The Dutch East-India Company and accounting for social capital at the dawn of modern capit

Description
Capitalism’s profound effect on society has encouraged economic and accounting historians
to hypothesise about the importance of double entry bookkeeping to its development.
According to Sombart the continual reinvestment of the profits earned depended on the
existence of a capitalist form of double-entry bookkeeping that would allow investors and
managers to measure the return on investments as a means of making rational business decisions.
More recently, with particular reference to the English East-India Company Bryer has
argued that the adoption of the capitalist form of double-entry bookkeeping was essential to
resolving the social conflict between investing capitalist classes that arose with the rise of
industrial capitalism in England in the late 17th and 18th centuries by providing the means
to calculate the rate of return on socialised capital. This paper widens the historical context of
these debates to The Netherlands in the early 17th century by examining accounting
practices of the Dutch East-India Company, the epitome of modern capitalism in motives,
organization and funding. It establishes that, although the 17th century Dutch were preeminent
in Europe in their knowledge of the capitalist form of double-entry bookkeeping,
at no time during the period covered by the first charter (1602–1623) of the Dutch East-India
Company, or thereafter, did the domestic operations of the Company use this form of bookkeeping
across all chambers.

The Dutch East-India Company and accounting for social capital
at the dawn of modern capitalism 1602–1623
Jeffrey Robertson, Warwick Funnell
?
School of Accounting and Finance, University of Wollongong, Australia
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Capitalism’s profound effect on society has encouraged economic and accounting historians
to hypothesise about the importance of double entry bookkeeping to its development.
According to Sombart the continual reinvestment of the pro?ts earned depended on the
existence of a capitalist form of double-entry bookkeeping that would allow investors and
managers to measure the returnoninvestments as a means of making rational business deci-
sions. More recently, with particular reference to the English East-India Company Bryer has
argued that the adoption of the capitalist formof double-entry bookkeeping was essential to
resolving the social con?ict between investing capitalist classes that arose with the rise of
industrial capitalism in England in the late 17th and 18th centuries by providing the means
to calculate the rate of returnonsocialisedcapital. This paper widens the historical context of
these debates to The Netherlands in the early 17th century by examining accounting
practices of the Dutch East-India Company, the epitome of modern capitalism in motives,
organization and funding. It establishes that, although the 17th century Dutch were pre-
eminent in Europe in their knowledge of the capitalist form of double-entry bookkeeping,
at no time during the period covered by the ?rst charter (1602–1623) of the Dutch East-India
Company, or thereafter, did the domestic operations of the Company use this form of book-
keeping across all chambers. This meant that the investors did not have the necessary infor-
mation that would have allowed them to calculate the return on their investments. Indeed,
the Company’s investors neither expected nor demanded information to calculate the return
on their investments and, hence, double-entry bookkeeping was not a necessary condition
for Dutch capitalism in the manner suggested by Sombart, Weber and Bryer. Instead, the
form which capitalism developed in The Netherlands recognised the social and economic
impact of its unique geography which produced a society characterised by a monetary
economy, a long tradition of joint ownership, and a free market for assets and capital rights.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The process by which much of Europe was transformed
from a feudal economy to a modern capitalist economy
has exercised scholars’ minds since Marx published the ?rst
volume of Capital: a critique of political economy (Das Kapital:
Kritik der politischen Ökonomie) in 1867. In particular, the
writings of Werner Sombart and Max Weber have engen-
dered vigorous, sustained debate among economic and
accounting historians, notably their views on the
contributions of accounting practices to the transition to
capitalism (Chiapello, 2007, pp. 264–276; Carnegie &
Napier, 1996, pp. 7–8, 15, 29–31; Funnell, 2001, pp. 55–
78; Hopwood, 2000, p. 763; Oldroyd, 1999, pp. 85–86; Toms,
2010; Winjum, 1971, 1972; Yamey, 1949, 1959). Whereas
Marx’s principal interest was ‘industrial capitalism’
1
which
0361-3682/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.03.002
?
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (W. Funnell).
1
The earliest known reference to ‘capitalism’ (capitalisme) appears in Louis
Blanc’s Organisation du Travail (1850, p. 161). He declared ‘‘what I call
capitalism, is the ownershipof capital bysome, totheexclusionof others’’ (avec
ce que j’appellerai le capitalisme, c’est-à-dire l’appropriation du capital par les uns,
àl’exclusiondeautres). Infrequentlyusedthereafter, thetermwas affordedfresh
impetus by Marx and Engels (Braudel, 1992, p. 237; Hamilton, 1991, p. 273).
Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Accounting, Organizations and Society
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ aos
was mainly a post 18th century phenomenon de?ned by
investment in the means of production, the concern of Som-
bart and Weber was commercial capitalism which marked
the appearance of modern capitalism during the 16th and
17th centuries (Bryer, 2000b, pp. 336, 342; de Roover, 1942,
pp. 38–39; Sée, 1928/2004, pp. 39, 47–48). Commercial capi-
talism is distinguished from feudal capitalism by the latter’s
emphasis on investment in land, whereas commercial capital
was more mobile and, therefore, more readily able to pursue
opportunities for pro?t (ten Have, 1976, p. 6). Sombart pos-
ited that the modern capitalist mentality associated with
commercial capitalism depended on both the prior existence
of double-entry bookkeeping to measure pro?t and the desire
(spirit) to use this technology to make rational business deci-
sions (Sombart, 1916/1953, p. 38). Weber, in contrast, re-
garded double-entry bookkeeping not as an essential
requirement for the development of modern capitalism but
as mainly a technology that facilitated rational capitalist ac-
tion which ‘‘rests on the expectation of pro?t by the utiliza-
tion of peaceful opportunities for exchange’’ (Weber, 1956,
p. 17). A rational capitalist business entity determines its ‘‘in-
come yielding power by calculationaccording to the methods
of modernbookkeeping andthe striking of a balance’’ (Weber,
1927/1981, p. 275).
2
More recently the transition debate has been revitalised
by Bryer (2000a, 2000b) whose contributions, mainly in
Accounting, Organizations and Society, have been described
by Toms (2010, p. 219) as ‘‘an important next step in the
Sombart–Weber debate’’. Bryer (2000a, p. 144) has argued
that ‘‘the mere existence of accounts kept by DEB (double
entry bookkeeping) provides no basis for identifying the
authentically capitalist mentality’’, and hence the appear-
ance of the capitalist business. Instead, and most impor-
tantly, it is ‘‘only evidence of the capitalist mentality if it
produces the return on capital employed . . .’’ (Bryer quoted
in Toms, 2010, p. 209). Relying principally on evidence
from the history of the English East-India Company (EEIC)
during the ?rst half of the 17th century, Bryer further wid-
ened the transition debate when he concluded that the
EEIC ‘‘and others (particularly the merchants of northern
Europe) eventually introduced double-entry bookkeeping
3
to foster the socialization of their capital’’ (Bryer, 1993, p.
136; 2000b, p. 344). While Toms (2010, p. 206) accepts
Bryer’s broader thesis he disagrees with his more ‘‘narrow’’
argument that rate of return calculations occurred quite
early and their use as a speci?c form of pro?tability calcula-
tion was the accounting signature of modern capitalism. In-
stead, Toms (2010, p. 206) argues that ‘‘fully ROCE
calculations make a much later appearance than suggested
in . . . (Bryer’s) previous empirical surveys’’. Bryer (2000b,
p. 379) had previously acknowledged the need for ‘‘more
theoretical and empirical research . . . before a plausible the-
ory becomes convincing history’’. Moreover, he noted that
‘‘(w)e must base the social history of accounting on a thor-
ough study of the large amount of archival material that lies
untouched by historians of accounting’’ (Bryer, 2000b, p.
379). Toms (2010, p. 206) has also suggested that an over
reliance in these debates on the experience of England in
the 17th century had implications for the resilience of any
related conclusions.
This paper responds to the call by Bryer and Toms for
more empirical evidence concerning the development of
capitalism in Europe with a detailed study of the Dutch
East India Company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie,
hereafter referred to as the VOC) in the early 17th century.
Examination of the VOC, regarded as the ?rst public lim-
ited liability joint stock company and, together with the
EEIC, considered the epitome of capitalist enterprise
(Bryer, 2000a, p. 140; Gepken-Jager at al., 2005, p. 43;
Nussbaum, 1937, p. 162; Sée, 1928/2004, pp. 22, 49, 52,
81, 121; Steensgard, 1973, p. 127; van Dillen, 1958, pp.
27, 40), complements Bryer’s study of the EEIC by broaden-
ing the historical context for the debate about the impor-
tance of double-entry bookkeeping in the transition to
capitalism. More importantly, the new evidence intro-
duced here from the archives of the VOC held at The Hague
challenges the essential, critical importance given by Bryer
to capitalist double-entry bookkeeping. The paper estab-
lishes that, unlike the EEIC, the method of bookkeeping
used by the VOC to account for its capital was not a capi-
talist form of double-entry bookkeeping which would have
allowed investors to determine the return on their
investments.
This study con?rms and extends the ?ndings of Funnell
and Robertson (2011) who identi?ed the in?uence of Ger-
man bookkeeping texts and northern German Hanseatic
business practices on Dutch accounting in the 16th cen-
tury, that is well before the VOC was even conceived. They
found that during this time agents’ (factors’) bookkeeping
and the practices of Hanseatic businesses, which had long
been the Netherlands’ most important trading partners (de
Groote, 1961, p. 147; de Roover, 1963, p. 114), were the
dominant in?uences on the organisation and administra-
tive practices of Netherlands’ businesses. Hanseatic
accounting developed over the pre-ceding centuries pri-
marily from the need to enable a settlement between part-
ners at the conclusion of a business venture. Hanseatic
businesses did not have a common capital but instead
were loose associations of businessmen in which no part-
ner could exercise formal control over the actions of other
partners (de Roover, 1974, pp. 171, 175; Posthumus, 1953,
pp. 9–10; Stieda, in Mickwitz, 1938, p. 189). Accordingly,
Funnell and Robertson conclude that for Hanseatic busi-
2
Both Yamey (1959, pp. 534–546) and Winjum (1971, pp. 333–350) also
?rmly rejected the idea that a capitalistic form of double-entry bookkeep-
ing was a necessary antecedent to the genesis of the capitalistic ?rm
(Carnegie & Napier, 1996, pp. 7–8, 15, 29–31; Chiapello, 2007, pp. 264–276;
Funnell, 2001; Hopwood, 2000, p. 763; Oldroyd, 1999, pp. 85–86; Winjum,
1972, p. 231; Yamey, 1949, pp. 99–100, 113).
3
For the purposes of this paper, the terms ‘modern’, ‘scienti?c’,
‘systematic’ ‘capital-revenue’, and ‘capitalist’ double-entry bookkeeping
are treated as synonyms. In addition to the basic requirement of a pair of
opposing entries for every transaction posted to the accounting records,
capitalist double-entry bookkeeping must be limited to the ?rm’s transac-
tions and must include a record of all the business’ assets, liabilities,
revenues, expenditure, and its capital sum. It must also recognise periodic
revaluations of assets, especially inventory, and charge depreciation. Such a
bookkeeping system permits the internal calculation of interim net pro?t
and shows the state of the ?rm’s capital at a particular date, both of which
are necessary to calculate the rate of return on invested capital (Bryer,
1993, pp. 113–114; 2000b, pp. 330, 368–369; Carruthers & Espeland, 1991,
p. 46; Gras, 1942, pp. 27–31; 1947, pp. 90–100, 103–104; Lemarchand,
1994, p. 122; Nussbaum, 1937, p. 162; Sée, 1928/2004, p. 10; Weber, 1981,
pp. 7, 275; Winjum, 1971, pp. 334–335; Yamey, 1949, pp. 99).
J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360 343
nesses a capitalistic form of double-entry bookkeeping, in
which a capital account is central, was neither possible
nor desirable and any notion of accounting for an entity
as a whole by means of a centralised accounting system
was entirely foreign to both the 16th century north Ger-
mans and the Dutch (ten Have, 1976, p. 9). These aspects
of Dutch business history are now shown in this paper to
have maintained their in?uence on the system of book-
keeping used by the VOC from its earliest days and
throughout its long and pro?table existence, despite the
sophistication of Dutch capitalism and the importance of
social capital as the means to ?nance the operations of
the VOC.
The advanced capitalist nature of the Dutch economy as
early as 1648 was noted by Marx who observed that ‘‘the
total capital of the (Dutch) Republic was probably more
important than that of all the rest of Europe put together’’
(quoted in de Vries and van der Woude (1997, p. 8)). Bren-
ner (2001, p. 231) has also af?rmed the uniqueness of the
late 16th century Dutch economy by noting that it ‘‘differ-
entiated itself from the leading economies that preceded it
(Flanders, Brabant, the city-states of northern Italy) in its
capitalist modernity, manifested most tellingly in its ad-
vanced, capital-intensive agricultural sector’’. Although
the 17th century Dutch are widely believed by historians
to have been also at the forefront of the development of
modern business techniques which included sophisticated
accounting practices (Nussbaum, 1937, p. 161; Sombart,
1913/1967, pp. 128, 144) evidence of the VOC’s organisa-
tion and ?nancial administration surprisingly has not been
considered in any detail in previous studies of the role of
accounting in Europe’s transition from feudalism to capi-
talism. The independent late 16th century Dutch East-India
companies that were combined to form the United Dutch
East-India Company (VOC) in 1602 were described by
Steensgaard (1973, p. 127) as ‘‘true capital associations, di-
vested of political interests, and probably the ?rst organi-
sations of that kind in the European expansion in Asia’’.
Authorities such as Sée (1928/2004, pp. 22, 81) also con-
cluded that the VOC was ‘‘a real corporation of the modern
type’’, that is a public company.
4
This study focuses on the
period 1602–1623, with reference to some important
changes before 1647, during which were established the
VOC’s organisational structure and bookkeeping practices
that endured for its entire, very pro?table, existence of
nearly 200 years.
