No. 72/1941 Coll.
1942	Order No. 126/1942 Coll.
1943	Order No. 161/1943 Coll. and No. 203/1943 Coll.
1944	Order No. 38/1944 Coll., Order No. 106/1944 Coll.
1945	Order No. 22/1945 Coll., Decrees No. 97/1945, No. 98/1945, and No. 99/1945
1946	Act No. 249/1946 Coll., on the interim regulation of the financial management of local government associations and certain other public law entities
1947	Order No. 40/1947 Coll.

After the financial management of LGs became part of the public economy, the same principles began to apply to it as to the financial management of the central government (see Table 8). Among other things, this meant that LGs were to start using DE accounting instead of CA on 1 January 1951 (Order No. 692/1950 Coll.).

Table 8.

Regulations issued in connection with the abolition of CA in Czechia.

1949	Act No. 279/1949 Coll., Act on the Financial Management of National Committees
1950	Order No. 692/1950 Coll.
1953	Order No. 99/1953 Coll.
1953	Order No. 110/1953 Coll.

CA: cameral accounting.

However, this did not actually happen, and a number of LGs continue to use CA in their accounting practices, and this was also thanks to the exception that the regulation allowed (Order No. 692/1950 Coll., § 2). The reason was not only LGs’ reluctance to new things supported by decades of experience with CA, but also the general unpreparedness of the offices for such a fundamental change. Detailed instructions were lacking, as well as a lack of DE accounting experts, because the transformation of accounting teaching in schools was only beginning (Puchinger and Slavíčková, 2014). In 1953, a new regulation concerning the organisation of national committees and management of budgetary organisations was issued (Order No. 110/1953 Coll.). In addition, new accounting policies such as Order No. 99/1953 Coll. were announced, which brought the definitive end of CA in Czechia. After this year, CA only appeared in the accounting practices of small villages, as mere inertia. Within a few years, DE accounting replaced CA even in these places, due to enforcement by a new government (Cais, 2019).

In summary, after 1945, local budgets were gradually absorbed into the state economic plan, and despite resistance and lack of preparation, DE accounting replaced CA. Its definitive abolition in 1953 ended a long tradition of CA in Czech LGs.

Discussion

The analysis of the development of CA in Czech LGs during the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century provides a deeper understanding of its specific trajectory. The differences become particularly apparent when compared with the evolution of CA in other European countries, especially Germany and Austria, where this method was primarily applied in public administration. In 1926, Walb introduced a four-phase model of CA development in this context, which was later adopted and further elaborated by scholars such as Wysocki (1965), Oettle (1990), and Janout (1995), and for Norway, Monsen (2002). The model (Walb, 1926: 209) distinguishes the following phases:

Simple cameral bookkeeping (ca. 1500–1750),

Introduction of current due accounting (ca. 1750–1810),

Further grouping of cameral bookkeeping transactions (from ca. 1810), and

Development of enterprise cameralistics (from ca. 1910).

With regards to Austria, Janout (1995: 68) added two more phases:

5. Extended cameralistics (from ca. 1950), and

6. Integrated household accounting (from 1968).

The beginnings of phases 2, 3, and 4 were associated with new descriptions of the cameral bookkeeping method published by Puechberg (1762), Jäger von Weidenau (1810), Klapdor (1910), and Schneider (1913), while phases 5 and 6 were defined by newly introduced Austrian legislation (Janout, 1995). The following analysis examines in detail the differences between the Czech Republic and other European countries. The results indicate that this model of CA development applies to Czech LGs only to a limited degree. Instead of a strict sequence of accounting techniques as outlined by authors such as Puechberg (1762) and Jäger von Weidenau (1810), the Czech case reveals a more gradual and adaptive evolution of the CA method. This evolution was driven not only by the practical needs of its users, but above all by changes in legal regulations.

Phase 1: Simple cameral bookkeeping (ca. 1500–1750)

Simple cameral bookkeeping, used between 1500 and 1750, consisted of recording changes in the balance sheet for money and movable property, often supplemented by an overview of fixed assets and by grouping revenues and expenditures according to their sources (Walb, 1926). In this period, only a few similarities can be observed between simple cameral bookkeeping and the accounting practices of Czech LGs. Although simple cameral bookkeeping is generally linked to the establishment of the Czech Chamber by Ferdinand I in 1527, Czech LGs had been using similar methods of recording revenues and expenditures well before this date. Archival sources from towns such as České Budějovice, Znojmo, and Kutná Hora document structured financial records as early as the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, based on chronological entries of income and expenditure and, similarly to simple cameral bookkeeping, balance sheet changes for cash. However, the balance sheet missed recording moveable property and an overview of fixed property; as well, there was no grouping of the revenues and expenditures according to their sources (see Monsen, 2002). During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the accounting practices of Czech LGs developed into a more complex system, centred on a main book complemented by auxiliary books. However, the chronological bookkeeping recorded in the daybook did not evolve into the systematic ledger bookkeeping described by Johns (1951). This system remained largely unchanged throughout the eighteenth century (Slavíčková, 2017).

