Professions are products of their own environments (Burnett, 1990). It is the prevailing circumstances in any society that give rise to the emergence and the development of professions (including Accounting) in a particular society (Bakre, 2001). This suggests that while the accounting systems established by the colonial administrators were developed mainly to respond positively to the colonial economies prevailing during that period, the appropriateness of such accounting systems to the post-independence economies of the formerly colonised countries becomes contestable (Briston, 1990 and Perera, 1989; Wallace & Williams, 1994). This is because different socio-economic and political developments have come into existence in most post-colonial countries since their independence (Wallace & Williams, 1994). As Ndubizu (1994) argues, “where different socio-economic and political environments exist, different accounting systems are required to cope with the peculiar socio-economic and political challenges posed in different societies”. These views suggest that accounting ought to change if the environments it served have changed.

In the specific case of the formerly colonised Commonwealth Caribbean socio-economies, while the medical and legal education and professions, inherited from the British colonial administrators, have changed as a result of the changes in administration and environment, similar changes have not taken place in the economic-driven profession of accountancy (Miller, 1989). In other words, the accountancy training, education and the professions instituted by the colonial administrators still continue to be the medium of surveillance in the Commonwealth Caribbean economic environments after many years of their respective independence (see also Bakre, 2005 and Bakre, 2006; Chaderton & Taylor, 1993). Moreover, education and training in the medical and law professions in the post-independent Commonwealth Caribbean societies have had a significant and positive impact on the health and legal policies of the Commonwealth Caribbean societies. This is not the case with respect to the accountancy profession, as the voices of the accountants in the Commonwealth Caribbean have not been heard in most of the economic policies of most Commonwealth Caribbean governments, particularly in Jamaica (Jackson, 1990) and Trinidad and Tobago (Ramlogan, 1985). Available evidence points out that the present accounting education, training and technology either inherited from the British professional bodies at independence or transferred to the Commonwealth Caribbean societies by some transnational accounting firms and other global professional bodies after independence,1 did not allow for Commonwealth Caribbean accountants to understand their own particular environments (Ramlogan, 1985). Yet this understanding is a necessity if Caribbean accountants are to contribute positively to the building of modern Commonwealth Caribbean societies (Ali, 1998). We are quite aware of the argument from some critics that accounting is now driven by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). While this position might not be totally dismissed, however, the adoption of the so called IFRS continues to face a serious ‘Atlantic divide’ paradoxically between the developed capitalist economies that jointly put IFRS in place, because each of these powers continues to lobby for its own domestic standards to be adopted as what they claim to be ‘international standards’ (see The Accountant, 2000).2 In the specific case of developing economies, IFRS has failed to consider the requirements of the economic environments of developing economies where the International Accounting Standard Committee (IASC) also expects IFRS to be adopted or enforced (see Wallace & Williams, 1994). In fact, due to the continued awareness of the inappropriateness of the IFRS to the economic problems of developing countries, IFRS has now been viewed in many developing economies as an attempt by developed capitalist economies to hamper the economic growth and development of their fragile economies (Susela, 1999). The above awareness has made many accounting commentators from developing economies to argue that:

“The International Accounting Standards Committee is a political body; its standards are those appropriate for industrial countries with a large private sector and a well-developed capital market. The main users of accounting reports in such countries are the shareholders, analysts, bankers and other businesses. Accounting reporting practices and standards are quite rightly designed to provide these users with the information they require” (Samuels & Oliga, 1982, p. 81).

This global and regional awareness has attracted strong criticisms from many Commonwealth Caribbean accountancy commentators in recent times (see for example, Bakre, 2001, 2004, Bakre, 2005 and Bakre, 2006; Chaderton & Taylor, 1993; ICAC Annual Report, 1998, 2000; MacDonald, 1990, Mendes, 1985, Mendes, 1988, Mendes, 1990, Preston, 1980, Preston, 1990, Ramlogan, 1985 and Selby, 1987). In the light of these criticisms from many developing world accounting commentators, particularly those commentators cited above, various efforts have been made at both the local and regional levels to alter the status quo in order to evolve an indigenous accounting capacity of its own at the national level in Jamaica (see Bakre, 2005 and Bakre, 2006), in Trinidad and Tobago (see Annisette, 2000) and at the regional level (see Bakre, 2001). However, these efforts continued to be challenged and hence have continuously failed to yield the desired results (see Bakre, 2005 and Bakre, 2006). Not surprisingly, these challenges are mainly from the few, but powerful and influential minority members3 of the various chartered institutes in the Commonwealth Caribbean, whose moral reasoning is highly influenced by colonial ideologies that have led them to continue to see the training and education of the accountancy profession through British eyes only (see Bakre, 2004). This minority group also shares the majority view that localisation or regionalisation could be the best way to achieve independent and relevant accounting education, training and the profession in the Commonwealth Caribbean. However, the group subscribes to these views only insofar as such localisation or regionalisation would be negotiated with certain colonial or global professional bodies (see Bakre, 2001).