In contrast to the EEIC, evidence from the VOC’s ar-
chives does not indicate that the VOC’s organisation and
?nancial administration were associated with the adoption
of a particular form of bookkeeping. Despite the VOC ful-
?lling all other criteria for a capitalist business entity, most
especially freely marketable, unrestricted share ownership,
and the pre-eminence of the Dutch in the use of and writ-
ing about double-entry bookkeeping (Stevin, 1604), the
VOC persisted with a Hanseatic form of venture accounting
for its domestic (Netherlands) accounts. This form of
accounting did not incorporate an integral capital account
or the means of periodically calculating net pro?t. In addi-
tion, the evidence provided here reveals that, unlike the
EEIC, the VOC’s general investors, known as participants,
did not require an accounting of the company’s manage-
ment that would have allowed the rate of return earned
on their investment to be calculated as required by social
theories of capitalism. Instead, they had much less sophis-
ticated, more limited, expectations of the VOC’s account-
ing, demanding only that it would allow management’s
probity or stewardship to be assessed. This was dramati-
cally con?rmed by a protracted con?ict between the VOC’s
general members and its directors (bewinthebbers)
5
that
erupted after 1620 when the bewinthebbers refused to pro-
vide a set of accounts to the participants for the ?rst
21 years of the VOC’s operations as required by its ?rst char-
ter. The participants’ determination that the bewinthebbers
would provide a general accounting was explicitly not moti-
vated by the need for information to determine return on
capital invested.
The ?rst section which follows provides an overview
of Sombart, Weber and Bryer’s theories about the rela-
tionship between capitalism and double-entry or capital-
ist bookkeeping with particular and extensive reference
to Bryer’s more recent, in?uential contributions. Archival
and other evidence is then used to examine in?uences on
the organisational structure and bookkeeping practices of
Dutch businesses and the formation of the VOC. This evi-
dence establishes that rather than these being most
immediately responses to social con?ict between estab-
lished and emerging investing capitalist classes, such as
that which characterised the rise of the EEIC, they recog-
nised instead the in?uence of the harsh natural landscape
which had prompted the development of innovative
political and economic institutions in The Netherlands,
considered as ‘‘the land of capitalism par excellence’’
(Sombart, 1913/1967, p. 144). Especially in?uential for
the VOC were the principles and practices developed by
the mediaeval Dutch water-boards, the communal local
authorities established to manage the risk of tidal surges
and ?oods.
4
In the context of this paper, a public company is one that has no
restrictions on membership. English joint stock companies such as the mid
16th century Company of Merchant Adventurers for the Discovery of Lands
Unknown and the early 17th century EEIC, retained the restrictive rules for
participation of regulated companies (Riemersma, 1950, pp. 33–35;
Robertson, 1839, p. 392; Sée, 1928/2004, pp. 43–44; Walker, 1931, pp.
98–100). The earliest occurrence known to the authors in which the general
public were invited to participate in an English company’s shares was in
1608 (Robertson, 1839, p. 148). Some doubt exists about this date because
Walker (1931, p. 102) states that the ?rst such occurrence was a public
auction of EEIC shares in 1615.
5
The term ‘bewinthebber’ does not translate easily from the Dutch.
Although it has connotations of government administrator, agent, manager
and director, early company bewinthebbers were the ?rm’s active or public
partners who organised the business, ensured that the requisite capital was
invested, and generally managed the business. Meilink-Roelofsz. (1976, p.
205) uses the term as a synonym for manager, which was the sense in
which it was used in the VOC. Le grand dictionaire, Francois–Flamen (d’Arsy,
1651) gives the same meaning, as does Sewell’s A new dictionary English and
Dutch (1691). Hexham’s A copious English and Nederduytch dictionarie
(1648) added ‘director’ to the list of synonyms but Lichtenauer (1956, p.
161) pointed out that until the early 18th century ‘directeuren’ (directors)
referred speci?cally to those who ?nanced the ?tting out of a warship.
344 J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360
Social capital, the capitalist ?rm and bookkeeping
Werner Sombart, whose thinking was heavily in?u-
enced by Marx (Chiapello, 2007, pp. 12–14; Funnell,
2001, pp. 64–65, 69–70; Sombart, 1937, p. 1953), sought
to explain Europe’s transition from pre-capitalism to
modern capitalism (Braudel, 1992, pp. 237–239; Most,
1972, p. 722; Sée, 1928/2004, p. 11; Sombart, 1937, p.
196; Weber, 1956, pp. 21–22). For this purpose he de?ned
capitalism as a
particular economic system, recognizable as an organi-
zation of trade, consisting invariably of two collaborat-
ing sections of population, the owners of the means of
production, who also manage them, and propertyless
workers, bound to the markets which they serve; which
displays the two dominant principles of wealth creation
and economic rationalism (Sombart quoted in Most
(1972, p. 722)).
According to Sombart the principal aim of capitalism
was the deliberate increase of an initial stock of wealth,
which was made possible by the rational pursuit of pro?t
(Most, 1972, pp. 722–724; Sombart, 1916/1953, p. 38).
Capitalism could not exist without the continual, rational
pursuit and, critically, the calculation of pro?t. This calcu-
lative mentality, he argued, was the essential difference
between a modern capitalist economy and preceding
economies.
The purpose of economic activity under capitalism is
acquisition, and more speci?cally acquisition in terms
of money. The idea of increasing the sum of money on
hand is the exact opposite of the idea of earning a live-
lihood which dominated all precapitalist systems, par-
ticularly the feudal-handicraft economy (Sombart, in
Seligman and Johnson (1937, p. 196)).
Pro?t per se was not the ultimate objective of modern
capitalism, merely the means by which an initial stock of
money (wealth) was expanded by the rational reinvest-
ment of pro?t (Sombart, 1919/1979, p. 246). This process,
Sombart emphasised, depended on the prior existence of
a capitalist (systematic) form of double-entry bookkeep-
ing that would allow both investors and managers to
measure the return on capital invested, thereby enabling
them to make rational business and investment decisions.
The real purpose of double-entry records was to make
manifest the abstract concept of capitalism. Therefore, a
capitalist form of double-entry bookkeeping was essential
for capitalism’s development. Indeed, ‘‘(o)ne cannot imag-
ine what capitalism would be without double-entry book-
keeping: the two phenomena are connected as intimately
as form and content’’ (Sombart, 1916/1953, p. 38).
6
Fol-
lowing Sombart, Robertson (1933/1959, p. 54) also directly
linked capitalism and double-entry bookkeeping, asserting
that capital was the ‘‘wealth set aside for gain . . . (which
was) comprehended by means of double-entry book-
keeping’’.
Unlike Sombart, Weber assumed that the spirit of capi-
talism was a consequence of the ‘Protestant ethic’ that pro-
moted hard work and thriftiness (Cohen, 1980, p. 1340). He
proposed that rational capitalist action ‘‘rests on the expec-
tation of pro?t by the utilization of peaceful opportunities
for exchange’’ (Weber, 1956, p. 17; 1927/1981, p. 275).
Weber initially suggested that rational calculation was
incidental to capitalism’s development, at the same time
refusing to accord a central role for a capitalist form of
double-entry bookkeeping (Weber, 1956, pp. 18, 21–22,
64). Subsequently, he did concede the importance of ra-
tional calculation, although stressing that this requirement
for rational action was not disturbed if the calculation
which prompted the action was not entirely accurate or
merely an estimate. Imprecision, he at ?rst believed, af-
fected only the degree of rationality not the fundamental
requirement that business decisions were the consequence
of rational consideration. ‘‘The important fact is always
that a calculation of capital in terms of money is made,
whether by modern bookkeeping methods or in any other
way, however primitive and crude’’ (Weber, 1956, p. 18).
Later, however, Weber (1968, pp. 91–92; 1981, p. 275)
was forced to acknowledge that rational capitalist action
rested on a capitalist form of double-entry bookkeeping
that incorporated a capital account (Toms, 2010, p. 205)
which is
represented by the greatest possible degree of ‘calcula-
bility’, the most complete calculability of all chance of
pro?t and loss already realised or anticipated in the
future. No other method of calculation, however
devised, can replace the formally rational functioning
of capital accounting (Weber, quoted in Tribe (2006,
pp. 29–30)).
Bryer harnessed Weber’s notion of a calculative mental-
ity to an interpretation of Marx’s explanation of class con-
?ict as the catalyst that initiated commercial capitalism to
propose that class con?ict in trade and agriculture, a calcu-
lative mentality, and the use of modern accounting, that is
double-entry bookkeeping, together constituted the ‘‘nec-
essary and suf?cient causes of full capitalism’’ (Bryer,
2000a, pp. 131, 135–136). Inherent in the notion of class
con?ict in commerce is a free, collective, that is social, cap-
ital that divorced ownership and management of the cap-
ital sum and established a professional management
corps who were ‘‘accountable to social capital . . . for the
realised rate of return on capital employed’’ (Bryer, 1999,
p. 687; 2000a, p. 142). ‘Capital employed’ could refer to
either accounting or economic capital but the context in
which Bryer uses the term indicates he intends accounting
capital, that is, the joint sum (stock) invested by sharehold-
ers plus accumulated retained earnings, rather than eco-
nomic capital. Economic capital, which encompasses
accounting capital and all other forms of ?nancing ad-
vanced to the business, is not evident in Bryer’s discussion
of the EEIC’s capital. In the manner that Bryer uses the term
‘returns’ it represents a proportional remittance of periodic
net pro?t identi?ed by double-entry bookkeeping.
6
For Sombart these records made manifest the abstract concept of
capitalism. He believed pro?t was something which particularly suited the
alleged nature of Jews (Sombart, 1911/2001). See Funnell (2001) for an
account of how Sombart’s extreme anti-Semitism in?uenced his funda-
mental thesis about capitalism and double-entry bookkeeping.
J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360 345
Consequently, it is related to accounting pro?ts (direct rev-
enues less expenditures) rather than economic pro?t
which includes a wider range of implied costs (Bryer,
2000a, pp. 136–140, 151; 2000b, pp. 328, 331–332, 337,
342, 344, 346–349, 368).
Social capital, according to Bryer (1999, p. 687; 2000a,
pp. 141–143; 2000b, p. 368), induced investors to adopt
a calculative mentality based on the rate of return earned
on capital employed. This ratio is said to constitute the
very core of capitalism because ‘‘the rate of return mental-
ity combines with the mentality of maximizing surplus la-
bour within production, to produce the modern capitalist
mentality, that pursues the maximum rate of return on
capital employed in production’’ (Bryer, 2000a, p. 159).
The rate of return on capital is the most effective means
to hold management accountable for both their adminis-
tration of the capital sum and an equitable, satisfactory
distribution of pro?t. Therefore, the rate of return on cap-
ital employed ‘‘the dominant economic ethic’’ (Bryer,
2000b, p. 327). A capitalist form of double-entry bookkeep-
ing is considered the best means of providing the informa-
tion required to calculate this rate of return, and thereby
?x management’s accountability to investors because only
‘‘double-entry bookkeeping can be characterized as an
algorithm for the automatic and continuous production
of the means for calculating the rate of return on capital’’
(Bryer, 1993, pp. 114). Thus, ‘‘the new merchants who
socialise their capital should evince the rate of return men-
tality in their accounts by the full application of DEB’’
(Bryer, 2000a, p. 151, emphasis added).
In the case of England, Bryer’s main focus, the transition
from feudalism to capitalism is said to have incorporated
three stages which began in the late 15th century with
agricultural enclosures and the emergence of free waged
labour (Bryer, 2000b, p. 329; 2004, p. 6; 2005, p. 29;
2006, p. 370). Whereas bonded labour could be physically
compelled to deliver a surplus to the landowner, free or
waged labour necessitated the economic means to admin-
ister the return produced. Economic management, in turn,
relied on ?nancial accounting and, more particularly, cal-
culation of periodic feudal surplus or net revenue, a pri-
mary indicator of a developing capitalistic mentality. To
become a capitalist, a feudal lord ‘‘needs only to transform
his workers into wage workers and produce for pro?t in-
stead of for revenue’’ (Marx quoted in Bryer (1994, p.
211)). Notwithstanding that pro?t is the general form of
surplus under capitalism (Marx, in Bryer (1994, p. 209)),
16th century farmers possessed only an embryonic calcu-
lative mentality that took account of net surplus, not peri-
odic net pro?t in relation to capital employed (Bryer,
2000b, p. 328; 2005, p. 29). As pro?t is the general form
of surplus under capitalism (Marx, in Bryer (1994, p.
209)), such farmers were considered semi-capitalist (for-
mally capitalist). In contrast to full capitalism, semi-capi-
talist entrepreneurs are de?ned as ‘capitalistic’ rather
than ‘capitalist’, and their collective investments as ‘socia-
lised’ rather than ‘social’ (Bryer, 2000a, p. 137). Only when
surpluses from trade ?owed back into agriculture and
farmers administered their estates by calculating the rate
of return on the capital employed did they become capital-
ist (Bryer, 2005, p. 30).
In the next stage along the path towards full capitalism,
feudal merchants ‘‘became capitalistic, signatured by their
use of double-entry bookkeeping (DEB) to calculate the
feudal rate of return on capital, when they socialised their
capital . . .’’ (Bryer, 2000b, p. 328) by investing in partner-
ships and joint stock companies (Bryer, 2000a, p. 137).
Investments were considered temporary, liquidated as
soon as the venture was complete. Capitalistic business
associations of the 17th century were typi?ed by English
long-distance commercial ventures, such as the early Eng-
lish East India Company. Merchants who invested in such
undertakings are considered capitalistic because they pur-
sued the feudal rate of return, that is feudal surplus (reve-
nue less expenditure or net operational cash ?ow)
expressed as a factor of the initial capital invested by indi-
vidual venturers (Bryer, 2006, p. 370). As these entrepre-
neurs did not rely on pro?t in the modern sense of the
term, they did not need a fully developed capitalist form
of double-entry bookkeeping to satisfy their calculative
mentality. Accordingly, ‘‘DEB was irrelevant to the calcula-
tive mentality of feudal merchants as there was no social
pressure on them to calculate the rate of return on capital’’
(Bryer, 2000b, p. 340). Pro?t was conceived as a consum-
able surplus necessary to ‘‘maintain their lifestyles, not to
maximize the rate of return on their capitals’’ (Bryer,
2000a, p. 151).
Full capitalism which evolved from semi-capitalist
(capitalistic) relations and calculative mentalities during
the late 16th and early 17th centuries (Bryer, 2004, p. 6)
was characterised by a free collective capital that was
not restricted to a particular social class, was freely trans-
ferable and could be used for any legitimate business pur-
pose. Most importantly, free capital had the ability to
readily respond in a free market to the rate of return
earned on capital. Under full capitalism the capital sum is
regarded as a permanent
7
totality that has no direct associ-
ation with individual investors, which allowed investors’ lia-
bility for the company’s debts to be limited to the unpaid
portion of the subscribed capital (Bryer, 2000a, p. 137;
2000b, p. 368). Capital’s anonymity was critical for the
development of full capitalism for it meant that capital
had to be manifested in the accounting records as a coherent
monetary sum. Furthermore, it required that returns to
investors (distributions or dividends) were proportional to
the sum invested and that they were made in cash rather
than kind. Consequently, equitable distributions appor-
tioned from pro?t became the dominant economic ethic
and the modern capitalist’s calculative mentality demanded
the optimal rate of return on capital employed (Bryer, 1994,
p. 209; 2000a, pp. 136–137, 142–143, 159).