These records referred to as ‘conference bookkeeping’ (Konferenzrechnung) represented a distinct form of bookkeeping that differed from the ‘daily bookkeeping’ (Journalrechnung) from which the system of Puechberg (1762) had originally developed (see below). This highlights the existence of an indigenous accounting logic and structure within LGs, predating and diverging from state-led reforms.

Phase 2: Introduction of current due accounting (ca. 1750–1810)

The emergence of current due accounting was closely associated with Johann Mathias Puechberg and his book Einleitung zu einem verbesserten Kameral-Rechnungsfusse, published in 1762 in connection with the reform of state finances of Maria Theresa (1740–1780). However, these state reforms, including those in the first half of the eighteenth century, did not significantly alter the bookkeeping methods of Czech LGs. Instead of introducing standardised accounting procedures, these reforms led primarily to bureaucratic expansion only. Government oversight during this period focused primarily on final financial outcomes rather than the form or structure of bookkeeping itself.

Although Austrian court adviser Johann Mathias Puechberg introduced a new CA framework in 1762, and the Czech LGs were officially ordered to implement it by 1768, archival evidence indicates that this directive had little practical impact. Current due accounting supposed a clear separation between the chronologically kept daybook and the ledger with its material subdivisions, as well as between ‘sums payable’, ‘accounts rendered’, and ‘arrears’ or ‘rests’ (both nominal and actual accounts) (Monsen, 2002: 364–365). Nominal accounts and outstanding rests recorded future receipts to which one was entitled and future expenditures that had already been allocated (Monsen, 2002). These general principles were present in Czech LG accounting practice only in the taxation section of LG accounting; they were not uniformly integrated into the broader accounting system. Moreover, tax records were not transferred to the major book, indicating a fragmented application of CA concepts. Czech LGs continued to apply established methods of record keeping, reflecting strong institutional path dependency. In sum, the development of CA in Czech LGs in the first phase and second phase was shaped less by top-down imperial reforms and more by local practices, user needs, and selectively applied legal regulations.

Phase 3: Further grouping of cameral bookkeeping transactions (from ca. 1810)

Similarly, the year 1810, cited by researchers (Wickelmann, 1950; Wysocki, 1965, and so on) in connection with the development of governmental accounting methods (further grouping of the cameral ledger), had no impact on LG accounting in Czechia. According to Monsen (2002), in this phase, the systematic grouping of the cameral ledger started to be used. The crucial manual published by Jäger von Weidenau (1810) explained how to separate performance result-effecting transactions from non-performance result-effecting transactions (Monsen, 2002). The development of CA in Czech LGs evolved according to a specific local logic that only loosely followed theoretical models. Local authorities continued to apply established methods of bookkeeping, reflecting strong institutional path dependency.

In Czechia, substantial changes came after 1828 (Order No. 6519 of the Czech gubernium), when serious shortcomings in local financial administration were identified (ranging from the absence of regular financial statements to missing records of cash balances), and a need for systemic rectification was recognised. However, even this reform did not explicitly represent a reform of CA. A more decisive shift occurred after 1848, when, for the first time, detailed accounting instructions were issued. The regulations of this period (for the overview see Table 1) emphasised asset inventories (list of property), budget preparation, and cash management.

The introduction of binding budgets marked a turning point in LG accounting. Budgets now served as legal–financial plans, distinguishing between planned and actual revenues and expenditures, and between regular and irregular items. This aligned local practice with the principles of the further grouping of the cameral ledger, which emphasised matching obligations to actual payments (Monsen, 2002). The final cash statements, based on comparisons between journal entries, budgets, and inventories, provided a more comprehensive fiscal picture, although these procedures remained vulnerable due to the absence of a structured ledger system. This absence represented a major deviation from the classical cameral model as envisioned by theorists like Puechberg (1762) and Jäger von Weidenau (1810), where the ledger formed the backbone of financial accountability. According to Wysocki's (1965) definition of further grouping of the cameral ledger, a ledger must track prescribed obligations on the one side and actual payments on the other, allowing for the identification and management of arrears over time. In the Czech LGs, the earliest known use of such a ledger format appears in Jan Březnovský's description (1865), which proposed a two-page structure: one for planned or prescribed entries and one for realised payments. This format signalled a gradual convergence with the full CA model but occurred relatively late and inconsistently across municipalities.

