Systemic Constraints and Practitioner Agency: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of International Public Sector Accounting Standards Implementation in Ghana

Abstract The adoption of International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) in Ghana is characterized by substantial policy commitment but only partial implementation progress. Understanding practitioner perspectives is essential for designing effective support strategies. This study investigates the barriers to and enablers of IPSAS implementation from the perspective of 400 Ghanaian public sector practitioners. A mixed-methods design was employed, integrating quantitative analysis of structured survey items—using analysis of variance (ANOVA), t-tests, and chi-square tests—with thematic coding of open-text responses. Qualitative data were coded inductively and validated against a deductive framework. Thematic analysis identified six evenly distributed systemic challenges: training and capacity deficits (22.0%), system incompatibility (19.7%), complexity of IPSAS standards (19.7%), lack of political will (19.1%), inadequate resources (18.8%), and legal or regulatory gaps. Practitioner recommendations closely mirrored these constraints, prioritizing capacity building (41.4%) and stronger political will (21.5%). Quantitative analyses confirmed a broad consensus, finding no statistically significant differences in perceptions across professional roles, educational attainment, or gender. These findings demonstrate that IPSAS implementation barriers are multidimensional. Consequently, this study proposes the Systemic Constraint and Practitioner Agency Framework. This integrative theoretical model distinguishes between practitioner-actionable constraints, such as human capital and political advocacy, and institutional-level constraints, including technology and legal frameworks. To achieve substantive IPSAS compliance, policymakers must avoid isolated interventions and instead prioritize coordinated, multi-front reforms distributed simultaneously across practitioner, organizational, and institutional tiers.