In contrast to semi-capitalism where the roles of man-
agement and owner were combined, management with
full capitalism are employees accountable to the collective
body of investors. Management are expected to discharge
7
Permanent meant that, rather than capital being liquidated on the
occurrence of a certain future event, the capital sum’s integrity was
maintained until such time as investors deemed it expedient to liquidate it.
Given a policy of capital maintenance, dividends must be paid from pro?ts,
and management is accountable to investors for the value of the capital
invested.
346 J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360
this obligation by producing periodic ?nancial reports that
set out the return earned during the period and the state of
the capital at a particular date. Importantly, according to
Bryer (2000a, pp. 142–143; 2000b, p. 368) the principal
objective of such corporate ?nancial accounting is not to
provide investors with decision-useful information but to
hold management accountable for the rate of return on
capital employed and for an equitable, satisfactory distri-
bution of pro?t: ‘‘an equal return for equal capital’’ (Bryer,
2000a, p. 159). Thus, ‘‘double-entry bookkeeping emerged
as capital became socialised in response to a collective de-
mand from investors for the frequent calculation of the
rate of return on capital as the basis for sharing pro?ts’’
(Bryer, 1993, p. 115). This perceived proximity between
the development of capitalism and double-entry book-
keeping induced Bryer to conclude that ‘‘the history of
socialised capital underlies the emergence and spread of
double-entry bookkeeping, the introduction of the joint
stock company, and the emergence of modern ?nancial
reporting’’ (Bryer, 1994, p. 210; 1999, p. 688; 2000a, pp.
132, 135–136). Accordingly, the history of accounting be-
tween the 13th and 17th centuries provides a reliable sur-
rogate for the history of the development of capitalism
while the history of the EEIC exempli?es this relationship
(Bryer, 2000b, p. 344).
From its inception in 1600 until its ‘bourgeois revolu-
tion’ in 1657, the EEIC was organised as a joint stock com-
pany with a regulated, terminating capital that could be
withdrawn in kind. Consequently, it was semi-capitalist
and its investors calculated the feudal rate of return on in-
vested capital (Bryer, 2000a, p. 151; 2000b, p. 345). Not
until social con?ict in 1657 transformed the EEIC into a
fully capitalist entity did it adopt a free capital and resolve
that dividends henceforth be based on pro?t and paid in
cash. These changes established the principle of capital
maintenance within the EEIC, abolished the company’s
feudal management, and resulted in limited liability for
its investors. To properly administer these changes and
the social tensions that they engendered as a new class
of investors challenged the dominance of a privileged
group of merchants who had run the EEIC for their own
bene?t, the EEIC also adopted a capitalist form of dou-
ble-entry bookkeeping (Bryer, 2000a, p. 151; 2000b, pp.
328, 368; 2006, p. 370).
Unlike the more immediate temporal and historical tra-
jectory of social con?ict identi?ed by Bryer with the EEIC,
in the case of the VOC these in?uences were not immedi-
ately antecedent to its formation or most in?uential in its
choice of accounting and management practices. Instead,
the following section will establish that the country’s geog-
raphy was overwhelmingly the greatest in?uence on the
form and management of the VOC through the social, polit-
ical, personal and economic responses that this had de-
manded of the Dutch and which were re?ned over
centuries. These conditions, together with the Dutch revolt
against the Spanish empire in 1581, had fashioned a un-
ique national identity which was unconsciously yet syner-
gistically conducive to the values, goals and practices of
the ‘‘?rst modern nation state based on capitalism rather
than feudalism’’ (Riley & Ashworth, 1975, p. 40).
In?uence of the Dutch landscape on society and
business
The Netherlands most striking feature is its general lack
of elevation. Twenty-?ve percent of the country lies below
sea level, while a further 40% is at, or slightly above, sea le-
vel (Kaijser, 2002, pp. 521–522; Lambert, 1971, p. 1; Riley
& Ashworth, 1975, pp. 12–15; Rowen, 1972, p. 1; TeBrake,
2002, p. 475; van Dam, 2002, p. 500). In the absence of con-
tinuous, extensive water control measures, two thirds of
The Netherlands would be submerged at high tide. Accord-
ingly, extreme necessity preoccupied the region’s inhabit-
ants with protecting what little land there was from tidal
surges and ?ood, and induced them to reclaim as much
land as possible from seashore, riverbeds and marshes
(Dol?ng & Snellen, 1999, pp. 3, 8; Israel, 1995, p. 9; Smits
& Wiggers, 1959, p. 9; TeBrake, 2002, pp. 475, 483; van
Iterson, 1997b, p. 53). In the absence of a strong feudal
presence in much of northern Netherlands, life under such
precarious circumstances was only possible because, as
early as the 13th century, the Dutch organised themselves
into effective and cooperative autonomous local authori-
ties known as water-boards (waterheemraadschappen).
Dutch water-boards derived their authority from the
principle that every village was a judicial entity in its
own right, with its own law court, laws (keuren, literally
‘choices’), programme of construction, budgets, mainte-
nance, and inspections (schouw or audit). Organised and
managed on the general principle that individuals must
contribute a proportionate share of the costs of any bene-
?ts received, these institutions infused Dutch society with
the notion that, to avoid one group unfairly dominating an-
other, social relationships must be organised proportion-
ally. It also resulted in an emphasis on local concerns and
the need for co-ordinated, planned action which engen-
dered the democratic principle that water management
had to be delivered by local of?cials who were directly
accountable to those whom they represented (Israel,
1995, pp. 9–10; Kaijser, 2002, pp. 522–529, 547; Lambert,
1971, p. 114; TeBrake, 2002, pp. 493, 497; van de Ven,
1994, pp. 9, 48–49, 69, 96–100; van der Linden, 1981, pp.
58–65).
The concept of stakeholder rights, an essential part of
modern corporate governance, was another innovative so-
cial institution developed as a result of the Dutch experi-
ence with water-boards. Water-boards had to take
cognisance of not only the interests of the local landowners
and residents but also the well-being of those who lived
upstream and downstream, and those of urban folk whose
interests might con?ict with those of rural dwellers. Thus
was born the notion that social institutions were account-
able to a wider stakeholder group (Dol?ng & Snellen, 1999,
p. 9; TeBrake, 2002, pp. 490, 497). Their experience in
resolving water-related con?icts between different groups
allowed the Dutch to develop an approach to managing so-
cial con?ict that is best described as ‘pragmatic consensus’.
Pragmatic consensus, or ‘verzuiling’, refers to a process in
which communal action depended not on a simple major-
ity vote but on a common consent achieved by negotiation
and cooperation (Kaijser, 2002, p. 547; Lijphart, 1968, pp.
J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360 347
122–138; TeBrake, 2002, p. 493). Politically, the water-
boards were relatively autonomous, democratic institu-
tions located within a federal structure that operated as a
network of interconnected cells, rather than a hierarchy
(Dol?ng & Snellen, 1999, pp. 35–36; Sorge & van Iterson,
1995, p. 197; TeBrake, 2002, pp. 490, 497; van Dam,
2002, p. 503).
The organisational model of the Dutch water authorities
provided the model for The Netherlands’ republican form
of government and its business institutions in the latter
half of the 16th and early 17th centuries, and still informs
the structure and administration of modern Dutch society
and business organisations (Lambert, 1971, pp. 113–114;
van der Linden, 1981, pp. 58–65; van Dijk & Punch, 1993,
pp. 169–172). The nominal head of government was a na-
tional assembly of deputies, the States-General, whose
members were appointed by the country’s seven sovereign
provinces: Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Groningen, Friesland,
Overijssel, and Guelders. Each province, in turn, had its
own provincial assembly, the States Provincial, made up
of delegates appointed by the towns in its jurisdiction.
Consequently, the responsibility of the representatives ap-
pointed to the States-General lay ?rst with the town they
represented, then their province, and ?nally the national
government (Price, 1994, p. 233; ‘t Hart, 1989, p. 665; Tem-
ple, 1673/1972, p. 64; van Gelderen, 1992, p. 24; van Zan-
den & Prak, 2004, pp. 17–18).
Inthe absence of a strong feudal authority, water-boards,
which were dependent on taxes levied on ?xed property to
carry out their responsibilities, undertook to maintain
meticulous records of property transactions. In this way,
these institutions playeda signi?cant role inestablishingse-
cure property rights by developing property lawand impos-
ing administrative order on land transfers (van Bavel, 2005,
pp. 7–9). The ability to create freehold land freed peasant
farmers from feudal bonds while the widespread practice
of leasing rural land at commercial rates after the 13th cen-
turywas a decisive factor indevelopinga capitalist economy
in rural Netherlands. Indeed, the
market orientation of Dutch rural society and the entre-
preneurial freedom that was made possible by volun-
tary, commercially based leases and contracts give a
distinctly modern impression . . . This medieval achieve-
ment must stand as the most distinctive feature of the
region’s economy (de Vries and van der Woude, pp.
161–162).
Peat-land clearances undertaken in central Holland
after the 13th century were another important step in
the development of medieval Dutch peasant property
rights. Furthermore, by establishing the idea that capital
assets could be jointly owned, and shares in such assets
could be freely negotiated, the peat-land clearances set in
place another element of The Netherlands’ capitalist agrar-
ian economy. Reclamation projects were formalised by an
agreement (cope) between six to eight free families who
jointly cleared a standard parcel of land. Each family in-
volved was regarded as a shareholder (aandeelhouder) in
the project, and, most importantly, enjoyed rights of own-
ership over their share of the asset that could be freely
negotiated. The surplus yield of such a parcel of land was
shared in proportion to the input each member had con-
tributed. Accordingly, the copen established a tradition of
social capital and endowed the Dutch with a profound
understanding of the principle of common ownership in
proportion to invested capital that is central to modern
capitalism. This form of association also engendered an
appreciation of the concept that abstract rights repre-
sented a negotiable asset. The ‘‘‘cope’ reclamations, in par-
ticular, . . . had considerable political and social
consequences. The present-day society of The Netherlands
has been strongly in?uenced by these developments. The
agreement functioned as a kind of constitution for the fu-
ture society’’ (van de Ven, 1994, p. 60).
The poor quality of the country’s soil and its lack of re-
sources compelled the Dutch to create an industrialised rur-
al economy initially based on dairying. Dairying was less
labour intensive than other types of farming, resulting in
surplus rural workers who were forced to move to the
towns. Not only did these activities create a free peasantry,
who jointly owned the property they farmed, but subse-
quent environmental degradation when the dried peat-
lands subsidedwas instrumental ininducingfarmers tospe-
cialise and develop proto-industries, that is, ‘‘non-agricul-
tural activities . . . such as textile production, peat-digging,
fowling, chalk-burning, bleaching, brick-making, ?shing
and shipping’’, which were increasingly capital-intensive
and matched the needs of wealthy urban investors (van Ba-
vel, 2010, p. 56). The consequence of rural specialisationand
other industry was that rather than producing the variety of
commodities necessary for subsistence, rural dwellers had
to resort to the market to dispose of their surplus produce
andgenerate the income tobuythe necessities theynolong-
er produced (Brenner, 2001, p. 208; van Bavel, 2003, pp.
1133, 1139–1140, 1160; 2010, p. 55).
Experience with medieval institutions such as the
water-boards also instilled in the Dutch the importance
of holding those entrusted with managing joint assets
accountable to the general population. Fiscal control re-
quired that a water-board’s constituents approve a
water-board’s annual programme of work, its budget, and
the level of tax required to fund the proposed work. In
addition, local representatives and of?cials were held to
account, in public forum, for the discharge of their duties.
Financial accountability acquired a more formal structure
in the late 16th and early 17th centuries when a form of
statutory ?nancial audit was imposed on the principal
water boards (van de Ven, 1994, pp. 96–100; Dol?ng &
Snellen, 1999, pp. 16–18).
8
These social institutions to-
gether with the rapid urbanisation of The Netherlands were
critical elements in The Netherlands becoming a capitalist
society with a unique Dutch identity.
An unusually ‘‘precocious’’ (De Vries & van der Woude,
1997, p. 608), high rate of urbanisation in The Netherlands
from the 14th century was largely due to the commerciali-
8
Evidence of the importance that the medieval Dutch placed in
commercial ?nancial accountability is found in a 1413 Amsterdam
keurboek (codi?ed city ordinances) that required ship captains to properly
record transactions carried out on behalf of the joint owners of a ship and
its cargo (partenreederij), which record the Amsterdam court could, if
necessary, subpoena (Gelderblom, 2004, p. 26).
348 J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360
sation of the countryside (de Vries & van der Woude, 1997,
p. 608; van Bavel & van Zanden, 2004, p. 506). By the 14th
century a quarter of Holland’s population was urbanised,
rising to half of the population by the early 15th century
with the ratio of urban to rural inhabitants exceeding
60% after the mid 16th century when urban areas absorbed
nearly 90% of Holland’s population growth. A corollary to
this extensive urbanisation was a substantial growth in
waged labour, monetary exchange and a competitive ur-
ban market economy (de Vries & van der Woude, 1997,
p. 706; Israel, 1995, p. 15; Kaijser, 2002, p. 530; ‘t Hart,
1989, pp. 664–665; van de Ven, 1994, pp. 93, 95). By the
17th century, the Dutch were a waged society of ‘‘(f)ar-
mers, shopkeepers, and many inland and ocean shippers,
?shermen, and craftsmen were self-employed, their in-
comes depending on the market prices of their goods and
services’’ (De Vries & van der Woude, 1997, p. 608).
A ‘classical’ transition from agrarian feudalism to capi-
talism in the manner suggested by Marx, Brenner and
Bryer, therefore, did not occur in late medieval (mid 16th
century) Netherlands. Consequently, competition for land
did not manifest itself as a struggle between peasant and
lord but between peasant and the bourgeoisie. In compar-
ison to England, Dutch competition for land was more sub-
tle, on a smaller scale and carried out by Dutch burgers
who regarded rural land acquisition as incidental to their
main occupation of urban commerce. Also in Holland, un-
like England, the struggle for dominance over the state
was decided in the late 16th century in favour of the mer-
chant class. Not only did The Netherlands’ rural economy
not experience the same sharp social divisions based on
class as were evident in England but the Dutch aristocracy
did not have the ability to force peasants to part with their
surplus by non-economic means. Brenner has noted that
what is most signi?cant about the Dutch agrarian struc-
ture at the start of the early modern period is its sys-
tematic difference from the typical west European
feudal-peasant pattern. There had never been a
strongly-rooted lordly class capable of extracting a sur-
plus by means of extra-economic compulsion, and by
1500 the landed class received exclusively economic
rents. Equally signi?cant, there had never been a tradi-
tional ‘patriarchal’, ‘possessing’ peasantry, with direct,
non-market access to its means of subsistence (Brenner,
1997, p. 75).