The period following the issuance of the Imperial Decree of 1866 marked a formalisation of accounting and control mechanisms in civil administration, including LGs. This regulation emphasised the accurate reporting of assets, liabilities, and cash flows, and for the first time clearly articulated the purpose of LG accounting: to ensure a comprehensive overview of property and financial status, and to support alignment with local economic plans.

Despite the regulatory efforts, the fundamental structure of CA, especially the ledger format and its relationship to other documents, remained unchanged. Manuals and textbooks of that time consistently reproduced similar ledger templates, confirming the continuity of CA practices well into the twentieth century. Archival records from towns such as Olomouc and Uničov support this, showing a stable use of cameral ledgers from the 1870s until the early 1950s, with only superficial modifications (such as language shifts during political transitions).

At the same time, the number of auxiliary accounting documents increased, though their form and use remained at the discretion of individual LGs. These additions were introduced in an effort to address the growing administrative and financial demands on LGs and to mitigate widespread indebtedness and economic decline. However, despite the regulatory push and proliferation of supporting documentation, the CA method itself proved inadequate for managing the expanding and increasingly complex agendas of LGs. As noted by contemporary commentators such as Krutský (1924), the system's limitations highlighted the need for more substantial reforms in both accounting policy and methodology.

Phase 4: Development of enterprise cameralistics (from ca. 1910)

After the establishment of the independent Czechoslovak Republic in 1918, the central government had to address the serious economic problems faced by LGs. The legislative response took two main forms: on the one hand, it strengthened control over LG finances, and on the other hand, it introduced a gradual standardisation of accounting reports. A more systematic solution was introduced in 1921, when standardised forms for accounting documents were brought in. This formalisation significantly facilitated oversight of LG finances and opened the door to broader statistical and comparative use of financial data. The unified structure of key accounting documents marked a major step towards transparency, but it also exposed the limitations of the CA method, especially in terms of decision-making support.

The new social and economic conditions after 1918, particularly the demands of the new municipal enterprises, were similar to what Wysocki (1965) described in connection with the emergence of enterprise cameralistics. Act No. 404/1922 Coll. ordered that all public enterprises, institutions, and facilities keep accounting in the so-called commercial style, that is DE. At the same time, however, the obligation of municipalities to compile financial statements in the cameral style remained, due to control by a higher authority. This co-existence highlighted the shortcomings of both systems. CA was inadequate for economic management, while DE was too complex for many municipal accountants and often led to errors due to insufficient familiarity with its principles. This led to the transformation of the CA method in the Czech environment in the sense of the enterprise cameralistics (Monsen, 2002).

Key innovations included the separation of the investment budget from the general expenditure budget and the introduction of balance sheets and profit and loss statements into the cameral framework (Fuksa, 1927). These documents preserved the cameral principles while improving the clarity of economic results.

Due to these innovations, CA remained the dominant method for LG accounting throughout the Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1939) and the period of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (1939–1945). Although there was continuous debate over the need for reform, the state's approach remained liberal and, to some extent, eclectic (Janhuba, 2018). Attempts to replace CA with commercial (accrual-based) bookkeeping repeatedly failed, both in Czechia (Fuksa, 1927) and in other countries (Monsen, 2002). The main reason was apparently the same reluctance to abandon a system deeply rooted in institutional practice and educational materials, even though it no longer met the requirements of modern financial management.

Although the CA formally remained in use until immediately after 1945, the transformation of LGs into national committees and their integration into the centrally planned economy profoundly altered the role of accounting. The local budget, now renamed as the ‘Plan of Tasks and Needs’, became not only a management tool for municipalities but also an extension of the state economic plan. Despite efforts to introduce DE accounting from 1951, the actual transition was slow and incomplete due to administrative unpreparedness and a lack of qualified professionals.

The definitive shift came in 1953, when new legislation unified financial management across all levels of government and abolished CA in practice. What had once been a dominant and deeply institutionalised system was, within just a few years, replaced by DE as part of the broader reorganisation of public finance in a centrally planned socialist state. CA survived only in isolated rural areas for a short time, more out of inertia than intention.

