Abstract (EN)

This paper examines the arguments used to promote the adoption of traditional budgetary controls and the challenge found in Beyond Budgeting. In particular, we have studied two distinct lines of argumentation : One focused on the instability of the environment and was used between 1930 and 1950 in support of traditional budgetary controls, while the other has been used in support of managerial freedom since the 1990s. Both are now used in support of abandoning the traditional budgetary process. In our study, we have tried to understand the homogeneity of the conflicting management rhetoric of the two periods. Our conclusions are based on the work of Boltanski and Thevenot (1991) and Boltanski and Chiapello (1999). The former examine lines of argumentation and the orders of worth on which they rest, while the latter look at the idea of capitalism. We show that lines of argumentation will take on different connotations, depending on the audience and the key concepts used.