By the late 16th century, Dutch society was accustomed
to a competitive, market economy in which subsistence
production was no longer practiced in any signi?cant
way. However, once subsistence production gave way to
agrarian specialisation the Dutch understood that contin-
ual reinvestment was vital to sustain their economic cir-
cumstances, and provide a degree of assurance for the
future (De Vries & van der Woude, 1997, pp. 160, 179).
More so than Protestant ethics, it was the appreciation that
it was critical to provide for an uncertain future that con-
?rmed The Netherlands’ transition to capitalism. This men-
tality was clearly evident in the continual reinvestment
that saw the Dutch ?eet expand rapidly after the 14th cen-
tury, so that by the 16th century it dominated North Sea
?shing and shipping between the Baltic and Iberia, (Brau-
del, 1992, p. 190; de Vries & van der Woude, 1997, pp.
296, 355–357, 364; Israel, 1990, pp. 21, 27; 1995, pp. 24,
49–52, 60–66; Tracy, 1985, p. 195; 1990, p. 12). Most
importantly, it was the continual reinvestment in the re-
gion’s merchant navy during the 15th and 16th centuries
that made it possible for the Dutch to ef?ciently exploit
the 17th century European market for Asian goods (De
Vries & van der Woude, 1997, pp. 388–389, 392, 396, 463).
Organisation and ownership of the Dutch East-India
Company
Between 1595, when Cornelius Houtman’s ?eet re-
turned from the ?rst successful Dutch voyage to the East
Indies (van der Chys, 1857, p. 7), and April 1602, when
the VOC was established, The Netherlands was consumed
by an intense ?urry of commercial activity that saw a num-
ber of East Indian companies established. During this time,
16 ?eets comprising 71 merchantmen sailed from The
Netherlands to the East Indies (for a history of these early
companies see: Bruijn, Gaastra, & Schöffer, 1979, p. 2;
Mollema, 1935, pp. 18–28; van der Chys, 1857). The States
of Holland quickly realised that the intensely competitive
nature of Dutch businessmen, especially those of The
Netherland’s two largest provinces Zeeland and Holland,
was proving detrimental to the East-India trade. Pro?tabil-
ity of the Dutch East-India trade would only be optimised
by encouraging independent Dutch East-India companies
(voorcompagnieën) to cooperate, rather than act as ruthless
commercial competitors (de Haan, 1977, p. 84; de Jonge,
1862, p. 137; van der Chys, 1857, pp. 87, 89). By early
1601 the concern for commercial order had been sup-
planted by anxiety for the nation’s general economic wel-
fare, which was increasingly reliant on the pro?ts
generated by East-India commerce. Thus, the States-Gen-
eral decreed in 1601 that the voorcompagnieën be restruc-
tured as a single entity that both accommodated existing
interests and allowed access to these highly pro?table
operations for all Netherlands’ residents (de Jonge, 1862,
pp. 133, 138; den Tex, 1973, pp. 301–305).
The VOC was a remarkable institution for its time.
Formed in 1602 as a public company, with strong capitalist
characteristics, it was an innovative institution. A charter
issued by the States-General on the 20th of March 1602
created the United Dutch East-India Company, conferring
on it monopoly rights
9
to trade in the East Indies (NL-HaNa,
VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 1, VOC charter, 1602
10
). The new company
was comprised of six largely independent chambers repre-
senting the major trading towns of Amsterdam, Delft,
Enkhuizen, Hoorn, Rotterdam, and Zeeland,
11
a legacy of
the earlier East-Indian companies (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02,
?le 1, Article I) which continued to enjoy a proportionate
9
At this time Holland’s businessmen generally opposed monopolies,
which they believed limited opportunities for pro?t. Nevertheless, the
Dutch supported the concept of a VOC monopoly on basis that existing
political communities had inviolable rights that had to be protected
(Riemersma, 1967, pp. 32, 61).
10
Documents located in the VOC archives in The Hague are referred to in
this manner.
11
The ?rst ?ve were located in Holland and the sixth at Middelburg in the
province of Zeeland.
J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360 349
share in the anticipated economic advantages from the re-
organised East India trade (den Tex, 1973, pp. 300–309;
Price, 1974, pp. 2, 27; Price, 1994, pp. 129–131, 235).
Responsibility for company policy and external relations
was given to a central supervisory body of 17 executive
directors called the Heren Zeventien. The VOC was estab-
lished as a legal entity in its own right, independent of its
members, which represented a signi?cant shift in the orga-
nisation of business entities at this time. Investors were
deemed not to be personally liable for the company’s debts
beyond the unpaid portion of their subscribed capital sum,
which was considered a personal obligation between sub-
scriber and the company (NL-HaNA, VOC, 1.04.02, 1, Article
XLII; van Iterson, 1997a, p. 8).
12
The importance of both so-
cial and economic motives in the formation of the VOC is
clear from the preamble to the founding charter which
acknowledged that
the welfare of these United Lands depends primarily on
the maritime traf?c, trade and commerce conducted
since time immemorial from these lands, not only with
neighbouring kingdoms but also with countries located
further away, in Europe, Asia and Africa, which has from
time to time produced glorious pro?t. . .. [We] are per-
suaded that these United Lands and its good inhabitants
might greatly bene?t if such ventures, trade and com-
merce was sustained and developed by being subject
to sound common control, authority, and cooperative
management.
The close association between state and commerce was
also apparent in the role played by Johan van Oldenbarne-
velt who, as Advocaat van den Lande (Advocate of Hol-
land),
13
was both the orchestrator of the federated Dutch
Republic in 1586 and the driving force behind the organisa-
tion of VOC in 1602 (den Tex, 1973, pp. 1, 150; Geyl, 1980,
pp. 213–215; Parker, 1977, pp. 247–248). Van Oldenbarne-
velt introduced in the VOC’s charter a revolutionary change
to the Dutch bewinthebbers’ customary role of acting as
investment agents for those not directly involved in a busi-
ness by ensuring that the charter stipulated that every Neth-
erlands’ inhabitant was to have the opportunity to invest
even the smallest amounts on their own behalf, not through
and at the behest of an intermediary (NL-HaNA, VOC,
1.04.02, 1, Articles X and XI). The strong social basis of the
VOC’s charter was also evident in Article X which provided
that in the event of the capital being oversubscribed the allo-
cation of those who had subscribed for the greatest amounts
would be proportionally reduced to accommodate all small
subscribers (NL-HaNA, VOC, 1.04.02, 1, Articles X and XI).
An unintended consequence of Article X was a revolu-
tionary change for the role of the Dutch bewinthebber.
Whereas bewinthebbers had been entrepreneurs who acted
as investment agents for those not actively involved in a
venture, direct subscription rendered this function redun-
dant. Despite this highly signi?cant cultural and commer-
cial innovation, the charter failed to recognise the
implications of direct subscription and stipulated that the
bewinthebbers retain their traditional role as the company’s
directorship with dramatic consequences towards the end
of the ?rst charter (NL-HaNA, VOC, 1.04.02, 1, Articles
XVIII–XXIII). This confused the company’s accountability
relationship because bewinthebbers, as the public face of
Dutch business, had traditionally been fully liable for debts,
whereas investors who used the services of a bewinthebber
were considered anonymous and had no such liability.
Accordingly, previously a business was held to be account-
able to its bewinthebbers but not to those who invested un-
der their auspices while the latter only had a right to
demand an accounting from the bewinthebber with whom
they had placed their funds. The disruption caused by the
changed relationship between bewinthebbers and investors
was exacerbatedbythe charter providingthat all VOCinves-
tors, including the bewinthebbers, would enjoy limited lia-
bility for the company debts to the extent of the unpaid
portion of the capital for which they had subscribed (NL-
HaNA, VOC, 1.04.02, 1, Article XLII; van Iterson, 1997a, p. 8).
The VOC’s structure re?ected the highly devolved
organisational structure of the country’s water-boards
and The Netherlands’ federal political structure (NL-HaNa,
VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 1, Article I). Division of the company’s
domestic operation into six relatively independent cham-
bers echoed the autonomous, self reliant nature of water-
boards. Each chamber organised its own East-India ?eets,
built its own ships in its own yards, engaged the crews
and paid their wages, controlled their own commercial
operations, and provided the stocks and equipment needed
to equip their ?eets (Meilink-Roelofsz, 1982, p. 173). Indi-
vidual chambers kept their own ?nancial records accord-
ing to their preferred method of bookkeeping; there was
no central accounting system which encompassed the
activity of all chambers. In keeping with the cellular struc-
ture of the water boards, the VOC did not have an author-
itative, overriding central administration, only the Heren
Zeventien (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 1, Article II) and in-
stead was held together by the company’s charter which
effectively acted as its articles of association. Archived res-
olutions of the VOC’s Heren Zeventien con?rm that from the
?rst the VOC operated as a commercial enterprise devoted
to maximising pro?ts (NL-HaNA, VOC, 1.04.02, 99, 100
(NL-HaNA, VOC, 1.04.02, 225, 226, 227, 228; NL-HaNa,
VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 1, Article II). There is no suggestion in
the evidence available that, unlike the EEIC, the early com-
pany had any colonial ambitions (de Heer, 1929, p. 284;
Heeres, 1902, p. 18; Meilink-Roelofsz., 1980, p. 20; Most-
ert, 2007, p. 11).
VOC capital rights were freely transferable in an open
market, thereby changing the nature of the investment
from a temporary monetary deposit, which could be re-
claimed when a venture was liquidated, to that of an asset
that could be bought and sold as the holder saw ?t. An
organised market for this purpose was established in
Amsterdam in 1603,
14
shortly after the ?rst capital calls
12
Subscriptions were received from 1800 investors, contributing a total of
6,424,388 guilders (De Vries & van der Woude, 1997, p. 385).
13
Later known as the Raadspensionaris, this of?cial was effectively the
chief minister in the post revolution republican government (Price, 1974,
pp. 2, 15; 1994, pp. 129, 235).
14
London developed a similar market only towards the end of the 17th
century. EEIC shares do not appear to have been traded on the London
market before 1710 (Barbour, 1950, p. 76).
350 J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360
were made for the VOC. So volatile was this market that one
third of its capital changed hands during the ?rst 5 years of
the company’s existence (Barbour, 1950, pp. 76–79; Geld-
erblom & Jonker, 2006, p. 8). The VOC’s charter de?ned the
company’s capital as a terminating investment that was to
be liquidated after 10 years, at which time the invested cap-
ital, together with any surplus, was to be returned to the
investors (NL-HaNA, VOC, 1.04.02, 1, Articles VII, IX). The
?rst 10 year capital cycle started in 1603, 1 year after the
VOC was formed. Therefore, the ?rst capital should have
been wound up in 1613 to be followed by a second capital
which was to be returned 10 years later in 1623, at which
time the ?rst charter was also due to expire.
The VOC’s founders when deciding the period of the
investments had to reconcile the need to raise suf?cient
capital to make the company pro?table with investors’
resistance to committing funds to a highly risky venture
for an unduly long period. This dilemma was resolved by
the assumption that ?ve round trips to the East-Indies,
which each took about 2 years, would produce the optimal
returns. Signi?cantly, the ?rst charter also made provision
for a general accounting after the ?rst 10 years in 1613,
and not before, at which time the accounting records had
to be closed and the capital liquidated before another sec-
ond issue of capital. The required simultaneous termina-
tion of the capital, its return with surpluses and closing
of the account books meant that there was neither the
expectation of, nor the need for, the keeping of complex
?nancial records during each 10 year investment cycle to
periodically calculate net pro?t and determine the state
of the capital. The creation of a permanent capital for the
VOC was to engender a very different set of expectations.
The ?rst indications that the VOC intended to make its
capital legally permanent occurred in August 1606 when
the Heren Zeventien resolved to lobby The Netherlands
States-General for permission to extend the ?rst 10 years’
capital by combining both 10-year periods stipulated by
the ?rst charter (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 99, folios
205, 206). Notably, this would resolve a major problem
for the bewinthebbers who, despite the requirements and
intent of the ?rst charter, had been reinvesting their trade
surpluses in the Asian operation and thereby, in effect, al-
ready treating the capital sum as permanent (De Vries &
van der Woude, 1997, pp. 388–389). Thus, the legal obliga-
tion required by the ?rst charter to terminate the capital in
1613 presented the company with a dilemma for, contrary
to the requirements of the charter (NL-HaNA, VOC, 1.04.02,
1, Article XVII), the signi?cant investments in Asia had left
little or no surplus that could be distributed to the partic-
ipants. Furthermore, if, as the charter stipulated, the ?rst
10-year capital was wound up in 1613, the value of the
very signi?cant Asian investment would be lost to those
members of the ?rst 10-year capital who elected not to
reinvest their funds in the company’s second 10-year
capital.
After unsuccessfully petitioning the States-General in
October 1607 for permission to continue the ?rst capital
for the duration of the ?rst charter (NL-HaNa, VOC,
1.04.02, ?le 100, folio 161; van Dam, 1701/1927, p. 44),
on the 10th of November 1611 the VOC directors again
sought the necessary power to extend the life of the ?rst
capital (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 100, folio 161). This
time the petition was successful and a States-General res-
olution dated 13 March 1612 provided the authority to roll
the ?rst capital over until 1623 (van Dam, 1701/1927, p.
45), without the need to provide an accounting for the ?rst
10 years, when the company would have to provide partic-
ipants with a general accounting which would be the ?rst
such accounting to the participants in 21 years. At the time
of the resolution by the States-General ‘‘the VOC had be-
come Europe’s ?rst effective joint-stock company’’ (De
Vries & van der Woude, 1997, p. 385) whose original and
consistent primary motivation was increasing commercial
surpluses, driven by continual reinvestment. Not until
1647 was the permanency of the VOC’s capital effectively
con?rmed when the VOC’s charter was revised and ex-
tended (Contunuatie en prolongatie) (De Vries & van der
Woude, 1997, p. 385).