In sum, the model of the four-phase development of CA (Monsen, 2002; Oettle, 1991; Walb, 1926; Wickelmann, 1950; Wysocki, 1965; and so on) is only partially valid for the Czech LGs. However, the four phases of CA shared some typical features with it. Czech LG practice incorporated theoretical models by Puechberg (1762), Jäger von Weidenau (1810), and others only selectively and often belatedly. Compared to the gradual adaptation in German and Austrian territories, the Czech lands remained notably conservative. Substantive reforms in Czech LG accounting emerged only after 1848 and were consolidated during the interwar period with the introduction of standardised forms, budgeting procedures, and partial adoption of DE practices. The eventual shift to DE accounting was propelled not by internal innovation but by systemic socialist reforms, which replaced CA with a centrally planned financial system.

Conclusion

In general, it can be stated that a typical feature of the development of CA in Czechia was first, that changes in the structure of LG economic management subsequently led to a series of reforms of the CA method. CA was adapted to the needs of LGs and further developed with a focus on planning and control, as previously observed by Gomes and Sargiacomo (2013). It also represents a reverse sequence compared to the case of US municipalities described by Marquette and Fleischman (1992), where changes in accounting practices led to institutional transformation. Consistent with the conclusions of Williams (2003), CA in the Czech LGs served mainly for basic money management purposes. While in the middle of the nineteenth century it was a progressive tool with clear benefits, a century later, despite a number of modifications, it became a device expressing a conservative approach. The accounting method changed in this period only to a very limited extent. As was already stated by Gomes and Sargiacomo (2013: 261), in the case of Czech LGs, one can also observe ‘relatively slow development through centuries of municipal accounting, with the basic principles often remaining the same for long periods of time’.

In light of Monsen's (2002) recommendations, CA in the Czech context represents a stage historically concluded. This is further supported by the historiographical overview, which indicates that the last practically oriented professional publications on CA date back to the early 1950s. In contemporary accounting textbooks, references to CA are rare and typically serve more as a reflection of the author's scholarly depth than as a standard component of accounting education.

Nevertheless, this study also faces certain limitations. The analysis relies primarily on normative sources, while empirical materials from municipal archives have so far been examined only selectively, given their volume and complexity. Further research could therefore profit from systematic archival studies or detailed case analyses of particular municipalities, allowing for a more precise assessment of how and when the prescribed changes were implemented in practice. The Czech case would also benefit from a broader comparative perspective with other eastern European countries, such as Hungary and Poland, where research on this topic is still lacking. Such a perspective is closely connected to the broader question of how accounting shaped local administration and governance. As highlighted by a special issue of Accounting History on accounting and accountability in LGs (Gomes and Sargiacomo, 2013), accounting and accountability played a crucial role in public administration. This is particularly valid for LGs in Czechia, where CA unified bookkeeping and, for the first time, introduced uniform administrative procedures and accounting forms. As a result, accounting was able to generate data suitable not only for the internal purposes of towns and villages but also, and perhaps more importantly, for the needs of central government.

Footnotes

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Grantová Agentura České Republiky (grant number 19-07805S).

ORCID iD

Avla Slavíčková

Notes

References

Act No. 279/1949 Coll. Act on the Financial Management of National Committees.

Act No. 329/1921 Coll., on the transitional regulation of the financial management of municipalities and towns with municipal law status.

Act No. 404/1922 Coll., on the regulation of the management of state enterprises, institutions, and facilities that are not primarily intended to perform administrative functions.

Brandt

(1790) Tabellarische Übersicht über die Grundsätze der Staatsrechnungswissenschaft. Vienna: Johann Thomas von Trattner.

Březnovský

(1865) Krátké navedení k účetnictví v obcích vesnických. Prague: Ed. Greger.

Cais

(2006) Účetní materiály kamerálního účetnictví obecní samosprávy v Čechách v letech 1850–1945 (se zřetelem k situaci v českém pohraničí). Archivní Časopis 56(4): 249–285.

Cais

(2019) Metodický pokyn č. 4/2019 k archivnímu zpracování účetních materiálů. No. MV-172323-1/AS-2019.

Carnegie

Napier

(1996) Critical and interpretive histories: Insights into accounting’s present and future through its past. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 9(3): 7–39.

Chlup

(1922) Účtování a bilancování v obchodním podniku a účetnictví státní. Bratislava: R. Chlup.

10.

