A comparative analysis of the Latvian and Maltese regulatory and professional requirements for accountants

Abstract

The accountant is one of the leading pillars of successful business activity. Countries within the EU offer different routes to becoming a qualified professional accountant, and the regulations and standards sometimes differ. Contrary to the situation in Malta, where accountants are required to follow a standard content (syllabus) of formal education with approved education bodies and need to have about three years’ experience in accountancy, usually with approved accountancy firms, in Latvia an accountant is able to practice without a mandatory accountancy qualification and it is enough for him/her to have only an economic-related academic or professional certificate, diploma or degree or experience or an accountant leading to a certificate of competency. This study aims to compare requirements and routes to becoming an Accountant in Latvia and Malta and through such comparison and using the historical institutionalism approach as the theoretical framework for the development of the accountancy profession in Malta, to determine whether there is a need for improvements and reform to the requirements for practising as a professional accountant in Latvia. The case of Malta was chosen for comparison purposively since although bigger, in the EU Latvia is still a small state like Malta. To address this objective, the authors used the comparative approach, which involved a comparative study of the models, qualifications, regulations, standards and methods in each country. The theoretical and methodological grounds of the paper are the normative acts, works produced by scientists and Internet sources. The study shows that the accountancy profession in Malta is mature and very well developed and established within the EU and therefore, Latvia may build its accountancy profession by reference to the Maltese Model. The article looks at both theory and practice, and attempts to determine and understand problematic issues about the regulatory and professional requirements, in a drive to provide recommendations for improvement.