Following the 1647 continuation of the 1602 charter no
further changes were made to the VOC’s constitution until
1700 (De Vries & van der Woude, 1997, p. 389), nor were
any further changes made to its accounting system to re-
?ect the changed status of its capital. At no time did the
domestic operations of the VOC use a centralised, uniform
accounting system, nor, with the one brief exception of the
Zeeland chamber, did it use a capitalist form of double-en-
try bookkeeping. The bookkeeping methods used by the
two largest chambers, Amsterdam and Zeeland, differed
substantially until 1608 when the domestic accounting
system required of all chambers was standardised accord-
ing to that used by Amsterdam. These in turn differed sig-
ni?cantly from the accounting system implemented in
Asia
15
by Jan Pieterszoon Coen in 1613–1614 which was
based on a capitalist form of double-entry bookkeeping
but never integrated with the domestic bookkeeping (Article
14 of the States-General’s instructions to Coen, dated 14/27
November 1609, in van der Chijs, 1885, pp. 9–10; Steensg-
aard, 1973, p. 138).
VOC capital accounting
The largely intact archives of the VOC’s two largest
chambers, Amsterdam and Zeeland, which collectively
held 75% of the economic power in the VOC, show that un-
til the ?nal ?rst capital calls were made in September
1606
16
Amsterdam maintained independent bookkeeping
systems for its capital and operations (NL-HaNa, VOC,
1.04.02, ?le 7065; NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 7067; NL-
HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 7142; NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le
7169). Although Amsterdam’s capital accounting complied
with the most basic dual entry principles of double-entry
bookkeeping, most signi?cantly it followed the 16th and
early 17th century northern European bookkeeping practice
that considered capital an expendable sum that had no fur-
ther relevance once it had been utilised (and exhausted) in
funding a particular commercial venture. In essence, the
15
The Asian division is not the subject of this study.
16
Subscribed capital was to have been called up in three even amounts to
fund the ?rst three VOC ?eets. Subsequent ?eets were to have been funded
from returns earned on earlier imports (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 99, folio
208, van Dam, 1701/1927, p. 140).
J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360 351
system regarded capital and cash on hand as essentially the
same thing.
Notwithstanding the strong Hanseatic, northern Euro-
pean in?uence in its bookkeeping, the Amsterdam cham-
ber prior to the formation of the VOC had used what it
considered to be ‘Italian bookkeeping’ based on that of its
predecessor the Amsterdam East-Indian Company, also
known as the Old Amsterdam Company (NL-HaNa, Voo-
rcompagnieën, 1.04.01, ?le 27, folios 12, 14; NL-HaNA,
VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 99, folios 13–4). However, with separate
accounting records for operations and capital, it was not an
integrated capitalist system of double-entry bookkeeping
but merely one that maintained an equivalency of oppos-
ing debit and credit entries. Reference to the Old Amster-
dam Company’s archives shows that it resolved to adopt
what was perceived as the Italian method of bookkeeping
and appoint a professional bookkeeper skilled in this
method (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 27, folios 14–15). To
this end, Barent Lampe was appointed as the company’s
bookkeeper on the 4th of September 1599, a function
which he continued to exercise after 1602 in the VOC’s
Amsterdam chamber. However, irrespective of the inten-
tions of Dutch merchants and the experience and knowl-
edge of Lampe, in the introduction to his Practicque om
the leeren, ?rst published in 1583, Petri con?rmed that at
the end of the 16th century progressive Italian business
methods, including full double-entry bookkeeping which
incorporated an integrated capital account, were largely
unknown in Holland and in the region around the Ijssel
(Zuider) Sea (Petri, 1635, A2 recto).
In contrast to Amsterdam, business methods and book-
keeping in southern Netherlands, particularly Antwerp,
were more advanced. Antwerp’s status as the primary
16th century European entrepôt meant that its business
methods were strongly in?uenced by contemporary Italian
practices. This is apparent from Ympyn’s Nieuwe Instructie
(1543), which described Paciolian (Venetian double-entry)
bookkeeping. Signi?cantly for the VOC, business practices
in the Zeeland city of Middelburg, seat of the VOC’s Zeeland
chamber, were strongly in?uenced by its proximity to An-
twerp and its close business relations with the city before
1585.
17
Accordingly, it is not unexpected that the Zeeland
chamber’s bookkeeping displayed a closer af?liation with
southern European methods than was the case with
Amsterdam.
Contrary to what critics of the VOC’s bookkeeping have
claimed (Glamann, 1981, p. 245; Mansvelt, 1922, p. 13),
the Amsterdam and Zeeland chambers kept meticulous ac-
counts of capital (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?les 7064, 7065,
7067, 13782, 13783, 13784, 13785, 13794). However,
these were never available during the ?rst charter for the
participants to make calculations about the return on their
investments. At the time when the VOC was formed, rather
than its investors being regarded as corporate shareholders
in the modern sense of the word, they were perceived
more as a modern bank would regard its depositors. Partic-
ipants provided the funds that made the VOC’s operations
possible and were assumed to be satis?ed with a reason-
able rate of return on their investment, given possible
earnings from alternative investment opportunities. Poten-
tially, distributions to participants were never intended to
bear any relationship to the extent of the pro?ts actually
earned but instead, as Article XVII of the charter made
clear, related only to the accumulation of surplus funds
generated by the company’s operational activities. Thus,
distributions had a different meaning to the modern divi-
dend derived from pro?t earned during a ?nancial period.
Amsterdam attracted nearly ?ve times as many sub-
scribers compared to the next largest chamber, Zeeland.
18
To facilitate administration of such a large number of inves-
tors, Amsterdam used a supplementary capital bookkeeping
system that was largely independent of the chamber’s gen-
eral (operations or trading) bookkeeping records. Hence,
there was no capital account which re?ected the equity of
the investors from both their capital contributions and prof-
its, the mark of a capitalist form of double-entry bookkeep-
ing (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 7142; NL-HaNa, VOC,
1.04.02, ?le 7169). This system of two sets of accounts,
one for capital and one for operations, was not unusual in
northern Europe at this time or in England with the EEIC’s
bookkeeping following a similar method in which a separate
pair of journals and ledgers was used for the ‘accompts
proper’ and ‘accompts current’ (East India Company, 1621/
1968, pp. 75–78). Amsterdam’s capital bookkeeping system
comprised a Subscription Register (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02,
?le 7064), which every VOC chamber was obliged to open,
and a Capital Journal and a Capital Ledger. A subscriber’s en-
try in the Subscription Register established their legal obli-
gation to settle the capital sum subscribed for and acted as
the source of the bookkeeping entries kept in the Capital
Journal and Capital Ledger (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le
7065; NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 7067).
Capital subscriptions were deemed to be due in a series
of three capital calls, each of which represented the
amount estimated necessary to equip an East-Indian ?eet.
When a capital call was made, and the requisite amounts
paid, the Cash Account in the Capital Ledger was debited
with the amount remitted and the relevant subscriber’s
personal account credited (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le
7067). With each ?eet accounted for as a separate voyage
in the chamber’s General Ledger, the capital sum called
up was transferred from the Capital Account in the Capital
Ledger (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 7067, folio 24) to a par-
ticular Equipage Account in the chamber’s General Ledger
(NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 7169, folio 104), which pro-
vided the funds to equip each ?eet. At the same time, to
maintain the Capital Ledger’s equilibrium, and provide
the liquidity needed to equip the ?eet, an equivalent sum
was transferred from the Capital Ledger’s Cash Account
(NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 7067, folio 459) to the debit
of the Cash Account in the General Ledger (NL-HaNa,
VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 7169, folio 99). Unlike the accounting en-
17
Middelburgh acted as Antwerp’s out-port in the late 16th century.
18
One thousand, one hundred and forty-three subscriptions were regis-
tered in Amsterdam (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 7064). Zeeland registered
just two hundred and sixty-four subscribers (van Dillen, 1958, p. 46). While
subscription registers for the Delft, Hoorn, Rotterdam, and Enkhuizen
chambers have not survived, the number of individual subscribers in each
city would probably not have exceeded half that of Zeeland.
352 J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360
tries for cash transfers, which were entered at the appro-
priate time, capital transfers in the Capital Ledger were
completed some time later, thereby giving the Capital Ac-
count the appearance of a memorandum rather than an
integral part of the accounting system. The Capital Ledger
was not closed when the chamber compiled a general bal-
ance, nor were outstanding capital debtors’ balances closed
to the chamber’s General Ledger balance or included in its
balance statements (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 7067, fo-
lios 25, 26, 27).
Zeeland, in contrast to Amsterdam, until 1607 utilised a
fully integrated double-entry bookkeeping system for its
operations and capital contributions. The relatively smaller
number of subscribers attracted by this chamber probably
meant that it did not need a subsidiary capital journal and
ledger between 1602 and 1607. Also contrary to the prac-
tice of Amsterdam, Zeeland maintained the integrity of its
capital sum in its General Ledger and did not credit por-
tions of capital to each ?eet it out?tted. Instead, Zeeland
balanced the cost of equipping a venture against any
extraordinary revenues received in respect of that ?eet.
The resulting debit balance remained on the Equipage Ac-
count to re?ect the ?eet’s cost and was transferred to Zee-
land’s Balance Account when this chamber closed its
accounting records (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 13784, fo-
lios 141–142). In this respect, too, Zeeland diverged from
the practice of its northern colleague. While Amsterdam
prepared a balance account after each ?eet sailed, Zeeland
only used balance accounts as a technique to close its Gen-
eral Ledger. This was done in 1606 when a new ledger was
started (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 13784, folios 141–142,
267–270) and again in 1608 when the VOC’s accounting
system was standardised (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le
13785, folios 182–188). Zeeland’s Balance Account in-
cluded all open capital and operations balances, including
the chamber’s trading results. Most importantly, the total
capital sum was utilised as the key to equalise the Balance
Account (NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 13784, folio 270; NL-
HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 13785, folio 185).
Not only did Zeeland’s bookkeeping practice between
1602 and 1607 meet the best standards of the time (Goes-
sens, 1594; Mennher, 1565/1979; Petri, 1635; Stevin,
1604; Waninghen, 1629), its fully integrated bookkeeping
system incorporated the data necessary to calculate peri-
odic net pro?t and maintained the integrity of its capital
sum which was used to equalise its Balance Accounts. In-
deed, prior to 1608 Zeeland’s bookkeeping practices com-
pared favourably with modern double-entry bookkeeping
practice and complied with the principles of capitalist dou-
ble-entry bookkeeping. Amsterdam’s bookkeeping, on the
other hand, remained grounded in a formof Hanseatic ven-
ture accounting in which a capital account was not a nec-
essary element and pro?t or loss only determined on the
liquidation of an enterprise (de Roover, 1956, pp. 165–
166; 1963, p. 107; 1974, pp. 171, 175; Kellenbenz, 1979,
pp. 87–91; Mickwitz, 1938, p. 195; Posthumus, 1953, pp.
4, 9–10, 33, 73–74; Riemersma, 1967, p. 57; Stieda, in
Mickwitz, 1938, p. 189).
The VOC’s ?nal capital call for the ?rst 10 years, made in
September 1606, together with the VOC’s decision in Octo-
ber 1607 to set in motion the process to create a perma-
nent capital, galvanised the bewinthebbers’ to attempt to
standardise the company’s domestic bookkeeping but fol-
lowing the method used by Amsterdam and not that of
the more sophisticated Zeeland. Even then, the VOC did
not perceive its capital as a global sumthat had to be main-
tained in the accounting system after 1607, instead treat-
ing it as an association of independent capitals that had
little relevance for its general accounting, a practice which
again was entirely consistent with northern European
bookkeeping at the time (Cock, 1643, pp. 174–175; van Ge-
zel, 1681, p. 31; Waninghen, 1629, chap. I, and tutorial
chap. XXI; Ympyn, 1547, chap. XVIII). Yet, the VOC did re-
gard its capital as an indivisible whole when later calculat-
ing and offering distributions.
The accounting system adopted by the VOC meant that
at no time during the period covered by the ?rst charter
(1602–1623) or, indeed, thereafter, did the VOC use a dou-
ble-entry bookkeeping system that could calculate the
company’s periodic net pro?t or loss and yield the state
of its capital. Indeed, the VOC’s participants neither ex-
pected nor demanded information to calculate the return
on their investments. Nor, prior to 1623, did they actively
protest the company’s failure to provide them with a ?nan-
cial accounting. This state of affairs changed, however,
when it became clear that the bewinthebbers, as they had
done in 1612, would again refuse to provide an audited ac-
count of their stewardship at the end of the charter’s life in
1623.
Con?ict: The 1623 ‘general accounting’ and the
Nootwendich Discours
Anticipating that, as a consequence of the charter being
rolled over in 1623, the bewinthebbers would again seek to
avoid providing the general members with a credible
?nancial accounting (as had been the case in 1613), a
group of disgruntled participants who were described by
the bewinthebbers as dolerende participanten (literally
‘those of little honour’),
19
whose investment in the com-
pany exceeded two and a half million guilders (van Rees,
1868, p. 148), issued a public document, the Nootwendich
Discours (Critical Discourse), called for the bewinthebbers to
be held accountable for the previous 21 years’ of their
administration (1622, A2 recto, D1 verso; van Dillen, 1958,
pp. 139, 234; van Rees, 1868, pp. 149, 159). This remarkable
document of protest also con?rmed the limited expectations
that the participants had for any information provided, but
especially their lack of interest in a set of accounts which
might reveal net pro?t. Rather than demanding an account-
ing that would allow them to determine pro?t and changes
to the company’s net wealth, the participants’ principal con-
cern was to receive ‘‘a proper accounting in the manner of a
steward’’ (Nootwendich Discours, 1622, A4 recto).
The participants accused the bewinthebbers of ‘‘poor and
careless administration’’ which ‘‘conformed to neither rea-
son or the common practice of merchants’’ (‘‘De quade ende
onvoorsichtige Regieringe der Bewinthebbers die noch naar
19
The Nootwendich Discours ironically adopted the terms ‘dolerende’ and
‘doleanten’ to describe the collective body of disgruntled participants (1622,
A2 recto, D1 verso).