Collection City of Olomouc, Books 1343–1945 (1953), Státní okresní archiv v Olomouci, sign. ic1, ic1j, ic1k, ic1q, ic1r (accounting books).

11.

Collection Town of Uničov, Books 1585–1945, Státní okresní archiv v Olomouci, sign. ic1 (accounting books).

12.

Drachovský

(1908) Rakouské účetnictví státní. Praha: Bursík a Kohout.

13.

Drachovský

(1909) Všeobecné účetnictví. Praha: Bursík a Kohout.

14.

Drachovský

(1936) Všeobecné a Československé účetnictví státní. Praha: Melantrich.

15.

Flögel

(1948) Obecní zřízení v Čechách, na Moravě a ve Slezsku a místní národní výbory. Praha: České zemské ústředí.

16.

Forrester

(1990) Rational administration, finance and control accounting: The experience of cameralism. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 1(4): 285–317.

17.

Fuksa

(1927) Nástin soukromé ekonomiky obchodní, průmyslové a zemědělské. Část 1. Praha: J. Fuksa.

18.

Galusek

(1892) Obecní řád pro markrabství moravské. Brno: K. Winkler.

19.

Gomes

Sargiacomo

(2013) Accounting and accountability in local government: An introduction. Accounting History 18(4): 439–446.

20.

Howell

Prevenier

(2001) From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

21.

Jäger

von Weidenau

(1810) Unterricht zur Anweisung der Gefällserträgnisse für die Staatsrechnungszentrale. s.l.: s.n.

22.

Janák

Hledíková

Dobeš

(2005) Dějiny správy v českých zemích od počátků státu po současnost. Praha: NLN.

23.

Janhuba

(2007) Základy teorie účetnictví. Praha: Oeconomica.

24.

Janhuba

(2018) Vývoj účetnictví 1918–1991. In: Vítek

(ed) Sto let Financí a účetnictví na území České Republiky . Oeconomica: Praha, pp. 148–167.

25.

Janout

(1995) Die Entwicklung der Kameralistik in Österreich . Thesis, Linz, Johannes-Kepler-Universität.

26.

Juzi

(1916) Systematische kameralistische Buchführung, Mitteilungen aus dem Handelswissenschaftlichen Seminar der Universität Zürich 32. Zürich: Universität Zürich.

27.

Kalousek

(1910) Archiv český 25. Praha: Domestikální fond království Českého.

28.

Klapdor

(1910) Die kameralistische Buchführung in ihrer einfachen und gehobenen Form. Düsseldorf: Schwann.

29.

Krutský

(1924) O jednotné úpravě účetní a pokladniční služby v obcích. Praha: Čsl. obce samsprávné.

30.

Lanzendörfer

(1945) Několik kapitol ze samosprávy. Praha: České zemské ústředí.

31.

Legay

(2009) The beginnings of public management: Administrative science and political choices in the eighteenth century in France, Austria, and the Austrian Netherlands. The Journal of Modern History 81(2): 253–293.

32.

Lhoták

(2009) K vývoji městské správy v Sušici od nejstarších dob do roku 1850. Minulostí Západočeského kraje 44: 139–193.

33.

Lichtenegel

(1872) Geschichte der Entwickelung des österreichischen Rechnungs- und Controllwesens. Graz.

34.

Macková

(2008) Státní úřednictvo a jeho vliv na rozvoj venkovských měst. In: Kladiwa

Zářický

(eds) Město a městská společnost v procesu modernizace. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, pp. 187–197.

35.

Marquette

Fleischman

(1992) Government/business synergy: Early American innovations in budgeting and cost accounting. Accounting Historians Journal 19(2): 123–145.

36.

Mikušek

(1981) Otázky skartace duplikátů knih kamerálního účetnictví. Archivní Časopis 31: 74–84.

37.

Mikušek

(1986) Účetní systémy a metody na majetku roudnických Lobkoviců. Sborník Archivních Prací 36(1): 53–102.

38.

Mírka

(2019) Josef František baron Puteani vrchním správcem panství Františka Josefa hraběte z Vrtby. Vrchnostenští úředníci a správa vrtbovských panství na přelomu 18. a 19. století. Folia Historica Bohemica 34: 79–124.

39.

Monsen

(2002) The case for cameral accounting. Financial Accountability & Management 18(1): 39–72.

40.

Monsen

(2007) Evolution of cameral accounting. Hallinnon Tutkimus 1: 22–33.

41.

Monsen

Näsi

(1996) Local governmental accounting in Finland and Norway: A historical note on cameralism. Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting 9: 259–274.