In the above context, some Commonwealth Caribbean accounting commentators have suggested that continuous failure on the part of the accounting communities of the Commonwealth Caribbean to protect the public interest (the very purpose for which they claim to be in existence), may eventually lead to a challenge of the legitimacy of their existence in the individual Commonwealth Caribbean country on the one hand, and in the entire Commonwealth Caribbean region on the other (see for example, Preston, 1990 and Selby, 1987). Such suggestions from accounting commentators have, more than ever before, become very important in light of the recent challenge from the Prime Minister of Jamaica (with reference to the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice) to the regional University, University of the West Indies (UWI) that it should:

Lead in intellectual thought and discourse on issues of regional importance, and support practical activities that will promote closeness and integration of the Caribbean. The UWI should promote discussion on the issue and enable students and individuals to voice their opinion, in much the same way that the creation of the West Indies Federation was vigorously debated (Emphasis added, The Jamaican Sunday Herald, October 9, 2005, p. 10A).

In response to this call and many others from the present and past regional leaders (Arthur, 2005, Arthur, 1999, Bird, 1994, Burnham, 1973, Patterson, 2003 and Williams, 1973), individual Caribbean scholars (Beckford, 1972 and Girvan, 1971; Hall, 1999, 2000), and Caribbean accounting commentators (Ali, 1998, Annisette, 1996 and Annisette, 2000; Bakre, 2001, 2004, Bakre, 2005 and Bakre, 2006; Chaderton and Taylor, 1993 R. Chaderton and P.J. Taylor, Accounting systems of the Caribbean, Research in Third World Accounting 2 (1993), pp. 45–66.Chaderton & Taylor, 1993; Mendes, 1990 and Preston, 1990), this paper adds to the intellectual voices of the University of the West Indies on the specific case of the regional integration of the imperial accountancy education, training and the profession, either inherited by, or transferred to the Commonwealth Caribbean countries at or after independence by certain colonial or other global professional bodies.

The remainder of this paper will be devoted to an attempt to illuminate the various complexities surrounding this important regional project. In order to accomplish this goal, the rest of the paper is divided into six sections. Section 2 examines capitalism and economic integration and their respective impacts on the integration of accountancy education, training and the profession in a society, as the ‘map’ and the ‘lens’ to better understand the complexities surrounding this investigation. Section 3 reviews some studies that have examined various cases of the inappropriateness and the ensuing criticisms of the colonial and other developed capitalist countries’ inherited and transferred accounting education and training in the economic environment of most developing countries, especially the Commonwealth. As the accountancy profession in the Commonwealth Caribbean does not exist in isolation from colonial and other global economic systems and influences, Section 4 also adopts the same frameworks to examine the deemed inappropriateness of the colonial and other global capitalist countries’ accounting technology inherited by or transferred to the Commonwealth Caribbean economies at independence, and the ensuing conflict of identity and criticisms from the Commonwealth Caribbean accounting commentators. As the integration of the profession in the Commonwealth Caribbean seems to be a popular move as against the minority favoured internationalisation, Section continues the journey of the regionalisation option by further establishing a case in favour of integration of accountancy education, training and the profession in the Commonwealth Caribbean. Here, it is argued and demonstrated that, regardless of the elite opinion, integration is seen by the majority of the stakeholders in the Commonwealth Caribbean as the best way to enhance the practice of the profession, which could promote Commonwealth Caribbean economic unity, aid the successful operation of the Commonwealth Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME), project Commonwealth Caribbean identity and hence, ensure the survival of the Commonwealth Caribbean economies in the global economic system. Despite global and Caribbean regional criticisms of the status quo, the popular move to integrate the profession and the subsequent case established in favour of integration of the profession in the Commonwealth Caribbean, the powerful and influential minority members of the profession still seem not to see any viable alternative to the status quo. In this context, Section examines recent evidence of the impact of colonial mores on the influential and powerful elites in the various Commonwealth Caribbean Chartered Institutes, in what seems to be their renewed determination to continue to defend the status quo. Section 7 concludes the paper in the form of a summary and discussion.