J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360 353
verstant noch na stijl van kooplieden die behouden willen blij-
ven . . .’’) (Nootwendich Discours, 1622, A4 recto). Hence,
they demanded an accounting that would allay suspicions
that the bewinthebbers’ were guilty of maladministration,
fraud, and unethical practices (de Jongh, 2009, pp. 18–31;
Nootwendich Discours, 1622, A4; van Rees, 1868, pp. 147–
154). Not only did the participants demand a ?nancial
accounting from the bewinthebbers, they also insisted that
the company’s ?nancial records be independently audited
‘‘in the manner of merchants’’ using ?nancial accounts ver-
i?ed by documentary evidence (Cort Verhael, in van Rees,
1868, pp. 164, 166). An oral presentation, which the
bewinthebbers insisted on presenting, was speci?cally re-
jected by the participants (Cort Verhael, in van Rees,
1868, p. 166). Probity, not pro?t, persisted as the core of
the participants’ concerns and their primary objective in
demanding a general ?nancial accounting from the bewint-
hebbers. The Nootwendich Discours, and its successor, con-
?rmed that the participants did not expect an accounting
that would reveal the company’s net pro?t and that they
had no desire to calculate the return on capital invested.
Nevertheless, the Nootwendich Discours does show that
the participants were acutely aware of the rate of return
earned from the VOC relative to that offered by other, com-
parable, investments. As one example van Rees (1868, p.
152) noted that ‘‘(a)mongst the participants’ complaints,
they frequently referred to the small return, namely
6
1
/
4
% [made by the VOC], which they referred to as ‘or-
phans’ interest’, whereas the East-India Assurance Com-
pany returned 20 percent’’.
The Nootwendich Discours was highly critical of the
management of the bewinthebbers. Those who signed the
document protested that the low level of the bewintheb-
bers’ investment in the VOC’s capital meant that they were
not motivated by interim distributions or pro?t which
would have bene?ted the participants but instead relied
on the commissions they earned on the cost of equipping
VOC ?eets and the value of the goods imported (NL-HaNA,
VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 1, Article XXIX). Not surprisingly, the
bewinthebbers were alleged to have had a strong incentive
to assemble unnecessarily large and expensive ?eets and
order excessive, overly expensive goods from Asia, with lit-
tle regard for the returns that could be earned on these
transactions (Nootwendich Discours, 1622, A4 recto, B1 ver-
so, B1, recto, B4 verso, B4 recto, E3 recto). These practices,
the participants argued, had a detrimental effect on pro?t
by causing excess demand for Asian goods, which in?ated
the cost of imported goods, and creating an oversupply of
European goods which dampened prices (Nootwendich Dis-
cours 1622, A4 recto). Besides maladministration, the
bewinthebbers were accused of pro?ting from their of?ce
by supplying goods to the company at prices unrelated to
their market value, purchasing imported goods from the
company at less than market value, and delaying the com-
pany’s own sales until such time as the bewinthebbers’ own
stocks had been sold (Nootwendich Discours, 1622, B4 ver-
so, C2 verso).
Most damning of all was the accusation that the bewint-
hebbers had cynically used their knowledge of the com-
pany’s affairs to pro?tably speculate in VOC capital
holdings to the detriment of small general participants.
Thus, the most vulnerable members of Dutch society, such
as widows, orphans, the aged, and charities, who depended
on the income from their investments were forced to sell
their holdings when anticipated distributions failed to
materialise. Safe in the knowledge that they alone pos-
sessed that a distribution was imminent, the bewinthebbers
purchased these holdings at depressed prices and resold
them at a handsome pro?t once the public became aware
of the distributions (Nootwendich Discours, 1622, C2 verso).
A distribution of 37
1
/
2
% in 1620, together with news of a
truce negotiated with the English, pushed the value of
VOC capital holdings up from 165% of the original value
in 1619 to 250% in 1620. When no further distributions
were made after that time, prices retreated to their 1619
level (van Rees, 1868, p. 147).
The bewinthebbers protested that they could see no
wrong in their management, claiming that they had acted
at all times with honour and performed their duties in the
best interests of the VOC and The Netherlands (Nootwend-
ich Discours, 1622, B3 recto). In response to the charge that
they treated the company as their private market place, the
bewinthebbers did not deny the allegations but instead ar-
gued that, as the VOC’s charter did not expressly forbid
such actions, they were entitled to act in the way they
did and could not be guilty of any offence (Nootwendich
Discours, 1622, B3 recto). They explained their resistance
to a general accounting as a consequence of the war with
Spain which, they claimed, created a special set of circum-
stances that made it contrary to the national interest to
disclose details about a major asset, such as the VOC,
which was involved in the con?ict (Nootwendich Discours,
1622, B3 recto; van Rees, 1868, pp. 152–154). The partici-
pants were also threatened that if they persisted with their
demands they would receive no distributions for 7 years.
The participants steadfastly believed that the VOC’s
charter was a legally binding document which could be re-
lied upon in The Netherlands’ courts and, therefore, that
the bewinthebbers would be forced to comply with their
demand for a general accounting. To their dismay, the
States of Holland instructed the courts of Holland not to
acknowledge or deal with any matter relating to such
claims by the participants. Thus, the dissenting partici-
pants were denied all legal avenues of redress in Holland.
Their only recourse was a direct appeal to the States-Gen-
eral. However, at ?rst this also was to no avail, as the States
of Holland, which effectively controlled the States-General,
instructed its delegates to oppose the participants’ peti-
tions. They were not prepared to tolerate any action which
might undermine the bewinthebbers’ authority (The States
of Holland resolutions dated the 22nd of December 1622
and the 10th of March 1623; van Rees, 1868, pp. 154–
155). In response, the disgruntled participants published
a second pamphlet, the Tweede Noot-wendiger Discours
which had the desired effect.
Despite the bewinthebbers’ power, the dissenting partic-
ipants could not be dismissed out of hand without risking
the political accord that constituted The Netherlands
Republic. Accordingly, the States-General was eventually
forced to take action to pacify the disgruntled VOC inves-
tors by summonsing the bewinthebbers and participants
to The Hague in an attempt to resolve their differences
354 J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360
(de Jongh, 2009, p. 47). Unsurprisingly, the parties failed to
agree on a new set of provisions to govern the company
and, on the 22nd of December 1622, the States-General
unilaterally decided to roll over the 1602 charter. The
resulting document (Continuatie van het Octroy, NL-HaNA,
VOC, 1.04.02, 2) extended the 1602 charter with some per-
tinent amendments intended to address the participants’
main grievances. Further amendments that diluted the
bewinthebbers’ authority still more, and promoted the
interests of the general participants, were incorporated in
a 1623 document, the Nader Ampliatie en Interpretatie (De-
tailed Interpretation of the Continuation of the East-Indian
Charters) that was intended to expand and explain the
changes made in December 1622 (NL-HaNA, VOC,
1.04.02, 3; Contunuatie en prolongatie, NL-HaNA, VOC,
1.04.02, 4).
The 1622 extension of the 1602 charter speci?ed that,
within 6 months on the expiry of the 1602 charter, the
bewinthebbers must provide the participants with a general
accounting of their administration for the past 21 years,
and that this must conform with the method and format
commonly used by merchants (Article I). This provision
suggests a written ?nancial report produced from informa-
tion compiled in a capitalist form of double-entry entry
bookkeeping. Furthermore, as noted above, the bewintheb-
bers’ report had to be substantiated by appropriate docu-
mentary evidence, rather than the unsubstantiated
statement of receipts and payments which was favoured
by the bewinthebbers. Moreover, the ?rst article of the ex-
tended charter stipulated that the bewinthebbers’ accounts
were to be audited by a committee of principal partici-
pants,
20
chosen by the general participants from amongst
those who had invested at least as much in the company
as the bewinthebbers were required to do (1602 Charter,
Article XVIII; Nader Ampliatie en Interpretatie, NL-HaNA,
VOC, 1.04.02, 3, Article II).
The ?rst article of the supplementary explanatory char-
ter (Nader Ampliatie en Interpretatie, NL-HaNA, VOC,
1.04.02, 3) issued in March 1623 overruled the bewintheb-
bers’ desire to keep the details of their investments in Asia
secret by stipulating that the audit of the ?rst 21 years
administration was not to be limited to domestic book-
keeping records but must include relevant account books,
records, and documentary evidence of the company’s Asian
operations. Reinforcing the States-General’s intentions
concerning the quality of the accounting delivered to par-
ticipants, the extended charter directed that in future the
bewinthebbers must provide participants with a general
accounting every 10 years, and that this accounting com-
ply with the manner and form of merchants as required
for the ?rst 21 years (Continuatie van het Octroy, NL-HaNA,
VOC, 1.04.02, 2, Article X).
Another signi?cant amendment in the 1623 extension
rescinded the bewinthebbers right to be appointed for life
and provided that they had to retire after 3 years in of?ce.
Furthermore, retirees could not be reappointed until an-
other 3 years had elapsed since their retirement (Article
II). Article VI of this document also severely curtailed the
bewinthebbers’ ability to deal with the company by order-
ing that, except by bidding in a public auction or purchase
at a ?xed price that applied to the general public, bewint-
hebbers were not permitted to directly or indirectly sell
any goods to the company or buy goods from the company
without express permission from the States-General or the
magistrates of the city where the VOC chamber was lo-
cated. The 1623 explanatory supplement to the extended
charter reiterated that all such transactions had to be open
and transparent and extended the provisions that applied
to bewinthebbers to all principal participants (Nader
Ampliatie en Interpretatie, Article III). This document also
appeared to extend the principal participants’ power by
directing that they be allowed to attend meetings of the
Heren Zeventhien, the VOC’s senior administrative organ,
and make recommendations to this body on pertinent mat-
ters. Most importantly, the 1623 supplement changed the
basis of the company’s dividend policy. Whereas Article
XVII of the original charter had stipulated that distribu-
tions (uytdeelinge) be made once 5% of the imported goods
had been realised, the extended charter required that div-
idends only be declared if the company’s debts, liabilities,
and working capital were adequately covered. The signi?-
cance of this provision is that it suggests that, once the cap-
ital was deemed to be a permanent sum, the principal of
capital maintenance was recognised as being essential for
sound ?nancial administration.
Changes to the VOC’s charter had the legal force of gov-
ernment and should have been effective in shifting the bal-
ance of power from the bewinthebbers to the participants.
In practice, however, very little changed to upset the
bewinthebbers’ privileged position regarding the ?rst
21 years of their administration. They refused to submit
to the new regime, insisting that the audit of their account-
ing for the period 1602–1622 be in the form of a public
hearing, and not be veri?ed with supporting records and
documentation. After declaring that the auditors could
qualify the accounts in whatever manner they saw ?t,
the bewinthebbers ?nally presented an oral account of their
administration for the period 1602–1623 to the States-
General on 14th of October 1628 (van Dam, 1701/1927,
pp. 290–294).
After the 1623 supplement to the extended charter,
only the 1647 charter (Continuatie en prolongatie, NL-HaNA,
VOC, 1.04.02, 4) contained any further stipulations relating
to the ?nancial administration issues raised by the dis-
gruntled participants in 1623 or altered the relationship
between bewinthebbers and participants. The ?rst and sec-
ond article of the 1647 document declared that in future
bewinthebbers and principal participants would be paid a
?xed salary, which effectively transformed these of?cials
into paid professional employees. In addition, Article IV
of the 1647 extension stipulated that henceforth the com-
pany must supply participants with a general accounting
at four-yearly intervals in place of every 10 years, as
20
Principal participants served on three committees. The most prominent
of these was the audit committee (rekeningscommissie), which, comprised
nine members designated the company’s auditors (rekenopnemers) and
authorised to inspect the general accounting (Bruijn, Gaastra, & Schöffer,
1987, p. 16; van Dam, 1701/1927, pp. 285–286; van Brakel, 1908, p. 146;
Valentyn, 1724, p. 204; van Rees, 1868, pp. 163–164, Article VII). This was a
highly signi?cant innovation as it represents the ?rst incidence of a legal
body speci?cally constituted to protect shareholders’ rights.
J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360 355
required by the 1623 charter. The four-yearly interval indi-
cates that participants were growing more dependent on
the information contained in these ?nancial reports but it
did not require this report to provide information that
would allow the VOC’s members to calculate the rate of re-
turn on invested capital.
Conclusion
Transition from a feudalist to a capitalist mentality is
said to have been a consequence of a particular spirit that
sought to continually expand a stock of wealth by the ra-
tional pursuit of pro?ts (Sombart, 1916/1953, p. 38;
1919/1979, p. 246; Weber, 1968, pp. 91–92) or the product
of social con?ict generated when business was conducted
with joint capitals administered by professional managers
(Bryer, 1999, p. 687; 2000a, p. 142). Common to these tran-
sition theories is the notion of a calculative mentality fo-
cussed on the returns earned by invested capital. The
latter is considered most effectively served by a capitalist
form of double-entry bookkeeping capable of periodically
generating net pro?t information and revealing the state
of the entity’s capital at a particular date. Calculation of
the rate of return on invested capital is not an end in itself
but the means to allow investors to make rational deci-
sions concerning their investments and to hold profes-
sional managers accountable for their administration of
joint capitals (Birnbaum, 1953, p. 127; Bryer, 1993, pp.
121–122; 2000a, p. 151; 2000b, p. 335; Carruthers & Espe-
land, 1991, p. 46; Gras, 1947, pp. 103–104; Lemarchand,
1994, p. 122; Nussbaum, 1937, p. 61; Sombart, 1916/
1953, p. 38;Yamey, 1994, p. 380).
Evidence presented in this paper has established that
the advent of Dutch social capital was not marked by the
adoption of a capitalistic form of double-entry bookkeep-
ing nor was it a consequence of religious principles or so-
cial con?ict. Instead, the roots of Netherlands’ capitalism
are grounded in the country’s long experience with social
institutions such as its medieval water-boards and with
land reclamation projects. These gave rise to the notions
of joint ownership and a free market for intangible rights
which are fundamental to the idea and practice of capital-
ism. The importance of these features of Dutch society was
magni?ed by The Netherlands’ long and successful com-
mercial history, its largely free and waged workforce, its
monetary economy, and a tradition of reinvesting pro?ts
to expand commerce. A weak feudal authority compelled
the Dutch to take responsibility for their society and orga-
nise it in a manner conducive to the geographic circum-
stances of the country. Geography compelled the Dutch
to sustain themselves through export-led commerce and
industry, which consequently created a highly urbanised,
waged population and a monetarised economy that relied
on credit. By the 17th century the Dutch were endowed
with all the principles and practices of a modern capitalist
society, including modern double-entry bookkeeping,
which resulted in The Netherlands being widely regarded
as the premier capitalist nation of the age and the VOC,
which met all standards for a capitalist business entity,
the paramount 17th century Dutch commercial enterprise
(Nussbaum, 1937, pp. 158–162; Ranke, in Sombart, 1913/
1967, p. 144; 1919/1979, p. 258; Stevin, 1604; ten Have,
1933, pp. 1, 6–7).