42.

Mülhaupt

(1987) Theorie und Praxis des öffentlichen Rechnungswesens in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verl.-Ges.

43.

Müller

(1991) Historische Entwicklung der Buchführung und ihre praktische Anwendung seit der ersten Kenntnis bis zum 20. Jahrhundert. Thesis, Linz, Johaness Kepler Universität.

44.

Municipal Code No. 76/1919 Coll.

45.

Napier

(1989) Research directions in accounting history. British Accounting Review 21(3): 237–254.

46.

Obentraut

(1863) Samospráva obce v království Českém. Praha: M. Obentraut.

47.

Oettle

(1990) Cameralistics. In: Grochla

Gaugler

(eds) Handbook of German Business Management. Stuttgart: Poeschel, pp. 345–354.

48.

Pánek

Tůma

, Semotanová E, et al. (2018) A History of the Czech Lands. Prague: Karolinum Press.

49.

Pech

(1969) The Czech Revolution of 1848. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

50.

Popelka

(1886) Účetnictví samosprávy obecní. Praha: F. L. Popelka.

51.

Potts

(1977) The evolution of budgetary accounting theory and practice in municipal accounting from 1870. The Accounting Historians Journal 4(1): 89–100.

52.

Puchinger

Slavíčková

(2014) Malé dějiny účetnictví. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého.

53.

Puechberg

(1762) Einleitung zu einem verbesserten Cameral-Rechnungs-Fusse. Wien: J. T. Trattnern.

54.

Provisional Municipal Rules, No. 170/1849 RGBl.

55.

Rančák

(1897) Účtověda o sluhu jednoduchém, složitém (dopickém) a kamerálním (státním) užívaném v obchodních a průmyslových komptoirech a při účetní službě státních i samosprávných úřadů. Praha: Jar. Pospíšil.

56.

Raulich

(1935) Kamerální účetnictví (v podnicích soukromých). Praha: Tiskové podniky Ú.S.Č.P.

57.

Regulation of the Moravian Provincial Committee (1885).

58.

Roscher

(1874) Geschichte der National-Oekonomik in Deutschland. München: R. Oldenbourg.

59.

Sargiacomo

Gomes

(2011) Accounting and accountability in local government: Contributions from accounting history research. Accounting History 16(3): 253–290.

60.

Schneider

(1913) Wegweiser durch die gehobene kameralistische Buchführung für die werbenden Betriebe der Staats- und Kameralverwaltungen. Berlin: F. Vahlen.

61.

Schrott

(1881) Lehrbuch der Verrechnungswissenschaft. Wien: Braumüller.

62.

Seppel

(2017) Introduction: Cameralism in practice. In: Seppel

Tribe

(eds) Cameralism in Practice. State Administration and Economy in Early Modern Europe. Woolbridge: The Boydell Press, pp. 1–16.

63.

Slavíčková

(2017) Účetnictví mezi tradicí a racionalitou v českých zemích od středověku do počátku 18. století. Praha: Scriptorium.

64.

Slavíčková

(2022a) Kamerální účetnictví a jeho vývoj na našem území. Praha: NLN.

65.

Slavíčková

(2022b) Early bookkeeping handbooks from Central Europe: Case study of the Czech lands. Accounting Historians Journal 49(2): 91–101.

66.

Sommer

(1920–1925) Die österreichischen Kameralisten. Wien: Konegen.

67.

Sykora

(1952) Systeme, Methoden und Formen der Buchhaltung. Wien: Spaeth and Linde.

68.

Tosh

(2015) The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History. New York: Routledge.

69.

Tribe

(1984) Cameralism and the science of government. Journal of Modern History 56: 263–284.

70.

Tribe

(1988) Governing Economy. The Reformation of German Economic Discourse 1750–1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

71.

Tywoniak

(1973) Ústřední správa chotkovských velkostatků a její archiv. Sborník archivních prací 23(3): 3–105.

72.

Walb

(1926) Die Erfolgsrechnung privater und öffentlicher Betriebe. Wien-Berlin: Spaeth and Linde.

73.

Wickelmann

(1950) Kameralistische und kaufmännische Rechnungslegung in öffentlichen Verwaltungen und Betrieben. Berlin-Münich: Duncker und Humblot.

74.

Williams

(2003) Measuring government in the early twentieth century. Public Administration Review 63(6): 643–659.

75.

Wysocki

(1965) Kameralistische Rechnungswesen. Stuttgart: C.E. Poeschel.