L’impatto delle riforme contabili sugli equilibri di bilancio dei Comuni

public accounting, and the balanced budget principle in particular, is a research field in which the connection between juridical aspects and economics aspect is closer as much as, and perhaps more than in other ones. According to Borgonovi (1984) this close connection is identified as a possible reason of our studies’ gaps w henever a n a ccounting r eform i s c arried o ut, and t he i dea i s t o d eepen i ts knowledge and to estimate its impacts. Therefore, this work aims to contribute to bridge the research gap that characterizes business studies on the matter in hand. In an epistemological way, i.e. the relationship between the research team and the subject of analysis, the paper adopts a positivist approach, trying to limit the research tools’ influences on observed reality, which is considered an external, independent and therefore knowable data (FATTORE, 2005); the accounting change has been identified as reference perspective, and the single case study is the methodology used. The case study is a medium-large municipality, which has been chosen by reason of the twofold convenience sampling (CORBETTA 2014) and reasoned or purposive (Palys, 2008): the former, due to the possibility of rely on direct relationships and on a greater, at least potential, propensity for collaboration (ETIKAN et al., 2016); the latter, due to the solid possibility of contacting real informants on the matter in hand. Results show that mandatory statements to check balanced budgets are extremely complex and incomplete as well. Moreover, we suggest that local authorities should make use of their own regulatory autonomy, in order to elaborate proposals and hypotheses for the simplification and, at the same time, the strengthening of the aforementioned check. Anyway, the work isn’t exempt from some limits. The most evident caveat is to use a multiple case study instead a single one, which is definitely less effective in conceptualizing and generalizing the results (EISENHARDT, 1989). Also, the analysis longitudinal limit restricts the credibility of research conclusions (SKINNER, 1966; WOODSIDE & WILSON, 2003).