Investors in a sophisticated economy, characterised by
commercial leases, credit, negotiable capital rights, and
specialised production, such as that which prevailed in
The Netherlands after the 13th century, must necessarily
adopt a calculative mentality to manage their ?nancial af-
fairs. Evidence presented here suggests that rather than the
participants making ?nancial decisions on the basis of re-
turn earned by an entity in relation to the capital it em-
ployed they instead did so with reference to what was
considered an acceptable rate of interest. Certainly, a cap-
italist form of double-entry bookkeeping, which could
yield the rate of return and capital employed, was not gen-
erally utilised in The Netherlands, or in any other European
country, before the late 18th century (Yamey, 1964, pp.
117, 124). Instead, Dutch entrepreneurs used a variety of
calculative practices to rationally administer their invest-
ments in joint capitals and other ?nancial dealings. VOC
investors made a reasoned assessment of their invest-
ments’ current worth by reference to Amsterdam’s organ-
ised market in VOC capital rights (Gelderblom & Jonker,
2006, p. 8). In much the same way as share markets do to-
day, this market factored a range of circumstantial evi-
dence into the base price for VOC capital holdings to
establish a ruling price at which VOC capital rights were
traded. Investors were content as long as distributions re-
ceived from the VOC compared favourably with earnings
from other investments, and occurred with reasonable fre-
quency. Thus, although a calculative mentality was
undoubtedly an important element in capitalism’s devel-
opment, in the case of The Netherlands and the VOC the
evidence does not support limitation of such a mentality
to the rate of return on capital employed and, therefore,
that modern double-entry bookkeeping is a necessary con-
dition for capitalism.
When the VOC was formed in 1602 as a public com-
pany, investors could freely trade their capital rights in
an open market from the outset. Moreover, the VOC was
structured as an independent legal entity whose members
enjoyed limited liability for the company’s debts. Although
formed with a terminating capital, the VOC quickly deter-
mined to adopt a permanent capital, eventually succeeding
in this endeavour by the end of the ?rst charter in 1623.
Further indications of the company’s increasing capitalist
nature are evident in amendments to its charter between
1623 and 1647 that gradually transformed its directors
into waged employees, the 1623 requirement that the cap-
ital be maintained by paying distributions from surplus
funds, and its resolve to pay all distributions in cash after
1644. Consequently, the VOC met the criteria for a capital-
ist business enterprise before the end of the ?rst half of the
17th century (Most, 1972, pp. 723–724) and, thus, accord-
ing to Bryer and other social theorists of capitalism, the
VOC should have utilized a capitalist form of double-entry
bookkeeping. However, the evidence provided establishes
that, with the exception of the Zeeland chamber prior to
1608, this bookkeeping method was not used by the VOC
for its domestic accounts which was in marked contrast
to the EEIC. Nor did the company have a centralised book-
keeping system that would have made available to its
356 J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360
managers and members the information necessary for the
calculation of the rate of return on invested capital.
While the con?ict between the company’s general
members and the bewinthebbers towards the end of the
?rst charter resulted in profound changes to the relation-
ship between them and the company, it did not lead to a
demand that the VOC utilise a capitalist method of dou-
ble-entry bookkeeping. Nor, unlike that which Bryer found
in his examination of the EEIC, did this con?ict indicate
that the company’s participants had any interest in calcu-
lating the rate of return on their invested capital. Although
a capitalist form of double-entry bookkeeping was not de-
manded by the VOC’s members to allow them to calculate
the rate of return on invested capital, this was not the re-
sult of ignorance on their part. On the contrary, evidence
from the con?ict between the bewinthebbers and the par-
ticipants shows that the latter were quite astute about
bookkeeping and auditing matters and demanded an
accounting that would allow them to assess the bewintheb-
bers’ stewardship. Furthermore, the VOC’s decentralised
capital structure, which necessitated each domestic cham-
ber have its own working capital, together with the com-
pany’s decentralised accounting system, demonstrated
that the VOC’s bewinthebbers, too, did not value calculation
of the rate of return on capital invested as a primary means
of managing the company. Indeed, a capitalist mentality
supported by a capitalist form of double-entry bookkeep-
ing, as posited by Sombart, Weber, and Bryer, is not evident
in the VOC’s archived ?nancial accounting records. Thus,
contrary to the ?ndings of Bryer in relation to the EEIC,
in the case of the VOC capitalist double-entry bookkeeping
was not a necessary condition for it to operate as a capital-
ist enterprise or for Dutch capitalism to develop and thrive.
Nor was double-entry bookkeeping implicated in resolving
social con?ict between established and emerging investors
which was the case with the EEIC.
There is substantial evidence provided here which also
supports the views expressed by Most (1972), Winjum
(1971) and Yamey (1949) who concluded that accounting
served narrow technical objectives and that double-entry
bookkeeping’s ability to reveal the data that made the cal-
culation of the rate of return possible was not signi?cant in
the development of capitalism. In particular, the study of
the VOC supports Winjum (1971, p. 350) in that, while
Sombart was correct in positing a relationship between
the development of capitalism and double-entry book-
keeping, it was double-entry bookkeeping’s ability to re-
veal gross pro?t and ensure an orderly ?nancial
administration that was most valued. Winjum’s position
was substantiated by the VOC’s bewinthebbers’ practice of
utilising gross pro?t on particular commodities to plan im-
ports and exports (Glamann, 1981, p. 272; Steur, 1984, p.
72).
This study of the VOC’s organisation and ?nancial
administration and the implications that this has for de-
bates about the importance of particular accounting prac-
tices in the emergence of modern capitalism has
presented a number of possible areas for future research.
These include addressing a persistent gap in the knowl-
edge of accounting methods used in northern Europe and
in other locations at the cusp of modern capitalism in the
last half of the 16th and early 17th centuries. This would
also provide the means to judge whether the circum-
stances and accounting practices of the VOC in the early
17th century were unique and even exceptional. Another
focus for future research is the possible culpability of
accounting practices for the VOC’s sudden and dramatic
demise as a result of bankruptcy in 1798. The reasons for
this seemingly perplexing conclusion to the VOC’s com-
mercial hegemony have been, and continue to be, a matter
of some debate. A number of prominent historians have
suggested that the company was bankrupted because it re-
fused to increase its capital base, which left it relying heav-
ily on short-term debt secured against the future sale of
imported goods (de Vries & van der Woude, 1997, pp.
455–456; Meilink-Roelofsz., 1982, p. 184). The fourth An-
glo–Dutch War (1780–1784) upset this strategy by se-
verely limiting Asian imports, causing direct losses
estimated to be about forty-three million guilders. As a re-
sult, the company was forced to default on its debts. Of
particular interest to accounting historians, however, are
the views of Mansvelt (1922, pp. 101–111) who argued
that the VOC’s downfall was directly attributable to signif-
icant de?ciencies in its accounting system which ignored
the company’s vast capital investment in Asia, relied upon
poor estimates of costs and failed to produce reliable pro?t
and loss accounts (Mansvelt, 1922, pp. 8, 93). Future re-
search, therefore, might seek to conclusively demonstrate
whether the company’s accounting system did play a
determining role in its decline and eventual bankruptcy.
The possible important contributions of accounting
practices to understanding the VOC’s later history are also
suggested by the problems that the VOC experienced in
gaining access to short-term funds which, as noted above,
?nally dried up the early 1780s. At this time, Holland’s
chambers were deeply in debt but the situation in Zeeland
was much more liquid which meant that the chamber had
no need to seek ?nancial assistance before 1785 (de Korte,
1983, pp. 79–83). One possible reason why Zeeland’s situ-
ation was so different was that it may have used a much
more sophisticated system of bookkeeping, as it had done
in the early years of the VOC, than that which was em-
ployed by Holland’s chambers. This would have allowed
it to manage better its ?nances. Although, as established
in this paper, the archival evidence of Zeeland’s general
accounting indicates that it had been forced to adopt the
Hanseatic method of bookkeeping prevalent in Holland, it
is possible that it continued internally to manage its affairs
by a more sophisticated method of accounting and that
only those accounting records that had to be shared with
other chambers or submitted to the Heren Zeventhien com-
plied with the company’s standard method of bookkeep-
ing. Further research may be able to determine whether
Zeeland did, indeed, use a dual system of bookkeeping
and, if so, whether this had any signi?cant impact on the
chamber’s ability to remain liquid long after its fellow
chambers had succumbed to their debts.
References
Anonymous (1622). Nootwendich Discours oft Vertooch aan de hooch
Mogende heeren Staten Generael van de Participanten der Oost-
J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360 357
Indische Compagnie tegens Bewinthebbers. Koninklijke Bibliotheek
van Nederland: Knuttel 3348.
Barbour, V. (1950). Capitalism in Amsterdam in the 17th century. Ann
Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Birnbaum, N. (1953). Con?icting interpretations of the rise of capitalism:
Marx and Weber. The British Journal of Sociology, 4(2), 125–141.
Braudel, F. (1992). In S. Reynolds (Trans.), Civilization and capitalism, 15th–
18th century: The perspective of the world. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Bruijn, J. R., Gaastra, F. S., & Schöffer, I. (Eds.). (1979). Dutch-Asiatic
shipping in the 17th and 18th centuries: Volume II, outward-bound
voyages from the Netherlands to Asia and the Cape (1595–1794). The
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Bruijn, J. R., Gaastra, F. S., & Schöffer, I. (Eds.). (1987). Dutch-Asiatic
shipping in the 17th and 18th centuries: Volume II, outward-bound
voyages from the Netherlands to Asia and the Cape (1595–1794). The
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Bryer, R. A. (1993). Double-entry bookkeeping and the birth of capitalism:
Accounting for the commercial revolution in medieval northern Italy.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 4(2), 113–140.
Bryer, R. A. (1994). Accounting for the social relations of feudalism.
Accounting and Business Research, 24, 283–310.
Bryer, R. A. (1999). Marx and accounting. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 10(5), 683–709.
Bryer, R. A. (2000a). The history of accounting and the transition to
capitalism in England. Part one: Theory. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 25(2), 131–162.
Bryer, R. A. (2000b). The history of accounting and the transition to
capitalism in England. Part two: Evidence. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 25(4–5), 327–381.
Bryer, R. A. (2004). The roots of modern capitalism: A Marxist accounting
history of the origins and consequences of capitalist landlords in
England. Accounting Historians Journal, 31(1), 1–56.
Bryer, R. A. (2005). A Marxist accounting history of the British industrial
revolution: A review of evidence and suggestions for research.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(1), 25–65.
Bryer, R. A. (2006). The genesis of the capitalist farmer: Towards a Marxist
accounting history of the origins of the English agricultural
revolution. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17(4), 367–397.
Carnegie, G. D., & Napier, C. J. (1996). Critical and interpretive histories:
Insights into accounting’s present and future through its past.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(3), 7–39.
Carruthers, B. G., & Espeland, W. N. (1991). Accounting for rationality:
Double-entry bookkeeping and the rhetoric of economic rationality.
American Journal of Sociology, 97(1), 31–69.
Chiapello, E. (2007). Accounting and the birth of the notion of capitalism.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(3), 263–296.
Cock, D. (1643). De luchtende fackel van het Italiaens boeck-houden,
handelende van de companie-handel. Amstelredam: H.T. de Vries.
Cohen, J. (1980). Rational capitalism in Renaissance Italy. American Journal
of Sociology, 85(6), 1340–1355.
d’Arsy, J. L. (1651). Le grand dictionaire, Francois-Flamen. P. de Waesbergu.
De Groote, H. L. V. (1961). Zestiende-eeuwse bookehoudkundigen en
cifermeesters in betrekking met Antwerpen. Scientiarum Historia, 3,
142–156.
De Haan, H. (1977). Moedernegotie en grote vaart: een studie over de
expansie van het Hollandse handelskapitaal in de 16e en 17e eeuw.
Amsterdam: SUA.
De Heer, C. (1929).Bijdrage tot de ?nanciëele geschiedenis der Oost-Indische
Compagnie. Doctoral thesis presented at the Nederlandsche Handels
Hoogeschool, Rotterdam.
De Jonge, J. K. J. (1862). De opkomst van het Nederlandsch gezag in Oost-
Indie: 1595–1610 (Vol. 1). ‘s Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.
De Jongh, J. M. (2009). Aandeelhoudersactivisten avant la letter: De
dolerende participanten van de VOC. In M. J. A. Duker, L. J. A. Pieterse,
& A. J. P. Schild (Eds.), Beschouwingen over de rechtsontwikkeling in de
rechtspraak van de hoge raad der Nederlanden (pp. 247–271).
Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
De Korte, J. P. (1983). De jaarlijkse ?nanciële verantwoording in de
Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
De Roover, R. (1942). The commercial revolution of the thirteenth
century. Bulletin of the Business Historical Society, 16(2), 34–39.
De Roover, R. (1956). The development of accounting prior to Luca Pacioli
according to the account-books of Medieval merchants. In A. C.
Littleton, & B. S. Yamey (Eds.). Studies in the history of accounting (pp.
114–174).
De Roover, R. (1963). The organisation of trade. In M. Postan, E. E. Rich, &
E. Miller (Eds.).The Cambridge economic history of Europe (Vol. III, pp.
42–118).
De Roover, R. (1974). Business banking and economic thought. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
De Vries, J., & van der Woude, A. (1997). The ?rst modern economy: Success,
failure, and perseverance of the Dutch economy, 1500–1815. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Den Tex, J. (1973). Oldenbarnevelt: 1547–1606. Cambridge: University
Press.
Dol?ng, B., & Snellen, W. B. (1999). Sustainability of Dutch water boards:
Appropriate design characteristics for self-governing water management
organisations. The Netherlands: ILRI Wageningen.
English East-India Company (1621/1968). The lawes or standing orders of
the East India Company. London.
Funnell, W. (2001). Distortions of history, accounting and the paradox of
Werner Sombart. Abacus, 37(1), 55–78.
Funnell, W., & Robertson, J. (2011). Capitalist accounting in sixteenth
century Holland: Hanseatic in?uences and the Sombart thesis.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 24(5), 560–586.
Gelderblom, O. (2004). The resolution of commercial con?ict in Bruges,
Antwerp, and Amsterdam, 1250–1650. Working paper 2005-2.
Retrieved 03.06.06.
Gelderblom, O., & Jonker, J. (2006). Amsterdam as the cradle of modern
futures and options trading, 1550-1650. Working paper 2003-9.
Retrieved 3 June 2006.
Gepken-Jager, E., van Solinge, G., & Timmerman, L. (Eds.). (2005). VOC
1602–2002: 400 Years of company law. Deventer: Kluwers Legal
Publishers.
