In the public debt, I would include guarantees and commitments of the government, christening these as debt. I would not grudge one's inclusion of debts / extension of facilities (relating to public debt) in respect to which the parties have made firm understanding, in the public debt, although formal documentation has not been done. This would be at variance with what accounting teaches us. At variance with conventional auditors' formal presentation this could be in keeping with a political or social scientist's discipline. More so, the position suggested would provide improved picture of liabilities to the readers.
The above suggestion would mean different balance sheets built on different footings. We need these in different disciplines. The phraseology of a social or political scientist may be in keeping with intent and purposes of his discipline. An accountant may enter the related transactions in his books on the actual or constructive flow of funds, often in disregard of what the formalities at home would want. To bridge the gap between accounting and the identified social sciences, parenthetical notes may be provided also for elucidation purposes, when called for.
In my view, going by the above synthesis, there may be different computations of balance sheets, with varying figures, not calling for the sort of accounting reconciliation. Side by side with the properties and related details, changing one can have in different figures of liabilities also.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2017