Geyl, P. (1980). The revolt of the Netherlands: 1555–1609. London: Ernest
Benn Limited.
Glamann, K. (1981). Dutch-Asiatic trade 1620–1740. ‘s Gravenhage:
Martinus Nijhoff.
Goessens, P. (1594). Buchhlten fein Kurtz zusammen. Hamburg: Henrich
Binder.
Gras, N. S. B. (1942). Capitalism-concepts and history. Bulletin of the
Business Historical Society, 16(2), 21–42.
Gras, N. S. B. (1947). What is capitalism in the light of history? Bulletin of
the Business Historical Society, 21(4), 79–120.
Hamilton, P. (Ed.). (1991). Max Weber, critical assessments 2 (Vol. 3).
London: Routledge.
Heeres, J. E. (1902). De Oost-Indische Compagnie. The Netherlands
Spectator (Vol. 12). Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.
Hopwood, A. G. (2000). Understanding ?nancial accounting practice.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(8), 763–766.
Israel, J. I. (1990). Dutch primacy in world trade, 1585–1740. London: Butler
and Tanner Ltd.
Israel, J. I. (1995). The Dutch Republic: Its rise, greatness, and fall, 1477–
1806. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kaijser, A. (2002). System building from below: Institutional change in
Dutch water control systems. Technology and culture, 43(3), 521–548.
Kellenbenz, H. (1979). The state of bookkeeping in Upper Germany at the
time of the Fuggers and Welsers. In E. N. Coffman (Ed.), R. H.
Homburger (Trans.), The academy of accounting Historians, Working
paper no. 7 (pp. 87–98).
Lambert, A. M. (1971). The making of the Dutch landscape: An historical
geography of the Netherlands. London: Seminar Press.
Lemarchand, Y. (1994). Double entry versus charge and discharge
accounting in eighteenth-century France. Accounting, Business and
Financial History, 4(1), 119–145.
Lichtenauer, W. F. (1956). Geschiedenis van de wetenschap van het
handelsrecht in Nederland tot 1809. Amsterdam: N.V. Noord-
Hollandsche Uitgevers, Mij.
Lijphart, A. (1968). The politics of accommodation: Pluralism and democracy
in the Netherlands. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mansvelt, W. M. F. (1922). Rechtsvorm en geldelijk beheer bij de
Oostindische Compagnie. Den Haag.
Meilink-Roelofsz, M. A. P. (1976). Een vergelijkend onderzoek van bestuur
en handel der Nederlandse en Engelse handelscompagnieën op Azië
in de eerste helft van de zeventiende eeuw. Bijdragen en mededelingen
betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederlanden, 91, 196–217.
Meilink-Roelofsz, M. A. P. (1980). The Structures of Trade in Asia in the
Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Niels Steensgaard’s ‘Carracks,
Caravans and Companies’. A Critical Reappraisal. Mare Luso-Indicum,
4, 1–43.
Meilink-Roelofsz, M. A. P. (1982). Hoe rationeel was de organisatie van de
Nederlandse Oostindische Compagnie. Economisch en Sociaal-
Historisch Jaarboek, 44, 170–190.
Mennher, V. (1565/1979). Practique pour brievement apprendre à ciffrer, et
tenir livre de comptes. Antwerp: du Roy. Republished London: Scholar
Press.
358 J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360
Mickwitz, G. (1938). Aus Revaler Handelsbücher: Zur technik des
Ostseehandels in der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts. Helsinki:
Akademiska Bokhandeln.
Mollema, J. C. (1935). De eerste schipvaart der Hollanders naar Oost-Indië:
1595–1597. ’S-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.
Most, K. S. (1972). Sombart’s propositions revisited. The Accounting
Review, XLVII(4), 722–734.
Mostert, T. (2007). Chain of command: The military system of the Dutch
East-India Company, 1655–1663. Master’s thesis, Department of
History, Leiden University.
NL-HaNa, VOC, 1.04.02, ?le 1, VOC charter, 1602 NL-HaNA, VOC, 1.04.02.
Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie.
Nussbaum, F. L. (1937). A history of the economic institutions of modern
Europe: An introduction to Der Moderne kapitalismus of Werner
Sombart. New York: F.S. Crofts and Co.
Oldroyd, D. (1999). Historiography, causality, and positioning: An
unsystematic view of accounting history. Accounting Historians
Journal, 26(1), 83–101.
Parker, G. (1977). The Dutch Revolt. London: Allen Lane.
Petri, N. (1635). Practicque om the leeren reeckenen, cypheren ende
boeckhouwen. Amsterdam: Hendrick Laurentsz.
Posthumus, N. W. (1953). De Oosterse handle te Amsterdam: Het oudst
bewaarde koopmansboek van een Amsterdamse vennootschap
betereffende de handle op de Oostzee 1485–1490. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Price, J. L (1974). Culture and society in the Dutch Republic during the 17
th
century. London: B.T. Batsford.
Price, J. L. (1994). Holland and the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Riemersma, J. C. (1950). Oceanic expansion: Government in?uence on
company organization in Holland and England (1550–1650). The
Journal of Economic History, 10, 31–39.
Riemersma, J. C. (1967). Religious factors in early Dutch capitalism 1550–
1650. The Hague: Mouton.
Riley, R. C., & Ashworth, G. J. (Eds.). (1975). Benelux: An economic
geography of Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg. London:
Chatto and Windus.
Robertson, H. (1933/1959). Aspects of the rise of economic individualism: A
criticism of Max Weber and his school. New York: Kelley and Millman
Inc.
Robertson, W. (1839). The history of the discovery and settlement of
America. New York: J and J Harper.
Rowen, H. H. (Ed.). (1972). The low countries in early modern times.
London: MacMillan.
Sée, H. (1928/2004). In H. B. Vanderblue, & G. F. Doriot (Trans.), Modern
capitalism: Its origin and evolution. Kitchener Ontario: Batoche Books.
Seligman, E. R., & Johnson, A. (Eds.). (1937). Encyclopaedia of the social
sciences. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Smits, H., & Wiggers, A. J. (1959). Soil survey and land classi?cation as
applied to reclamation of sea bottom land in The Netherlands.
Wageningen: H. Veenman and Zonen N.V.
Sombart, W. (1911/2001). In M. Epstein (Trans.), The Jews and modern
capitalism. Kitchener Ontario: Batoche Books.
Sombart, W. (1913/1967). In M. Epstein (Trans.), The quintessence of
capitalism: A study of the history and psychology of the modern business
man. New York: Howard Fertig.
Sombart, W. (1916/1953). Medieval and modern commercial enterprise.
In F. C. Lane, & J. Riemersma (Eds.), J. Riemersma (Trans.), Enterprise
and secular, change (pp. 25–40).
Sombart, W. (1919/1979). Sombart on accounting history. In K. S. Most
(Trans.), The academy of accounting historians (Vol. II). Working paper
no. 35 (pp. 244–262).
Sombart, W. (1937). Capitalism. In E. R. Seligman & A. Johnson (Eds.),
Encyclopaedia of the social sciences (pp. 195–208). New York: The
Macmillan Company.
Sorge, A., & van Iterson, A. (1995). The Netherlands: Business systems in
the Dutch economy and society. In I. Brunstein (Ed.), Human resource
management in Western Europe (pp. 191–209). New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
Steensgaard, N. (1973). The Asian trade revolution of the seventeenth
century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Steur, J. J. (1984). Herstel of ondergang: De voorstellen tot redress van de
Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie 1740-1795. Hes, Utrecht.
Stevin, S. (1604) Verrechting van domeinen, ende vorstlicke bouckhouding
op de Italiaensche wyse. Amsterdam.
TeBrake, W. H. (2002). Taming the Waterwolf: Hydraulic engineering and
water management in the Netherlands during the Middle Ages.
Technology and Culture, 43(3), 474–499.
Temple, W. (1705/1972). Observations upon the United Provinces of the
Netherlands. London: Jacob Tonson.
Ten Have, O. (1933). De leer van het boekhouden in de Nederlanden tijdens
de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw. PhD. thesis, Nederlandsche
Handelshoogeschool, Rotterdam.
Ten Have, O. (1976). In A. van Seventer (Trans.), The history of accountancy.
Palo Alto, California: Bay Books.
‘t Hart, M. C. (1989). Cities and statemaking in the Dutch Republic, 1580–
1680. Theory and Society, 18(5), 663–687.
Toms, J. S. (2010). Calculating pro?t: A historical perspective on the
development of capitalism. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
35(2), 205–221.
Tracy, J. D. (1985). A ?nancial revolution in the Habsburg Netherlands:
Renten and renteniers in the county of Holland, 1515–1565. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Tracy, J. D. (1990). Holland under Habsburg rule 1506–1566: The formation
of a body politic. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Tribe, K. (2006). Max Weber’s ‘conceptual preface’ to general economic
history (pp. 1–38). Retrieved 01.03.07.
Valentyn, F. (1724). Oud en Nieuw Oost-Indien, vervattende een naaukeurige
en uitvoerige verhandelinge van Nederlands mogentheyd en die
gewesten, benewens eene wydluftige beschryvinge der Moluccos,
Amboina, Banda, Timor, en Solor, Java, en alle de eylanden onder
dezelve landbestieringen behoorende; het Nederlands Comptoir op
Suratte, en de levens der groote Mogols. Dordrecht: Joannes van Braam.
Van Bavel, B. (2003). Early proto-industrialization in the Low Countries?
The importance and nature of market-oriented non-agricultural
activities on the countryside in Flanders and Holland, c. 1250–1570.
Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 81(4), 1109–1165.
Van Bavel B. J. P. (2005). A third road to capitalism? In van Bavel B. J. P.&
Hoppenbrouwers (Eds). Landholding and land transfer in the North Sea
area. Turnhout: Brepols.
Van Bavel, B. J. P. (2010). The medieaval origins of capitalism in the
Netherlands. Low Countries Historical Review, 125(2–3), 45–79.
Van Bavel, B. J. P., & Van Zanden, J. L. (2004). The jump-start of the Holland
economy during the late-medieval crisis, c.1350–c.1500. Economic
History Review, LVII(3), 503–532.
Van Brakel, S. (1908). De Hollandsche handelscompagnieën der zeventiende
eeuw. Hunne ontstaan – hunne inrichting. ‘s Gravenhage: Martinus
Nijhoff.
Van Dam, P. (1701/1927). In F. W. Stapel, & R. G. P. Grote (Eds.),
Beschryvinge van de Oost-Indische Compagnie. Book 1, Part I. ‘s
Gravenhage: Nijhoff.
Van de Ven, G. P. (1994). Man-made lowlands: History of water
management and land reclamation in the Netherlands. Utrecht: Matrijs.
Van der Chijs, J. A. (1885). Nederlandsch-Indisch Plakaatboek, 1602-1811.
Part 1, 1602-1642. ’sHage: M. Nijhoff.
Van der Linden, H. (1981). History of the Reclamation of the Western
Fenlands and of the organizations to keep them drained. In H. de
Bakker & M. van den Berg (Eds.), Proceedings of the symposium on peat
lands below sea level, August 24–28 (pp. 42–73). Amsterdam: ILRI.
Van der Chys, J. A. (1857). Geschiedenis der stichting van de Vereenigde O. I.
Compagnie en der maatregelen van de Nederlandsche regering
betreffende de vaart op Oost-Indie, welke aan deze stichting
voorafgingen. Leyden: P. Engels.
Van Dam, P. J. E. M. (2002). Ecological challenges, technological
innovations: The modernization of sluice building in Holland, 1300–
1600. Technology and Culture, 43(3), 500–520.
Van Dijk, N., & Punch, M. (1993). The Netherlands open borders, closed
circles: Management and organisation in the Netherlands. In D.
Hickson (Ed.), Management in Western Europe: Society, culture and
organisation in twelve nations (pp. 167–190). New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
Van Dillen, J. G. (1958). Het oudste aandeelhoudersregister van de Kamer
Amsterdam der Oost-Indische Compagnie. ‘s Gravenhage: Martinus
Nijhoff.
Van Gelderen, M. (1992). The political thought of the Dutch revolt: 1555–
1590. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Gezel, W. (1681). Kort begryp van ‘t beschouwig onderwijs in ‘t
Koopmans boeckhouden. Amsterdam: Jan ten Hoorn.
Van Iterson, A. (1997a, January/February). Sector, ?rm and management
performance in the Netherlands: The role of national governance and
institutions. Paper delivered to the fourth EMOT-workshop, theme I,
Economic performance outcomes in Europe (pp. 1–18), Berlin.
Van Iterson, A. (1997b). The development of national governance
principles in the Netherlands. In R. Whitley & P. H. Kristensen
(Eds.), Governance at work: The social regulation of economic relation
(pp. 49–61). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Rees, O. (1868). Geschiedenis der staathuiskunde in Nederland tot het
einde der achttiende eeuw. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon.
J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360 359
Van Zanden, J. L., & Prak, M. (2004). Towards an economic interpretation of
citizenship: The Dutch Republic between medieval communes and
modern nation states (pp. 1–50). Working paper 2004-7. Retrieved 14.08.10.
Walker, C. E. (1931). The history of the joint stock company. The
Accounting Review, 6(2), 97–105.
Waninghen, H. (1629). In J. Buingha (Ed.), Tresoor van ‘t Italiaens boeck-
houden. Amsterdam: Theunis Jacobsz.
Weber, M. (1956). In T. Parsons (Trans.), The Protestant ethic and the spirit
of capitalism. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Weber, M. (1927/1981). In I. J. Cohen (Trans.), General economic history.
New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Weber, M. (1968). In G. Roth, & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society: An
outline of interpretive sociology. New York: Bedminster Press.
Weber, M. (1981). General economic history. New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Transaction Publishers.
Winjum, J. O. (1971). Accounting and the rise of capitalism. Journal of
Accounting Research, 9(2), 333–350.
Winjum, J. O. (1972). The role of accounting in the economic development of
England, 1500-1750. University of Illinois Center for International
Education and Research in Accounting.
Yamey, B. S. (1949). Scienti?c bookkeeping and the rise of capitalism. The
Economic History Review (2nd series) 1(2/3), 99–113.
Yamey, B. S. (1959). Some seventeenth and eighteenth century double-
entry ledgers. Accounting Review, 34(4), 534–546.
Yamey, B. S. (1994). Accounting in history. European Accounting Review,
3(2), 375–380.
Ympyn, J. (1547). A notable and very excellente woorke. London: R. Grafton.
360 J. Robertson, W. Funnell / Accounting, Organizations and Society 37 (2012) 342–360

doc_544363129.pdf